Why did Paradox choose Provinces over a free/open map

[unmerged(252844)]

Bt free/open map I mean the map does not have provinces.

With a open map there would be a lot more tactical options. Things such as combat width and having reserves incase of enemy breakthrough would be essntial.

A question raised would be how would forts be built. A possibility could put a cost per km of forts.

I'll admit I havn't really put much thought into this but I quite like the idea of a open map like in the total war series.

What are your thoughts?

 

[DoomBunny]

Becuase it would be less realistic and the AI would never handle it? Province borders simulate frontlines well, free map would work better for a Napoleonic or such game, were frontlines werent so solid.

 

[zombie]

It could be done, but that would not only mean a new engine, but a new engine design. I know next to nothing about programming, but I would imagine that such an engine would be hellacious to assemble. And keep in mind that the Total War maps do have provinces. Each square of land you move into is a representation of a 3D map that you zoom to in combat.

 

[GUNNM]

I'll admit I havn't really put much thought into this but I quite like the idea of a open map like in the total war series.

What are your thoughts?

The Total war series may feel like it have an open map, while in fact it is a grid. A well hidden grid, but still a grid. Enabling an army to move more than one step every turn helps conceal this. But look closely and you'll see it.

(Haven't played the latest Shogun 2 though. But Rome, Medieval 2 and Empires all had the grid)

 

[unmerged(219522)]

Maybe in HOI4/5

(although, if the engine could one day handle it, [ie. a fine mesh grid layout rather than provinces, so it feels "free", and then you could draw on where to build fortifications and such] then it would become the pinnacle of strategy gaming due to the greater flexibility and realism involved, even adding a potentially tactical touch)

 

[Slyguy3129]

I'm not really sure what you mean by a "free" map. All the games I've ever played have some sort of boundaries, to designate area of control to force units into combat. The only game I can think of that tried a truly open map was "SuperPower 1/2" and it just didn't work very well.

Gunnm is right, TW has provinces just like HOI they just represent them differently. Some games use hexs as "provinces" ie Civil War Generals 2, Gary G's War in the Pacific AE, and games like that.

Speaking of the TW series how is it doing? I haven't paid any attention to it since I got ripped off by ETW. They made a Shogun 2? If I remember correctly people had been crying for that for years, could it be that SEGA/CA is turning over a new leaf and actually listening to TW fans? If so, I might, might just have to force myself back. How is the AI or is it still as dumb as ever? Don't mention MP don't care for it. Sorry to derail.

 

[marginoferror]

Maybe in HOI4/5

(although, if the engine could one day handle it, [ie. a fine mesh grid layout rather than provinces, so it feels "free", and then you could draw on where to build fortifications and such] then it would become the pinnacle of strategy gaming due to the greater flexibility and realism involved, even adding a potentially tactical touch)

I like the province approach. Divisions of 9-12k men with WWII artillery and machine gun technology can't fight in the same place at the same time; they're spread out over a front. Province borders generally represent this adequately, as long as the provinces are fine-grained enough, which I think in HOI3 they are. No provinces means more trouble for the programmers and researchers re: terrain, population, industry, infrastructure... And the more fine-grained the movement, the harder it is for the already overtaxed AI to handle. HOI-style games cover the entire world, so there's already a lot to do at the level of abstraction in the game (moreso in HOI3 with brigade-sized units), so making it even more fine-grained wouldn't add anything and might subtract a lot. Certainly, I consider HOI3 and its brethren far more "realistic" than the Total War series, and it's in part because of the provinces as vs. the "free" but overly simplified map movement.

 

[DoomBunny]

Realism and engine capability requirements aside, its still a bad idea. Can you imagine the AI creating a proper frontline on a TW style map, it would be a nightmare to code would probably take a lot of resources, and I doubt it would work anyway.

Speaking of the TW series how is it doing? I haven't paid any attention to it since I got ripped off by ETW. They made a Shogun 2? If I remember correctly people had been crying for that for years, could it be that SEGA/CA is turning over a new leaf and actually listening to TW fans? If so, I might, might just have to force myself back. How is the AI or is it still as dumb as ever? Don't mention MP don't care for it. Sorry to derail.

