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

[nick-bang]

A mix of improvements and mending mistakes

I love HOI and all of the later expansions sequels and add-ons, however I am always left hungry for more.

With HOI3 this game will hopefully finally realize its complete potential.



I would like to see a fully grown application, that no longer had really annoying features like:
1. The game crawling to an impossible slow rate as you progress.
2. Less CTD and other unexplained freeze-ups.
3. No more irrational contradictions and mysteries especially when your actions contrafactual to history - ie. when you start a major conflict before its supposed to occur then the program should adapt to that.
4. The unstability when there are too many armies in play.
5. No more ghost fleets.
6. A vnew battlesystem for aerial and naval battles that would make them meaningful and facilitate for instance the battle for the coral sea.

I would also hope that they brought along some of the user inspired changes from HOI armageddon:

1. The intelligence system.
2. The longer timeframe. (but i fear that they will make it as a add-on to make more money)
3. Stay away from micro management.

And to this add some noveltys:

1. Special forces: German brandenburgers, russian NKVD/Guard units, english LRDG/SAS/SBS/Commandos, American raiders/rangers and so on. All the major warring parties had them from around 1941 and forward. This could either be in the shape of divisions or perhaps more appropiately as brigades.
The possibilities are numerous: creating partizans or disrupting supply routes.

2. The possibility to research defensive weaponry to augment your naval and land defences: Mines, better emplacements and so on.

3. A completely new way to control your population: a new menu like diplomacy/intelligence/production but only concerned about the ways you keep your population happy and docile: economis and social programs. This instead of merely pacifying them with goods.

4. A longer timeframe rearwards to capture some of the important years between the 2 world wars. An interesting starting point could be 1929 with the great depression as a economic backdrop. Endtime could be mid 1960´s ?

5. A possibility to choose to shut off non-essential functionalities and unnessecary game concepts to make the game run smoother .

 

[unmerged(52476)]

I'd also like to see either useful radar stations (i.e. detecting and guiding air units) or none at all.

Preferably the former, of course

 

[unmerged(56277)]

commando units that can do raids on ports/airbases/supplie depots.

 

[The Great Duck]

I would like if you could set a country where your GiE would appear in a diplomatic menu,with a chance being shown depending on your and the other countries relations,ideology or claims.So when you are occupied,the other country can either accept or refuse you.
And a thing regarding partisans:each province should have an ideology,and depending on that ideology,different types of rebels will spawn,or if the occupiers ideology is close enough,the population might not rebel at all.

 

[Ithron]

how about having not only having events, but having kind of "attitudes", that would generate more or less appropriet, realistic response. With that I mean, improved Belligerance system, that would cause not just wars, but warnings, threats, pleadges of peace, embargos of some minor goods, then stronger embargo of oil (could depend on the country, as embargo of oil to venezuela might be funny, but to japan that was like a red cloth to a bull), then other strategic goods (iron, rubber), then food, and then all out trade embargo, and only after such several options, war, or on the other side, if low belligerance, then friendly diplomatic missions, sport games together (not forgeting real historical ones), exchanges of presents between presidents/kings, having good radio news about the other country (for example about USSR in US - "russians actually are just like americans, and they're leader, has the best rating for country leader's outfit, with churchill being in the last position on this scale." - maybe my translation isn't good, but this and many similar pieces were really translated in US till 44-45.).

I really think the economical system should be more complex and realistic, also, it could be based on GDP, and percents allocated to military.

And, historical army leaders definitely should be in, maybe to make it easier for devs, they could the expanded pools of many mods made for swedish, polish, chinese, japanese, hungarian, romanien etc etc etc... officers, though copy-rights might be an issue, but it would be great to not have a need to make it from scratch.

Maybe army leaders could gain negative traits, not just positive. The first one that pops in my mind is, how Zhukov was called - Cannibal, because of his ruthlesness and will to sacrifise everything for the goal, chance for this specific negative traite of course should be very low, like 1%, and if battle has been going for very long time, so with this trate troops could get bigger manpower loss and slower organisational loss.

And maybe it could be possible also, to loose traites, but, it should be some 5 smaller then to gain trates, but still, would be nice.

I very much hope dev team will first check how things were in time periode, and then see how to implement them, not the other way around, as some would suggest, as I think historical realism is very much interesting itself, as everybody will 'sense', if things are 'like real', so no need to think how to make this or that interesting, as well implemented history will be allways fun

And very last thing, I think mods that were creating CLMIP pack (leader improvement pack) well noticed that lots of won battles doesn't mean that officer was actually skilled, for example for Allies officers it actually was that they were in better technical position, not more skilled, so CLMIP lowered lots of skills, maybe hoi3 should take that into consideration too.

