Your arguments are valid
I will still hold my views, albeit with new perspective
Thank you for your time.
- 2
-
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.
I will still hold my views, albeit with new perspective
Thank you for your time.
This post is just a bunch of unrelated comments deviating from previous discussion
There isn't a single way to play especially in single player where you can make lots of radically different strategies work. In particular, I coming around to the idea that cleverly engineered overrun may be significantly better than the usual micro and macro encirclement arrangement. This is particular focus for me because my, well known at the time, HOI3 AAR features army group south rolling up the entire Soviet defence front south of the marshes as almost one continuous overrun with barely a single pocket forming at all - and I want to try an reproduce in HOI4 which is difficult and requires a complex mix of very carefully handled units.
I have suggested a solution to this before which is for the game to apply some randomisation to the tech tree so that you don't know how good future weapon types are going to be. Just think of the impact of a game where it suddenly turned out that rocket fighters were a brilliant air defence (but still useless for other stuff). This would make each game a bit of an adventure as you would need to work out the meta for your current game whilst playing it.
This is something I suggested a solution for. The core problem here is that battles don't progress across geography, they basically stay where they are until all of the defenders are defeated. If there was battle progress to a point where you captured the province even though the defender still has viable divisions then things would become significantly different. I think this would help make MP return to the level of dynamic movement seen in SP where the AI never puts up an immovable defence.
- 1
Personally I think this is a really bad idea. Introducing randomness into the game for the sake of shaking things up will just make competitive players leave. Players want to be able to plan and execute a strategy, if the RNG starts deciding which strategies are good and which ones aren't people will just quit. No one likes having their competitive games decided by rng.
I don't really think this would work, you'd probably have to rewrite the game code from scratch for how combat and territorial control works, and those have been baked into the game from the beginning. The other alternative is a new world map with many more smaller provinces, and I don't really see that solving any problems either.
There's plenty of dynamic movement in MP, it's just slower than in SP where you can blitz around taking everything with 12kph tanks because the AI folds in half a second to a decent tank division.
- 1
MP movement may be slower/methodical due to precognition/planning; people know to make defensive lines in optimal places with optimal preparation, which pretty much cancels out Blitz as a strategy. With Blitz, you want the first engagement in easy terrain so you can quickly occupy the more difficult territories with less of a fight
A typical eastern front in a MP game has a lot of back and forth (or at least it used to when I played MP), with the Axis and Soviet tanks encircling and counter-encircling each other until one side runs out of tanks and can't fight back anymore. It's not just mashing into a defensive line until it breaks followed by a mad dash to the Urals. If you want to see some MP gameplay to see how it goes I would check out Bokoen on youtube. He plays with a mod, but he posts game highlights and the videos are pretty short.
- 1
Contrasted though: the competitive side of the playerbase is in a significant minority. Casual multiplayer is already the minority, and competitive multiplayer even more so. And while I don't doubt they exist somewhere, I highly doubt there are many competitive single players
On the other hand, a lot of the biggest problems I see mentioned throughout the game are seated in the fact that the Meta is so stagnant. There are a plethora of suggestions on how to shake the systems up so that more stats are viable, and therefore designs more situational, but the easiest one would just be adding some randomness into the systems, and therefore making nations more interested in building their tech base around the things that are working best for them
Despite providing a temporary upset for the "competitive" players (who in general just mod out things they dislike anyways) this would do wonders into making games feel less stagnant, and therefore increase replayability, and in turn increase the overall playerbase
I have seen several suggestions where the battle screen gets reworked so that there are more ways to win a battle, including additional "ground taken" stats. From there, speed could make a far greater difference in battles themselves. And as the developers have mentioned taking an interest in making battles more dynamic (with their most recent foray into the idea being the new city tactics), it's not impossible that a combat rework is in the cards that makes province battles feel more like things are moving within the province itself
- 1
It's not so much about Casual vs Competitive, as it is about consistency IMO. Having too many (or unpredictable) dice rolls can eventually lead to players losing too much agency
- 1
- 1
The stale mp meta of the game also isn't really a problem in single player. Players can largely do whatever they want and still beat the AI, this is a problem that only presents itself when the game is pushed to its limits in pvp. If we don't care about competitive pvp, then I don't really even see a need to make changes. Even I don't use "mp meta" tanks in singleplayer, because the meta is completely different when your breakpoints and goals are different. Speed is definitely a useful stat, and when I don't need insane heavy tanks I'm free to make my 8kph mediums and drive around everywhere. Or even 12kph light SPG divisions with motorized. They'll perform just as well if not better.