Not really, its VERY arcadey, units move at light speed and get tired after fighting for 5 seconds, combat ends so fast battles take only about 5-10 mins start to finish. Its still horribly innacurate historically and archers are the be all end all, they all have laser guided instant kill doom bows. AI is better at least, but its still pretty bad, only improvement is it now has the tactical capability of a 10 year old, essentially if outnumbered defend, if outnumbering attack, it still charges pointy sticks with cav and the like.

 

[unmerged(219522)]

I like the province approach. Divisions of 9-12k men with WWII artillery and machine gun technology can't fight in the same place at the same time; they're spread out over a front. Province borders generally represent this adequately, as long as the provinces are fine-grained enough, which I think in HOI3 they are. No provinces means more trouble for the programmers and researchers re: terrain, population, industry, infrastructure... And the more fine-grained the movement, the harder it is for the already overtaxed AI to handle. HOI-style games cover the entire world, so there's already a lot to do at the level of abstraction in the game (moreso in HOI3 with brigade-sized units), so making it even more fine-grained wouldn't add anything and might subtract a lot. Certainly, I consider HOI3 and its brethren far more "realistic" than the Total War series, and it's in part because of the provinces as vs. the "free" but overly simplified map movement.

Yes, and that is why it would be important to only do it when technology has advanced even further to actually add more to the game rather than subtract it (especially in terms of AI progressing to a point where it would be able to cope). My guess is though that in HOI4 there will probably just be even more provinces to keep working on the detail

Not really, its VERY arcadey, units move at light speed and get tired after fighting for 5 seconds, combat ends so fast battles take only about 5-10 mins start to finish. Its still horribly innacurate historically and archers are the be all end all, they all have laser guided instant kill doom bows. AI is better at least, but its still pretty bad, only improvement is it now has the tactical capability of a 10 year old, essentially if outnumbered defend, if outnumbering attack, it still charges pointy sticks with cav and the like.

Agreed with vanilla, although a lot of these problems are addressed in mods. However, my problem with Shogun 2 is that it lacks the same replayability factor from previous games, with each faction playing exactly the same. For example, I have around 700 hours game play on NTW, yet only 50 so far on S2 and already feeling bored with it...Still, it's a very polished good game and well worth the £20 it's now up for.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

I'd love to see for HoI4 or 5 a pseudo province system combined with a Panther Games Command Op's style battle system.

 

[Chromos]

The AI could do it like it could do it back then in the 90'ies with War in Russia..
But now in semi-real-time as in HOI.

Seeing no grid/provinces doesn't mean there is no grid..
The AI would have to calculate fronts(enemy pathing etc.) in both ways.

Provinceless would be maybe use a bit finer grid today.
And you would more rely on the terrain like in reality for combat..

But this approach would need a rework and it is doubtful that the devs, who seem to like the actual system, will change the approach in the future.

Kind regards,
Chromos

 

[a4rino]

I assume that by "free" map, you mean that the map is still divided up into provinces for geographical borders and for tax collection/administrative purposes and that provinces are basically drawn around certain cities, but that the armies are free to move about within provinces as they wish (similar to the TW games).

I don't like this system. It makes the construction of forts almost completely useless (except in exceedingly rare cases usually involving narrow mountain passes) because enemy armies can easily navigate around them. Setting up a front line like what you see in HoI games would be impossible at worst and exceedingly tedious at best. Perhaps the system would be doable in an EU time setting, when large campaign armies plundered about more selectively, but I still wouldn't want to see it done.

Most importantly, it favors reactive play, rather than anticipatory play. Under such a system (again based on my experience with the older TW games like Rome/Medieval 2), it is generally easier and more effective to wait for an enemy to come into view and try to attack your own holdings so that you do not waste your own movement points looking for him.

I really like what Paradox has done with the scope of provinces from HoI 2 to HoI 3. Smaller provinces has opened up numerous tactical opportunities. But if they got any smaller I feel like it would just get annoying to have to micromanage so many tiny movements.

 

[Premu]

Well, if you want really free movement, you basically need a real time strategy game.

I doubt that the AI could handle this on the HOI-level. Hey, I even doubt that I could handle this. In RTS, I can basically concentrate only on one fight. Sometimes it happend that I was fighting a battle while someone sneeked into my base butchering my people and I didn't even recognize this...