 

[Charles Louis]

I have always thought that innovation should be divided up into 4 categories, state investment (the whole system is based on this now); military academies, war colleges, and general staffs, the guys who invent doctrine and have a role in devising what new units look like; the national industry of a country, which is basically a civilian version of the war colleges and concerned with industry, production, and certain units that are industry heavy (armor, ships, aircraft); and experience.

In a perfect world, experience would be based off of the experience acquired by units, so that as experience was acquired, it would go to the unit, and a similar amount goes into a pool of research. This means that before a country is at war, development of doctrines and new units would be slower, and would pick up as countries actually fight. A country at peace would only develop doctrines based on the war college pool. Late entering countries, like the US would have this problem later into the game. The US gets the advantage of a lot of doctrinal development that they really don't deserve because if the way the system works now.

The war college pool should basically follow the historical doctrines, and favor the historical force pool. But also to a limited extent, they research a little of anything. Also, someone like Liddle-Hart might be developing mobility doctrines by himself while the others are developing firepower doctrines from the grand battle plan side. More on multiple doctrines later.

The industry pool should basically spend historically on the kinds of things the country was already good at.

The above kinds of tech pools should spend across the board on everything, with historical priorities in the case of War College and Industry, and in the case of experience, based on the units involved. Air units contribute to air doctrines and air technologies, and so on.

Player involvement allows political choices. This section can basically work as it does now, except that is represents only some fraction of tech development. It reflects emphasis on certain technologies and player choice to go a-historical.

Multiple doctrines:
It should be possible to have more than one doctrine at the same level, however, the first one you take is the primary doctrine, and its the one you get full effect for.

So the British, Americans, or Russians could get the Schwerpunkt doctrine, if they got a lot of armor experience (by building and using more than they did historically, thus acquiring more experience) and by using the player selections to go in that direction. Even if the powers using other schools did nothing different, they might get 30% or 50% of the research on those techs by late game.

As I mentioned, this would be a secondary tech for powers pursuing some other doctrine tree. So instead of the full effect of Schwerpunkt, it might only produce +5% land unit morale, +1% max org, +1% encirclement chance, and then the standard price breaks on armor, Armor -1.6 IC, Light Armor -0.8 IC, and L-Arm -0.3 IC.

These secondary techs still cost the same to develop.

This allows some late game doctrines to actually require some cross doctrine. Considering the Grand Battle Plan tree, Infiltration Assault may require the Delay Doctrine of the Superior Firepower school, Operational Stages may require Schwerpunkt, and Attritional Containment might require the Large Front Doctrine.

So its not only possible to make the doctrine tech trees more interesting, but we can also complicate the Air tech tree.

Further, new tech trees could be added to reflect optional military arts, like marine landings.

Ultimately, I'd like to see more technology options, and if this means more techs I never buy (because I had to make meaningful choices) its all to the good.

 

[unmerged(83789)]

I want to see good mac support.

 

[elpeladopocione]

Warscore Importance

I would really like to see some kind of WARSCORE-RELATED DISSENT system...meaning: if you are germany for instance and you are at 1940 right after defeating France, you should have some real benefits at the time of calculating dissent events o something like that....If you think about it, actually its kind of very reallistic as for the germans the summer of 1940 was the peak of their power and the peak of their ability to control the population inside germany as who would oposse the guys who defeated their long enemy France. This would work both ways, for instance when playing as UK the 1940 year in which they stood alone against germany was really a VERY DIFFICULT one, and this should be reflected somehow in popular opinion related to the way the government is running the war. Maybe they can even create some relation between WARSCORE and some other concepts in game....MANPOWER for instance, maybe even some IC benefits as people is rejoiced/angry about the way war is going.
.
EDIT: we cant even get to realize actually how important is popular opinion in the way wars are carried. Think of Vietnam...thats a war the US "loose" just because every one inside USA was against it.

 

[Slava176]

Hi, may be my suggestion is quite stupid and uninteresting,but to tell yhe treuth I would be very pleased If the wasn't USSR as the single country, but all soviet republics such as Ukranian SSr, Belorussian SSR and so on. I think this would be more realistic,even though that general orderes and commands came from Moscow.
Thanks for attention.

 

[Ithron]

Concerning experience - it would be good for ground troops (especially infantry) to have different experience system then it is now, because by 20th century, experience in army (especially german) ment that soldiers are capable of doing reglament more and more to the letter. So they were not "advancing" their skills, as indivual pilot would, but training to better and better work in team, following orders. So the veteran units and new units actually were doing the same stuff, and I think their 'veterancy' was in precision, not quality, as quality actually depended on military training. And military training might actually be great to implement, as for example germans definitely had the best military training in the world in 1936-40. Military training was closely related to mobilization plans and systems, so if both of those would be IG, then it would really represent the military system that countries had at the time and what player is supposed to lead.

