Quill18- HoI4 impressions

[LodovicoAriosto]

5 generals leading "theatres" + you can buy more with exp? Sounds like something similar to EU4 generals management (buying with monarch power). T

Reference to war crimes and genocide removed by Secret Master

 

[Joppos]

Please tell me how having an OOB stops you from making super stacks. Or not having an OOB forces you to have deathstacks. Or how not having an OOB is related to the combat system in any way whatsoever.

It doesn't stop anything. What it does is enabling the player to have just three major groups on a front, while still be able to define smaller groups within those, where the actual "general" group is. That way you know where you have those say 5 infantry groups and 2 armored intended for one front section advance. When you do a barbarossa you might at one time want to be able to have a lot of small groups for trying more intricate plans, but if you're forced to manage say 20 independent groups - which mind you will not be solid units as in hoi2 - without any hierarchical arrangement you will have an unnecessarily hard time. Not least when managinf units mid-operation.

 

[ariansandstrom]

I would not mind an OOB(but certainly not on the map). But the problem is that every country except for the majors will lack leaders. Hence a system similar to EU4 needs to be implemented to roll some random leaders(with low skill levels) to assign to different corps.

 

[Lech Kaczynski]

I think the comment about stacks is more like this...

I can do the same thing in eu4 or vic2 ... select a bunch of individual army I made and assign a general. How is that different than here, people talk about frontage but you got attrition if you went over a certain stack size in eu4 or vic2, so really what is the difference? HoI3 was radically different than vic2 or eu4, now its not.... and from the map, looks like a few stacks here and there... etc.... assign general... how underwhelming

Organizing the command structure was a HUGE deal in World War 2..... who got assigned to different commands and why, and it effected the outcome of the war... now I have eu4 generals.. probably will not even be able to assign generals without fuhrer manna, better increase relations with Ulm, and become papal controller

 

[lordhoth444]

i never liked the OOB. it seams to me how well you do should be based on your overall strategy, not a mico intensive system. As the overall commander in a war you would not historically have been able to micromanage your army's (or at least do it well as Hitler found out) so why should I be able to in HOI 4

 

[Lech Kaczynski]

i never liked the OOB. it seams to me how well you do should be based on your overall strategy, not a mico intensive system. As the overall commander in a war you would not historically have been able to micromanage your army's (or at least do it well as Hitler found out) so why should I be able to in HOI 4

In Eu4 they decided to take this same type of approach, and they laid out many thing you could do in the game.... Unfortunately, the only thing anyone ever did was prepare for their next war, and once you got to be a certain size, even as a one province minor, there was no point to the game.. It ended in 50 - 100 years tops then boring..... That's the real story of Eu4. Basically it is just a map painting exercise. Hoi3 was not like that, if you wanted to paint a map it took some work, and combat was much more complicated. Now they are digressing the combat and OOB to more close to Eu4 it seems.... No its not an exact clone, but it seems like all titles are trying to appeal to a larger audience, simplified, etc.... that is a good strategy for business.

I don't know... I mean there are more complicated war games out there, ....... but as far as pardox is concerned, I find myself doing more and more map painting then getting bored. Hoi3 held my attention for much longer....

 

[alkomon]

What if PDX does some small changes - when player selects 11 divisions and creates an Army, then divisions will be assigned automatically to Corps (3-5 Divisions per Corps).


And players who don't want to micromanage can draw the arrows (assign tasks) only for the Army. And others can assign tasks also for Corps.
(No HQ on the map, no Div and HQ leaders)

I really hope, that devs will give us some OOB, otherwise it will be very sad to lose important part of war-game.

 

[Stenner]

5 generals leading "theatres" + you can buy more with exp? Sounds like something similar to EU4 generals management (buying with monarch power). That is Rape of Nanking and Belgium combined!:rofl:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...mpressions&p=18870849&viewfull=1#post18870849

You can have more than 5 leaders at a time, it was just a misunderstanding.

 

[Denkt]

5 generals leading "theatres" + you can buy more with exp? Sounds like something similar to EU4 generals management (buying with monarch power). That is Rape of Nanking and Belgium combined!:rofl:

It represent you promoting one of the most promising canidate, the generals you got are the absolut best commanders the country have to offers so to increase their number should be expansive.

 

[Filou]

What's going on here with people freaking-out about stacks???
Grouping units under a commander does not make a stack.
Otherwise if we're using that kind of logic then HoI3 also had superstacks since all units were under a Theatre HQ. :wacko:

After you group your units under a commanders they won't all merge together, they'll stay in their respective provinces until you order them around.
We're a long way from the actual stacks of HoI2/EU/Victoria here.

 

[SonGoku]

In Eu4 they decided to take this same type of approach, and they laid out many thing you could do in the game.... Unfortunately, the only thing anyone ever did was prepare for their next war, and once you got to be a certain size, even as a one province minor, there was no point to the game.. It ended in 50 - 100 years tops then boring..... That's the real story of Eu4. Basically it is just a map painting exercise. Hoi3 was not like that, if you wanted to paint a map it took some work, and combat was much more complicated. Now they are digressing the combat and OOB to more close to Eu4 it seems.... No its not an exact clone, but it seems like all titles are trying to appeal to a larger audience, simplified, etc.... that is a good strategy for business.

I don't know... I mean there are more complicated war games out there, ....... but as far as pardox is concerned, I find myself doing more and more map painting then getting bored. Hoi3 held my attention for much longer....

And that is the reason why I play HoI II more often than HoI III. You hadn't the clickfest like in HoI III and still you needed to think where to position your HQ-divisions to have not only a tactical advantage but to carve out a stratetgic advantage as well. HQs gave you very decent bonuses, doubling the max number of divisions a commander could handle while attacking without enduring relatively severe penalties. There were good reasons to have HQs and it was less complicated to build an army around them than in HoI III.

 

[Joppos]

I would not mind an OOB(but certainly not on the map). But the problem is that every country except for the majors will lack leaders. Hence a system similar to EU4 needs to be implemented to roll some random leaders(with low skill levels) to assign to different corps.

Hierarchy and grouping does not imply neither tedious HQ units nor generals for every sub group. So a general could be assigned at the army or army group level, yet have its units optionally organized in smaller sub groups. It would've certainly been really helpful for large operations in both handling and overview.

 

[Secret Master]

Folks, comparing game features to war crimes and genocide is simply unacceptable, whether meant in jest or not.

Thread closed