Reason for removing division leaders in HOI 4?

[Holy.Death]

Really, I don't get it. There are really people who are glad the divisional generals are gone? It does not make sense. If you did not enjoy the micromanagement and did not enjoy the clickfest, all that you needed to do was.... nothing.

Why doesn't it make sense? If you could ignore them - as you say - then why even have them? What they bring to the table that can't be replaced or removed? What divisional generals are doing that corps' generals can't? "Tossing the whole system"? There are other generals in game than the divisional ones and the ones remaining will be much higher in chain of command, so how is this feature being removed from the game? Reduced, perhaps, but not removed completely and we are supposed to focus on our remaining guys so this isn't strictly removal. Sounds more like a trade-off to make them generals more important than they were in HoI3 and yet some people still make it sound like doom is upon us.

Really?

Why should it be Steam exclusive?

Pages 11-15 from this topic (click on it) should bear the answer to this question.

 

[ileonu]

Why doesn't it make sense? If you could ignore them - as you say - then why even have them? What they bring to the table that can't be replaced or removed? What divisional generals are doing that corps' generals can't? "Tossing the whole system"? There are other generals in game than the divisional ones and the ones remaining will be much higher in chain of command, so how is this feature being removed from the game? Reduced, perhaps, but not removed completely and we are supposed to focus on our remaining guys so this isn't strictly removal. Sounds more like a trade-off to make them generals more important than they were in HoI3 and yet some people still make it sound like doom is upon us.

For me it's the same when using or not a unit or formation's name... does naming a German corps "5th Corps" instead of "V. Armeekorps" affect the game in any level? NO... does it affects my gaming experience? YES...

 

[FOARP]

If you did not enjoy the micromanagement and did not enjoy the clickfest, all that you needed to do was.... nothing.

You're writing from the point of view of HOI4 being HOI3 "with changes". Instead HOI4 will be a new game built from the bottom up and there's no reason to include a feature that isn't optimal.

Moreover HOI2 didn't have divisional leaders, only stack leaders - you could, if you wanted to, assign a divisional commander to every single division, but strangely enough no-one wanted to do this because it would have been pointless. Arguing as though something important is being lost therefore seems a bit excessive - at most this was a niche feature that some liked, others didn't, and there's therefore no automatic reason to include it.

 

[tommylotto]

The fact that this feature change has resulted in numerous threads that have lasted for pages and pages is evidence of the fact that many players liked divisional leaders and want that feature to remain in the game. I understand that those who dislike micromanagement playing large nations or multiplayer games might not be able to take advantage of this level of detail and immersion. But that is why the auto assign feature is there. If you lack the time or inclination to micromanage, it will do it for you. However, for those who enjoy the micromanagement and immersion, that level of detail is available. It's like turning on or off automatic trades. If you like the hassle of negotiating each trade, you can. If not, you can leave it on auto-pilot. I, for one, do not enjoy the hassle of controlling trades. So, I usually just leave it on auto-pilot. I personally do not enjoy that aspect of the game, but I would not be "glad" if it were scraped. I understand other players enjoy manipulating trades. Since it can be automated, it is no detriment to me to keep that feature in the game as I can safely ignore it. It is the same with Divisional generals. It is a feature you can safely ignore if you want to.

 

[FOARP]

The fact that this feature change has resulted in numerous threads that have lasted for pages and pages is evidence of the fact that many players liked divisional leaders and want that feature to remain in the game.

Or its a measure of the degree to which some people panic about what are minor changes. HOI3 will still be there if people want to play it, I would rather play a new game though.

BTW - there have been multiple threads running to many pages about not making the game 'casualised' and 'mainstream', and where the fact that the game appears to have good GFX was cited as a negative factor. Does this mean we should take this sentiment seriously?

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Or its a measure of the degree to which some people panic about what are minor changes. HOI3 will still be there if people want to play it, I would rather play a new game though.

BTW - there have been multiple threads running to many pages about not making the game 'casualised' and 'mainstream', and where the fact that the game appears to have good GFX was cited as a negative factor. Does this mean we should take this sentiment seriously?

