Please, don't waste HOI4 potential !

[Praetori]

Yeah, having recently done a nostalgia-playthrough of Hoi 3, I do not miss having to keep track of dozens of HQ units and make sure they're all positioned properly to give their bonuses.

The thing is that we could have HQs but without them being physical micro-management nightmares in HOI4. For example if zooming out grouped divisions (as currently) but to army-level instead. Click the grouped army icon and you'd get all the divisions under it. This could be done for other features as well. State-level suppression, logistics etc without on-map units shuffling about on lower zoom-levels etc.

You could even have attachments to the HQs with modifiers etc and all without the hassle of having to manually move stuff around. With that kind of approach a OOB from corps-army group wouldn't even be an issue. It would even serve to simplify for those who don't want to bother with micro even further as you could just play on army/corps level ala HOI2 if you wanted.

I'm also quite confident that it would serve as a possible hook for AI handling as well. Tiered algorithms with shorter individual fronts and AI considerations made on smaller level first and then Army/Armygroup AI logic handling said armies as single units as far as AI considerations go (at least easier to optimize).
We already know the AI is pretty adapt at handling small fronts with few units, it's when you get large or deep fronts with many divisions that the madness starts. Tiering the decision-making could be one solution but would require something like a OOB mechanic to base it on.

 

[Wminus]

After almost one year since the original release, here are IMO the major issues that still need to be fixed and features added in priority :

1/ Even very simplified, a real command chain must be introduced. The easiest way to do that is to make Field Marshall to be Theatre leaders only (selectable icon pics on the upper right side of the screen) Army commanders (instead of corps commanders which are irrelevant for this game OOB scaling) would remain unchanged.

2/ Make unit template building to be limited in some case, just add a command restriction could do the job (it is silly to see dozen of SS or other Elite units being built without any restriction at all for the only reason one's have the template). Ex : add the line user_buildable = false in the template.

3/ Reintroduce fuel consumption for all motorized units.

4/ Custom AI template unit naming must be fixed (no more "Armoured Battalion Type 9" etc as division name)

5/ More moddability for Ideologies, Combat events, Focus (possibility to add repetitive focus with a flip-flop system, like HOI3 Strategic Effects did).

I'm pretty sure that working on those issues will bring back a lot of lost players in the HOI4 community.

I don't mention the other issues that have been mentioned by devs as being on their priority list (decisions reintroduction, templates, AI, AI, AI, AI, and AI again...)

EDIT : Derm has made a more descriptive and detailed thread about OOB in the "suggestions" topic : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/improving-command-oob-unit-names.1024043/

Nah, please work on the AI instead. Only point 3 is good imo, but it's too late to add this feature.

 

[jackda]

Nah, please work on the AI instead. Only point 3 is good imo, but it's too late to add this feature.

Devs working on the AI and those working on fixing game mechanics are not necessarily the same people. I don't know why you think that working on improving AI would prevent to fix other aspects of the game. Anyway, you will never have a challenging AI. At least what I'm proposing is totally feasible.

Why do you think my other points are "bad" ?

 

[rcbricker33]

i'll weigh in.

I agree that there are aspects of the game that could definitely use a re-write to add some more depth, however, it has to be balanced against the current foundation of the game. Some of the suggestions here (supply) has to be done is such a way as to work AND the AI understand how it works. Tough stuff.

I suggest an abstract supply system using the mechanic in the game that results in consumer goods. A ratio of MIC becomes unavailable as it is now producing "supplies" for the army. Same with NICs. This ration could by 1:6 or 1:10. This is not perfect by any means as it still allows for mechanical units to run forever, but it will limit how many are on the board at once.

Another way would be to add a stat to all units for supply consumption and adjust that number by variables (terrain, season, weather, etc.) and then divide it by a variable (which can be adjusted by cabinet leaders, NFs or techs) the resulting rounded number is the number of MICs or NICs that are then set aside for supply.

I am not certain how I would suggest fixing the commerce issue. The AI is just not very good at it and the combat mechanics do not seem to be working as they had hoped. You should be able to starve the UK if you have the boats, but I have tried and not seen any affect.

OOB as it was in HOI III is a nightmare and I didn't play more than a couple hundred hours because of it. I think however, that the issue wasn't the OOB itself, but more the starting OOB which always had to be changed. That at least was the majority of my OOB issues with HOI III. I would definitely like to see the Theatre run by FMs or AGs, but then at least one if not two levels below that would be nice also. I see not reason to get crazy with an OOB as this is not a tactical game. In all the HOI games you are the leader of a country. Although you might (as the leader) meet a couple majors, you would not be involved in their assignments or removals.

anywho my 2cps.

edit: typo

 

[Gamer_1745]

OOB as it was in HOI III is a nightmare and I didn't play more than a couple hundred hours because of it. I think however, that the issue wasn't the OOB itself, but more the starting OOB which always had to be changed. That at least was the majority of my OOB issues with HOI III. I would definitely like to see the Theatre run by FMs or AGs, but then at least one if not two levels below that would be nice also. I see not reason to get crazy with an OOB as this is not a tactical game. In all the HOI games you are the leader of a country. Although you might (as the leader) meet a couple majors, you would not be involved in their assignments or removals.