Could paradox take out from the eu3 engine and not use it in hoi3, screen that shows 'the picture of the city', on left corner, it really looks very much useless..

Might it be possible to combine political and geographical map views? without political its hard to plan moves, and without geographical it's stupid to plan them.. At least, it could be done as in World in Flames, where there is icon of terran on the political map of provinces, does its job superb.

EDIT: I would melt in happiness, if there would be well made propoganda war, as WW2 period had as much propoganda, as all the previous history together. For example, Germany managed to convince everybody of it's superb tank and motorized army, though it was smaller in numbers then french, soviet, was using horses like everybody else, etc. All the movies Germany made about it's army showed tanks and little infantry, etc. Also all the wonderweapons, defenders of Europe from bolshevism, american Disney's propoganda, the dropping of leaflets in enemy towns, using victories for propoganda, and many many other things could be IG. I think it would make game space more colorfull, varied, realistic, etc.

 

[unmerged(63275)]

Indeed an economy where money is important too!

yes iinsted of just spending on spies and influemnce nations. If you send a gift to influence a nation shouldnt the influenced country get the money in some way or is the money spent on bribes and such ?

 

[unmerged(62241)]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I would like to be able to add multiple brigades to divisions.

 

[unmerged(63275)]

changes

i want paradox to change if germany declares war against finland during the winterwar. finland joins the allies and su and the allies goes to war against each other. The allies would probably not declare war at su over finlad...

 

[Fgorginator]

i want paradox to change if germany declares war against finland during the winterwar. finland joins the allies and su and the allies goes to war against each other. The allies would probably not declare war at su over finlad...

Mmm. A better alliance system would be good. Having NAPs and other things.

 

[MacLeod]

Can we have Alaska close to Russia?

 

[unmerged(9377)]

My 2coppers!
1.IC and strategic bombing.When bombing IC, it should be permanently destroyed.Only way to get it back is to build new factories. In wartime you would be able to call on more of you civilian population to rebuild it hence reducing its build cost.Of course in peacetime Factory builds would remain at the normal cost.

2.Naval warfare. A Major problem with HOI2 is they way naval combat is conducted.The introduction of the escort carrier undoes the advantage of carriers vs anything else.The escort carrier should be scrapped as a unit.I would like to see long range scout aircraft included somewhere in naval combat so that finding an enemy fleet is possible.This was the Catalina's major use in WW2 not naval bomber.Furthermore radar and sonar should have an impact on finding the enemy. Naval Bombers, particularly the later variants are way to powerful, sinking millions of tonnes of shipping in games that I have played.Level Bombers in WW2 had a hard time even hitting a ship,(Prince of Wales Repulse been rare successes).So either turn Naval bombers into Naval long range scout planes or into short range naval dive bombers.

3.AI. I have no suggestion what to do here I'm no computer wizard, good luck on this 1 as few war games have even decent AI.
4. For sake of game balance do some major improvement to China as there ineptness unbalances the game.
5. Revert to the HOI1 tech tree.I really enjoyed having a choice of which way to go with part of my armed forces especially the work CORE did to that edition.

 

[unmerged(79130)]

- Retreat option for aircrafts
Something that I think is very important to include in HoI 3 is that it should be possible to have a retreat option for aircrafts.
Instead of that you need to click "rebase" on the airfield that the aircrafts came from I would like to sea an airmission "reatreat" that you could use only during battle and this mission would make the aircraft turn back home to the airfield they came from directly (maybe after an extra loss of strength and organisation).

- Air superiority missions on lakes
I dont want the aircrafts to patrol all lakes in the world when you make an air superiority mission on one lake!!!

 

[unmerged(53301)]

The ability to destroy aircraft on the ground!

 

[unmerged(112153)]

The ability to destroy aircraft on the ground!

Thats really an option they should add for realism...

At the start of the operations in Poland, France and Russia the Luftwaffe gained the upperhand mostly by destroying the enemies airforce swiftly before they even took off the ground in the first days of their operations.

Comparing this with HoI2 you should see it that you can do direct attacks on enemy planes on the ground and give them big losses in strenght and when you attack hard enough you might even detroy a whole airunit...

I find that far more realistic then taking an enemy airfield with ground troops and knockout half your enemies airforce with it...

 

[Bullfrog]

Thats really an option they should add for realism...

...when you attack hard enough you might even detroy a whole airunit...

I find that far more realistic then taking an enemy airfield with ground troops and knockout half your enemies airforce with it...

I would say that destroying a whole air unit would be overly effective, but I agree that the option should be included.

I think taking airfields via ground troops should be a bit more lenient to the air units based there, but I do not know how that would be implemented.