Your top five issues?

[unmerged(148761)]

Here is the biggest issue for me.

1) Surrenders: In one game USSR surrenders to Germany (bitter peace) and declares war the next day, getting all its troops trapped in what is now German territory. Also, Germany occupies UK and UK surrenders . . . to Japan. The game needs to figure out who to surrender to and how to divide up territory between allies in a reasonable way.

 

[unmerged(106255)]

1) US AI does not try to take or hold anything in the pacific.

2) Aircraft forgetting their intercept orders.

3) German/Russian balance. They should be at war for ~4 years before one of them collapses. Same for China/Japan.

4) Carrier escort ships need to keep their distance from the enemy and stay with the carrier .

5) Reserve system is messed up. Make reserve divisions cost more so they can't be spammed, or eliminate the 'feature' entirely.

 

[unmerged(172016)]

1. Supply
- as many ppl say, allow supply's to go trough ports even if u have land connection to capital, it is unreasonable to think someone will drive supply’s trough middle of Africa when he have 10 ports on coast
- supply dumps, here is example why we need it:
GER against USSR in 1st year i take large part of USSR, for next year planning major strategic offensive on south , so i have 6 months to build supply depot and bring supply's closer to future main front, pls allow me this, it is logical thing to do.

I suggest it be done as STATIC UNIT not Province Improuvment, so unit have 2 orders fill supply and realese supply, so in November i build that unit(IC cost, maybe little of MP too) in some province. I order fill and Dump is filling with as many supply it can get at that place like any other unit, then in May i order realise and unit just transfer all of it is supply's to Local supply value at that province and then supply system use those supply's like it usualy do with any other Local supply's so i think it is not too hard to program this.
Other thing unit can be bombard like any other and losing STR is caluculate as losing % of supply’s in dump, if enemy capture provice unit is instantly destroyed - without realise supply for enemy to use, representing demolition of dump. Using this dumps in scenarios, scripts and events will help allot Soviet AI(and other too), it is not logical to suround 60 divisions and non of them have supply's to take offansive to break out of circle...​

2. Navy
- if i order patrol in english chanell and KM go to Mediterranean i do not how to call that, bug, wad?
- posibility to order navy to block port or sea region is only logical solution of UK fall too easy problem. Fleet on this order attack anything , convoys, ships, anything 24/7, but losing org faster ( so u need to replace ships on blockade to succesfull maintan it). Becouse it stationary in small region fleet need to have high detection lvl and be easy target for aviation, offcourse unless u rule the sky.
- balance submarines vs convoys
3. Diplomacy
- make 4th fraction (Neutral) in middle of triangle and give some country's natural draft to this fraction.
- Lower or total eliminate possibility for some minor country on other side of world to push major/medium country into fraction, on example Nepal throw Finland into alliance is 0,0000000000001 % of chance so if Nepal like to spend 2 leadership points to this let he have it
4. Intelligence
- again Burma, and Nepal destroying research’s in Germany, do we need to talk about this?
- give us back steel blue print , or make research espionage do this by rising our practical skill in something
- support our part in they country , better make it support parties from our fraction, so if u what to coup nation you not really need to build your party from 0 but use some party which already exist there and want to join your fraction . On example USSR support KPJ(communistic party in YUG) so they can make coup and join country to communistic fraction.

5. Theatres and leaders

- if it is too hard to make Theatre HQ free to build like any other and to assign them territory, then at last make new support unit (Radio - Signal BDE). Easy to build and attach to HQs for maximize radio rage, it was possible in WW2 to command troops in India from Berlin so why do we need to do tricks to make this possible in game…
- Naval and Air HQs
- When AI country start war fill all units without Leader with Generic 0 lvl skill leader for that country

... ahh i will really like to add couple more, but i m already to long and afraid no one will read this, so please read it i know it is long but i think it will make game much better...

 

[Bullfrog]

Production AI is universal. Instead, production AI should be tailored to fit each nation in general ways...IC, doctrines, manpower, etc. People want the Soviet Union, US and Germany to build tanks, not just spam infantry b/c it makes a banal sort of sense.

Slow game. I simply cannot play because it takes so damn long.

Interface is ghastly. simplify the means of controlling armies, airforce and navy. Re-figure the Chain of Command so that I can have my theater do something on auto but also control a subordinate group. Separation of Air and Sea from land somehow.

Personality. The game has none. It is an empty sand-box with no events, no flavor and no fun. Poor design decisions like taking tech teams and descriptions away and generally losing all the best of HoI and HoI2 need to be reversed.

