OOB Hearts of Iron IV and III

[vicerory]

First thing we should do is start calling any request for a hierarchy is refer to it as Command Structure or something. OOB has too many negative connotations now with both devs and many players.

The major pain with HoI3's OOB were too many Division leaders, and HQ range. AI couldn't keep the range and man assigning div leaders was a chore for only one of them to lead the battle anyway.

Less Command Structure is fine with me. The reality is one general commanded operations anyway, and parade ground structures often went out of the window as units were moved around to fit the need.

That said, I can see an two tier Command Structure easily fitting HoI4 with FMs commanding theatres, Generals armies within them. And is would imagine well with the dev capability to get the AI to manage that as much as they do for army/navy composition and indeed.

No Fabius, you don't understand. People just want CTRL+G groups (RTS style), none of this crazy unwieldy two tier OOB/hierarchy stuff.

/sarcasm

 

[Modestus]

It's even easier in HOI4. You make an "Armoured Divs" theatre and put your tanks in there with appropriate generals. Whenever a front requires an armoured breakthrough you can jump to the divisions you want instantly and go straight to making a battle plan. And you don't even need to remember to detach the panzer corp from 3rd army and put it back into 1st army as you did in HOI3 once it's finished

I foresee a lot of people making a special forces theatre for specialised mountain troops, urban specialists and paratroopers.

Interesting running that through my head.....


So I could create a theatre called Mobile Forces and in that theatre I could have Armies that I have named PZ Corps I,II and III.


Now if I want to use PZ Corps II as part of Plan I simple select the theatre find PZ Corps II and assign it to its own Front because its really a separate colour coded army which I think means it must be activated separately from the rest of the Plan

Hmm it could work but it would be extremely messy much more sensible to have a command structure because if you have sub groups within an Army such as a PZ Corps its more likely to be in the vicinity of the rest of that Army and not in Timbuktu and you can activate that Plan as one.

 

[TheDerpyBeagle]

I would like them to have an OOB, but keep out division commanders, because that's the only real area it was too micro-intensive, especially when you had 200+ divisions as the USSR. I can't speak for everyone, but I enjoyed having an OOB and assigning leaders to the high command points, as I'm one of those players who likes to feel immersed.

 

[Sir Garnet]

The HOI3 system has units with all kinds of strings attached binding them to a particular hierarchy. Very WW1 telephone networky.

The HOI4 system is the equivalent of wireless. You can grab clumps of divisions to make kampfgruppen and drop an order for them and away you go. It does have that to say for itself.

For discussions of the logic of what in real life this represents viz. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/generals-field-marshals-the-logic.903641/

 

[topekaguy1988]

I preferred the HOI 2 system to the system in 3 that I never really figured out.

 

[XaKo]

A classic mode would solfe the problem. Why are not simbly alle modes implemated? That would be easy to do and would satisfy all players.

 

[Sir Garnet]

They can only suppport one version of the game. The modders will do their work....

 

[XaKo]

What do they have to support? The game mechanic does already exist. And it would make the work of the modders much more easy cause they have a basic structure and dont need to rebuild the old orders. And when i see that they use the same gameengin as they used in HoI3 the needed protocols are already in the game. Int would be not hard to copy the system of hoi3 or hoi2 into the system of hoi4. And if a second execution file is needed... where is the problem? I would be nearly satisfyed with a HoI3 with better graphics.

 

[Zaku]

The game mechanic does already exist.

In a different game.

And when i see that they use the same gameengin as they used in HoI3 the needed protocols are already in the game.

...what?

Int would be not hard to copy the system of hoi3 or hoi2 into the system of hoi4

What?

And if a second execution file is needed... where is the problem?

WHAT?

I assume you don't know anything about programming, do you?

 

[XaKo]

https://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/d...ienbeginner/bachelor/ba-wirtschaftsinformatik

My University and course, main topic: application dev. So no i dont know anything about programming.

In a different game.

As I see Hoi4 uses a newer version of the clausewitz engine. So it schould be possible to implement some mechanics that were used in a former version of that engine.

And when not: What is so hard about adding an additional level to the structure they use atm.? It is simply confuseing with 30 armys in 1 hq. theater hq's schould be seperatet in smaler commands. i dont want to have all my soviet troops on the western front in 1 or 2 or 3 theaters to not get confused about the location of the army im klicking on ant the list on the right.

