• 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.

Paul_M

Major
35 Badges
Aug 30, 2004
512
3
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Sword of the Stars
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
I've recently got back into playing HoI and the new patches have done a lot to improve things I must say but there as still a couple of things that I think need work...

1. Starting Manpower pools: they are far too large. Three months worth of manpower would be reasonable as a starting pool. Also the democracies (British commonweath, USA, France) should have their monthly manpower substantially reduced pre declaration of war with germany. Maintaining a peace time army was infact quite hard for them. This will hopefully keep the otherwise absurd number of pre-war divisions in check...sorry but seeing germany with 200+ divisions in 39 is a bit hard to handle...worse is seeing Canada with 29 or whatever. The reason there was that delay between the conquest of poland and the blitz in france was both sides needed time to activate their reserve divisions and mobilize their forces. This might also serve to keep the commonwealth forces in line (not to mention the minor axis nations). Manpower should be a substantial problem for everyone in the game as it was historically...even the soviet union exhausted their manpower pool by 43-44.

2. The Field Marshal Effect: there is no reason why a field marshal should double command capacity and it leads to absurdities. 24 divisions in a single combat operation (coupled with the absurd numbers of divisions pre-war...) is a bit much. I see little or no reason to have this doubling effect and it leads to un-fun combat as all that you do is gather an unstopable monster group and attack with them. Worse case let it double command capacity up to 12 but no more beyond that; 12 divisions in a single province is a LOT historically.

3. Invasions and Marines: both England and the USA should start with Marine technology as historically both had them. But naval invasions are made too easy. Pre-Dieppe the only major invasion that had been launched by anyone was Galipoli. Neither the japanese nor the germans actually "invaded" anyone they just landed troops from transports in small boats or captured the dock and sailed in. The technology developed for overlord took years to put together, it was not a few simple technologies and then anyone can invade. A good change would be for a naval invasion to deactivate all artillary techs (as the artillary took a long time to come ashore). The key thing about invasions is that they required battleships and air support historically and very few people could use tanks in them. Probably not much can be done at this point but it would be nice to see marines show up as valuable units.

4. Fix the problem with a stack in combat so you can figure out which unit you have at the top of the stack so you can withdraw a unit from combat without being forced to end the entire battle. Unless there is something I am missing the list does not correspond to the order and I can't figure out which unit is at the top of the stack. And I would like to be able to withdraw units that are baddly hurt!

Anyway the 1.06c version is considerably improved and I should write up a couple of the games I have underway...both the italian and english ones are getting quite interesting.
 

unmerged(29126)

Knuffelmof
May 14, 2004
3.120
0
I'm not even sure there's gonna be a 1.07 patch ... but I would presume that not too much fiddling will be done if there is one ... maybe the fighter-stack-penalty and the logistics penalty is gonna be adjusted but I wouldn't hold my breath ...

Seeing that HOI2 (<== :D:D:D) is at beta-phase I'm even less inclined to believe that anything is gonna get changed in HOI1 ....

as for your suggestions, my opinion:
1) MP has gone through a lot of tweaking and IMHO is ok now, remember that it serves to reinforce as well as building new units ... people run out of MP regularly while playing one of the majors (don't even get me started on the minors) and that is not even with an overly wasteful style of play ...

2) As we're looking at province scale combat 24 divisions doesn't seem excessive to me ... yes steam-waltzing is the viable tactic now ... but seeing as we don't have the tactical options of flanking, exploiting, counter-attacking, ambush etc a slug-fest is the only thing that can be correctly modelled ... you still need to get local superiority without getting too weak elsewhere ... battles with fewer divisions are not necessarily more fun ... the game mechanics are the same (3 vs 1 or 24 vs 8 )

3) Yes the mini-"Operation Jubilee" have been really annoying ....
it squanders a lot of divisions this way ... fortunately the AI now occasionally even makes D-Day kind of invasions (12+ I know not historical, but proportionally correct me thinks). What is still true is that large-scale amphibious operations should take careful preparations and should only happen occasionally ... but the AI's incapability of doing so seems to be deeply-rooted ... I think that planning ahead is not really a strength of the current AI and that therefore the necessary assembling of all units concerned, of gaining air-supremacy etc. is not feasible with the current AI

4) Haven't payed much attention lately, but I believe that you've selected the lowest or upper-most unit in a fighting stack ... if the list really does not correspond to the selected unit of course that should be changed, you're right

Please write an AAR or two if you're games are interesting, I don't write myself but I always enjoy reading other peoples account of their world-conquest/crusade for freedom :)

edit: Phew! Being limited to one post every 30 seconds just prevented me from my first double-post :)
 

unmerged(3221)

[retired] FM
Apr 20, 2001
11.491
0
Visit site
1) CORE addresses this MP situation by limiting democracy's MP before war.

