My thoughts.

[macgregor2150]

I'm sure there is someone for every game, starting with the developer. But by far, the game for me is Darkest Hour. I don't hesitate to buy every game like this too. Most I find go off the rails with unnecessary details, sometimes at the expense of critical details, which I just find too aggravating to play.

Though I may still play a little, I'm pretty much done with IGOUGO. I see the benefit of being able to play/move and forget until the move is returned. Moving whenever you want as opposed to when others are available will probably never die.

What jumps out about Darkest Hour to me, is the amount of critical data, cleverly displayed for speedy digestion. You don't just program this game. You actually(can) play it. That's not to say everyone does. For some, it's a battle of method and program more than making operational and tactical decisions, which many simply don't have the patience for. There's a dynamic of playing with a group that tends to increase this impatience.

Speaking of group play, what stands out to me is how much a game like this would benefit from a real game-based multiplayer platform that connects all the players. So one can see all the games and what's available to play in what language, so that people can check in or out and be replaced quickly. A questionnaire could help match people, along with a player catalogue for easy player matching, as this game can be played fast or slow.

How could this game be improved? AI, stacking, map, have all been mentioned. Many of my original suggestions I find modders have cleverly worked out, such as individual design prowess, by changing the combat equation or range for say, a superior designed tank or aircraft.

First I imagine this game would have to be transferred to some new programming format, which I imagine is an ungodly amount of work. However I see dedicated players doing ungodly amounts of work all the time. Once that's done and improvements are possible, my overactive imagination can offer a few ideas.

The battle screen represents a ton of information, but could be displayed in a more immersive format than say, linear -though this is important to quickly understand the battle. I would suggest one more level of zoom that focuses on one single battle, displaying penetration of units, pincers and salients. I'm not suggesting displaying regiments or battalions or units at all necessarily, just a more detailed display of the actual line beyond just territory, for immersion.

A couple of added unit 'dispositions' could help. A 'travel' formation that displays units being moved strategically so they can still be vulnerable to attack. Also, an insurgency/counter-insurgency that allows a unit to train insurgents or locals in defense. Maybe this could be handled better through the intelligence screen.

Certainly the game could use a facelift, but not a 3D map. Just a good topographical map that can display ownership, terrain and weather all at the same time.

 

[macgregor2150]

If I may add to my own thread: I'm noticing some weirdness with the supplying of the AI's amphibious invasions. Their supply doesn't seem to get affected by whatever naval blockade the defending player can put up, and I think it should. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

 

[macgregor2150]

If I may add to my own thread: I'm noticing some weirdness with the supplying of the AI's amphibious invasions. Their supply doesn't seem to get affected by whatever naval blockade the defending player can put up, and I think it should. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

Perhaps I phrased this wrong. Perhaps it's not an issue with the game so much as that I need some help understanding how I can affect or stop the supply of an enemy amphibious invasion.

"You cannot trace supply directly across water but you can create a new depot in a coastal province that you control and then use convoys to ship supplies to that depot from somewhere else, usually your capital."

I guess I need fleets specifically tasked with raiding convoys. I can have a huge fleet blocking the sea access to the invasion, but without a fleet assigned to raid convoys, the enemy invasion will remain supplied by sea. The case in point is Norway, and the Germans have established an air corridor that could move supplies as well.

 

[Altruist]

I guess I need fleets specifically tasked with raiding convoys. I can have a huge fleet blocking the sea access to the invasion, but without a fleet assigned to raid convoys, the enemy invasion will remain supplied by sea. The case in point is Norway, and the Germans have established an air corridor that could move supplies as well.

Well, every landed troop starts with a small amount of supplies which will last for a while. For longer action it needs to be supplied via convoy routes (or via planes if that it researched and appropiate).
I am sure you know that attacking the convoy routes can be a fickle thing but at least you have several options to do so:
# via fleets
# via planes
And with fleets the "new" mission menu allows also attacking enemy convoys as a side mission, not only near the landing zone but thru whatever searegions the convoy route leads. Below an example for a naval combat patrol that will also attack convoys (see checked option in the bottom right). Takes time but works acceptable vs computer players as shown in several AARs. A human player, though, will quite easily adjust by sending big convoys with lots of convoy escorts which will make attacking them very costly or even impossible.

The above is, of course, just an example and not at all a recommended fleet mix to do so.

