Shipbuilding, aircraft building ... a few little ideas on HOI3 and industry

[Vladek]

Hello. First, let me congratulate you. So far, HOI2 is the best strategy game I came across. By far. But I still have a few suggestions that I think might improve the game further.

Shipbuilding

Now, I understand this is a game. But come on guys, this is kind of arcade. You can build any ship, of any size, if you just have the technology. And it takes the same amount of days to build it, regardless if you're playing as Ethiopia (randomly chosen 'minor') or England, Germany or USA ! I mean come on, with 3 IC points you're building battleships ?

For this point, my suggestion would be to add a new type of construction, exclusively for coastal provinces that also have ports : the naval shipyard. It could have levels, just like Radar Stations for example. Level 1 shipyard builds escorts, convoy vessels and transports. Level 2 shipyard can build destroyers, plus everything level 1 could of course. A level 3 shipyard adds light cruisers. Level 4 shipyards allow you to build heavy cruisers, escort/light carriers and battlecruisers. Level 5 shipyards - battleships and fleet carriers. Level 6 - superbattleships (or you can just put it to level 5).

Of course, upgrading from one level to another should be more rewarding. So I also suggest giving bonuses for building : as one would expect, a larger shipyard should be able to build the same class of ship faster. For example, how about a 3-5% deduction in time or IC for destroyer building after you upgrade from a level 2 to a level 3 shipyard ?

Aircraft

Aicraft in WW2 were a bewildering variety of designs and types. HOI2 did a good job for start separating them into all-round fighters, short-range, defense-oriented interceptors, medium bombers, ground-attack aircraft, strategic bombers, naval bombers and good old fashion transports. This was very nice.

But still more could be done. For now, all fighers of the same generation are identical. This should change. I mean P-51 was famous for range and speed, the Spitfire for turning, the Bf-109 for climbing, etc. At least, differences should exist between major types of the day.

If possible, HOI3 should also allow you to tinker with designs. For those unwilling, preset designs should exist. But I hope that true maniacs will apreciate this. Let me explain what I mean. I don't mean getting down to all the dirty little details, but some are nice to ponder.

For example, what type of engine will your fighter have ? Radial engine or liquid-cooled V-12 ? Advantages and disadvantages exist for both. Radials are more powerful (usually, and I'm talking about same generation engines) but more heavy and have higher fuel consumption, thus reducing range. They also protect the pilot better, but don't perform very well at high altitudes. Liquid-cooled engines are lighter, but more vulnerable. They give you better performance at high altitudes - this could be converted into a bonus when interception strategic bombers, which usually fly high.

Next, let's see wing area. Higher wing area equals lower wing loading, which makes a more nimble fighter. Give it a bonus against other fighters. Or wing shape. An elliptical shape is aerodynamically better - but it's more difficult to build (plane will take more time and IC to build). A rectangular wing is cheaper and takes less time but will have a detrimental impact on performance.

How about aircraft guns ? At the start of war, most planes will have rifle-caliber (7.92 mm or 7.62 mm, or the British .303). However, as time passes you should get the option (by default or by research, why not) of arming your planes with .50 caliber machine guns or even 20 and 30 mm cannons. Again, it's all about compromise : more guns will slow down your plane (penalty against fighters) but give you extra punch (bonus against bombers of all types).

And it's only a few ideas. I'm sure that more competent people could come up with a lot more.

Industry

About industry in general .. I always felt it' too abstracted. How about combining industry, transportation and infrastructure for better simulating the realities of economy ? After all, any factory needs raw material that's not falling out of the sky - it has to be transported with trains, ships, etc. Thus industrial output (IC) should be somehow correlated with infrastructure levels and available transportation means. Just imagine the new posibilities - you have the factories, but enemy has bombed the infrastructure into ruins so raw materials are not being moved around ! Or you have to spread the industry to avoid bombing. Now you need more trains, more trucks, more everything just to move stuff around to where it's needed.

Any other suggestions are welcome !

