Unrealistic Parallel Production

[WWIINERD]

Does it bother anyone else that HOI2 allows unrealistic levels of parallel production? If you have enough ICs, you can raise up a huge number of units simultaneously in a very short order. This does not account for leadership and logistical constraints. I don’t think that the bonuses for serial production in HOI2 modeled these realities adequately. IMO, there needs to be significant and exponentially increased production penalties on huge numbers of units produced simultaneously. There might even be organization penalties assigned to the units that are produced under these circumstances. PI might even consider limiting the number of production slots to a realistic number based upon ICs. Does anyone know if/how this is being addressed in HOI3?

 

[Alex_brunius]

I belive their plan is to use pratical values to counteract this.

Building only one thing will see all your other pratical values drop instead of a more spread out approach. If there is a cap on how much practical value you can get alot of it will be wasted after the first few parallel runs using all IC. It will be more economical to spread out production in all fields you need more equipment at once instead of waiting until pratical value reach 0 and produce one division type at a time.

But I agree that this might not be enough and we need more.

IDEA: Practical values could also limit how many parallel runs you can have running. So when you don't know much about a field you are forced to start out small.

 

[TheLand]

I doubt it.

For the player, planning 5 years worth of industrial output ahead of time to take into account all the prospective bottlenecks, the amount of specialist plant, capacitiy of military training schools, etc - that's all really tedious.

The Ideal World War II Simluation Game would probably have a 'realistic' industrial/training model where the historical limits on capacity apply. HOI3 won't be that game. It will have a convenient, flexible IC system, as the previous 2 games have had, with the added fun of the Practical value.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

What I didnt like in HoI2 was the IC buildup pre war - it was an exploit IMO. Building fast large industry is not realistic and thats where they should mazke changes.

 

[Devout]

This does not account for leadership and logistical constraints.

Leadership constraint is in. If a country doubles its divisions within a short time period, the officer value would drop from 100% to 50%. So the country would need to plan ahead and develop officers to match production rates, or live with units functioning at sub-par levels.

 

[Justindrocco]

Another solution would be to exercise constrait and to not exploit ahistorical game features. Personal, in late game I lose intrest in historical accuracy and like to rapidly field a massive mechanized force to paint the world gray or red or yellow or blue or .... and to just be done with.

 

[unmerged(34050)]

I doubt it.

For the player, planning 5 years worth of industrial output ahead of time to take into account all the prospective bottlenecks, the amount of specialist plant, capacitiy of military training schools, etc - that's all really tedious.

The Ideal World War II Simluation Game would probably have a 'realistic' industrial/training model where the historical limits on capacity apply. HOI3 won't be that game. It will have a convenient, flexible IC system, as the previous 2 games have had, with the added fun of the Practical value.

Agreed. There might be 10% of the players who would love to balance dockyard/slipway capacity v. tank production v. how many tons of steel are produced/monthly, but can't expect the game to be made like that (much as I might like giving that model a spin!).

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Agreed. I hated the fact that any nation could suddenly build 25 carriers at once assuming they had the IC.

Now, with that said although HOI3 is reportedly going to take into account some quasi-covers everything value...'leadership' or whatever this still isnt good enough.

A country might have the leadership know-how and perhaps even resources to build 25 carriers at once but if they havent got the dockyards to build it then they should be able to. Period. With land & air units this isnt such a problem but for naval units, it is essential.

Also Id like to see some realistic AI caps on building. If the UK (or whoever) is at peace, they should not have 30 carriers by the end of the game...hell, they shouldnt really have 30 carriers anyway but you get my point. Obscenly large forces in peacetime was obviously not an option and should be treated as such in game. Once a certain plateau is reached, the AI should cut off building... Building stuff when you clearly dont need it is waste, and no state would justufy the expense.

 

[TheLand]

A country might have the leadership know-how and perhaps even resources to build 25 carriers at once but if they havent got the dockyards to build it then they should be able to. Period. With land & air units this isnt such a problem but for naval units, it is essential.

Big problem for air units, too: don't forget that of the RAF 1000-bomber raid, only 600 were RAF service units, and 200 were advanced training squadrons. Ie 25% of the RAF's front-line bombers were in use for training purposes. That's a big investment in training!

However: this kind of sophistication is beyond teh scope of HOI games.