 

[macgregor2150]

Well, every landed troop starts with a small amount of supplies which will last for a while. For longer action it needs to be supplied via convoy routes (or via planes if that it researched and appropiate).
I am sure you know that attacking the convoy routes can be a fickle thing but at least you have several options to do so:
# via fleets
# via planes
And with fleets the "new" mission menu allows also attacking enemy convoys as a side mission, not only near the landing zone but thru whatever searegions the convoy route leads. Below an example for a naval combat patrol that will also attack convoys (see checked option in the bottom right). Takes time but works acceptable vs computer players as shown in several AARs. A human player, though, will quite easily adjust by sending big convoys with lots of convoy escorts which will make attacking them very costly or even impossible.
View attachment 931173
The above is, of course, just an example and not at all a recommended fleet mix to do so.

Thank you!

 

[macgregor2150]

One of the features I find most compelling about this game, is the combat model. I look at the battles and see much more than the display. People who have played more tactical level games know that a lot of what you do is automatic: make a line, choose axis(s) for your advance, outflank and cutoff when possible. As you gain experience, you understand the drill.

This game brilliantly allows you to actually entrust that to an actual leader that existed. All of a sudden I can take comfort in realism without micromanagement which, on something this scale, really allows the game to flow. You can still control those leaders to the extent you're willing to pause and affect outcomes. I find this an essential part of the appreciation of the game. Though I've seen many who don't do that.

There are two entirely different ways to play this game: blazing through without pausing in what I'll call the hoi4 way, where it seems that units, command, and production design seem to take a priority over management and execution(as that's what I've seen on youtube), or a more deliberate way, pausing for micromanagement, that still holds up well for old grognards like me. That may be why multiplayer has not taken off more. There really needs to be a player catalogue to match the people from around the world who want to play this game with others.

In this combat model, I see a frontier of possible futures for this game. The linear display offers the essential info rapidly, which is important. But with this info, a much more immersive display could be made, showing regional maps and units, perhaps animations. The essential elements of the game are already there. Perhaps get them to work a little more realistically like supply and strategic movement. But as I see it, this game is extremely eligible for a killer upgrade.

 

[macgregor2150]

I posted this just now on discord. I'm clarifying my idea little by little.

'What the game needs is the ability to double click on a province and have it zoom to screen size. From there, you can see detail of your units and the province. If there is combat, you can track the progress of each unit toward the objective. With a zoomed-in unit, you could see more info about it's composition and equipment. So far, nothing I'm suggesting requires any more info or control than the game already offers. It's just about displaying it.

From here, definitely improvements could still be made. The game automatically digs units in, though at least half of that 'dug-in' factor is just making a defense line and finding optimal terrain within the province to defend. Perhaps this could be displayed in the province screen. Perhaps individual divisions could be visibly encircled instead of it being announced and charged to the stack.

'Digging in' is the automatic disposition of units at war in Darkest Hour. But what if there were more dispositions? Each with benefits and costs. For example a 'movement' disposition might eliminate the need for strategic movement, allowing units to move on the map faster, but in a vulnerable state to certain air attacks. Ships have a certain formation for surface engagements that differs from defending against an air attack. Ships may zigzag to decrease the chance of sub attacks. Planes flying at different altitudes trade accuracy for protection.'

Planes could also have a movement disposition, converting them to land units, allowing them to move at the same speed as land units in that disposition, with the same vulnerability to air attack, and allowing them to be transported by sea.

 

[macgregor2150]

Ground combat is linear in Darkest hour. But the way it's represented could bring the game to another level I feel. I'm imagining a single province zoom-in level divided into a square grid.

The number of provinces you can attack from already increases it's effectiveness, so I see no need for hexes at this level. Just square intersecting lines measured in km(not necessarily every km). Attacking and defending units are lined up, according to the order they are stacked in the unit display, North-South or East-West, this adding some degree of operational strategy without complicating the game too much.

Defending units, fully dug-in, will have divided their strength into enough units to make a solid line, covering each axis in the grid with a dug in unit. This would require some AI. Attacking units would line up at one side of the province map, and move linear, at their speed, across the map.

The defender could now retreat individual units as encirclement becomes a threat. But this is probably better be done by the AI general. As could any encirclements or pincers by the attacking side. From here perhaps, you could see the casualty bubbles floating away like in HOI4 or EU4. Of course a general retreat or pause of the attack could still be done by the player.

The game now has a really immersive, yet informative, battle display. If the game is ever to be improved, that's the direction I see it going, perhaps not verbatim. Naval and Air battles could also have such displays available at the doubleclick or hotkey.

Please like or dislike. I just hope I described my idea well enough.

 

[macgregor2150]

I'm thinking of how the game could be improved. First off, I wouldn't change a thing I didn't have to. Battles could be displayed more immersively and offer even more data about units with more pics and drawings. I get there's a desire for more map detail(as in E3). But as I see it, that detail could be offered in a zoom level of a single province, showing mathematically calculated unit placement. Seeing all your units spread out on a micromap would allow the player to better see objective arrival times and pincers. Thus, the danger or opportunity, for encirclement.