Don't forget multiple threads, and pages upon pages about people complaining about Steam only... because clearly that means everyone (like 5 people actually didn't want it to be steam only).

 

[Cybvep]

Moreover HOI2 didn't have divisional leaders, only stack leaders - you could, if you wanted to, assign a divisional commander to every single division, but strangely enough no-one wanted to do this because it would have been pointless.

Actually, I had some 1-division formations in all my HOI2 games. It was convenient and gave me the necessary flexibility to respond to various situations (remember that it was not possible to withdraw one division from battle without withdrawing the whole stack if the division was part of it). Besides, it was a good way of increasing the experience of your leaders.

 

[208]

The experience system in Hoi2 was a subtle yet very powerful mechanic. Making sure certain leaders were leading key armies was extremely important to getting victory.

I don't recall HoI2 because it's been years since I played it. In HoI3 however, it certainly was not "extremely important" to manage your leaders. Auto-assigning your leaders was easily "good enough".

For me it's the same when using or not a unit or formation's name... does naming a German corps "5th Corps" instead of "V. Armeekorps" affect the game in any level? NO... does it affects my gaming experience? YES...

So you would be happy with, say, an extra text field for a division where you could type in a leader's name that has no gameplay impact?

 

[Jaden Mental]

But, but, but. Now I will not be able to appoint Hitler to lone paratroop regiment leader which I will incidentally drop alone just south of Manchester........

 

[FOARP]

Actually, I had some 1-division formations in all my HOI2 games. It was convenient and gave me the necessary flexibility to respond to various situations (remember that it was not possible to withdraw one division from battle without withdrawing the whole stack if the division was part of it). Besides, it was a good way of increasing the experience of your leaders.

Sure, but no-one bothered forming the Wehrmacht or the Red Army into single-division formations just so they could have the "fun" of assigning a leader to every division.

 

[Cybvep]

You would run out of leaders if you tried to do that, anyway.

 

[Beagá]

The fact that this feature change has resulted in numerous threads that have lasted for pages and pages is evidence of the fact that many players liked divisional leaders and want that feature to remain in the game. I understand that those who dislike micromanagement playing large nations or multiplayer games might not be able to take advantage of this level of detail and immersion. But that is why the auto assign feature is there. If you lack the time or inclination to micromanage, it will do it for you. However, for those who enjoy the micromanagement and immersion, that level of detail is available. It's like turning on or off automatic trades. If you like the hassle of negotiating each trade, you can. If not, you can leave it on auto-pilot. I, for one, do not enjoy the hassle of controlling trades. So, I usually just leave it on auto-pilot. I personally do not enjoy that aspect of the game, but I would not be "glad" if it were scraped. I understand other players enjoy manipulating trades. Since it can be automated, it is no detriment to me to keep that feature in the game as I can safely ignore it. It is the same with Divisional generals. It is a feature you can safely ignore if you want to.

Man when people read this thread and realize that some players actually

1- Don´t care/neutral
2- Don´t like the feature as it was in HOI 3

You quickly manage to lose all your credibility. Don´t be selective in saying there are people that agree with you when it´s more than obvious that you ignore that many DON´T. Just say "I like feature X because" but don´t play the "majority/minority that is genious and not understood" card.

It was explained already dozens of times why the auto assign feature and OOB system didn´t work in HOI 3, it will be changed, deal with it. The moment a feature that gives you "immersion" cripples the AI it stops being "leave the feature as it is because it doesn´t impact you" because no, it impacts EVERYONE that plays the game.

 

[redflag]

In Multiplayer controlling trades was critical. With Germany, Italy, and Japan under human control the Axis could more or less run their economies without being crippled by embargoes before the war even started. This is something that AI trades could not do. For example Chile and Sweden was an excellent source of steel. These two countries alone could drastically reduce the steel requirement of Germany prewar.

