The tiny suggestions thread!

[PlayinOcean]

A new trait to generals: loyalty. Rommel was an excellent general but he wasnt too fond of Hitler in the later years of the war. I think its fair to assume this made him act differently from the generals who did appreciate Hitler. This generals trait can be a shifting one: when the war is going fine, generals are loyal and enthousiastic, when the war is going terrible, they might get a 'disloyal' trait with a certain penalty in troop morale or organisation. This will make for a selection of generals that is historic: ideally you want your best generals, but if they get too disloyal, they might have to get replaced, just like Hitler did with guys like Rommel, Beck and von Witzleben (by killing them..). Or you really like the traits of your generals and you tolerate their disloyalty, just like Hitler did with guys like von Küchler and others who didnt like his policies. Its just an idea, the excact trait and bonusses/penalties will have to be balanced out by PI.

 

[mattyh1995]

Another one: an option to let the game name deployed divisions after division type. For example, if I design a "Recon Division", then when deployed, they're automatically named "1st Recon Division", "2nd Recon division", etc. rather than just "1st Infantry division". Would actually be nice if you could choose to have the game include the province where the division was built, too ("1st London Recon Division", for example"). Make it a couple checkboxes you can click when deploying units or something.

Would also be nice if I could give divisions custom map icons, too, so that if I create two or more types of armoured divisions, for example (such as, one that I just use for reconnaissance and one that I actually use for fighting) I can tell them apart at a glance on the map .

It could literally be a one line text box where you'd type X Armoured Division or whatever and from now on, all divisions of that type would have nice, uniform names. It's something I didn't even know I wanted.

 

[Dalwin]

It could literally be a one line text box where you'd type X Armoured Division or whatever and from now on, all divisions of that type would have nice, uniform names. It's something I didn't even know I wanted.

I think it requires a bit more than that if you have divisions of multiple templates that you want to share one set of numbers, i.e. if you want your motorized infantry to share the number sequence with your leg infantry.

 

[True Grit]

I think it requires a bit more than that if you have divisions of multiple templates that you want to share one set of numbers, i.e. if you want your motorized infantry to share the number sequence with your leg infantry.

Base it on which ever counter would be used to represent the division on the map - which works even if someone doesn't use counters. L, M and H armour all have their own counter. Mot inf and reg inf both have counters. Support brigades have counters. Allow a naming convention for each counter type. Make sure defaults are present so there's no missing entries and then it doesn't matter how your internal division makeup changes - if it's a medium armour counter then it get's the medium armour name. Obviously you don't have to play with counters enabled - those preferring sprites can use the naming too because the game knows exactly what counter would be used, even if that counter is never displayed.

 

[scroggin]

My tiny suggestion is to have separate pause and unpause buttons. I don't know how often I have been playing on high speed and tried to pause the game to carry out some important task, only to have some popup pause the game just as I click the button. End result, I unpause the game and miss carrying out the task that needed doing immediately.

 

[safe-keeper]

^^Yep. Especially annoying when a whole series of "pop-up and pause" boxes appear, so that you keep unpausing the game .

Another idea: have a desktop shortcut that starts the game and automatically loads the most recent save game.

 

[ThatStrategyGuy]

Have graphs of political parties laid out so that the left-wing parties are on the left side of the graph and the right-wing ones on the right, with centrists being in the centre (obviously)

 

[mattyh1995]

A second thing; please for the love of god allow us to filter the map to only show one type/template of division. That and the ability to search for individual units through the search box.

 

[Dalwin]

A second thing; please for the love of god allow us to filter the map to only show one type/template of division. That and the ability to search for individual units through the search box.

That would be nice. I never really thought about it, but I have wasted a lot of time due to not having such a thing.

 

[Richardson]

Training while at peace.

While Training Laws in HOI3 affect unit experience for new units, there is no way to prepare existing units for war (gain experience while at peace). I'm not suggesting that it should be cheap, or that the experience gained should be a whole lot. But if you can train new divisions with 25 points of experience, you should be able to train old divisions to the same experience level, right?

 

[safe-keeper]

Perhaps a system in which you spend resources to conduct training exercises, which would give units some experience and perhaps have other effects, such as lowering neutrality? Could be a political setting, perhaps, like the ones you set about how free your press is, how much training your troops receive, etc.?

 

[Tukachevsky]

Sorry if any of these duplicate other people's suggestions or design changes since TFH.

Production- Factories might produce specific equipment types which pool for units to draw from. Factories cannot retool without a time penalty. Tech develops new weapon types. Current relation of theory and practical is nice touch.