 

[macgregor2150]

Naval battles could display core and screening units with some visible damage, perhaps offering some in-battle maneuver options. Air battles could display core and escort units, or even offer the opportunity to select altitude.

 

[macgregor2150]

As I rethink my ideas, I will also repost them.

First off, I really don't want to change Darkest Hour at all. I don't want a new game. I want to improve THIS game.

Double clicking on a province, and having it fill the screen at an operational level, is where I see room for all the fancy graphics and information displays. I'm not trying to redo the battle engine -which I love. I'm merely trying to display it in a way that is more immersive and informative.

Currently land attacks offer simultaneous arrival and start time, and whether to advance. Players have the power to stop individual divisions from attacking, or entire groups at any time. Players also can call a directed retreat of individual or stack of divisions at any time. Unless you play the game in a way that allows such micromanagement, you don't appreciate the full control the game offers.

Stacking limits have already been discussed and accepted, so keep that in mind. And this would mean that some islands in the Pacific may only handle a division at a time, making air and sea power that much more important(including the cutting off of supplies which the game can improve upon.)

I would suggest seeking minimal changes to the current game where possible. Armies and corps, fleets and air units, can be assembled and split the same way. Only in my vision, with ground units, they can be stacked in a player designated order, thus allowing them to be displayed on the fullscreen province map to be placed across their front next to each other based on this stacking order. On this map, faster advancing units will form pincers and salients. Perhaps some extra player options could be available, but not necessarily. We're already seeing this battle in much more detail. Detail that's actually already there, only not being displayed as well.

To me this is the way DH can be improved. The other thing has to do with multiplayer support. One should be able to not only find games, but players, and not be stuck with complete strangers that may play differently, or not even speak your language. Players should be allowed to register in a database that lists their style of play and preferences -whether it's which country, mods or scenarios to play. People should also be able to review other players as well, on their skill, cooperation, and affability.

With all the effort and priority that's been placed on the AI, you'd think it'd be players' favorite aspect of the game. Whether HOI4 or DH, it's still not. In fact it's still one of the worst aspects of the game as it cheats. AI seems to be the fatal attraction of developers. What a one-in-a-million game like this one really needs, is more mutiplayer support. I suppose you could play monopoly against an AI, but doesn't that defeat the social aspect of the game?

 

[macgregor2150]

DH can better display battle info, and perhaps offer more choices; dispositions of units, tactics, local stacking limits, CAG units and perhaps actual models over the generic tech levels. the map could show terrain, weather, and possession at once, and certainly, they could do more for the people trying to organize mutiplayer games.

 

[macgregor2150]

In a perfect game, perhaps one could zoom in close enough to see the actual combat, of course at the cost of necessary contextual information. That said, battlefield information CAN be better displayed, offering more information, with an added zoom level. I still would prefer to see NATO counters over sprites. But I feel a better representation of a battle in a province can be offered through a zoom level. But unless it displays more information than the current linear battle progress, no need.

Attacking units can be arriving at the objective at their individual speeds, and being able to interpret that in a visual display would be of great help to the player. Could there be a way for the player to affect say, an encirclement or other battlefield conditions that currently pop up at random? That would be cool, though I'm not even sure if that is necessary. Mods do a great job of showing us pictures of units and leaders. A zoom in level could assemble some of that info(pics, stats, OOB), perhaps offering more info on possible weapons and uniforms for immersion.

I've given up on thinking the game needs the actual values of individual models, beyond % advantages some mods offer with maybe the exception of capital ships -which is probably not necessary. The simple reason being that aircraft and ground units all represent multiple types, displaying the largest contingent. Tech levels already handle this realistically -though there's nothing wrong with mentioning all the types possibly present. This is indeed a game; a great game. But it should be a learning tool as well, whenever possible. My opinion.

 

[macgregor2150]

It occurred to me that this game does not translate well to modern day, but not because it can't. In the missile age, rapidly deployable, powerful units with a very high chance of being destroyed(used up) characterized as 'missile systems' should be added as 'brigades' to air, land, and naval units. Divisions, ships, and airwings will still have their organic value, but 'missile systems' will be the game changer they actually are; each with it's own range and strength. SAM, ASM. AAM, Land and AGM types can be added. This will add the cost of these systems a well. I think the code in the game is already there.

 

[macgregor2150]

This is perhaps long range thinking for Hearts of Iron. HOI4's main issue with me is that it more manually deals with production, supply and trade, while automating the war itself.

Wargaming is my passion. I mentioned a double click on a province function to make it full screen and display more data on the units there. The direction I'd like to see HOI go, is not to see them change the way the game is played from Darkest hour.