The fact that this feature change has resulted in numerous threads that have lasted for pages and pages is evidence of the fact that many players liked divisional leaders and want that feature to remain in the game. I understand that those who dislike micromanagement playing large nations or multiplayer games might not be able to take advantage of this level of detail and immersion. But that is why the auto assign feature is there. If you lack the time or inclination to micromanage, it will do it for you. However, for those who enjoy the micromanagement and immersion, that level of detail is available. It's like turning on or off automatic trades. If you like the hassle of negotiating each trade, you can. If not, you can leave it on auto-pilot. I, for one, do not enjoy the hassle of controlling trades. So, I usually just leave it on auto-pilot. I personally do not enjoy that aspect of the game, but I would not be "glad" if it were scraped. I understand other players enjoy manipulating trades. Since it can be automated, it is no detriment to me to keep that feature in the game as I can safely ignore it. It is the same with Divisional generals. It is a feature you can safely ignore if you want to.

 

[Holy.Death]

The fact that this feature change has resulted in numerous threads that have lasted for pages and pages is evidence of the fact that many players liked divisional leaders and want that feature to remain in the game.

You aren't providing any real evidence to speak of. Anyone can create a thread. How many of them has been created so far (including this one)? I found 3 of said "numerous threads". In a section that contains 820 threads. It's circa 0.4%. You mention "pages and pages", but "pages and pages" are proof of nothing but discussion between people who post their thoughs. Give me the actual number of those who participated to create those pages and tell me who was for and against the idea, and then I can calculate how many people of these "many players" liked the idea and how many didn't. Even then this will be evidence of a limited value as not everyone sits on forums, so this might not reflect the actual thoughts of the majority, only people who responded.

I understand that those who dislike micromanagement playing large nations or multiplayer games might not be able to take advantage of this level of detail and immersion. But that is why the auto assign feature is there

You aren't the first one to make this sort of argument. There was a response from Paradox explaining why they decided that it's best to remove divisional generals and not pursue auto-assign solution. Did you miss it?

 

[tommylotto]

I'm done. I know not to argue with fanboys.

 

[unmerged(62514)]

I'd describe myself as a pretty big fan of the HoI series (and bear in mind I did not work here until a while after Semper Fi was released, so it's not a "because I worked on them" thing), but re-arranging the leaders of the German army every game quickly went from a cool detail to a chore to something that made me want to kill myself half way through it. Use auto-assign? It wouldn't make the same choices I would make, it would not be optimal, I have to do it manually! I don't think I am alone in that. While we could spend time making much better auto-assign AI with the end-goal of letting players ignore a feature (except even a super good AI would not know your thoughts and you would likely have to tweak it anyway), that seems like a waste of resources. Features that are not fun should be made fun or removed, not shuffled off to be automated. Now I'm sure for some, assigning leaders was a task that was enjoyed every time, and I am sorry those people are losing a feature they liked, but we need to make what we think is a fun game.

I have a better idea. How about you be replaced?

Simple truth: You cannot get rid of Major Generals because they were the lowest rank that could command a divisional sized unit.
Simple truth: Divisional sized battles occurred in real life all the time. See: North Africa. See: Amphibious assaults.


Also: WTF makes you think we want your definition of "fun"?

I regret to inform you this isn't Call of Duty. There is a certain type of person who likes these kinds of games and there are people who don't. The people who play this game are the same kinds who enjoy the depth of high-level chess. We are fine with depth and complexity.

There is a huge difference between an annoying feature, and an annoying implementation of that feature. What you are paid to do is solve is a user interface issue. Not to cut out content. Go work at Activision if you want to cut out content. Go work at Blizzard if you want to cut any content from previous successful renditions whatsoever. Seriously you belong at companies like those with your mentality.

I buy a Paradox game for complexity, not for a game I cannot even stand to play. I enjoy complex gameplay and mechanics, if I want simplicity there are plenty of other companies that do that. I could go play the Star Trek Armada 3 mod for Sins of a Solar Empire. Its much more "simple" and yet is still able to bring depth.

The issue really is that you have no understanding of what "fun" is for too many of your customers. Get out. I don't want you designing games from my favorite franchises and your mentality makes it obvious you belong in other genres and with other companies. Perhaps you should go play for the makers of WarGame? Same country I think. Also I think DICE would be perfect for someone of your preferences. I hear they are making a new StarWars BattleFront. Shooters is where you belong.