Production bonus from specific provinces is nice, nicer if implemented in an historical way eg Sweden resource I believe should be iron ore, not tungsten. Automotive bonus surely shouldn't be gained where no factories are in the province. etc etc.

Blockaded Nazi Europe
Critical Axis resources are manganese, food and oil. Blockaded Europe should not be sustainable indefinitely without conquest of Ukraine. Not sure how you'd implement a rule for this, maybe make supplies less abundant and increase discontent/revolt risk in occupied territories dependant on annual harvests.

Manganese I think warrants inclusion as a distinct resource on account of vulnerability of supply for the Axis. Once blockaded by British Navy, Axis sources manganese only from Russia. If at war with Russia and not in control of Nikopol, Axis industry was on a timer with a risk that all steel dependent industries would close down. Over, kaput! Loads of opportunities to game this if not implemented carefully.

Tech
Tech is a really nice idea but I for one would certainly like to see it implemented with more historical accuracy/plausibility. I get the idea historical reality is distorted to make a neat number of tech advances in each type. Sorry, this aspect doesn't work for me. I've, as yet, only played Axis, hence the fixation on examples of theirs.

If I got this right, Germany cannot create paratroops without researching the PaK 40 ATG. If that's true, you know that ain't right!
Unfortunately there are shedloads of strange designations and misleading pics.

Einstossflammenwerfer (1940 Assault Weapon tech) was a late war militia device of last resort, not an early war tech advance.
The Type IX uboat replaces the Type VII when they were produced concurrently as long and medium range varients respectively.
Model 1940 uboat hull is the Type XXI uboat? This appeared so late it never fired a torpedo in anger. Late war production difficulties resulted in very few finished units but if ironed out this was a very advanced design.

Type II uboat crews cannot upgrad. Please!

As above, if industry can produce and pool equipment, with a bit of crew numbers adjustments equipment swap outs would be really nice.
Zaunkonig is an accoustic torpedo. It comes with, I think, 1940 torpedo tech. Under Secret Weapons tech you find acoustic torpedo which is a 1945 tech and gives advances well beyond that of the Zaunkonig which was really a bit of a flop as a merchant sinker.
Again, torpedo types didn't really replace, so much as augment each other.

Likewise, aircraft development is strange. German interceptors are 109E as of 1941, with dual purpose planes 109Fs and Gs. The Fs and Gs are slower, I think, than the Es. Hmmm. Really, by 1941, there were a few 109Es of various types used as FBs as well as Bf110s which don't even seem to be in the game. Fs and later Gs primary purpose was as interceptors, I think.

Night fighters were a variety of twin engines planes for the most part, many converted bombers initially. haven't seen them yet as of 1941.

Allied Cooperation
Clearly, losing all restrictions on allied control would make for a very unrealistic scenario. However, operational control of units was often given to allies. To complement Expeditionary Force, which I've yet to see the AI offer, what about making the Operational Control of units purchasable with diplomatic points? Casualties suffered while under allied control might generate inter-allied tensions risking withdrawal of troops and perhaps in some cases, alliance rupture. That way, you get control of units but you'd better be careful with them if you want to stay friends

Units
I'm sure I'm not the only one to mention this, I'd love to see the game name units historically, not just division and regiment names but also designate regiments, battalions etc by their name, not brigades.

From this, I'm afraid the combined arms bonus is very gamey. All divisions were by definition combined arms but the brigade structure does not allow all the components of a division to be represented. Neither are there sufficient divisional slots to add all the historically organic support units. For the sake of simplicity, these might perhaps be understood as within the division's regiments/brigades. Local pools, perhaps by Theatre, of attachable/detachable support units would be very nice indeed.

Why are Trotskyite and Bukharinite tendencies in Russia listed as "counter revolutionaries"? History has definitively shown the Stalin faction to be just that. Have I lost my sense of humour?

Pop ups

This is a major butt pain. Pop ups are very necessary but they arrive in the middle of the screen where I tend to focus, very conventional, I know, sorry. This interrupts concentration and when accidentally clicked on as they, err, pop up, opening up another pop up box. Could we have an option to have them at the side or in a corner?

FOW
Un-fogging of war lasts too short. Last recce/intel should stand, maybe with age info in a tooltip.

 

[safe-keeper]

FOW
Un-fogging of war lasts too short. Last recce/intel should stand, maybe with age info in a tooltip.

Absolutely. Goes both for units and buildings. If I just fought an enemy division, I should be able to hover my mouse over it and see exactly what brigades it contains, etc.

 

[marcasino]

FOW
Un-fogging of war lasts too short. Last recce/intel should stand, maybe with age info in a tooltip.