I think this is important. I think for most who complained about HoI 3's OOB/CoC is not so much that it had one, but in different ways for different people it was hard to manage. I think the Devs now realize that it needs to be there and in many ways function like HoI 3's did, but easy to manage. Weather it is done with good AI help &/or good UI that makes it easier.

 

[desiriel]

Between the overdeveloped micro-nightmarish HoI3's OOB and the inexistent HOI4's OOB there's a whole field of action and options.
I liked HoI3 but often I couldn't bear the thought of spending hours doing the usual unit reshuffling. I like HoI4 too but, on the opposite side of the spectrum, it does oversimplify too many things that would need just a bit more (not a lot, just a bit) depth.

 

[dermeister]

Between the overdeveloped micro-nightmarish HoI3's OOB and the inexistent HOI4's OOB there's a whole field of action and options.
I liked HoI3 but often I couldn't bear the thought of spending hours doing the usual unit reshuffling. I like HoI4 too but, on the opposite side of the spectrum, it does oversimplify too many things that would need just a bit more (not a lot, just a bit) depth.

Exactly.

The solution: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/improving-command-oob-unit-names.1024043/

Appealing to everyone who agrees to show their support. The devs do pay attention but we need to let them know what we consider to be important.

 

[Meglok]

Everyone is presenting valid suggestions for improving HOI4. Unfortunately our ideas don't matter unless:

They match the vision of the project team/lead for HOI4, and;

The project team can fix the god-awful bugs and basic mechanics of the game as it is written now.

The second one might be more important to me. If the bugs are not killed and mechanics fixed other improvements won't matter. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact it is still a pig. I find myself looking for other things to do now rather than play HOI4 because I know it is so buggy as to be no challenge. Even mods like Enhanced AI can't prevent the Germans from abandoning the East or the Italians from suiciding their army in the Channel.

I am almost awaiting 1.4 in dread, if there isn't dramatic improvement in front shuffling, the production bugs, and the suicidal sea transport/invasions I may have to face the fact the task is beyond the team and move on. After a year since release more platitudes, excuses, and vague promises about improvements "sometime in the future" just aren't going to register with me. I am not ranting, I think, I am just being realistic about my frustrations with HOI4.

Really interested to see what tomorrow's DD says, hopefully it will have solid info on improvements and not be another focus tree puff piece.

 

[Gamer_1745]

They match the vision of the project team/lead for HOI4, and;

I don't think this is true. The Devs seemed quite happy with the Sahara being accessible. I think it was only player demand that we got provincial border blocks.

 

[Meglok]

I don't think this is true. The Devs seemed quite happy with the Sahara being accessible. I think it was only player demand that we got provincial border blocks.

It was only after their other fixes to Africa spam didn't work that they finally agreed to a "no man's land". This wasn't willing, more like being dragged kicking and screaming to do it. And we still don't know how much this covers. Is it just the Sahara, or does it include Siberia, Australia, etc?

Vision can change over a game's life, just look at Wiz's feeling about 3 modes of travel in Stellaris now. But no matter what, if the idea doesn't fit the "current" vision it will be very tough to get it implemented.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I don't think this is true. The Devs seemed quite happy with the Sahara being accessible. I think it was only player demand that we got provincial border blocks.

I do not think he was aiming at that sort of thing when he was talking about 'vision'. Rather the emphasis on generic play, and that every country should be playable, which means every country should be somehow equal. This is the 'philosophy' as far as i understand it.

You do not need to be a Wittgenstein to see the flaws in this approach: the 'Luxembourg Heavy Tank' debate has been one of the more salient absurdities, and divisions that are all the same in appearance because they can all be 'optimal'. Some of this can be modded away to create a more sensible game that looks and feels like the 1930-40 period. Some, I am afraid, we may be stuck with.

Main issue are the things that PDX will not allow to be modded as they are concerned for their code. Things like the combat systems, the various interfaces between engines and other, by comparison, minor things like being able to upgrade and Lend Lease ships.

For me the next update will be key. If it is, as some suspect, primarily a UI fix with no actual meat within it then it does not bode well for the future. It implies instead that, as players, we are to be fobbed off with shiny beads and fancy geegaws in the hope of distracting us from the fact that there is no real change. If, on the other hand, real effort had been made to come to grips with some of the serious issues involved in the 'air' game then we can look forward to see similar serious attempts to fix things like the naval game and logistics.