I agree with @Killer-Cosmo here. My opinions on optimal strategy may be largely formed by how much min-maxing is possible, but I do realize that competitive play is a tiny minority. If a bunch of RNG was added into the game solely to shake up the MP meta, it would probably annoy a lot of other players as well who don't play MP. Even in single player, I go for the same fighter designs every game because I know how to design a good plane. If I went on the same path only to realize after researching my meta fighter that the tech low-rolled and was going to suck this game, I just wasted a ton of time and research. Likewise, no one is ever going to research rocket interceptors as a first choice on the off chance that the tech high-rolls and becomes secretly OP for that game. Adding RNG to equpment stats on a per-game basis is just a recipe for unfun scenarios.
And people who've spent hundreds of hours playing don't want to have to spend a bunch of time reading equpment tooltips every game to make sure their fighters aren't going to suck. They want to click the research tab, click the tech to research, know what they're getting because they've done it a million times before, and get on with the game.
- 1
The original suggestion was that it should be an option like historical or non-historical so it shouldn't affect those who want to stick to a more predictable game. The idea was targeted at the biggest player exploit which is simply knowledge of the future.
I think you are wrong here. It could easily be implemented as a change without actually changing very much of the existing code. What might well be a problem is the way it changes the dynamics of the game resulting in significant effort on rebalancing.
- 1
Independent of any specific proposal to address it, I'm personally depressed (even looking from the outside as someone who's never done MP) by the thought that a game with such a notoriously high complexity can be considered solved so soon, and not even (entirely) in nine years but in
Like, there being only one formula to execute every game would be undesirable on its own, but also what did we invest in all the game's many, many moving parts for?
time_since_last_major_gameplay_overhaul.Like, there being only one formula to execute every game would be undesirable on its own, but also what did we invest in all the game's many, many moving parts for?
I will note: I usually play the game with the AI having significant bonuses to production and with the expert AI mod.
Hmm... I feel like I am an outlier here. As Germany, I use both lights and mediums. Although, I never combine them together in the same division. I agree, mediums are more cost efficient and better overall. IMHO, the medium chassis should cost 2 steel at base vs 1 for the light chassis. In addition I think a .5 production cost decrease for the light chassis would better balance the two out.
Why do I use lights at all? Utility and availability.
1) In minor theaters like the Balkans, Africa, Scandinavia, and other out of the way areas light panzers are usually enough to give you the punch you need to win and they have less penalties in the difficult terrain.
2) Speed. I design my light panzers to have over 10 km/h speeds with extra fuel tanks and accompany them with motorized until I get 10 km/h mechanized (in reality the war is usually almost over by that time). With doctrine, staff, and MIO buffs to the armor, my divisions are often moving at 12 km/h and above with some tactics and situations. I tend to break a hole in the enemy lines using tougher medium armor divisions. Then I use light tanks divisions to accompany my motorized divisions into the rear. If I do run into some enemy units that are preventing an encirclement, the light tanks are much better at pushing those units compared to the motorized divisions. The light tanks and extra fuel allow me to make bolder encirclements and close them faster. I feel this alone lets me destroy more divisions faster than when I use only medium tank divisions.
3) Like many have mentioned, production efficiency and early availability. Germany starts with factories on panzer II's at game start. I actually up it to 6 factories right away and just let those 6 factories make light panzers throughout the entire war. This also helps to build up upgrades for the MIO. I use Ethiopia to get the XP needed to redesign my lights early on. The 6 factories from start is usually enough to equip 8 upgraded divisions of panzer II's by the start of the war. I slowly grow the number of divisions and keep them equipped with light panzers forever using just these 6 factories. I find light tank divisions are effective through 1941 in the main theaters and through the end of the war in minor theaters.
I always keep my light panzer divisions equipped with panzer I's through the SCW and if I send divisions to China. That way I can get several light armor divisions to max XP before the main war breaks out without losing many of the upgraded light tanks.
