So what do you all want to see in HOI3 -(no death camps, terror bombings, or purges)

[extox]

Do not be clever and try and get round the rules this will not save you from a ban

 

[unmerged(56182)]

Bring back reasearch teams!!!

 

[unmerged(79123)]

I remember seeing this idea months ago on another thread, but I don't see it here.

The system for commanders of armies should be revised somewhat. In HOI2 every army (whether it's 1 or 12 divisions in size) has one general. Historically several divisions (e.g. 9-10) would have many lower-level generals (one for each division) with a higher-level officer in charge of directing and correlating the decisions of these lower-level officers. Sometimes another commander (usually a field Marshall) would then direct all of the armies of one front (e.g. the western front).

The overhaul I'd like to see is the ability to place lower level generals under higher ones when assigning generals to divisions instead of each general being independent. For example, 12 divisions could be placed under a field Marshall and no one else, or, that field Marshall could be placed in command over multiple generals of lower rank. This would then give those attacking armies the benefits of both the immediate commander and the commander in charge over the western front. I wouldn't think that the benefits would be the same as if he were the direct commander over individual units. Probably just a slight bonus or lending part of his skills to the immediate commander.

The idea is to have a system of placing generals over divisions (one or more) and those generals under a higher-ranking officer (there were two such generals assigned by Hitler, one for the north and one for south, for the assault against Poland). The United States is another perfect example of this. Eisenhower was in charge of the east (against Germany) and Macarthur of the West (against Japan). Under Eisenhower came generals such as Bradley (in charge of an area after D-Day). And under Bradley came generals such as Patton.

Everybody: let me know what you all think. Improvements, ideas, etc.

Totally agree with this idea. A realistic chain of command structure would add a lot to the feel of the game. And as long as you had the option of auto-assigning the individual division commanders, it wouldn't really add much complexity to the game. You could start out a major-general like Rommel commanding a single division, without having to mess with moving around single division corps like you do now in HoI2.

 

[unmerged(100030)]

Listen I'm a real simple guy. All I need from HoI3 is two things:


1) For the love of all that is Holy please make New York State look correct. Every other state in the USA looks fine but for some reason New York (and Pennsylvania a bit) are the two malformed ones. It really isn't that hard to draw out.

2) PLEASE MAKE MULTIPLAYER WORK OUT OF THE BOX. NO MORE ROUTER/PORT FORWARDING. It's Two-thousand-freaking-eight. The game will be out in 2009. Last time I had to deal with this kind of stuff to play multiplayer with a game was playing original Comand & Conquer: Red Alert back in 1996 on a modem, waiting for my friend to call my house and yelling at my mother not to pick up the phone and let the computer pick up the call. SHEESH.

Anything else is just gravy.

 

[Sgt. Optimus]

More accurate historical events for Kingdom of Yugoslavia!!!

 

[unmerged(37697)]

2) PLEASE MAKE MULTIPLAYER WORK OUT OF THE BOX. NO MORE ROUTER/PORT FORWARDING. It's Two-thousand-freaking-eight. The game will be out in 2009. Last time I had to deal with this kind of stuff to play multiplayer with a game was playing original Comand & Conquer: Red Alert back in 1996 on a modem, waiting for my friend to call my house and yelling at my mother not to pick up the phone and let the computer pick up the call. SHEESH.

Hopefully, this shouldn't be an issue. My two most recent Paradox titles, EU3 & Rome, both work fine over MP; I have a router and haven't had to piss about with any settings in order to play over the net. Older Paradox games such as HoI2 and EU2 are unplayable for me online, however.

So, assuming Paradox use the same system for HoI3 as they do for EU3 and Rome, everything should be fine.

 

[unmerged(112206)]

Never played those titles, do they have speed settings and if so, does the game not desync horribly when playing on higher speed settings?
Hope so, I really want to play the HOI series on multiplayer more but so far I've only gotten it working succesfully on LAN (which was a blast!)

 

[unmerged(62241)]

The United States is another perfect example of this. Eisenhower was in charge of the east (against Germany) and Macarthur of the West (against Japan). Under Eisenhower came generals such as Bradley (in charge of an area after D-Day). And under Bradley came generals such as Patton.

Macarthur was not in charge of the war against Japan.

