Well I'm excited now

[fredgiblet]

Relatively new to Paradox games and I've been powerloading all 4 series lately, HoI is my fave. I just went through all the dev blogs and it's like a list of the things that I would have changed with basically the same solutions that I wanted. Super hyped now.

The only thing that wasn't discussed and that I can't find info for (with a single Google search because I'm lazy) is the battle planner. Is it still meaningless like in 3 or is it finally useful so I don't have to micromanage to get effective non-attrition campaigns?

 

[Vidkjaer]

We have not had a Dev Dairy on the Battleplanner yet. Take a look at the WWW videos on YouTube at the ParadoxExtra channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoGGaYP3n6PMGl_NGXkP2hg

Here the BattlePlanner is being used. However to a very basic extent. BattlePlans can be much more detailed. It is a big discussion wheter it is for the good or not in this forum. I am for it and cant wait to use it properly.
In the WWW videos Daniel (and earlier Jacob) is using the BP very simple and in my opinion very badly (but again - the purpose of the videos are just to show the game).

 

[fredgiblet]

Thanks! Even a basic planner would be wonderful. If it can be detailed then it would be AMAZING.

 

[Vidkjaer]

It is my understanding that you can have multiple fronts and "attack paths" per general. These attack paths can be sliced into 1st, 2nd, 3rd phase and so on. You can assign which divisions belong to what "attack path".
You can always manually order a division do something else and it will then go back to your plan once your manual order is finished. So you can still micromanaging to the extent that you want without loosing the BP bonus.

 

[fredgiblet]

Very nice.

 

[CaptainCC]

Thanks for asking and also answering that. I wanted to know that also.

 

[Sharp163]

We have yet to see a DD on the battle planner, or on Nuclear Weapons, both of which I am very excited for

 

[fredgiblet]

I haven't gotten nukes in 3 yet due to the very high requirements, and the fact that I haven't even reached 1944 yet in any of my games.

 

[Sweed Raver]

In the WWW videos Daniel (and earlier Jacob) is using the BP very simple and in my opinion very badly (but again - the purpose of the videos are just to show the game).

I think it mostly depends on what aspects you want to put your time into when playing the game. If you like micromanaging your troops, then what they are doing is probably more efficient combat-wise. However, that leaves little time to make complex plans, manage diplomacy, national focuses, resources etc, unless you're pausing (they were very rarely pausing), so there's also a drawback.

 

[fredgiblet]

Or you might also like the challenge of doing it WITHOUT pausing. Most likely though they're just trying to throw everything at the game as see what breaks while still demonstrating how it works to a basic degree for the camera.

 

[BBBD316]

Well I really enjoy building the economy, diplomatic relations and the overall picture. I am not great at the actual war bit, so the planner allows me to work on a big picture scale and then if I have set things up right I win!

I did use AI control in HOI3 and did well, so I will look forward to being able to have motor/panzer division in a separate force and concentrate those on encirclement.

 

[fredgiblet]

I like running the economy, R&D and production. I'm actually decent at running the wars, but I just don't want to deal with the level of micromanagement required for a major war. Like I had to manually run the Winter War for the Soviets, because the AI decided that it couldn't win and just sat there. Once I handled the breakthrough I set it to automatic again and it kinda stopped again. Finally I took over a couple of units to lap the VPs and get the W.

But something like Barbarossa? Not a chance, if it was turn based maybe, but trying to keep track of all that stuff even in slow real time is just more fiddling than I want to do.

 

[griffor]

I think it mostly depends on what aspects you want to put your time into when playing the game. If you like micromanaging your troops, then what they are doing is probably more efficient combat-wise. However, that leaves little time to make complex plans, manage diplomacy, national focuses, resources etc, unless you're pausing (they were very rarely pausing), so there's also a drawback.

well they also play speed 2 while if you play single player you can pause whenever you want and in multiplayer most people fight wars on speed 1 in every game