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
hellfish6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still, equipment like supply trains, staff equipment, everything from pots and pans to complete field kitchens are not calculated in divisions strength (since it does the fighting, I don't think it's common practice to see frying pan charges) but still have to be built. If you get a division at 1% and rebuild it, you'd have all the men and fighting equipment but they'd be starving to death.
 
hellfish6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good point but note that in my answer I mentioned that the value of captured items to an individual division is often not in weapons, which are often captured damaged anyway, but in supplies and non combat gear. For example American divisions, although lavishly eguipped by any standard, were notorious for 'aquiring' new vehicles and gear from the enemy, the surrounding territories, and occassionally other US divisions.

Although less glamorous the amount of trucks, carts, field kitchens, radios, entrenching tools, engineering supplies, and all other items seized in the field helped divisions survive and minimized their drain of new equipment from the production lines. After all you send your new build trucks to the divisions which have lost theirs or to new formations before you would send them to a division which has perfectly functional, if enemy badged, trucks already.
 
An easy solution would be for divisions to become deployable at a percentage of their strength. The amount could vary depending on how dependent the divisions combat power is on heavy equipment. A militia division might deploy at 10%, infantry at 20%, motorized at 30%, mechanized at 40%, armored at 50% and naval and air units at 75%. Micromanagement would be increased some but it would be much more realistic. Also the issue of deploying naval units unfinished would force players to protect shipyards more historically.
 
Draigh said:
Still, equipment like supply trains, staff equipment, everything from pots and pans to complete field kitchens are not calculated in divisions strength (since it does the fighting, I don't think it's common practice to see frying pan charges) but still have to be built. If you get a division at 1% and rebuild it, you'd have all the men and fighting equipment but they'd be starving to death.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that? The strength of a division is, as I understand it in HOI terms, not limited to fighting strength. It's the abstracted strength of all components within a division.

Therefore, a division with 1% strength can be considered only to have it's core cadre. Maybe at 12.5577% is when the frying pans arrive.
 
kodiak491 said:
Good point but note that in my answer I mentioned that the value of captured items to an individual division is often not in weapons, which are often captured damaged anyway, but in supplies and non combat gear. For example American divisions, although lavishly eguipped by any standard, were notorious for 'aquiring' new vehicles and gear from the enemy, the surrounding territories, and occassionally other US divisions.

Although less glamorous the amount of trucks, carts, field kitchens, radios, entrenching tools, engineering supplies, and all other items seized in the field helped divisions survive and minimized their drain of new equipment from the production lines. After all you send your new build trucks to the divisions which have lost theirs or to new formations before you would send them to a division which has perfectly functional, if enemy badged, trucks already.
Click to expand...

Still disagree.

I've never read anything anywhere about US troops making routine uses of any German equipment, nevermind Japanese or Italian equipment. Even so, all of that can be abstracted by repair/refit efficiency.
 
hellfish6 said:
Still disagree.

I've never read anything anywhere about US troops making routine uses of any German equipment, nevermind Japanese or Italian equipment. Even so, all of that can be abstracted by repair/refit efficiency.
Click to expand...

You're about the German weapons and such. With a few exceptions the only axis gear US soldiers regularly used were whatever (small arms and such) happened to be available at a time of need.

What I am referring to is the fact that they did accumulate vehicles and other sundries, not only captured but also scrounged from the countryside and other nearby allied units. Some American formations actually ended campaigns with more motor transport than they began although that was of course very rare. The use of local civilian goods and services is part of every armies existence, the only thing that varies is whether the original owners are paid, told to 'donate', robbed, or killed.

Of course such examples only really happened in Industrialized Europe and parts of China where goods were plentiful compared to North Africa and most of Asia.

Frankly though I think we're splitting hairs. In game terms it doesn't matter. As you can see from my above post I pretty much agree with you on implementation of a quicker partial strength deployment.
 
hellfish6 said:
Why would you think that? The strength of a division is, as I understand it in HOI terms, not limited to fighting strength. It's the abstracted strength of all components within a division.

Therefore, a division with 1% strength can be considered only to have it's core cadre. Maybe at 12.5577% is when the frying pans arrive.
Click to expand...