 

[unmerged(51521)]

For this point, my suggestion would be to add a new type of construction, exclusively for coastal provinces that also have ports : the naval shipyard. It could have levels, just like Radar Stations for example. Level 1 shipyard builds escorts, convoy vessels and transports. Level 2 shipyard can build destroyers, plus everything level 1 could of course. A level 3 shipyard adds light cruisers. Level 4 shipyards allow you to build heavy cruisers, escort/light carriers and battlecruisers. Level 5 shipyards - battleships and fleet carriers. Level 6 - superbattleships (or you can just put it to level 5).

A further point on this would be that maybe you should have to decide where you want the ship to be built, and then if the province is overun then the enemy can gain control of an incomplete ship (add it to there build queue partially built).

 

[Balesir]

There are plenty of ideas around your first and third suggestions around - look here, here and here for a few starters!

The aircraft one has also been discussed in different guises - basically 'why can't units be developed differently by different nations'...

At present this is handled by a combination of the doctrines used and the controlling ministers. I think this is a basically sound approach, although the effective statistics of a given model should perhaps be 'locked' for a nation once it has been developed. Getting into the details of individual designs seems way too complex and fiddly for a Strategic-level game, to me.

Alternatively, perhaps each type of major unit could have a number of 'design philosophies' that affect the statistics of units developed under them. Ministers then just control which philosophies can be switched to at a point in time. Such philosophies will essentially be like new doctrines, I guess.

 

[Vladek]

There are plenty of ideas around your first and third suggestions around - look here, here and here for a few starters!

Thanks for the tip. I read some of other threads, but not those.

The aircraft one has also been discussed in different guises - basically 'why can't units be developed differently by different nations'...

At present this is handled by a combination of the doctrines used and the controlling ministers. I think this is a basically sound approach, although the effective statistics of a given model should perhaps be 'locked' for a nation once it has been developed. Getting into the details of individual designs seems way too complex and fiddly for a Strategic-level game, to me.

Yes, I know it's handled right now, but at the way it's handled a Japanese tank has exactly the same firepower, fuel consumption and cost as a German one. It's hardly a realistic choice. Plus, preset designs could be supplied for those not willing to get down and dirty with individual designs.

Alternatively, perhaps each type of major unit could have a number of 'design philosophies' that affect the statistics of units developed under them. Ministers then just control which philosophies can be switched to at a point in time. Such philosophies will essentially be like new doctrines, I guess.

Hmm ... how about considering issuing specifications instead ? After all, what does a government do when it requires a new fighter ? It issues specifications for all companies willing to bid on the project. If tinkering with design sounds too complicated, how about creating a set of sliders which can be moved before researching a new type of infantry division or tank ?

For example, let's take a fighter for example. You could have the following sliders for example : Speed, Range, Firepower, Fuel Consumption, IC Cost, Time needed. All sliders are positioned at the middle (which gives you a default model). But perhaps you desire more range and are willing to pay some extra IC for that. Or you want to keep fuel consumption low and range is not a concern. Or you just can't afford an expensive aircraft and just need a really, really cheap fighter. Before starting research, you move these sliders around. Of course you cannot have more of that without giving up something. Move all sliders to max, and you'll get the ultimate fighter of your generation, but it will be horribly expensive and take forever to build.

Moving up, let's think tanks for example. You could have Speed, Firepower, Fuel Consumption, IC Cost, Time needed. You want fast tanks ? You got it, but firepower should drop cause you can't have a bigger gun.

Perhaps this would be a better solution ? The player could tweak designs as he wishes without getting bogged down into too many details. You just move a few sliders around and that's it. Your research team takes the specs and eventually churns out a design accordingly.

 

[Lennartos]

Thanks for the tip. I read some of other threads, but not those.

Always good to get some new blood

Hmm ... how about considering issuing specifications instead ? After all, what does a government do when it requires a new fighter ? ... how about creating a set of sliders which can be moved before researching a new type of infantry division or tank ?

For example, let's take a fighter for example. You could have the following sliders for example : Speed, Range, Firepower, Fuel Consumption, IC Cost, Time needed. All sliders are positioned at the middle (which gives you a default model). But perhaps you desire more range and are willing to pay some extra IC for that. Or you want to keep fuel consumption low and range is not a concern. Or you just can't afford an expensive aircraft and just need a really, really cheap fighter. Before starting research, you move these sliders around. Of course you cannot have more of that without giving up something. Move all sliders to max, and you'll get the ultimate fighter of your generation, but it will be horribly expensive and take forever to build.