I use light panzers similar to blahmaster's CSG designs with high soft attack. The only difference is I max out their speed and add extra fuel. Later, I sometimes sub in one heavily armored fast light TD into my light panzer divisions to raise their armor values and piercing so they still trade well against minor factions and upgraded infantry weapons. This does slow the divisions down to 11 km/h though.
Hmm... I feel like I am an outlier here. As Germany, I use both lights and mediums. Although, I never combine them together in the same division. I agree, mediums are more cost efficient and better overall. IMHO, the medium chassis should cost 2 steel at base vs 1 for the light chassis. In addition I think a .5 production cost decrease for the light chassis would better balance the two out.
Why do I use lights at all? Utility and availability.
1) In minor theaters like the Balkans, Africa, Scandinavia, and other out of the way areas light panzers are usually enough to give you the punch you need to win and they have less penalties in the difficult terrain.
2) Speed. I design my light panzers to have over 10 km/h speeds with extra fuel tanks and accompany them with motorized until I get 10 km/h mechanized (in reality the war is usually almost over by that time). With doctrine, staff, and MIO buffs to the armor, my divisions are often moving at 12 km/h and above with some tactics and situations. I tend to break a hole in the enemy lines using tougher medium armor divisions. Then I use light tanks divisions to accompany my motorized divisions into the rear. If I do run into some enemy units that are preventing an encirclement, the light tanks are much better at pushing those units compared to the motorized divisions. The light tanks and extra fuel allow me to make bolder encirclements and close them faster. I feel this alone lets me destroy more divisions faster than when I use only medium tank divisions.
3) Like many have mentioned, production efficiency and early availability. Germany starts with factories on panzer II's at game start. I actually up it to 6 factories right away and just let those 6 factories make light panzers throughout the entire war. This also helps to build up upgrades for the MIO. I use Ethiopia to get the XP needed to redesign my lights early on. The 6 factories from start is usually enough to equip 8 upgraded divisions of panzer II's by the start of the war. I slowly grow the number of divisions and keep them equipped with light panzers forever using just these 6 factories. I find light tank divisions are effective through 1941 in the main theaters and through the end of the war in minor theaters.
I always keep my light panzer divisions equipped with panzer I's through the SCW and if I send divisions to China. That way I can get several light armor divisions to max XP before the main war breaks out without losing many of the upgraded light tanks.
I use light panzers similar to blahmaster's CSG designs with high soft attack. The only difference is I max out their speed and add extra fuel. Later, I sometimes sub in one heavily armored fast light TD into my light panzer divisions to raise their armor values and piercing so they still trade well against minor factions and upgraded infantry weapons. This does slow the divisions down to 11 km/h though.
- 1
I get it. This game has depressed me since it released. So much low hanging fruit that could be easily fixed. Yet there the game sits.
Luckily, I got a personal message/response from one of the developers a couple of years ago.
I am no longer depressed, because now I know this game is a lost cause. I spend more time here reading and discussing the possibilities than playing with the unfixed flaws the game has.
Yes, HoI4 has a lot of options. But in a game with so many options it's only natural that some options will be better than others. No matter how complex the moving parts of a game are, at the end of the day everything boils down to a math problem, usually some variety of "cost multiplied by combat effectiveness". Things like fighter designs are easy to test in an hour or two - you just start a new game and use console commands to mash a bunch of different fighter designs into each other to figure out which ones trade better. You can complicate things by adding MIOs and different air doctrines into the mix, but that's just adding more variables into an equation. You can find the best fighter design, and then test that best fighter design with all the different MIOs until you find the best MIO as well. Same with air doctrine. In the age of internet communications only one or a few people have to run the tests themselves, and the knowledge quickly spreads to the whole world unless people hoard it for a competitive advantage. But in MP anyone can take save games and study what their opponents did after the game, so you can't really even hide your strategies longer than the game you're currently playing.