Also, division production sucks. Way to make a complex system only to handicap it with 3 "brigades" of generic units. Why bother? It is the same as HoI2 except there are a few more options. Why? Support brigades and the corresponding techs are worthless...again.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

1. Improved military heirarchy organizer. As others mentioned before, making your military HQ structure should be more streamlined. For minors current way is ok, but for majors, how annoying it is to set up the HQ system from corps to army group level makes me think twice before starting up a new game.

2. AI division creation. Again mentioned by others, make them make more sensible division. I hate to see them waste their highly mobile unit by mixing them up with slower units for no gain at all.

3. Government in exile and surrenders. There should be a way to eliminate government in exile, and surrender events have to be polished out, to fit the game better than forcing historical surrender on totally ahistorical war.

4. Fixing up useless brigades. Military police, submarines and anti air brigades for example. They are complete waste of IC. I mean at least SH tanks can fight well...

 

[scalvi94]

1. Bug #26 Manpower issue-this is game breaking
2. Allow Air missions after 1948
3. Surrender Events-for Bitter Peace and Vichy
4. Axis issues with Limited War
5. MP readjustments for SU

 

[Tortuga Power]

Only read first three pages, but I strongly agree with these especially G'Kar (click on the post if you wish to see their input).

..

..

..

..

..

Here is my own list, in order from most important to least important,

#1. The ability to wage a more historic war.
Key Issues: diplomacy, events

I have faith that Paradox is just hammering out the balancing act (which must be extremely tough...), but I don't like that war begins always on May 1st 1939 (have it random or historical start date, but not consistently a-historical). I also do not like the huge alliances that form in factions, especially because they form so quickly (10 nations in a faction by 1940 is too many, too fast). Generally just make the game start off, like through 1940, a little more historic.

#2 AI combat management
Key Issues: strategic AI, tactical-level AI

• Strategic: border defense for some nations is not good, including the lack of protecting either VPs or important locations; examples: Soviet Union defending against Finland instead of Germany, USA not protecting Pacific islands, Germany not defending ports because of Channel Island superstack, and definitely force England to protect its homeland better with both land and naval forces
• Tactical:I agree with what people are saying about the combat AI -- it can be too passive and not aggressive when it should, it does not employ defense in depth, it does not seem to value mountain terrain over plains when it is defending, etc.

#3 Pacific War.
Key Issues: strategic AI, nation-specific AI (Japan, USA)

The ability to see a real Pacific War -- I guess this means that if you are Japan, you need the US to defend the Pacific (and maybe even attack you). If you are the US, Japan needs to attack you and hopefully threaten you (now they lose to China most of the time). Even as someone else, having a Pacific War really adds to the immersion. As Germany in HOI2, I used to love to check on the progress of Japan against the USA in the Pacific, but in HOI3 there is no war going on there.

#4 Naval Combat.
Key Issues: subs vs. convoys, naval positions (with carrier fleets)

Submarines need to do more damage or somehow be made useful, and convoys/escorts should have practicals (like the transport and destroyer practicals) so that they can be made more expensive IC. By "carrier fleets" I mean that a carrier taskforce should not rush all its non-carrier ships into battle, they should stay with the carriers and let the CAGs attack. Like someone mentioned, CAGs are a pain to deal with right now.

#5. Barbarossa, other theaters.
Key Issues: nation-specific AI (Italy, Germany, UK, Soviet Union), manpower

The highlight of the war for Germany should be a tough Soviet Union defense in Barbarossa. It sounds like this requires the Soviet Union to have a difficult balance of manpower vs. mobilization. That will be tough, Paradox, so good luck! Lastly, let us see a better North Africa campaign, where both the Axis and Allies commit troops intelligently. This may even mean that a country pulls its troops out after it is clearly defeated, but there should be an initial commitment of more troops than just a couple of divisions.


With leaders not leveling up fast enough, it is fine if they level up faster as long as the AI leaders do too. Then you get excited about your leaders actually gaining experience without any loss of game balance. So this seems an easy adjustment to make people happier. I don't really care, but I suppose it would be nice

Thanks Kallocain.

EDIT: Re-doing my answer, Kallocain, so that it has more attention to details. I re-read your original post and I realize I was just listing things without specifics....
Edit 2: Done with edit.

 

[unmerged(181758)]

-...then at last make new support unit (Radio - Signal BDE) . Easy to build and attach to HQs for maximize radio rage...