Moving up, let's think tanks for example. You could have Speed, Firepower, Fuel Consumption, IC Cost, Time needed. You want fast tanks ? You got it, but firepower should drop cause you can't have a bigger gun.

Perhaps this would be a better solution ? The player could tweak designs as he wishes without getting bogged down into too many details. You just move a few sliders around and that's it. Your research team takes the specs and eventually churns out a design accordingly.

exactly my thought... posted same idea in the "Build your own division thread"

 

[Balesir]

Hmm ... how about considering issuing specifications instead ? After all, what does a government do when it requires a new fighter ? It issues specifications for all companies willing to bid on the project. If tinkering with design sounds too complicated, how about creating a set of sliders which can be moved before researching a new type of infantry division or tank ?

Absolutely right - but who is in charge of issuing the specifications?

The appropriate minister is.

You could not have Goering as Air Minister and expect to issue a specification for the ultimate Strategic Bomber. The specifications for the Hurricane and Spitfire would probably have been very different had Charles Portal been Air Minister when they were placed.

A minister might elect to just keep 'hands off' and allow older doctrine to continue, but they are never going to move towards doctrines of design that they disagree with. Hence the minister should either limit or determine the specifications issued, IMO.

For example, let's take a fighter for example. You could have the following sliders for example : Speed, Range, Firepower, Fuel Consumption, IC Cost, Time needed. All sliders are positioned at the middle (which gives you a default model). But perhaps you desire more range and are willing to pay some extra IC for that. Or you want to keep fuel consumption low and range is not a concern. Or you just can't afford an expensive aircraft and just need a really, really cheap fighter. Before starting research, you move these sliders around. Of course you cannot have more of that without giving up something. Move all sliders to max, and you'll get the ultimate fighter of your generation, but it will be horribly expensive and take forever to build.

OK, but the minister should at least (a) limit how far the sliders can be moved, and (b) determine the 'default' positions of the sliders.

That way those who do not 'tinker' here will get the same result as with ministers alone (and maybe doctrines should have an effect, too?) while those who do want to play the chief engineer will be limited by what their minister will allow. If a player desperately wants something outside that envelope they would have to do what the real national leaders had to do - get a new minister!

 

[Lennartos]

OK, but the minister should at least (a) limit how far the sliders can be moved, and (b) determine the 'default' positions of the sliders.

That way those who do not 'tinker' here will get the same result as with ministers alone (and maybe doctrines should have an effect, too?) while those who do want to play the chief engineer will be limited by what their minister will allow. If a player desperately wants something outside that envelope they would have to do what the real national leaders had to do - get a new minister!

thats actually a grand method of doing it!...
some ministers will favour speed, others firepower and so on... we just have to make sure there are enough ministers to choose from.
and doctrines(techs) should have an influence,yes.

 

[Vladek]

OK, but the minister should at least (a) limit how far the sliders can be moved, and (b) determine the 'default' positions of the sliders.

That way those who do not 'tinker' here will get the same result as with ministers alone (and maybe doctrines should have an effect, too?) while those who do want to play the chief engineer will be limited by what their minister will allow. If a player desperately wants something outside that envelope they would have to do what the real national leaders had to do - get a new minister!

Absolutely briliant ! Couldn't agree more with you ! Yes, the 'default' positions of the sliders and should be affected by the minister's traits and the national doctrine. Goering for example would probably be generous with Tactical Bombers and Fighters, but very restrictive towards spending much on a Strategic Bomber.

Now about those factories ... I've read some other threads and saw some suggestions about separating them into specialized types of factories. I feel that would mean too much micromanagement. Howerver, I believe that a nation's manufacturing capability should be a little more complex then "Sum of all factories + x% from ministers". After all, most factories do not churn out a finished product, but manufacture parts which are then assembled. Those parts must be moved around to the place where final assembly takes place. If you don't have enough roads or railroads, or not enough trucks or not enough trains, parts and raw materials do not get delivered. Thus, national infrastructure levels and total transport capacity should be somehow taken into account. Plus - it should be possible to relocate some transport capacity reserved for the economy for military use. Of course, you take a penalty for that in terms of GNP, like one might expect. After all, if trains that should be taking coal from the mines to the steelworks are now moving men around in Russia, it's obvious you'll have problems back home.