Other things are more complex, like optimal ground unit composition. Generally there is just an escalation ladder and a meta based on popularity. In a vacuum, medium tanks would be more popular than heavies. They're faster and cheaper, and more flexible. Indeed, years ago the meta was 15-5 medium tank/mech divisions in multiplayer. Then people realized that attack isn't everything as long as tanks could still click other tanks, and you need HP for your tanks to have staying power. So you started seeing divisions more like 12-8 instead of 15-5. Then one day, someone brings in heavy tanks. Regular medium tanks didn't have enough piercing to pierce heavy tanks back then, and had lower attack as well. Even with a numbers advantage, it didn't matter when your medium tanks couldn't win battles anymore. So people added TDs to their medium tanks to pierce heavies. But that wasn't ideal either, and you needed a good ratio of TDs to get enough piercing to deal with heavies. Eventually everyone is just building all heavy tanks, all the time. During this entire time of meta exploration, almost nothing changed involving the functionality of tanks. Only the players' perceptions changed. But eventually people realized that you can't really do better than heavy tanks, so that's where we ended up. The tank designer being added in NSB did actually shake things up for a while, with a bunch of different metas as the game got patched, but eventually settled back into heavy tank destroyers being king.
Also, remember that "time since last major gameplay overhaul" never really means that the entire game is overhauled at once. If Germany gets a new focus tree, that doesn't mean every other country's strategy changes, unless Germany being different enables the Axis to game plan in a different way or Germany got buffed so much that it forces the USSR to gameplan differently to survive. If the air designer changes, that doesn't mean everyone's ship designs are no longer meta, and it doesn't mean that people now need to rethink how to build land armies. It just means people need to learn what the new best plane designs are.
That's not to say that every game plays out the same. Even when a given community believes they've found the one best solution to every problem, people will still experiment to see if they can do better. At the very least overall grand strategy is where you will always see deviations from game to game. Where to attack, when, and with how much force is the main point of deviation. How well does the enemy defend? You can plan out a build from the start and make a similar build every game, but just like in real life no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Every game plays out differently even if everyone were to use similar builds all the time.
- 1
- 1
your best bet for this is to apply enough movement speed penalty to enemy units from aircraft. battles can be won with anything, overruns done with mot. many versions ago i did a mass overrun with cavalry in hoi 4, where probably only 10-20% of the divisions destroyed were in pockets, rest were overrun. it's probably still possible even with those. it's hard to make absolutely 0 pockets as you do a uniform push simply because some combats take longer than others or the terrain isn't uniform, causing the line to not push in 100% uniform fashion.
One thing that hasn't been discussed is the impact of speed in the game. One of the slightly weird features of fuel using vehicles in this game is that range until they run out of fuel is based on speed because fuel is consumed by the passage of time. This creates the odd feature that fast tanks are also long range tanks, apparently fast tanks have bigger fuel tanks. However, the main impact is that motorised divisions, because of their speed, have significantly deeper penetration range than tanks. I don't think this means very much but nobody brought it up yet.
- 3
- 1
Oh I thought it's also if it has about the same unit composition.
E.g, if you modify a 4 battalion cav unit into a 4 battalion mot unit, you won't lost experience but if you edit a 4 unit inf regiment into a 4 battalion mot unit, you will lose experience. It's just unit numbers?
How? It's more valuable in SP bc you can overrun units easier with 12 km/h units. It's not as good with 8 km/h tanks. Overruning is much better than encircling whether it be SP or MP
The problem is that the meta isn't just multiplayer or single player, it's overall. This isn't just "shaking up the meta", but "this thing can be used without massive amounts of cheese". Or rather "this thing won't always be completely useless and a complete waste of effort"
I think I will agree with the idea that it would be annoying to see research time wasted...but the easy solution is to show the potential ahead of time. Honestly I personally think special projects show a pretty good way to potentially do that, having the tech show bonuses or flaws incrementally, and allowing one to abandon the project if it seems like it's just going to be a waste. Which in turn would add a bit of historicality alongside increasing viable techs
And for those who don't like it...it would be easy to code it in such a way that it can be easily modded/optioned out. And as competitive players tend to have their own mod sets to remove the things they find annoying already...it's not really a problem for them anyways
See, I find this a bad thing. Rote clicking because everything is already preplotted is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about stale gameplay. It's one of the things that stop me the most from booting up a new game: deterministic actions and reduced practical choices
It's a lot easier for modders/options to reduce randomness than it is to increase it. This is the kind of thing that could be easy added and reverted for the people who don't want it