dharper said:
Seconded.
The game needs to be deep and offer many different strategies, but should not become overly complex.
Too much micromanagement and suddenly you're playing a rousing game of Microsoft Excel.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Seconded.
The game needs to be deep and offer many different strategies, but should not become overly complex.
Too much micromanagement and suddenly you're playing a rousing game of Microsoft Excel.
I have always opposed to the notion of historical units in HOI, this is not a wargame, it´s not a simulation...as fun as those genres are, they are not what Paradox games are
I would like more control, the kind of control the HOI1 research system allowed, to add more variables to the game, but I don´t want Germany to only develop the same tanks time after time while the USSR only develops it´s historical tanks again and again...unit names for flavor it´s great, but just for that
To be able to meddle with the composition of divisions (within certain limits) would be great too...
I would like more control, the kind of control the HOI1 research system allowed, to add more variables to the game, but I don´t want Germany to only develop the same tanks time after time while the USSR only develops it´s historical tanks again and again...unit names for flavor it´s great, but just for that
To be able to meddle with the composition of divisions (within certain limits) would be great too...
daemonofdecay said:Heres a quote from Wikipedia on the subject:
Basically since a division can operate independently, but a regiment really can't, we only go as low as divisions so that you can send your divisions around without having to micromanage it because its a fairly self-contained unit that can operate on its own.
And can you imagine if we had regiments how many officers there would be in the officers list if we had to include every Colonel from the Wehrmacht and Red Army?
Let's see then, since HoI 3 will have 10000 provinces (In important areas, provinces should be small), and a division is about 10000 men. Let's imagine an example (Normandy), you order a parachuter division to drop in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray behind enemy lines and will all 10000 troops fall in the very same village? Pahleeze.
I think there's a good chance we could see something like that. Just apply the naval brigade system from Arma to HoI3 divisions, refine it, and problem solved. You can construct divisions with multiple separate brigades.Pablius said:
You cant just make GER mechanized forces better...think numbers here. The SU and USA made 5 times the number of tanks as GER did...GER armored divisions were always pathetically understrength. If you gave them higher stats to reflect their "superiority" you would be assuming the same number of vehicles existed in a GER armored and a US/SU armored division. Some other change must be implemented, and it is probably best done in HOI 2 with doctrinal differences. The high ORG of GER units reflects high quality and training, and is far more useful than a tiny extra bit of HA or defensiveness.
I, for one, do not care if we will be able to "construct" our own tanks, furthermore I think that would add needless micro without adding useful feature for gaming purposes.
Jolt said:
Are you actually suggesting that Paradox is going to make us micromanage potentially many hundreds, if not thousands if we "Military Control" an ally, of individual regiments?
:rofl:
The real result is that each province is going to have fewer divisions stacked on it, which (hopefully) will give planning and manuver more importance. The map is not going to have every small town in France modeled into its own province.
There could be different design philosphies for tanks with pros and cons depending on which one you choose. For example Highly engineered high performance very high maintenance vs more rugged poorer quality lower maintenance. etc. Then of course there could be everythign in between.
Balor said:HoI3 will make you extremely happy then.
good some much needed variation.
This would be a great improvement.Balor said:HoI3 will make you extremely happy then.
dharper said:
I completely agree. There's already enough micromanagement in the HOI series. If someone wants to control specific tank models and sub-models they should find a good tactical game. HOI is a strategic game. That means strategy, not tactics, are the focus of the game. Some people can't get enough micromanagement, but as far as I'm concerned it kills a game for me. I don't want to have to dig a foxhole for each individual soldier every day until the war is over.
CB
Curious said:
Different tank types isnt about more micromanagement, or making the game on regiment level, or more tactical (the larger number of provinces is what will make the game a bit more tactical). You can still have a division leveled game, but more variation in your divisions, corps and armies, and freedom to organize those armies more as you wish.
I think the signals from Johan here are great, My guess is a more advanced techthree, perhaps a system where you can research more specific unit types. A greatly expended techthree.
