Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Ideas for HoI 3

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(79130)

unmerged(79130)

Second Lieutenant
Jun 25, 2007
111
0
This is what I would like to have included in a HoI 3 game:

It should be much more easy to control big amounts of troops.

The game should be about Cold War, modern day, WW1 and of course WW2.

More events.

Better balance.

It should be funny to play with small states.

You should get half of the tech teams from countries you annex or puppet.

Different types of nukes.

More intressting and funny diplomacy and intelligence.

Less lagg and buggs.

Many different types of animations for land, air and sea troops. (Like cavalry and motorized troops.)
 
Upvote 0
Fredriko said:
This is what I would like to have included in a HoI 3 game:

It should be much more easy to control big amounts of troops.

The game should be about Cold War, modern day, WW1 and of course WW2.

More events.

Better balance.

It should be funny to play with small states.

You should get half of the tech teams from countries you annex or puppet.

Different types of nukes.

More intressting and funny diplomacy and intelligence.

Less lagg and buggs.

Many different types of animations for land, air and sea troops. (Like cavalry and motorized troops.)
Click to expand...

i agree and it shoud allso allow independent, regiment, brigades, Divisions etc. to run on the map
 
I also dont want it to be possible to assume military control of countries. Instead you could ask for expedtionary forces. To complement this I want the ai army to be more active.

Countries could draw back the expedtionary forces if the player who got the control over them dont use them well and maybe leads them to many defeats.

This would ad a role-playing aspect to the game when you need to be careful of your allied troops and risk to lose them.
 
Fredriko said:
Yes, but not if you puppet the state. And I think it is to powerfull to get all tech teams from the state, its more balanced if you get half of them I think.
Click to expand...

But the foreign teams would have a lower level than the time where they worked for their country of origin, because engineers and workers don't want to use 100 per cent of their forces for serving enemy war effort.

About the military control, it's a good idea but the supply and upgrades would be done by the country which borrows the divisions.
 
Fredriko said:
More intressting and funny diplomacy and intelligence.
Click to expand...

This is something i lack in all games of this types that exist today. Just look at the world today - there's much talk and big threats but then.. nothing. Look at Venezuela-Colombia or Israel-Iran/Lebanon/Syria, they're threatening eachother all the time but nothing more. In this types of games we can't do that but we can attack the other country without reasons all the time. It would be much funnier to play if we could play the war of words too.

Wars aren't always about winning land neither, in fact most wars today are more about replacing the government to one that are more friendly towards the attacking country and it's allies.

We need more options to use in the game.
I also agrees that it would be fun to play from before WWI into modern day (maybe to March 2003?). From there it would be "easy" for users to create the future. :)

Another thing that i may add are to include much more states that are availible to be liberated. We had Kosova for just some months ago and look at countries like Spain or Belgium. Russia, China, Iran & United States may also have some states that can be liberated if someone defeats them. It's not realistic that it will happen in the close future but who knows? We can't have to many options and choices. :)
Countries should also be able to break-up from inside without any foreign invasion. That's probably more realistic to what may happen to the countries i mentioned. And maybe that foreign forces may interupt when it happens (Yugoslavia). As you can see, i want more different types of war and diplomatics that what are availible now.
 
Last edited:
Can you guys add events like Arabian Federation/Turkistan Federations in the game? I mean for Turkistan if u guys need infos I got a lot's of them, I have the list of hundreds of leaders, technical teams, their tactics, flags, government structures and etc...
Also during the WW2 I watched about Turkistan Legion serving German Armies. So if u play as Germany and beat USSR through their southernpart of Europe to either Central Asia or Caucasia and Send one of the Turkistan Legioners you'll get a chance to creat Turkistan etc.. :rolleyes: :D
 
A few more things that I want to be changed in HoI 3.

- Easy to control your armies
You could merge separate parts of the army, you dosen´t needs to merge all troops in a province. You also could target just airplanes in a province that they are land troops in (I dont know if there already is an hotkey you can use for this).

- Amphibius assault
When you make an amphibius assault the ships that escorts your transporters should automatic make shore bombardment at the province.

- Anti partisan duty
The option to make anti partisan duty should be removed for all troops. It doesn´t is any reason for typing a special option to do this, becuase there is no option for dont do this.
It should be removed or your troops should always do it when they dont are moving.

- Garnisons
Garnisons should be removed. Insteed you should use militas for island defense and for keeping down partisan activity. It is stupid that you cant move your garnisons like you can do with all other troops!

- Strategic redeployment
The option to strategic redeploy your troops should be removed, because you can use it to avoid encircling (I would call this cheating). If the gamemakers wants it to be fast to move your troops through your or allied provinces they could just increse the speed for the troops in these conditions.


So what you think about this?
 
Fredriko said:
- Garnisons
Garnisons should be removed. Insteed you should use militas for island defense and for keeping down partisan activity. It is stupid that you cant move your garnisons like you can do with all other troops!
Click to expand...