 

[Balesir]

Now about those factories ... I've read some other threads and saw some suggestions about separating them into specialized types of factories. I feel that would mean too much micromanagement. Howerver, I believe that a nation's manufacturing capability should be a little more complex then "Sum of all factories + x% from ministers". After all, most factories do not churn out a finished product, but manufacture parts which are then assembled. Those parts must be moved around to the place where final assembly takes place. If you don't have enough roads or railroads, or not enough trucks or not enough trains, parts and raw materials do not get delivered. Thus, national infrastructure levels and total transport capacity should be somehow taken into account. Plus - it should be possible to relocate some transport capacity reserved for the economy for military use. Of course, you take a penalty for that in terms of GNP, like one might expect. After all, if trains that should be taking coal from the mines to the steelworks are now moving men around in Russia, it's obvious you'll have problems back home.

I agree, ICs as they are now are far too flexible and insensitive to attack (both direct and indirect, but especially indirect). What I suggested before was that Naval Bases, Air Bases and Supply Bases should be used as 'Assembly Locations' while ICs make the needed equipment/parts. When a unit is 'ordered' it must be assigned to a base - this is where it will appear when it is complete. Each base is limited in terms of what it can have building at one time; a Level 1 Naval Base could perhaps only have one Screen unit building there, while a Level 10 Base could have 5 Capital units or 10 Screens (or any combination in between).

For ideas on how TCs and supply factor into this look here for a thread about a new way for logistics to work that I believe meets your requirements...

 

[Lennartos]

About the flexible IC issue:

I once had a solution for this:


Instead of focusing on individual lines, focus on production lines.
Germany could for example have:
4 Light (gar,inf,par,mar,mtn,...brigades)
2 Heavy (mec,arm,sp.at,sp.art,...)
2 Air (int... str)
3 Ship (BB...DD)
Picture them as lines in the production screen like you always see the production...each one cost IC depending on what they build,like always... you can move them up and down on the priority list.

The difference is twofold:
1)You can reassign each line to different type of unit...
If a hard factory is making arm-3, it can be reassigned to arm-4...
but that will require some time for retooling.(show IC cost * time for retooling)
when its retooled it will now build the new unit, with some loss of gearing..(maybe halving it..)
effect: switching from one model to another is expensive, and shuts down production while switch is beeing made.

2)Also it is possible to build more lines, but that should be rather expensive and require a much time(machine tools needs to be build and logistics and infrastructure have to be prepared).
effect: you can increase production, but it costs a lot of investments.

each line should cost Consumer goods and/or $$ to maintain, so having a unused slot will be too expensive in the long run...(making too great production lines buildup, unattracive ... unless needed).

that also quickly allows for a more interesting and detailed production model, regarding automatation and assembly lines... a very advanced production line using assembly lines is much more expensive to build and takes much longer time retooling but uses less IC while building things(also costs more consiumer goods to maintain). The question becomes: what is more important? faster reaction time or more production lines possible?
Germany historically relied on "newest model > old model" way of thinking.
USA relied on the "3 lv3 tanks > 1 lv4 tank" way of thinking.
switching too much will kill assembly line effective production output over time.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes, I know it's handled right now, but at the way it's handled a Japanese tank has exactly the same firepower, fuel consumption and cost as a German one. It's hardly a realistic choice.

Perhaps thats more because your trying to compare a model 36' light tank with a 43' Medium or Heavy tank than because anything nation specific?

I belive the light tanks Japan did use in the war was pretty similar to the light ones germans had before the war. Japan models equivalent to Panthers and Tigers never saw action even though their war started 2years later than the european one. I think Its safe to say that This is better modelled by Japans strive to research & build Carriers instead of tanks.

I also have to agree with previous posters that while national "specifics" might be a nice flavor however looking realistically at a strategic level they mattered very little for the outcome of battles. Even more so if you consider how much all countries bought competing models (in peacetime) and with how much care they stuidied captured enemy equipment (in wartime).

Also remember that you are not comparing tank vs tank but rather tank battalion vs tank battalion. If one side have slightly smaller tanks they are likely to also have slightly more of them for the same cost.