By all means, add detail to supply, but keep it controllable the way it's already handled in DH. DH can add detail everywhere. But I don't think the game itself needed to be changed. The battle display is where the investment could go. More detailed battle progress.

Wargame Red dragon is a great game, but moves so fast I can hardly appreciate the great graphics. Much more fun, would be to have this great visual presentation: some combination of animation and maps(but please no sprites) that can only be affected by the player as they would DH. Retreat-attack-support. If you want to add more status to the units, that's another thing: transport or perhaps some sort of specops for commandoes/guerillas that would be cool.

 

[Litteäperuna]

This is perhaps long range thinking for Hearts of Iron. HOI4's main issue with me is that it more manually deals with production, supply and trade, while automating the war itself.

thats the main reason i never got into HOI4 that much, why do microing the units yourself when you can just automate everything just watch less in pvp kinda of scenario but still, i do like the production and supply ideas though more in depth i think

 

[macgregor2150]

Let me first say -This is an effin awesome game. I suppose graphically it could be enhanced a little, but the GAME format is THERE. And that to me is huge, passing hurdles no other games of this type have achieved. The place where actual work could be done is with the battle map. I had a vision.

Double clicking on a province would expand you to the battle/territory map. No need for the right-click. Each side gets 3 small squares per division. Each square has a strength/ movement and ability based on normal %, strength, leadership etc divided equally among the small blank squares. The AI would maneuver the squares. But there would be a horizontal line that could be adjusted as a marker would decide how much of this province you'll try to hold or conquer. Full forward would be blitzkrieg but perhaps risky. Full back would be retreat. The middle would try to secure half of the province. The animation would not only be fun to watch, but would allow the player to view updated battlefield intel that could be acted upon.

 

[macgregor2150]

Like this . Minus the actual units. Considering the number of divisions here, the squares could be smaller. The map would also display features within the province that could affect movement/combat. This mapview could also offer other details. One corner could show your typical soldier, his uniform, how healthy he looks. His image would change based on supply/support status. When squares meet, combat occurs. The report can get saved, but losses would look hoi4 EU4 like.

 

[macgregor2150]

What I'd like to see, is not only a platform program (DSL?) for multiplayer(which could work for ANY GSG), but with an actual multiplayer format FOR grand strategy mp(my suggestion would be 3v3 all majors w USA starting as China until France falls -WW1 and before, or cold war and after, would be different) with the opportunity to play with friends to take over an alliance, or have them assigned by the platform/mp program. If people could play mp without having to jump through so many hurdles, waiting so long to play, more people would play. More games would sell too; ALL their grand strategy games.

What would REALLY be nice, would be to have some way of ranking players based on their game performances. Perhaps even 'team' performance in some sort of league.

90% of the complaints and effort to improve the game seem to involve the AI. Is meeting up and socializing with other players such a bad thing? The AI to the game is good. It's as good as I ever dreamed they could make. But the quest to make it better, is endless. Meanwhile, any MP experience should already be better than playing the AI. But it's really hard to organize. If it was facilitated, it could be next level.

 

[macgregor2150]

First let me say, I'm not suggesting to NOT explore the idea of more provinces. I'm only saying that this will slow down the game, which doesn't have to be a bad thing. My idea is different. What I love about this game, is that it actually does represent operational movement, abstractly.

The more time a unit spends in a province; it's not only digging in, it's getting deployed within the province as well. By having all these different advance speeds, armored units will attempt to break through, automatically. And leader units will be affecting this.

As players, we give more general orders. When to attack, or stop the attack. Support attack and support defense, as well as reserve status, representing a lot of operational movement the game doesn't depict.

Instead of more provinces, I'd like to see perhaps some depiction of the operational movement. There's the situation of your fastest units being vulnerable to counterattack if they arrive at the province ahead of the rest. Some operation movement depiction could allow the player to see how close he is, beyond the linear display we currently have requiring the player to go through all his units in the battle. This is slowing the game down.

If we had this operational depiction, it's possible a few commands could be offered. Like perhaps to hold the advance, or close an encirclement once you see pincers forming. Just my 2 cents.

This will actually force the game to include much more possible unnamed sub-locations within the province than simply adding provinces. But since units conducting this operational movement are selecting destinations autonomously, it's more about giving the player more information on the battle quicker, which should not slow the game down. Perhaps make it a little faster. That should be the goal I think.

Paratroopers and Amphibious operations will pose a special challenge for whatever developer decided to do this. Landed Paratroopers will have to be placed in a an isolated location within the attacked province. The final product, would be badass however. In my favorite depiction of operational warfare, status of units can be: Deployed, entrenched, fortified, as well as in reorg, or routed, rendering them unresponsive.