Last edited:
^ That's a bit of an exaggeration.
Weapon development is a strategic aim. Why did the US stay with the M4 and M3/M5 tanks for so long even well after they'd be eclipsed in capability by German tanks? Because, for one major reason, they were easier to ship and maintain overseas than bigger, better armed tanks would be. The Army wanted numbers, not quality. That's a strategic decision to make - as is the French/British practice of dispersing their armored forces into the infantry divisions instead of massing them together like the panzer divisions.
These are not operational or tactical concerns - they are very much strategic ones involving production, transportation, and doctrine.
I agree that there is some bad micromanagement in HOI2 - the espionage system springs to mind. Some features, I think, would benefit from optional micromanagement (I stress optional) and some would benefit from more optional automation (HOI3's spy system, if there is one, could benefit from the lessons learned of EU3's merchant system).
Weapon development is a strategic aim. Why did the US stay with the M4 and M3/M5 tanks for so long even well after they'd be eclipsed in capability by German tanks? Because, for one major reason, they were easier to ship and maintain overseas than bigger, better armed tanks would be. The Army wanted numbers, not quality. That's a strategic decision to make - as is the French/British practice of dispersing their armored forces into the infantry divisions instead of massing them together like the panzer divisions.
These are not operational or tactical concerns - they are very much strategic ones involving production, transportation, and doctrine.
I agree that there is some bad micromanagement in HOI2 - the espionage system springs to mind. Some features, I think, would benefit from optional micromanagement (I stress optional) and some would benefit from more optional automation (HOI3's spy system, if there is one, could benefit from the lessons learned of EU3's merchant system).
Great! However there is one problem. What kind of stats will you give to nations that historically never developed certain types of tanks.Balor said:HoI3 will make you extremely happy then.
Van Diemen said:
How about an open system where the quality of the equipment depents on the quality of your teams and your requirements?
I would love such a system because it would also break the hindsight somehow and would enable countries with a military tadition, experience and good tech teams produce better stuff then Tannu Tuva
.Wishful thinking of course and the historic nut fraction (HNF) would hate it and burn me on the stake for this idea
Yeah, diversivity is good. I'm great fan of Panzer Generals and similar staff, but it will be a very bad idea make units of nations strictly given, for example that german 'tank 1943' tech will be always Tiger, extremely heavy, costly and power full weapon... Instead, as many others have said in this thread, make system with basic models, which will be the same for all countries, and many choosable 'mini-doctrines', wich allows you to 'customize' your troops better.
There does seem to be an either/or mentality on this topic.
IMHO, there is still plenty of scope to keep this a 'strategy' game and still include the small details of unit variation without making the game a clicky-fest nightmare.
I have no great love for details such as which tank had the wider track so is therefore better on bad terrain, yet I still want a tad more difference in nations stats that goes further than the doctrines I pick.
IMHO, there is still plenty of scope to keep this a 'strategy' game and still include the small details of unit variation without making the game a clicky-fest nightmare.
I have no great love for details such as which tank had the wider track so is therefore better on bad terrain, yet I still want a tad more difference in nations stats that goes further than the doctrines I pick.
The question is, do all nations get the same chance or not?
If we include different "historical" tank data, however the stats are implemented, we end up with good tanks, not so good tanks and bad tanks, right?
Thus limiting the chance for Nations with those "bad tanks" to field armored division successfully. That´s not what I understand the HOI system for. You should be able to alter history. If I want to replay it, I might as well stay with history channel.
As it is right now, doctrines vs. tech teams vs. IC capability vs. Manpower it works fine with me.
If we include different "historical" tank data, however the stats are implemented, we end up with good tanks, not so good tanks and bad tanks, right?
Thus limiting the chance for Nations with those "bad tanks" to field armored division successfully. That´s not what I understand the HOI system for. You should be able to alter history. If I want to replay it, I might as well stay with history channel.
As it is right now, doctrines vs. tech teams vs. IC capability vs. Manpower it works fine with me.