I love games where you can tinker and test different models, but this is not one of the games where this feature would come to its full power/worth. If There its something you should tinker with in HoI games its the makeup or size of entire divisions, not models. Capital ships perhaps beeing the only exception.

 

[Lennartos]

im a terrible artist, so dont flame me ...
couldt really figure out how to show what i mean,but here it goes:

 

[unmerged(87637)]

Hello. First, let me congratulate you. So far, HOI2 is the best strategy game I came across. By far. But I still have a few suggestions that I think might improve the game further.

Shipbuilding

Now, I understand this is a game. But come on guys, this is kind of arcade. You can build any ship, of any size, if you just have the technology. And it takes the same amount of days to build it, regardless if you're playing as Ethiopia (randomly chosen 'minor') or England, Germany or USA ! I mean come on, with 3 IC points you're building battleships ?

For this point, my suggestion would be to add a new type of construction, exclusively for coastal provinces that also have ports : the naval shipyard. It could have levels, just like Radar Stations for example. Level 1 shipyard builds escorts, convoy vessels and transports. Level 2 shipyard can build destroyers, plus everything level 1 could of course. A level 3 shipyard adds light cruisers. Level 4 shipyards allow you to build heavy cruisers, escort/light carriers and battlecruisers. Level 5 shipyards - battleships and fleet carriers. Level 6 - superbattleships (or you can just put it to level 5).

Of course, upgrading from one level to another should be more rewarding. So I also suggest giving bonuses for building : as one would expect, a larger shipyard should be able to build the same class of ship faster. For example, how about a 3-5% deduction in time or IC for destroyer building after you upgrade from a level 2 to a level 3 shipyard ?

Aircraft

Aicraft in WW2 were a bewildering variety of designs and types. HOI2 did a good job for start separating them into all-round fighters, short-range, defense-oriented interceptors, medium bombers, ground-attack aircraft, strategic bombers, naval bombers and good old fashion transports. This was very nice.

But still more could be done. For now, all fighers of the same generation are identical. This should change. I mean P-51 was famous for range and speed, the Spitfire for turning, the Bf-109 for climbing, etc. At least, differences should exist between major types of the day.

If possible, HOI3 should also allow you to tinker with designs. For those unwilling, preset designs should exist. But I hope that true maniacs will apreciate this. Let me explain what I mean. I don't mean getting down to all the dirty little details, but some are nice to ponder.

For example, what type of engine will your fighter have ? Radial engine or liquid-cooled V-12 ? Advantages and disadvantages exist for both. Radials are more powerful (usually, and I'm talking about same generation engines) but more heavy and have higher fuel consumption, thus reducing range. They also protect the pilot better, but don't perform very well at high altitudes. Liquid-cooled engines are lighter, but more vulnerable. They give you better performance at high altitudes - this could be converted into a bonus when interception strategic bombers, which usually fly high.

Next, let's see wing area. Higher wing area equals lower wing loading, which makes a more nimble fighter. Give it a bonus against other fighters. Or wing shape. An elliptical shape is aerodynamically better - but it's more difficult to build (plane will take more time and IC to build). A rectangular wing is cheaper and takes less time but will have a detrimental impact on performance.

How about aircraft guns ? At the start of war, most planes will have rifle-caliber (7.92 mm or 7.62 mm, or the British .303). However, as time passes you should get the option (by default or by research, why not) of arming your planes with .50 caliber machine guns or even 20 and 30 mm cannons. Again, it's all about compromise : more guns will slow down your plane (penalty against fighters) but give you extra punch (bonus against bombers of all types).

And it's only a few ideas. I'm sure that more competent people could come up with a lot more.

Industry

About industry in general .. I always felt it' too abstracted. How about combining industry, transportation and infrastructure for better simulating the realities of economy ? After all, any factory needs raw material that's not falling out of the sky - it has to be transported with trains, ships, etc. Thus industrial output (IC) should be somehow correlated with infrastructure levels and available transportation means. Just imagine the new posibilities - you have the factories, but enemy has bombed the infrastructure into ruins so raw materials are not being moved around ! Or you have to spread the industry to avoid bombing. Now you need more trains, more trucks, more everything just to move stuff around to where it's needed.

Any other suggestions are welcome !

nice ideas but they are so hard to complete... :wacko: