Upgrade system

[Radu]

I'm curious to know how upgrades will be handled in HOI3.

It's clear that divisions, due to the "brigade building block" system, cannot have "models". But will Brigades themselves have models? Or will they merely be the sum of the techs researched that give them bonuses?

How will upgrade be treated if the Brigades themselves aren't organized by models, but are merely the sum of cummulating bonuses from various areas? Surely the upgrades won't be instantaneous, that would be a step backwards.

But then,how will the game engine keep track of each bit of bonus value? Since naturally an improvement in tanks will probably take longer and cost more to implement than a new range of infantry weapons? Perhaps the correct,system hog, way is to implement upgrade "bars" for the brigade, with each bar corresponding to the cost of an individual weapon category that can be researched and then fitted. Bars,which of course,could be made customizable, the player for example,deciding against new rifles favor of newer infantry AT weapons,or tanks, or self propelled artillery.

A combination of "on the field" upgrades for new equipment,and behind the lines reorg for org/morale(officer efficiency) would be needed.

It makes no sense to pull back a division that receives new equipment,but employs it as per to the old doctrine.

On the other hand,a new warfare paradigm automatically means changes in a division's structure,maybe right down to company/platoon level, so such a transition happening in the midst of battle can't be right either.Divisions would need to spend time to "reorganize" behind the lines to be effective in employing the new doctrine.

A safe bet would be create brigade "models" along the most visible of doctrinal lines and breakthroughs along the said lines instead of equipment lines, so that while new equipment helps a lot, decisive should always be *how* that equipment is employed.

 

[unmerged(103753)]

just dont let it happen where once you get an upgrade everything immediately gets it.

Ole Hans and Fritz are in their panzer 4 somewhere is Russia. A T34 comes along but doesn't see them. They fire and the round bounces off the sloped armor. They fire again. Another bounce. The T34 loader loads shell. Hans screams at Fritz to move the tank but the T34 fires. Suddenly, the Panzer 4 turns into a panther and another guy named Karl appears. The shot bounces off the panther and they fire but at the last molment the T34 turns into a IS-2. It fires but they turn into a King Tiger. They fire but it turns into a T55. It fires but they turn into a Lepoard 1. They fire but it becomes a T80. It fires and they turn into a Lepoard 2. 30 years later the German orbital tripod with its photon death ray and the Russian Electro Walker with its molecular plasma ray are still fighting each other...

 

[peo]

I don't understand some people's concerns.

Isn't it MORE historically flavoured to get..

A German Infantry Brigade with
- Mauser Karabiner Model 1898 (upgrading to 'Mauser Karabiner Kar 98k' (23%))
- Panzerfaust 30
- Maschinengewehr Modell 34 (upgrading to 'Maschinengewehr Modell 42' (2%))
etc

THAN

Infantry Division - Model 1941.

That answers some of the question.

 

[Lazy_Boy]

Oh wow that Johan quote is actually what it's going to be? That's awesome! Exactly the kind of thing I wanted. Never made any sense to upgrade anything to "model '41".

 

[unmerged(103753)]

the problems with the model system is that german infantry in 1947 are, with the exception of extreme experience, little better than CHINESE bod...infantry. i had a game where china managed to beat back the japs in a long ass war that ended in 1946. wasnt fun crawling over chinese bod...fighting in china for 2.5 years and wasting 10 nukes.

 

[peo]

Oh wow that Johan quote is actually what it's going to be? That's awesome! Exactly the kind of thing I wanted. Never made any sense to upgrade anything to "model '41".

Johan=head dev and head programmer. Basically his word is the best you can get when it comes to the games.

 

[peo]

the problems with the model system is that german infantry in 1947 are, with the exception of extreme experience, little better than CHINESE bod...infantry. i had a game where china managed to beat back the japs in a long ass war that ended in 1946. wasnt fun crawling over chinese bod...fighting in china for 2.5 years and wasting 10 nukes.

So?
Why whould chinese infantry with the same techlevel be worse than german?

 

[Lazy_Boy]

So?
Why whould chinese infantry with the same techlevel be worse than german?

It should be near impossible for the chinese to reach anywhere near the tech level of the Germans in this game's timeframe. Especially for an AI that's supposed to be somewhat historic. I just hope HOI3 differentiates more from army power and size. China had millions of men fighting but they weren't equipped or organized for shit.

Realistic IC numbers (meaning China much lower) along with being able to produce hordes of cheap terrible infantry if you have the manpower would balance it out imo.

 

[peo]

It should be near impossible for the chinese to reach anywhere near the tech level of the Germans in this game's timeframe. Especially for an AI that's supposed to be somewhat historic. I just hope HOI3 differentiates more from army power and size. China had millions of men fighting but they weren't equipped or organized for shit.

Realistic IC numbers (meaning China much lower) along with being able to produce hordes of cheap terrible infantry if you have the manpower would balance it out imo.

The difficulty of reaching the same techlevel is a different matter to the quality of the troops themselves.

Also, some countries need to have non realistic IC numbers to make the game fun and more playable. China, Japan and Italy being the prime subjects for it.

 

[Radu]

That answers some of the question.

Well that is very good to hear (btw, what thread was that post from?), but that still leaves Org and such in question. New doctrines shouldn't just instantly boost up units across the board. Even if there is no cost IC-wise and the unit isn't pulled from the frontlines to reorg (but it would be nice to have those), there should still be a "trickledown delay" reflecting the time needed for the lower commands to assimilate the new doctrine.

 

[Radu]

Also, some countries need to have non realistic IC numbers to make the game fun and more playable. China, Japan and Italy being the prime subjects for it.

If you want "more fun and playable", you are welcome to play Red Alert 3.That should be arcadish and "fun" enough,don't you think? If realism isn't your cup of tea,but rather Japan invading Leningrad, with mechas no less, Red Alert 3 has plenty of those.

I sincerely hope Paradox won't sugarcoat reality. Some countries had what it takes,some didn't, too bad.

 

[peo]

If you want "more fun and playable", you are welcome to play Red Alert 3.That should be arcadish and "fun" enough,don't you think? If realism isn't your cup of tea,but rather Japan invading Leningrad, with mechas no less, Red Alert 3 has plenty of those.

I sincerely hope Paradox won't sugarcoat reality. Some countries had what it takes,some didn't, too bad.

I have a feeling I've played Paradox games a bit longer than you and know a bit more about their general approach. Belive what you want.
Playability and fun is the most important factors in a game. If you can't play as for example Japan and get the historical carrier fleets since the IC has been reduced to the "historical" level then the game won't be fun for most as most want the game to be able to play out reasonably historical which means some games might have to be slightly "overpowered" in industry and some the opposite. Absolute reality is for mods.

 

[Radu]

Well if Japan can't get historical carrier fleets with historical,realistic IC,then the game is wrongly designed perhaps even researched don't you think? Cost-IC balanced wrong,values wrong,all that. That's not "fun",that's poor research and development.

Japan should be able to build historical fleets with historical resources at hand and historical allocation of the said resources.Simple.If the abstraction has faults,it is the fault of the dev team, not some kooky "balance" thingy. They didn't over/underpower anything.They mucked things up. It's not my fault crooked unit values grew on you and have given you a false sense of "reality" leading you to fear any change.

Vanilla HOI1 and HOI2 have unrealistic values,while mods like CORE2,TRP or even MEM have admirably done what they could to address the issues of a game that is,I'm sorry,unfinished. Deal with it. The vanillas are caricatures at best,with artificial "balance" crutches being used to (unsuccessfully) prop up an abstraction of reality that needed more damn work. The flaws are glaring in multiplayer,where wrong game design shines through when the mountains of unrealistic AI "goodies" (omiscience,infinite range,full research speed when having zero money,etc) are vaporized and it is clear the balance between nations does not reflect reality, but merely a shallow representation of it.

You've got a lot of nerve to look down on these mods mister "arcade" player, since they did Paradox's work for free! Realistic unit values,build times,battle lengths,casualties, all for free. What did we have in vanilla? Full-sized fleet CVs built in less than 2 years? Where did Paradox do their research from? Fox News?

If CVs are built in less than 2 years,Paradox might as well add Tesla Coils,since that's the way vanillas are heading. To say nothing of all the other issues the vanillas had and that the mods fixed.

I'm sure that being used to CVs build in a fraction of the time they actually needed, real-life must be scary. Too bad. HOI3 isn't a kiddy game anyway. It is a niche game and it shouldn't even attempt to please all the snotty,insecure 14 year-olds dreaming of Battleships for Buthan.

 

[peo]

Well if Japan can't get historical carrier fleets with historical,realistic IC,then the game is wrongly designed perhaps even researched don't you think? Cost-IC balanced wrong,values wrong,all that. That's not "fun",that's poor research and development.

Japan should be able to build historical fleets with historical resources at hand and historical allocation of the said resources.Simple.If the abstraction has faults,it is the fault of the dev team, not some kooky "balance" thingy.

No.
Things need to be abstracted to work and make the game playable. This means simplification and will always be at the expense of "realism".
A game works by balance not by perfect realism in all aspects of it. Or you would have a game where the only thing that matters is to not get the US or Soviets involved.
For example you balance Japan towards China to get a reasonable historicity in the outcome.

 

[Radu]

No.
Things need to be abstracted to work and make the game playable. This means simplification and will always be at the expense of "realism".
A game works by balance not by perfect realism in all aspects of it. Or you would have a game where the only thing that matters is to not get the US or Soviets involved.
For example you balance Japan towards China to get a reasonable historicity in the outcome.