Because of how the game works: the strength of a unit represents its fighting cadre - it's what shoots and gets shot at. Perhaps it makes sense to be able to bombard field kitchens and send cooks down the trenches, but still... :)
 
No it doesn't. If the % strength of a division represented it's fighting ability, how come a division with 1% strength has the same stats as a division at 100% strength?

I know what you're getting at, but you're trying to make sense of an system that, by design, does not make sense.
 
IMO, there should be more permanent damage to occupied or bombed out provinces. To me, it just seems silly that most provinces that have been completely bombed out are perfectly fine and up to pre-war production levels after a month or so. The same goes for provinces that have been fought over for weeks. Japan and Germany recovered economically, but it took them years to rebuild, not weeks and months,

Also, instead of a province being considered either "national" or "non-national", there should be different levels of national identification. For example, a Chinese provinces would not have any national identification with America at all, but a Canadian province would have at least some to reflect the fact that the two country's cultures are similar. A province's nationality would effect the production, partisans, man power, etc. More importantly, according to your country's slider settings and ministers, a province should gradually begin to gain national identification with who ever owns it.

edit) and another thing: there should be a separate resource for ammunition. Also, there should be separate factories for certain things. Factories that produce tanks might be different from small arms or air plane factories. Also, resource production should depend on the number of mines built in a province.

For trade, resources shouldn't be immaterial. If I'm playing as Germany and I want oil from Venezuela, I should have to actually convoy it into Germany. Also, there should be such a thing as land convoys. The Soviets shouldn't magically get resources from Siberia, they should have to wait for them to arrive to the factories where they're actually being used.
 
Last edited:
hellfish6 said:
No it doesn't. If the % strength of a division represented it's fighting ability, how come a division with 1% strength has the same stats as a division at 100% strength?

I know what you're getting at, but you're trying to make sense of an system that, by design, does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right there. Especially about the system not making much sense. :)
 
After reading about the importance of signals intelligence to naval campaigns in WW2, I had the idea that the 'intelligence' technologies might affect your ships' ability to do battle. For example, if you have a greater decryption or encryption level than your enemy, you might gain a bonus of, say, 5% per level to convoy raiding and convoy defense effectiveness (or the equivalent), plus an increased chance of intercepting or evading enemy fleets when entering a sea zone occupied by them. If you have a really big advantage, you might even be able to see the enemy fleets (though probably not their fleet composition). Obviously, this idea isn't fully fleshed out, but would, I think, help simulate the importance of improved decryption and encryption much better than the current system of giving an in-battle bonus.
 
hellfish6: I know that, I was suggesting an alternative for naval battles. If I understand correctly, the advantage of being able to understand the enemy's communications was less a tactical advantage (who's going to sit around in combat listening to, much less decoding, enemy messages? They barely even had computers back then, after all...) than a strategic one (okay, we know that the Kriegsmarine has sent submarines to these areas, so we'll send a few taskforces out hunting them). The system I proposed was an attempt to better reflect that.

(in a most appropriate moment of weirdness, Firefox suggested submarines instead of Kriegsmarine)
 
hellfish6 said:
No it doesn't. If the % strength of a division represented it's fighting ability, how come a division with 1% strength has the same stats as a division at 100% strength?

I know what you're getting at, but you're trying to make sense of an system that, by design, does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Your right hellfish.
Definatly then the units stats should directly reflect what the unit can do.
A small division with 99% of its men on the battlefeild as corpses can only get ~100 odd cooks ~& a few soldiers into battle therefore it should only be able to do a very small amount of damage to the enemy i.e 1 soft attack 0 hard attack.

Are smaller divisions of say 200 cooks hard to spot from the air? then give them a high air defence value! :rofl:
 
Creating a penality for the loosses of one division ?

If one division has 50% of its streng, tis stats will be dividedby 2 or a penalty of -50 ?
 
hellfish6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, you're right. But still it is what I wants to have in HoI 3 or maybe what I disliked in HoI 2. I'm dont sure of have to make it, but for me this is what I wants to have prioritized in the game.
 
hellfish6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe the strategic redeploying should only be a possible option for the garrison troops then?
 
Draigh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I have searched for this hoykeys, but wouldn´t able to find them.
 
Random research time - like missionaries in eu3, every day a small chance for progress (perhaps divided into few parts: blueprints, prototype, etc.)

or even

Random research outcome - new unit type statistics randomly generated (depending of course on research team skill, research level, etc.)

More research team skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back