 

[GrimReaper]

- Specialized vessels for amphibious landings. These ships should be able to conduct amphibious landings like all Transport ships can do in HoI1 and 2. HoI3 Transports should then be able to unload only by entering a friendly port.

- Auxiliary cruiser units, with the ability to raid convoys and maybe even carry out covert operations such as spying on a hostile coast, depending on the mission orders set.

- Submarines with the ability to carry ICBMs. Yeah, I know, they wont be available in time to appear in game etc, but oh the flair

 

[blue emu]

- Specialized vessels for amphibious landings. These ships should be able to conduct amphibious landings like all Transport ships can do in HoI1 and 2. HoI3 Transports should then be able to unload only by entering a friendly port.

- Auxiliary cruiser units, with the ability to raid convoys and maybe even carry out covert operations such as spying on a hostile coast, depending on the mission orders set.

- Submarines with the ability to carry ICBMs. Yeah, I know, they wont be available in time to appear in game etc, but oh the flair

- Tankers (Oilers) to extend fleet ranges.

 

[Spruce]

with high priority on number one =

- cold war events,

That means both cold war Allies-Soviets, Soviets-Axis, Axis-Allies,

one of the most stupid things in HOI2 is when Germany is sitting there at your border building up forces. And after playing a few days with your computer, Germany is still sitting there.

There should be some event that unleashes the war - f.e. random driven who declared the war - for such situations.

Let's face it - it's not the intention of this game to play for many days to conclude "yes, I did it ! Not one soldier got killed in my game !"

both funny and fustrating I guess

 

[jonnyhenrix]

an advanced political and economic model. Make your political choices count for something and influence other countries by using domestic and forreign politic models.

Also a operation model where you can preplan your offesive/defensive stradedgy so you don't have to micromanage every attack, but still have the option to do so if you wish.

 

[unmerged(42324)]

I would like a option to assign a mission for a whole year instead then just for a month. I mean when im assigning interceptors and fighters to patrol the english channel, I have to click the "month - button" a hell of a lot of times just to keep interceptors patroling there some years, so i can focus on barbarossa if im germany.

EDIT: and oh yeah this is kinda general, but still very important. Hoi 2 is very good at simulation war, but i would like the next game to focus much more on the peacetime. Preperations for wars are after all very important for the result

 

[Dark Scipio]

It would be just great, to make political choices, most important for peacetimes.

 

[thevaliant]

If it hasn't been mentioned:

1. Governments in Exile - Possibility of, after annexation, a GIE setting up in a allied capital (Poland to London). Smallish army, somewhat at the mercy of the British, but you are not out of the game.
2. Reduction in partisan levels for control of a national province of an ally (either government in exile or still in the game) so that when Paris is taken by the USA, partisan levels are not at 15% (well, not unless the USA then doesn't return it to France after victory).

 

[Don_Quigleone]

More Dynamic Alliances: what I mean is, that it should be possible, for instance, for players to create their own major alliance, which will appear on the victory screen. Likewise, if say Germany gets defeated early, it should be possible for another nation to start off the axis. This would be most useful for Mods, and particularly Multi Player, where Alliances can be more diverse, and game play far less historic.

 

[Porkman]

And if nuclear bombs are included in this game, it would be nice to have a option of "include nuclear bombs" switch. Gets really annoying especially when I play Germany in HOI 2 and getting close to winning the war against the UK and USA, only to get constantly nuked like nearly every day.

The AI won't research nukes in the 36 GC unless you're using a mod.

As for the annoyance factor, the whole "nukes being game breaking for the axis" is entirely realistic. We had this discussion in the "more challenging USA" thread. Even if Hitler had succeeded in Barbarossa, America had bombers that could fly above interception range and could have wiped out Germany by 1947. The Reich would literally have become the glowing light of Aryan civilization.

 

[unmerged(53301)]

I would LOVE to see an AI that uses nukes.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I would LOVE to see an AI that uses nukes.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - in HoI2 it just involves changing/adding a few lines of code to the respective countries' AI files. Hopefully, HoI3's vanilla AI won't stop the computer from building nukes and other hi-tech weapons. I want my experience of the AI to be as close as possible to that of a human, just without unrealistic levels of cheating/AI-only events.

 

[unmerged(110317)]

Maybe we should have a voting system here, so that we can all vote for what we want most, or like in some order........ like with the Project mayhem vote