Dude,the game has a "scale". That means some things from real-life are relevant.Some not.

You're saying that if Japan and China would be represented with all the relevant factors crunched in, they would still be unbalanced? :rofl:

You miss the fact that the HOI(1,2) engines do not represent all the relevant factors. You behave as if the game engines are the absolute peak of achievement. Wrong. Factors were left out,so you have the "balance" tweaks taking their place, hence why the wheels come off by 1940 (Japan swallows China invariably).

 

[Darth Tracid]

Dude,the game has a "scale". That means some things from real-life are relevant.Some not.

You're saying that if Japan and China would be represented with all the relevant factors crunched in, they would still be unbalanced? :rofl:

You miss the fact that the HOI(1,2) engines do not represent all the relevant factors. You behave as if the game engines are the absolute peak of achievement. Wrong. Factors were left out,so you have the "balance" tweaks taking their place, hence why the wheels come off by 1940 (Japan swallows China invariably).

dangerous territory my friend...read the rules and stop the borderline insults. NOW.

 

[Manziel]

If CVs are built in less than 2 years,Paradox might as well add Tesla Coils,since that's the way vanillas are heading.

Well, lets have a look at the USS Essex:
Ordered: 3 July 1940
Laid down: 28 April 1941
Launched: 31 July 1942
Commissioned: 31 December 1942
Looks like less than 2 years for me.

Well if Japan can't get historical carrier fleets with historical,realistic IC,then the game is wrongly designed perhaps even researched don't you think? Cost-IC balanced wrong,values wrong,all that. That's not "fun",that's poor research and development.

I am sure Paradox will appreciate your letter of application...

 

[Baneslave]

A over used and cliched response, but I think it fits the spot: If you want realistic and historic media thingy buy a history book.

 

[Radu]

Well, lets have a look at the USS Essex:
Ordered: 3 July 1940
Laid down: 28 April 1941
Launched: 31 July 1942
Commissioned: 31 December 1942
Looks like less than 2 years for me.


I am sure Paradox will appreciate your letter of application...

Yeah,so?

USS Wasp :
Laid down : 1936
Launched : 1939
Commissioned : 1940

USS Enterprise :
Laid down : 1934
Launched : 1936
Commissioned : 1938

USS Yorktown :
Laid down : 1934
Launched : 1936
Commissioned : 1937

Things aren't as simple as that and you've presented a "straw man". Especially since you disregard the fact that the commission is on December 1942.Do you honestly believe that the time between a carrier being launched and commissioned proper can be ignored? Are you aware that the sea trials of any ship, especially carriers,are absolutely necessary?

But I'll humor you,let's crunch some vanilla numbers.

So,we have the USS Essex ready for kicking butt in 911 days between 3 July 1940 and 31 December 1942. To calculate the interval I have used this :

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html

An Essex class is represented in HOI2 as an improved carrier, model 1940.

Without any modifiers Model 1940 is built in 730. So that's 180 days shaved off the build time.

For the HOI2 Essex to reach 911 days of build time an increase of almost 25% in the build time would be needed. There is no combination of modifiers in vanilla HOI2 campaign that gives a +25% malus to production time. The worst that can happen is a Corporate Suit(+5), the sliders and ministers do not give maluses to build times,they just don't give bonuses.

In fact,the only models that come close to a realistic build time with factoring in Slider/Minister bonuses included, are the '44,'45 models but by then the fun is already over most of the time.

The worst offender is of course,Japan, with its Hawk Lobby Bonus (-20%) and Stern Imperialist (-10%). That's a very large 30% reduction. A Japanese Essex would be built in 511, less than 1 year and a half!! which is preposterous. Not even the USA achieved this kind of rhythm for its fleet carriers. It shouldn't ever be possible under any circumstance.

Paradox might have just as well named it "floating dingy model 1940" or "Red Alert 2 Carrier" because it has just as much in common to a proper carrier.

@Baneslave : Has it occurred to you I might want to explore what-ifs? You know...the kind of which SSI's Panzer General or Steel Panthers or even the Operational Art series allowed,all within the bounds of reality. Funny how those series achieved cult status and won countless awards and received superb reviews without catering to the Gears of War and Command and Conquer masses. Paradox would do well to emulate them.

 

[bz249]

Yeah,so?

So,we have the USS Essex ready for kicking butt in 911 days between 3 July 1940 and 31 December 1942. To calculate the interval I have used this :

Do you realize what the word ordered means? The game is abstract in the sense that you can construct ships without the senate knifefight.

Or are you seriously want to intorduce the democratic process into the game? So you want to build a carrier, but the game decides to build a tank division instead.