O'h I was going to suggest this idea. Even perhaps Motorised Signal Brigade which could not only provide the Radio range bonus (and only this unit not like now) and increase by some large percentage but not more than double the speed of the HQ that it is attached to, say for Panzer Korps, Armee or Groupe HQs etc. May be at the speed of Motorised Infantry or 1 point less.

 

[Laotze]

1. Fix the naval combat model. Escorts run off to die when they should protect the carrier and CAG duty only affects the carriers in battle or its own seazone. Combine these two and it makes for mind boggling micromanagement. Not to mention an actual carrier battle with fleets never seeing each other is near impossible in the current game.

I would start fixing this by combining CAG duty with naval strike and just automating it around the nearby seazones of the carrier fleet at its current take off location. Right now it is centered around the location of the carriers when the order is given making moving carrier fleets a pain to constantly reorder the CAGs too. Not to mention they should have a spotting ability in all directions around the center of the carrier group and not just fly around in a huge hoard from one seazone to the next until a target is located, i.e. scout planes.

2. And fix the AI unlimited naval range, Germany shouldn't be landing in Singapore before Japan enters the war and the UK still controls the Med.

3. Strategic bombing is too effective, not just in strategic bombardment but also logistical bombing is over powered imo.

4. When I play Japan the naval AI of UK and France is way too concerned with Kuching and Saigon. It's not prioritizing the value of the what its defending. No way UK should be dedicating 3/4 of the entire Royal Navy to the Far East if Italy still has a fleet in the Med. and Germany still has battlecruisers around. Its scared of not having a superstack at sea it seems.

5. Supply through puppets is leaving the player with no choice but annexation. Especially as Japan, this is a big problem.

 

[unmerged(142699)]

1. Strategic reployment needs to be fixed. It is possible for the AI controlled armies to strategically redeploy through neutral nations' territory without getting transit permission. It usually happens after a neighboring country is turned into a puppet, if you have taken a few provinces from them that aren't bordering your nation's land. The theatre AI will redeploy forces right through the neutral puppet's land without any regard for borders.

2. AI control of armies needs a bit of work. The theatre AI seems to do a very poor job of controlling air forces and almost never uses transports to do amphibious assaults. Because of this the US almost never invades anything even after war breaks out.

3. The Axis nation's never use the Call to Arms option, and frequently end up with games where the Allies are only at War with Germany and no other Axis nations.

4. The game needs to be optimized better or changed so that less units are created. I have a fast computer but when Germany starts war with the USSR the game can become a bit too slow. I've tried the supposed fixes and they do not seem to do much at all.

5. Because it is such an important issue I have to list it twice. Optimize the game or something, make it run faster. Try to squish any memory leaks or do whatever needs to be done to make the game run faster.

 

[Osprey22]

My only issue is the game is dreadfully slow after about 2 years and I have to constantly reload it .

 

[bbasgen]

but I don't like that war begins always on May 1st 1939 (have it random or historical start date, but not consistently a-historical).

Excellent point. In HoI2, certain events always happen on the historical dates. In HoI3, certain events always happen on the arbitrary date that the decision is available. Considering the choice, it is far more preferable that events happen on the historical date.

 

[Chromius]

Lots of great posts and ideas.

1. AI Strategic Level Def/Off and its choice of objectives (Isnt this always #1)

2. AI Naval , fleet composition and tactics

3. OOB GIU , as has been mentioned, great idea. Or overhauled sidebar.

4. Leaders, making it have more flavor as has been mentioned. Exp gain/pop up ect.

5. Puppets and Allies . Puppets need be able to Take over military control, and be able to dow on my puppet or do anything after joining a faction (1.3 was unable to dow manchukuo after joining axis) Its my puppet if I want to wage war on it and take it back over I should be able too.

Allies maybe have a new political option, you spend political points to suggest an offensive target or a location to defend, giving the Allie AI an order, your relations affect the percentage of troops committed and whether they carry out the order.

Off topic, Bugs 1.3 clean install no mods, I had the puppet/annex spy bug with increasing % research disruption after annexing, had to fix savegame file, and one not so big thing a ghost Russian unit wandering around in Manchukuo after I annexed.