I think this should be extended further. The Intel screen in HOI3 does contain some useful information, but this needs to be extended. There needs to be more information and include intelligence gained from all sources (e.g. SIGINT, HUMINT, Battle Reports...). Safe-keeper gave a good example. The more you fight a division/air unit/ship, the more information you should have about it.

I'd love it if there was a usable UI that allowed you to look through all the intelligence you have collected about a country. The date it was collected is also really important. The more recent the date, the more likely it is to be correct. It would also be really useful if there was some kind of indication how accurate the information is.

 

[Adjutant]

Reports, reports and more reports.

You appoint all these nice chaps to be minister for this and Commander of that. Well I bloody well want them to send me reports. I want to know exactly how many aircraft we've produced this week/month/quarter/year. I also want to be able to put that overlaid with aircraft loses. Same for all equipment. I want to know how many men we have called to the Colours at any one time, broken down by branch, Army, Corps, Div. We don't employ all those lovely staff officers to not produce mountains of paperwork. I want to see casualty rates for all formations; KIA, WIA and what the trickleback rate is for those casualties.

Where's my Home Secretary? I want to know about the bombing; how many raids, what damage was done, how long to repair?

Intelligence reports. Aggghhhh, intelligence reports. Oh those naughty secret things. I want loads of them. Tell me what enemy units we've identified. What is their estimated strength based on our extensive spying into their TOE and orbat. What about our spies....any news from any of them. I don't care if it's important or not, I just want to hear something.

Yeah, so reports. Nothing like simulated paperwork. That smell of A4....it smells like victory.

 

[SonGoku]

Please, implement a decision that implements a 3-shift-system for the factories/naval yards as a decision (increase output, increased dissent or lower national unity). For example a lot of the german industry was working with only one shift until late '42. Fritz Todt and later Albert Speer ordered the main arms manufactorers to implement a 3-shift-system to increase output and lower the costs/resource input. The main thought behind that was that Germany did not have the resource to expand the existing factories as planned, especially after the Allies began their strategical bombing campaign. The existing production base had to be enlarged by maximizing the output by longer work times and/or simplyfying production.

 

[klyver]

Hurray my first post, i think.

What i'd like to see, is to be able to take over stockpiles of equipment.
This happens at a) a countrys surrender and occupation b) when a unit is encircled and destroyed.

On a) the factories of the occipied country will still have the same production-lines, but will be inactive. You will not get the entire techtree of the enemy, but only what is already being built. When you then capture it, you can either keep building that foreign stuff, or you can switch it to your own. It should also give the ability to make variants fx. putting another gun, engine or more armour on it.
- historical evidence: Alfred Becker's conversion of captured french equipment outside of paris to equip the 21st Pz.Div in normandy amongst other things. Also the Panzer 38(t) that were taken when The Czech republic was taken.

On b) after a battle, where an enemy has been destroyed, some of the equipment will be retrieved. This is dependant on the furiosity of the combat. If the battle is over quickly ( lack of supplies, low morale etc) then a bigger part is recovered.
- historical evidence: Plenty, russian pockets during barbarossa, the african campaign, the dieppe raid and just to add spice, the Soviets used some german tanks, eventually some ended up being sold to syria.

Two possible extensions of this could be:
A) an enhancing trait, Improvisation skill, where a general would be able to get more supplies and equipment out of wiping out an enemy unit.

B) Being able to sell excess vehicles and equipment to allied and puppet states.

 

[Tukachevsky]

Whoopie-doo! I've just built my first German heavy armour "brigade" playing TFH, of VK 30.01s. The picture looks more like a Tiger I, but more importantly, the unit has a max speed of 5kph. Attached to an armour division, it will slow the unit down to little more than the speed of foot infantry.

Heavy tank units in general, and with many exceptions, were slow tactically, but were quite able to keep up with a motorised advance which went at much less than the max speed of the vehicles. The VK 30.01 prototypes had a speed of 25kph+ and I can see no reason that this, or any other heavy tank unit, should be so penalised.

 

[Greg Foster]

I'd like to see an extremely basic POW mechanism. Where any units that surrender their remaining strength is converted into a POW pool which is held by the nation capturing it.

There should probably be an attrition rate applied - something random, but less than 5% of the total force strength and then, upon a peace agreement, or annexation, the strength of soldiers in the of the POW Pool minus a small proportion to minic those not fit for duty on their return is returned to the Manpower Pool.

It just always bugged me that when a unit was encircled and destroyed, all of the manpower was destroyed along with it.

 

[Tukachevsky]

Can the Russians create Guards units via production? It seems so. Guards was a status, along with better ToOE, awarded to units that were repeatedly successful in combat. Shouldn't be able to pop them out the production tube.