2) You do not understand the FM doubling effect. If there are more than 12 div under a FM, those div all lose his skills. Ex.: you have 24 inf in a province. If you attack and stack all 24 them with a good FM like von Kluge, you get 10 for off but zero for skills. Split them into two stacks of 12 and assign Von Bock and Von Kluge. Each stack gets +10 for offense and +20 for skill (level 4). From Fiendix's Leader FAQ:

4. Skill bonuses
----------------
4.1 These may be granted by a leader to, and only to, the unitS in his formation.
4.2 For skill purposes the capacity of a leader is NOT doubled by the presence
of FMs, whether the FM is himself the leader, in the same stack, in the same
province, or adjacent.
4.3 If the number of unitS in a formation is <= capacity (undoubled) of the formation
leader, then all the unitS in that formation receive the skill bonus.
4.4 If the number of unitS in a formation > capacity (undoubled) of the formation
leader, NO unitS in that formation receive the skill bonus.
4.5 Where granted, the bonus is 5% for each skill level

The game simplifies command structure so that the game engine does not have to assign a general to each division and more generals for corps and army levels. If it was realistic that would mean an incredible amount of micromanagement and an even greater burden on the AI which already does a poor job of assigning leaders. I think that this was an excellent design choice though the leader files should be changed to promote all generals with skill 2 or higher to FM so that the AI has enough FM.

3) The USA already builds too many marines so I don't see what your suggestions would accomplish. The Brits had marines as did other countries but they were small contingents of company or divisional size unlike the American Marine divisions. The best way to handle marine div capability would be to have a rule that they can not add brigades (just like paratroopers); marines already are incredibly powerful when all research is done for them. The game should differentiate between amphib assaults and normal troop movements at sea. You could then make landing craft as expensive as air transports and that would limit them. But I can't see how the game engine could distinguish between two different kinds of amphib landings.

4) The unit at the bottom of the stack in combat is active and can be withdrawn with a normal right mouse click to another province. It would be better if the unit at the top of the stack was the active unit which could be withdrawn, but it's the one at the bottom.
 

Paul_M

Major
35 Badges
Aug 30, 2004
512
3
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Sword of the Stars
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
I have only briefly had a look at the Core web page I was thinking about downloading it and trying it. Mainly my concern is the fact that the AI seems to build a-historically large numbers of divisions in the 36-39 time period and a good way to stop that would be to cut into the manpower again. It is certainly improved in 1.06c compared to 1.05.

On the unit for withdrawl, thanks. The bottom unit on the list ah great!

As for marines last time I looked the USA doesn't start with the ability to make marines which is what I find wierd. I agree the british did not field marine divisions but they certainly had the ability to do so had they wanted to.

On the leadership effects I can only say that I read the faq on it but I missed what your comment said. I still see no reason to allow for doubling of command and control but whatever. I generally have each division assigned to a seperate general anyway, so a 3 division standard Corps would look like:

I/1a Corpo d'Armata (Lt. Gen Espisito)-1a Divisione INF
II/1a Corpo d'Armata (Maj. Gen Di Laurentis)-2a Divisione INF
III/1a Corpo d'Armata (Maj. Gen Calazoni)-3a Divisione INF

I just move them as a group.

As for amphious landings from transports and from dedicated assault ships that could be handled by what tech is activated or deactivated. There is a great deal of difference between the german landings (or the british for that matter) in norway in 41 and the Canadian's going into Juno beach in 44. There was an equally large difference between that and the failed attack on Dieppe, which was still far more advanced than those landings in 41. I doubt the HoI engine can handle it...but I hope that the HoI-2 engine can. Still it could be done within the current engine by making the various types of assault ships different technologies which require different doctrines to develop.

Something like:

Landing with small boats (-lots to attack, deactivates all but small arms)
Infantry landing craft (-less but still a fair amout to attack, deactivates...)
Landing Ship Tank (allows use of armor)
Wading Tanks (improves tank effectiveness)
Improved Infantry Landing Craft (-less yet to attack, deactivates all artillary >90 mm)

rather than a single Landing Ship technology.
 

unmerged(29126)

Knuffelmof
May 14, 2004
3.120
0
Paul_M said:
...but I hope that the HoI-2 engine can. Still it could be done within the current engine by making the various types of assault ships different technologies which require different doctrines to develop.

Something like:

Landing with small boats (-lots to attack, deactivates all but small arms)
Infantry landing craft (-less but still a fair amout to attack, deactivates...)
Landing Ship Tank (allows use of armor)
Wading Tanks (improves tank effectiveness)
Improved Infantry Landing Craft (-less yet to attack, deactivates all artillary >90 mm)

rather than a single Landing Ship technology.

I'd like to see that (the more variety and micro the better for me) but I doubt we'll get to see it ... on the scale we're talking about here the actual combat only takes place "on the beach" for the first couple of hours and is then pushed into the hinterland for the rest of the battle ... where also the heavier weapons would have gotten unloaded and put into action ... but if the HOI2 engine were to allow for temporary effects (think: surprise, shock, suppression, preparatory shelling, initial disembarking ...) yes sure, why not
:)