One other small thing some day is the ability to click on Research and Production Ques and have them AUTO SORT by DATE, honestly I have no idea how people can plan ahead without being able to see units production by date in order, and same with upcoming research breakthroughs. I spend a lot of time sorting all of them by date and then putting one least desirable one at bottom as buffer, usually a transport ship in case I dont adjust production correctly for a turn.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Liquid Ghost]

I didn't add it to my five issues, but I've seen it repeated a few times in this thread: Economy mobilization should be more difficult, the requirements should be various and complex, even for non-democracies. I mean, getting to 'War Economy' outside of war and getting to 'Total War' just by stepping into war strikes me as wrong. It's no easy feat, for democracies it should be a last resort, for the rest a tough but attainable task. For that matter, I think all Politics laws should be rechecked for their requirements and maybe have some affect dissent or unity. And how about having the laws results to be gradual? Change the law and you'll get your boost to manpower or IC slowly, maybe reaching its full potential at least three months later.

 

[unmerged(64229)]

Please fix China's cores, and the how NO ONE can get any supply there.

 

[Aguthrie234]

Ha, and people say this company doesn't care. I have never seen anyone take such an interest in what WE, the gamers, think.

1.Less graphic intensive map option. I understand that shiny is good, however this is a war game. Many of us here would be perfectly happy with 8 bit graphics. Just make it clear where we are, and all is good. (I could be wrong, maybe a poll would better gauge how the group feels about this)

2) For a sandbox game, minors are severely limited. This is especially true regarding dictatorships and neutrality. If a dictator decides to declare war on a whim he can do that, hence he is a DICTATOR. Can't we have a decision or group of decisions leading to no neutrality and significant threat to all neighboring countries?( ex. crazy leader makes speech about wiping out Luxembourg, threat rises neutrality drops.) And yes i know it might not be historical, but this is a sandbox game right? (once again a poll would do nice)

3.lack of flavor,historical events or decisions etc.(yes ironic after i just requested more of a sandbox feel, however i want to have my cake and eat it too) You guys did this very well in HOI 2

4.Supply penalty should be reworked. If a group of 50k troops have been without supplies for a month, then they should fall like flies. An increasing penalty as the days tick by should do the trick.

5.Keep producing games, and get some sleep.

Lagniappe- A poll integrated into the start menu, where you guys put news, would be very effective for deciding which way patches need to go.

 

[bbasgen]

I didn't add it to my five issues, but I've seen it repeated a few times in this thread: Economy mobilization should be more difficult, the requirements should be various and complex, even for non-democracies.

I agree, but it needs to be thoroughly game tested for balancing. Doing this change and the occupation policies change without other game balancing (e.g. increasing starting IC and leadership) would really limit available IC and leadership based on the current game balancing.

I love the oft mentioned idea for minors regarding generic decisions that would allow them to increase leadership, lower neutrality, etc.

 

[jeraal]

1) I would like to be able to define or at least pick from a list of possible theatres. Most recent game (saved first), I clicked define and I lost Berlin theatre. Bitburg was then in charge of Germant,Scandanavia, France, Spain and Soviet border. Was hoping to add a theatre, not lose one of the two.

2) I would also like some kind of regional awareness (don't know what else to call it) in my AI armies. UK made a landing in Spain with about 20ish divisions. I responded by sending two Inf armies and one Panzer army. While there, a province in Norway rebelled. The AI in Spain decided to dispatch 2 Arm divisions and 2 Inf divisions all the way back to Norway. I had cavalry response teams I use for such occasions.

3) A way to change your gov't over time. Sort of like HOI2

4) An option to break guarantees.

 

[Fortium]

1. Poor sub performance.

2. Naval Bombers seemingly ineffective.

3. Grand Strategic AI is anemic. (Japan can't fight it's way out of a wet paper sack, US just builds Inf and plops them in Washington, etc, etc.)

4. Too much sandbox - not enough historical. (If people want 100% sandbox, that should have been a scenario to play, not the whole damn game.)

5. Carriers mostly ineffective.

 

[Nukeitall]

My current issues are as follows - mostly AI related.

1.Tactical AI is not particularly brilliant. Even on very hard, the AI is simply beaten without much thought.

2.Enemy resource management needs some work. Having all that industry is good, but it's utilization is somewhat lacking. The AI doesn't seem to focus much on its strengths.

3.Diplomacy system is a little strange now. USA is unable to be forced into the war if influenced properly, apparently.

4.Aggression. The AI does not attack enough.

5.The command system needs some serious streamlining or the ability to simplify it. Like others have said, playing the game is fun, but having to retool and reorganize entire armies following a campaign makes me groan.