 

[Alsadius]

Does it bother anyone else that HOI2 allows unrealistic levels of parallel production? If you have enough ICs, you can raise up a huge number of units simultaneously in a very short order. This does not account for leadership and logistical constraints. I don’t think that the bonuses for serial production in HOI2 modeled these realities adequately. IMO, there needs to be significant and exponentially increased production penalties on huge numbers of units produced simultaneously. There might even be organization penalties assigned to the units that are produced under these circumstances. PI might even consider limiting the number of production slots to a realistic number based upon ICs. Does anyone know if/how this is being addressed in HOI3?

I don't know if it's optimal strategy per se, but in HoI2, I always made 99-length runs of everything and balanced my production that way, so the US might be producing 9 runs of INF, 3 of ARM, 3 of MOT, 1 BB, 2 CV, 2 CA, 2 CL, 4 DD, 2 TAC, 2 FTR, 1 STR, plus some junk like convoys and transports and stuff. Gearing bonuses always seemed the best way to get the most production out of my economy, and they give me a safely balanced military. It's also way less gamey.

 

[WWIINERD]

Yeah, I didn’t catch how they were applying the Practical Values to production. I was just seeing how they are applying it to technology development. I think that between this and the leadership allocation constraints, they probably have this pretty well covered. I don’t think that adding some backend limits will necessarily make the game too complex – just more realistic.

I have to admit to being one of the 10% who would like to see production tied to specific ICs. I would like to see in HOI4 (I am sure that the Devs hate hearing this kind of stuff) that they require association between ICs of a province and a specific type of production. This would add an important element to the game: targeting of bombing runs and special operations at specific provinces. These are strategic operations. This would also add a level of interesting uses for espionage. The strength of this game series is that they are always finding ways to model things more realistically while maintaining fun game play. I think this could be done well and it would add a lot. I am not complaining. HOI3 is going to awesome!

 

[Bullfrog]

Shipbuilding capacity could (while not totally realistic) be simulated by extreme capital ship practicality penalties. So if you have not built many big ships, you cannot just spam capitals when your IC is free from other uses without severe cost penalty (which would reduce the number of spammed ships).

 

[unmerged(41034)]

I think this could be solved by adding another element to the map, Shipyards factories with certain types of rally points for the infantry.... IE major rail hubs etc. Units should have to SR or march up to the frontlines not be dropped in as an act of god

 

[HMS Enterprize]

I think this could be solved by adding another element to the map, Shipyards factories with certain types of rally points for the infantry.... IE major rail hubs etc. Units should have to SR or march up to the frontlines not be dropped in as an act of god

Agreed. Sometimes the HOI series can be a little too abstracted.

 

[ozidnz]

In HoI3 there will be no gearing bonus. Practical values will replace them. Parallel production will only reduce micromanagement now.

 

[reignerok]

What we need it's some kind of population. Not the complex system of Victoria, but a simpler one. So if you have a lot of industries with a lot of workers, you can't take them for war without reduce your IC. Or you can choose (like in real life) to put women in the industries and men in war.

But I think this couldn't be implemented in this HoI because of its actual development.

 

[unmerged(41649)]

What HOI3 really needs, or lacks, is a socio-economic model of any kind with even marginal depth and accuracy. The military model is good of course since it takes center stage, but everything peripheral to it feel like just that, peripheral.

 

[unmerged(52507)]

What HOI3 really needs, or lacks, is a socio-economic model of any kind with even marginal depth and accuracy. The military model is good of course since it takes center stage, but everything peripheral to it feel like just that, peripheral.

I think they are worried that if they make any economic steps it will be the thin end of the wedge.

 

[King]

What HOI3 really needs, or lacks, is a socio-economic model of any kind with even marginal depth and accuracy. The military model is good of course since it takes center stage, but everything peripheral to it feel like just that, peripheral.

Correct, HoI3 is first and formost a war game.

 

[Lazy_Boy]

Correct, HoI3 is first and formost a war game.

True. And it should be in terms of that being where most attention and balance is placed. You all are doing a great job with it and I thank you. But you guys really need to add a lot more depth and realism to the long term economic and military production planning. Imo that's the most enjoyable part of HOI2. People didn't like the battle scenarios much for a reason you know.