The divisions which kept beach or fought partisans were not militia, so for i would keep garnisons. But i agree for the suppresition of strategic redeployment for their movements.

Fredriko said:
- Strategic redeployment
The option to strategic redeploy your troops should be removed, because you can use it to avoid encircling (I would call this cheating). If the gamemakers wants it to be fast to move your troops through your or allied provinces they could just increse the speed for the troops in these conditions.
Click to expand...

Or a division wouldn't can use strategic redeployment in a province which has a border with an ennemy contry.
 
1) Include end year in the ministers file so we don't have to write a half million death events.
2) Make wakeleader work like waketeam.
3) Cold war scenario and a good simulation of the Chinese civil war starting in 1945 with the defeat of Japan.
4) Better routine for anonymous leaders, so they can gain experience. Or just use some generic leaders like some of the mods do.
5) New commands
defect_leader--transfers allegiance of specified leader to new country
leader_skill--in addition to set_leader_skill which sets the leader skill to a specified value, add a command to increase it by specified value, usually 1 or 2. This could be used in conjunction with training events.
team_skill--increases or decreases team skill by specified amount
6) Standard blueprint bonus of 4 not 2. This would help smaller nations at least keep pace with technology (of course not cutting edge)
 
Fredriko said:
- Easy to control your armies
You could merge separate parts of the army, you dosen´t needs to merge all troops in a province. You also could target just airplanes in a province that they are land troops in (I dont know if there already is an hotkey you can use for this).
Click to expand...

Select all armies, hold shift and click to deselect the units you don't want to merge. For air forces, click on the airbase icon to select one unit, hold shift and drag a box around the province to select all air units. Once this is done, you can use the previously mentioned method to merge and reassign units or order missions as you see fit.


- Anti partisan duty
The option to make anti partisan duty should be removed for all troops. It doesn´t is any reason for typing a special option to do this, becuase there is no option for dont do this.
It should be removed or your troops should always do it when they dont are moving.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think it should be removed, but instead some penalties added. There's a thorough difference between a division manning a line of resistance and a division hunting partisans.


- Strategic redeployment
The option to strategic redeploy your troops should be removed, because you can use it to avoid encircling (I would call this cheating). If the gamemakers wants it to be fast to move your troops through your or allied provinces they could just increse the speed for the troops in these conditions.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be removed, there should simply be rules on how and when it can be used. Which already exist in HOI as well - you refuse to use it yourself.
 
Fredriko said:
This is what I would like to have included in a HoI 3 game:

It should be much more easy to control big amounts of troops.

The game should be about Cold War, modern day, WW1 and of course WW2.

More events.

Better balance.

It should be funny to play with small states.

You should get half of the tech teams from countries you annex or puppet.

Different types of nukes.

More intressting and funny diplomacy and intelligence.

Less lagg and buggs.

Many different types of animations for land, air and sea troops. (Like cavalry and motorized troops.)
Click to expand...

This is the worst list I've ever seen. Seriously. You're basically throwing a bunch of crap on the wall and seeing what sticks. You're not making any effort to describe what is wrong or how to improve them.

"Better balance". WTF does that mean? Is Tanzania balanced with Uruguay? Japan balanced with South Africa?

"Less lag and bugs"? No, Paradox WANTS their game to be laggy and buggy. They're just messing with your head.

Seriously, if you want to make a contribution, at least give us an idea of what you're specifically talking about and a little idea you might have to improve it - even if you're comparing it to another game.
 
Fredriko said:
A few more things that I want to be changed in HoI 3.

- Easy to control your armies
You could merge separate parts of the army, you dosen´t needs to merge all troops in a province. You also could target just airplanes in a province that they are land troops in (I dont know if there already is an hotkey you can use for this).

- Amphibius assault
When you make an amphibius assault the ships that escorts your transporters should automatic make shore bombardment at the province.

- Anti partisan duty
The option to make anti partisan duty should be removed for all troops. It doesn´t is any reason for typing a special option to do this, becuase there is no option for dont do this.
It should be removed or your troops should always do it when they dont are moving.

- Garnisons
Garnisons should be removed. Insteed you should use militas for island defense and for keeping down partisan activity. It is stupid that you cant move your garnisons like you can do with all other troops!

- Strategic redeployment
The option to strategic redeploy your troops should be removed, because you can use it to avoid encircling (I would call this cheating). If the gamemakers wants it to be fast to move your troops through your or allied provinces they could just increse the speed for the troops in these conditions.


So what you think about this?
Click to expand...

This is better, but still lacking. Look up the definition of garrison troops. They're not supposed to move like other military units. They're static security forces.

Some points I agree with you on. Amphibious escorts should automatically conduct shore bombardment. It's dumb that you have to make a separate fleet to do something escorts should already be doing.
 
More suggestions....