K

 

[Gamer_1745]

It was only after their other fixes to Africa spam didn't work that they finally agreed to a "no man's land". This wasn't willing, more like being dragged kicking and screaming to do it. And we still don't know how much this covers. Is it just the Sahara, or does it include Siberia, Australia, etc?

Vision can change over a game's life, just look at Wiz's feeling about 3 modes of travel in Stellaris now. But no matter what, if the idea doesn't fit the "current" vision it will be very tough to get it implemented.

OK, then we work to change the vision.

 

[Gamer_1745]

For me the next update will be key. If it is, as some suspect, primarily a UI fix with no actual meat within it then it does not bode well for the future. It implies instead that, as players, we are to be fobbed off with shiny beads and fancy geegaws in the hope of distracting us from the fact that there is no real change. If, on the other hand, real effort had been made to come to grips with some of the serious issues involved in the 'air' game then we can look forward to see similar serious attempts to fix things like the naval game and logistics.

They have said the UI needed to be changed for later developments in the Air war mechanic. I think the expectations on the rate of development with the team they have are much too high. Most think they will make major changes in the next dlc/expansion when it is more the next year or two. They (the programmers) seem to be fixing/working on the bugs that should have been done before release while the others on the team work on the 'shiny beads and fancy geegaws'. What does the community want things fixed or new mechanics for air & sea?

 

[Meglok]

They have said the UI needed to be changed for later developments in the Air war mechanic. I think the expectations on the rate of development with the team they have are much too high. Most think they will make major changes in the next dlc/expansion when it is more the next year or two. They (the programmers) seem to be fixing/working on the bugs that should have been done before release while the others on the team work on the 'shiny beads and fancy geegaws'. What does the community want things fixed or new mechanics for air & sea?

The first thing that came to my mind was to be able to fire up a non-Germany SP game and not play 3 years of Production Commander only to start the war and /facepalm at the idiocy of the ai play would be a huge improvement. I can live with mechanics being bare bones and upgrading over time. It is a Paradox game, you expect that. I can't live with an imbecilic ai or broken unit management. Not expecting Einstein here, but complete front abandonment is a little too much to stomach in a year old game, as is the ai sailing it's armies off to drown. At least force me to kill them please?

So my vote is for showing me vast improvement in the ground AI and unit management and I will grudgingly live with UI upgrades and bug fixes in the air system, along with the chicken wrap fueled Air region changes. Do that and I will look forward to future dlc.

 

[Alliegorical]

4/ Custom AI template unit naming must be fixed (no more "Armoured Battalion Type 9" etc as division name)

Seriously? You consider this a "major issue?" Are you trolling?

 

[dermeister]

I don't think this is true. The Devs seemed quite happy with the Sahara being accessible. I think it was only player demand that we got provincial border blocks.

First implemented in the August Storm mod over half a year ago by yours truly.

Seriously? You consider this a "major issue?" Are you trolling?

It's not a major issue - it's just incredibly bizarre. It would be like driving around in a new Rolls Royce covered in mud and not noticing. He just included it as a later point.

 

[jackda]

Seriously? You consider this a "major issue?" Are you trolling?

Take it easy buddy. If none of the things I enumerated were major, you'd have the semblance of a point. Calling me a troll for the 4th point in my list is really a bit much.
So, sorry for having mixed visual and gameplay major issues in the same post. You may disagree with the method. But I don't think it deserves a "troll" mention. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that calling someone a "troll" just because you disagree him on a particular point can be considered to be a form of... trolling.

 

[jackda]

Even mods like Enhanced AI can't prevent the Germans from abandoning the East or the Italians from suiciding their army in the Channel.

Those can't be fixed by any mod because military AI is harcoded (the actual version suffers from Strat redeploy loops). Fortunately, devs have good hopes for having this fixed in 1.4, it is their top priority. That is why it is useless to pile another thread dealing with it. Once again, I have made this thread not because I don't feel concerned with AI problems, but because I don't think the other major issues in the game should be neglected (even more when they are quite easy to fix, as my point 4 for example).

 

[jackda]

Anyway, it would be nice to have @podcat opinion about these ideas IMO.

 

[Meglok]

Anyway, it would be nice to have @podcat opinion about these ideas IMO.

oob comments from the Anniversary diary

It's a form of organization for armies. Divisions are formed into Corps, Corps into Armies, Armies into Army Groups, Army groups into Theaters. Each level has a commanding officer, who's skill affects certain stats. It was very complex in HoI 3 and not very intuitive (or indeed easy to work with even if you understood what you were doing), so it was toned down massively for the HoI 4 release until we could find a way to make it work with the new systems.

OOB/COC system in a patch DLC in the future ?! This is great news!

This has been our position forever though, reiterated last at PDXCON, so I don't understand how this is news to anyone.