And if you are going to make "simple" game play then don't bank it off the success of a franchise. Hearts of Iron will sell many copies just because its Hearts of Iron. If you take your design ideas and try to start a brand new franchise (maybe in the Roman Era?) using the gameplay format from EU/HoI/CK there is a very high chance that it won't be popular. Your gameplay sells because of the work of others not your own talent. Dustin Browder at Blizzard is experiencing the same effect.

If you are actually so good as to know better than this many complaining customers then you would be able to at least match HoI2 sales on a brand new franchise using the same engine and basic gameplay format. I think you should be pulled from HoI4 and paradox gives you the opportunity to try. Then we can find out for certain whether your "ideas" and "concepts" are actually any good.

I've seen EU4 ruined for me, a very long time Paradox customer, by your exact mentality (and probably by you personally from the sounds of it) and I don't want my second favorite franchise of all time ruined by the same mentality.

Please stay away.

 

[Liquid Sky]

All they really need to do is give every division a stat called 'leader' and allow people to edit the name. Then the vast majority who don't care can ignore it, and the mouthy few can have their divisional leaders. In name only.

 

[TKFS]

I have a better idea. How about you be replaced?

Simple truth: You cannot get rid of Major Generals because they were the lowest rank that could command a divisional sized unit.
Simple truth: Divisional sized battles occurred in real life all the time. See: North Africa. See: Amphibious assaults.


Also: WTF makes you think we want your definition of "fun"?

I regret to inform you this isn't Call of Duty. There is a certain type of person who likes these kinds of games and there are people who don't. The people who play this game are the same kinds who enjoy the depth of high-level chess. We are fine with depth and complexity.

There is a huge difference between an annoying feature, and an annoying implementation of that feature. What you are paid to do is solve is a user interface issue. Not to cut out content. Go work at Activision if you want to cut out content. Go work at Blizzard if you want to cut any content from previous successful renditions whatsoever. Seriously you belong at companies like those with your mentality.

I buy a Paradox game for complexity, not for a game I cannot even stand to play. I enjoy complex gameplay and mechanics, if I want simplicity there are plenty of other companies that do that. I could go play the Star Trek Armada 3 mod for Sins of a Solar Empire. Its much more "simple" and yet is still able to bring depth.

The issue really is that you have no understanding of what "fun" is for too many of your customers. Get out. I don't want you designing games from my favorite franchises and your mentality makes it obvious you belong in other genres and with other companies. Perhaps you should go play for the makers of WarGame? Same country I think. Also I think DICE would be perfect for someone of your preferences. I hear they are making a new StarWars BattleFront. Shooters is where you belong.

And if you are going to make "simple" game play then don't bank it off the success of a franchise. Hearts of Iron will sell many copies just because its Hearts of Iron. If you take your design ideas and try to start a brand new franchise (maybe in the Roman Era?) using the gameplay format from EU/HoI/CK there is a very high chance that it won't be popular. Your gameplay sells because of the work of others not your own talent. Dustin Browder at Blizzard is experiencing the same effect.

If you are actually so good as to know better than this many complaining customers then you would be able to at least match HoI2 sales on a brand new franchise using the same engine and basic gameplay format. I think you should be pulled from HoI4 and paradox gives you the opportunity to try. Then we can find out for certain whether your "ideas" and "concepts" are actually any good.

I've seen EU4 ruined for me, a very long time Paradox customer, by your exact mentality (and probably by you personally from the sounds of it) and I don't want my second favorite franchise of all time ruined by the same mentality.

Please stay away.

Personally attacking devs who are simply stating their opinion is a sure-fire way to get your way! Way to go!

 

[TKFS]

I honestly never thought that removing division leaders would be such a big deal, but of course, I've been proven wrong.

I mean seriously, how is this such a huge deal? What do division leaders add other than needless micromanaging?

 

[FOARP]

I honestly never thought that removing division leaders would be such a big deal, but of course, I've been proven wrong.

I mean seriously, how is this such a huge deal? What do division leaders add other than needless micromanaging?

Some people just need to get angry. Particularly those who mostly never played HOI2 and HOI1 and therefore think as HOI3 as some kind of impeccable perfection.