1. Divisions (ground and air) construction should be modified. They should appear on the map at some earlier point than they currently do, at possibly something like 1% strength. This simulates standing up the division structure. At that point, you fill the division up with replacements (normally). The key things here:
-Divisions in the process of forming/fleshing out to full strength will incur a load on supply (which doesn't occur now)
-sometimes some countries need to throw half formed divisions into the line (Germany/China/SU are good examples).

This would probably involved some rework of the cost of replacements vs manpower cost of a unit.

2. Naval unit contruction- should be tied to a specific naval facility, which would have a specific limit on construction (not always equal to the naval base rating). This would bring in a whole new set of attributes for naval bases. (Just a suggestion).

3. Leaders- I would really really like the ability to have those random leaders, once they are generated, to have the same attributes as defined leaders. Specifically the ability to gain experience and be promoted. As Japan, I'm constantly running out of generals. I'm sure Tibet has a shortage of fleet admirals also, although I haven't checked.

4. Naval conversion-The ability to convert one ship type to another. This should be EXTREMELY limited. Real life examples are conversion of DD's into fast transports (US), coversion of fleet oilers into Escort CV's (JAP) (I'm sure that this would be a show stopper), conversion of merchant ships into "merchant cruisers" (WW1 mostly). Obviously, you can't take a PT boat, and turn it into a Nimitz class CV, and still call it a "conversion".

4. Ability to change A/C type for a specific air division. There are multiple examples of air units being converted to other types. Most examples are German (bombers to Ftr squadrons etc). (Obviously there is a cost involved).

5. Somehow, to cross index names across all appropriate divisions types. For example If I (as Germany) already have the 715th Infanterie Division deployed, then when I build a Garrison unit, it WON"T be named the 715th Festungs Division or 715th Sicherungs Division, or for a militia division, the 715th Volksgrenadier Division. (just a pet peeve of mine).

and now, back to our movie....Deliverance, a love story.
 
^ I agree with all your points.

1. I've often thought that standing up a division at 1% strength is a better idea than deploying an entire division. More realistic too - Germany and the USSR at various points in the war would send divisions into combat totally understrength simply out of necessity. We can do this now if we buy/trade divisions and can't wait for them to build up (I especially do this as Republican Spain - I'll buy a division and end up needing to send it into combat at 50% strength).

2. Agree.

3. Agree. It'd be nice if the random leaders were get already weren't totally useless.

4. Agree. I think with a "Build your own ship" capability, like space-based 4X games, you'd be able to do this.

5. I'd prefer that air units could be assembled out of squadrons instead of a single unit representing a single aircraft type.

6. You can kinda do this on your own with the unitnames.csv file. It can be a bit of a pain in the arse, however. I did it for the USA, renaming my garrison divisions to "MP Commands," "Coast Defense Commands" or "Constabulary Groups". Likewise Reserve divisions were given another name too.
 
hellfish6 said:
1. I've often thought that standing up a division at 1% strength is a better idea than deploying an entire division. More realistic too - Germany and the USSR at various points in the war would send divisions into combat totally understrength simply out of necessity. We can do this now if we buy/trade divisions and can't wait for them to build up (I especially do this as Republican Spain - I'll buy a division and end up needing to send it into combat at 50% strength).
Click to expand...

However, that would essentially mean that the costs for building a division from scratch and reinforcing a damaged division would be the same.
 
Yup. And in the real world, I don't see a difference between the two. A new/refurbished tank going to a newly-stood-up panzer division or to an old warhorse panzer division is the same thing, requiring the same effort.
 
hellfish6 said:
Yup. And in the real world, I don't see a difference between the two. A new/refurbished tank going to a newly-stood-up panzer division or to an old warhorse panzer division is the same thing, requiring the same effort.
Click to expand...

A good point but a division consists of a lot more than just tanks. Repairing a damaged division is signifigantly cheaper than building from scratch. After all is it cheaper to repair a damaged tank or buy a whole new one. Plus in real life divisions in the field tended to accumulate captured equipment in the field that helps mitigate losses from its own TO&E and that doesn't require new construction. This is especially true for non combat items like trucks, field kitchens, and such.
 
kodiak491 said:
A good point but a division consists of a lot more than just tanks. Repairing a damaged division is signifigantly cheaper than building from scratch. After all is it cheaper to repair a damaged tank or buy a whole new one. Plus in real life divisions in the field tended to accumulate captured equipment in the field that helps mitigate losses from its own TO&E and that doesn't require new construction. This is especially true for non combat items like trucks, field kitchens, and such.
Click to expand...

You're right, mostly.

A damaged division is significantly cheaper to refit than building a new division from scratch. If we merge building with reinforcement, a damaged division st 50% strength will still be cheaper to fix than a new division starting at 1% strength.

It is exceedingly rare for militaries to use captured equipment in any significant numbers. The Germans were the big exception to this in modern times, the Soviets less so (Soviets seemed to use them as individual replacements for losses, or for small, special units - Germans would create whole units based on captured weaponry, even going so far as to make ammunition). The no other combatant made any significant battlefield use of captured weapons. Give the Germans a repair/refit bonus that the others don't get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back