 

[Zaku]

My University and course, main topic: application dev. So no i dont know anything about programming.

You said that you were learning programming so you should know why it would be hard for the developers to create and balance 2 seperate versions of OOB.

 

[vicerory]

You said that you were learning programming so you should know why it would be hard for the developers to create and balance 2 seperate versions of OOB.

You would only need to develop 1 version really, namely the version with 2 levels. People who only want to use 1 level (like big FM groups) can just ignore the 2nd level, or only use it for General bonuses, while only relying on the FM battle plan. It's still just 1 version of the OOB, with the player deciding how much of that 1 version he chooses to utilize.

 

[Zaku]

You would only need to develop 1 version really, namely the version with 2 levels. People who only want to use 1 level (like big FM groups) can just ignore the 2nd level, or only use it for General bonuses, while only relying on the FM battle plan. It's still just 1 version of the OOB, with the player deciding how much of that 1 version he chooses to utilize.

That was not my point at all. OP argued that it would be easy to do two different modes, or even two seperate executables.
Your point is fine, but since PDS designed the OOB to have armies only, you have to deal with it. Completely redesigning a feature would mean at least a few months more delay.
The current system is perfectly good imo, so I don't see why they should do that.

 

[MoppCC1]

I'm happy that they got rid of the OOB.
It's one of the main reasons why I never played USSR in HOI3.
Every time I played eventually I just had enough of the constant micromanagement of the corps HQs and constant shortage of major generals.

So you are not patient and needs action now now now and it must be easy?

 

[Zaku]

So you are not patient and needs action now now now and it must be easy?

I don't understand you.

 

[MoppCC1]

Agreed, BUT there should be at least a third level or a simple option to add more levels. Just like folders on your computer. I can have deep folder-systems, but if I don't want them, I don't need to make 'em.

It was meant to be used that way, you know. That's why they created it in the first place - maximum customization. Being efficient is NOT "gaming the system".

Whatever... You get the upvotes (because f**k complexity and customization options - everyone on this forum wants a dumbed down game) and I will have my 2-3 "fans" that are going to downvote me, whatever I write.


Edit: Yes, removing OOBs was an actual act of dumbing this game down. I would like them to make it more accessible and easy to use and I'd like to see all the bonuses I get etc., but instead of improving the system, they scrapped it. *sigh*

And there we go, everyone down voted you. I upvoted because you are right. People on this godforsaken forum can not handle people that actually played games like hoi 3 and actually has an opinion on what was a good system in that game. Most people here does not want to play a game they just want to watch their nation conquer the world in a simple and easy manner and then post their "success" on here to get the circlejerk going. It is a shame really.

 

[Aismov]

I'm not sure how much work it would be but couldn't there simply be too modes that you choose at the beginning of the game, for example "Full OOB" and "Simplified OOB."

Seems like a pretty straightforward way to satisfy both the micro players and people who want to just get on with the action.

 

[HeilLoki]

I'm not sure how much work it would be but couldn't there simply be too modes that you choose at the beginning of the game, for example "Full OOB" and "Simplified OOB."

Seems like a pretty straightforward way to satisfy both the micro players and people who want to just get on with the action.

Sure, but why not even easier?

I image it like "Explorer" in Windows. Why not making it possible to have as many levels as you want (with a maximum depth of 5 or something)? Just like folders on your computer.

If you only want 1 level of OOB, go ahead. If you want 5 levels, just create them.

 

[hewhoispale]

I'm not sure how much work it would be but couldn't there simply be too modes that you choose at the beginning of the game, for example "Full OOB" and "Simplified OOB."

Seems like a pretty straightforward way to satisfy both the micro players and people who want to just get on with the action.

Because every option they make like that massively increases the amount of testing and QA they need to do? All those interactions they had to test with the army grouping system? Now they need to do it a second time, with the other one. This is aside from the fact that they think this system will work the best, and they know that no matter what they do, someone will claim that the decision ruins everything about the game and will make a mod to "fix" the problem.

Also, as someone that has played HoI3, I hated the OoB system. Not because it was "too hard" and I was lazy/stupid/a filthy causal, but because it felt like busy work. It would take at least 30 minutes at the start of a campaign to "fix" a country's historical order to an efficient (or sane) one and baby-sitting all the pointless HQ divisions was just irritating. When there's hundreds of commanders running around, I never ended up caring who was in charge of a division or a corp as long as the tank commanders had tank bonuses.