So i played Darkest hour....

[Rogerkonijn]

Hi, first post.

First off, thank you Paradox for these amazing games holy shizzle.

On my point:

After playing Darkest hour, i must say i really liked the no oob style army composition.
I played hoi 3 and one of the reasons i let the ai reorganise was the inherent complexity of it all.
I think the hoi4 development team took a few pointers from DH.

After hoi 3, i was worried about the "no ai control" of armies in DH.(and from what i see from dev vids, hoi4)
When i found out i actually didnt want to play it lol.
But thanks to the simplicity of the army composition i actually enjoy
the tactical aspect of when to attack, encirclement, terrain advantage etc.
It removed the hassle of the comp. organisation.

I hope this trend continues in all aspects of hoi 4.

 

[Jeremy971]

HOI4 first days...

 

[Rogerkonijn]

Haha, yeah the learning is the best part

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

i must say i really liked the no oob style army composition.

I disagree, I quite like the OOB of HOI 3. For some reason I enjoyed spending the time making sure all my divisions are in range and everyone is connected with that satisfying green and grey dotted lines, advancing together in cohesion in their colorful theater under ai control, while I sit back sipping my tea and nodding approvingly.

 

[MajorHeartfire]

Doesn't DH have a OOB-lite system rather than the no-OOB system of HOI4? Sorry, haven't actually played it yet myself...

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Doesn't DH have a OOB-lite system rather than the no-OOB system of HOI4? Sorry, haven't actually played it yet myself...

Kind of. The commanders had ranks, and HQ units, but fundamentally the system of supply and command was different.

 

[Caesar15]

Ah yes, another "DH > Hoi3" thread. Personally I've played both and I prefer hoi3 much more. And I don't even like extreme micromanagement.

 

[Rogerkonijn]

I like both, but i (in hoi3) use ai organisation and control. I have played hoi3 most likely not as long as you guys. So i do "Theater ai design" , flick ai HQ on ai control and ai reorg, assign him the theater, and he'll tell me what he needs . Now, i like it but theres not tactical play appart from setting behaviours and goals. And tha ai is pretty nice on general organisation and front movement.

In contrast, in DH i like the overall trimmed down complexity, and no ai, because the army control is not that overwhelming in comparison.
So i gladly move my armies myself, as its trimmed down due to game design + amount of provinces.

Its not always a "vs thread"
I just gave my points in respect to current games, and look at what they are doing with hoi 4

I played vic2/ck2/eu4 the most and that is just the stats, terrain(weather) and diceroll.
Just started with hoi 3 -well, 46h- , but in comparisan hehe
so yeah

 

[Vukodav]

Well, the depth of HoI3, for those who took time to learn it, was much better.

For instance:

Division level commander gave 5% combat efficiency per commander skill level, simulating a well informed front line general who is in the thick of it, knows what is going on and can decide better what to do next - hence combat efficiency boost.

Corps level commander gave increased chance for a reserve unit to join in, simulating a general (and his staff) who is a bit behind the front line and has a little better view of the whole situation and knows where he should send some reserves to boost the fight.

Army level commander gave 1% boost to organization per commander skill level, simulating a large HQ well behind the enemy lines that organizes one of the largest formations in war. A good commander there could increase overall organization of the troops, 4,5 or 6% is not a small number when it comes to organization - it is like a whole new level of tech in advance.

Army Group level commander gave 5% decrease in supply cost per skill level, representing the masterminds behind the biggest of the operations. Army Groups were the ones taking part in a offensive or defense against one. A commander would have to coordinate land, air and sea units to the best of ones ability. A good Army Group commander could make or break the operation - as we all know, a good commander can command a panzer division, but it takes a mastermind to supply one.

And in the end, Theatre Command reduced stacking penalty for 1% per skill level, representing the Army High Command and their organization and coordination of the whole front line.

Also, on top of that, commander traits were from bottom-up structure 100% effect, 50%, 25% 12.5% and 6.25% distributed.

Taking all that into the account, you had to spend some time creating the optimal command structure. For instance, placing offensive specialist as a theatre commander and a logistics wizard as a division commander was a bad move if you want to conduct blitz warfare. Instead, Logistic wizards would go on the top of the command structure, while commando would go to special divisions, attack specialist to panzer divisions and so on.

It really was a good system that took some time and skill. Sure, you could ignore it and still win. But let me remind you, you are the supreme leader of your nation, you should win with as least casualties as possible. And that is where a good command structure came in.

In Darkest Hour there was some structure, but nowhere near the HoI3. You had your Generals and Field Marshals that would command an HQ unit (lower ranks could not use it) and units in the nearby provinces were effectively under the effect of that HQ, or in his OOB in some way. And that was it.

Now, in HoI4 there is even less than in Darkest Hour/HoI2. Two types of commanders, no hierarchy in the structure.

 

[Had a dad]

Kind of. The commanders had ranks, and HQ units, but fundamentally the system of supply and command was different.

this was not DH, it was HOI2...

Ah yes, another "DH > Hoi3" thread. Personally I've played both and I prefer hoi3 much more. And I don't even like extreme micromanagement.

except in this case he should be saying HOI2 is better...

 

[inteljoe]

I like both, but i (in hoi3) use ai organisation and control. I have played hoi3 most likely not as long as you guys. So i do "Theater ai design" , flick ai HQ on ai control and ai reorg, assign him the theater, and he'll tell me what he needs . Now, i like it but theres not tactical play appart from setting behaviours and goals. And tha ai is pretty nice on general organisation and front movement.

I have found that small theaters the AI is "good". It takes advantage of the situation, breaks through, and attacks pretty regularly. On larger theaters, it kinda is a drain. The AI is always asking for more units than it needs. It doesn't know how to react well to issues on the other side of the theater. You can set goals but in a massive theater you are lucky to see any progress, the AI seems to just re-position (which takes forever) and if the situation changes in the slightest it changes position again.

I like the idea of the battle planer as a result. It exists in HoI3, kind of, for the use of planing actions and sharing them with allies (I assume for multiplayer). It was a good tool, but wasn't much more than a painting the battlefield on a map. The idea of having all of the smaller corps, brigades, etc was just daunting. And with all of these individual units I'd imagine very taxing on the users CPU.

HoI4 changes this in 2 major ways:

1) They generalizes the way the "Army Group" is structured.

- A lot of hardcore strategy gamers may not like this, seeing that you can't control basically done to individual platoons.
- It is less taxing on the CPU, PDX games have always been CPU intensive (especially late game) and as a result if there are less "moving pieces" on the board the game will run better later stages into the game.

2) Battle Planer

- It allows for more direct control over specific actions, as a result the player is more engaged than just flipping the AI switch and setting a few goals while waiting for results.