For HOI, the province system is absolut necessary.

 

[unmerged(252844)]

@ Doombunny - Less realistic, how? Give reasons. I don't think it would be less realistic in fact quite the opposite. More realism in reserves and felixibility in maneuvering troops.

Yes would need a new engine and this could be for the next HOI in the series. Games are always advancing and this could be the next big step in gaming.

@a4rino - You have misunderstood what I meant. By no provinces I mean no provinces whatsoever. No Provinces around cities, city on the map just shows as urban terrain.


Where the problem lies is stuff like ifrastructre and population (as marginoferror pointed out).


Guess the idea may not be quite practical but would be fun if this could somehow be implemented.

Thanks for all opinions.

 

[mkupac]

actually, i believe the system used in the supreme ruler SEEMS better, without counting forts and the like, but i felt that my multi-tasking is not to that level, specially with the other hoi features

 

[marginoferror]

Yes, and that is why it would be important to only do it when technology has advanced even further to actually add more to the game rather than subtract it (especially in terms of AI progressing to a point where it would be able to cope). My guess is though that in HOI4 there will probably just be even more provinces to keep working on the detail

I don't think it is really a matter of "technology" - at the end of the day, the programmers have to make their ideas explicit and clear and the researchers have to paint the canvas to the level of detail demanded by the engine, and technology in the foreseeable future will not change that. I think you're underestimating the degree to which the province abstraction smooths over rough edges in the engine, and the degree of detail that a provinceless engine would need to be more realistic.

 

[DrinkingHeavily]

What's the purpose of this so-called "provinceless" system? This is not the first thread on this topic, but nobody's actually clarified the intent/rationale behind the "provinceless" idea.

I submit that when anyone considers what this concept is actually asking for (divisions to run around wherever they "want," etc) you will see that the current method of many small provinces.. does, in fact, perform the same function as "no provinces."

What benefit is to be gained by adding that much coding into a strategy game.. that is not already in hoi3?

 

[Cpt Crash]

Nearly all practical map, of the globe, nations or even city maps have boundaries or a grid system-it is part of a system that makes it usable. Military maps are grids, then grids within grids. Games moved to Sextagons (or hexagons) for practical purposes of not needing to make a right turn to move into an otherwise adjacent territory. IRL navigation there is no such need as in games. The PI province system is the same as 6 sided hexes to a large degree-just much more fancily drawn.

I am sure it is possible to create a battle game without hexes, or boundaries of any sort-even devoid of terrain. What I think is impossible is to create territorial/geographical units of different values without having boundaries of some sort. Take your pick-square or whatever-they need to be there. If those are there, you might as well be able to see those-IMO.

 

[T.j. Arnold]

Simplest answer:
It's a wargame, therefore it must use "hexes"! (albeit a wargame on steroids, but still...)

 

[Kojote]

What are your thoughts?

My thought is that I like the current system.
In HoI you play General sitting in his command post and planing moves.
You have real time control over your units in a way even a modern General only could dream of. But the system is basically the same.
And on all military map material you will find provinces and areas besides the terrain.
Of course the terrain is paramount in planning advances. But to establish control you have to understand which way the conquered land is organized.
If an army seizes control over a large city and it's outskirts it doesn't march through in a line and take everything. It charges for key positions and may try to surround the area. And after killing of every significant resistance the area may be secured (not talking about partisans at this point) even if not every single house has been searched.
Every province on the HoI-map represents such a bunch of key positions to get control over a certain area.
Maybe the people who live in that area wouldn't agree with the boundaries, but that's a level of abstraction I can live with, for I don't expect the game designers to understand how the boundaries are set in every single country around the world.

Of course: An enemy could take more than half of the area a certain province contains. But as long as the defender holds the one small city with the crucial radio equipment or the airport or the naval base they are in fact in control of the province.

The system of HoI is some kind of grid everyone will be relatively familiar with and it makes much more sense than a squared map grid without any reference for the actual boundaries of everything. And it adds to the feeling - the immersion.
Every native to one of the majors can identify the provinces easily. And he understands what he controls.

In fact: I like it this way and would hate it if this got changed.