Why aren't supply lines DIRECTLY affected by convoy raiding?

[creamcheese]

Its is still a joke after three expansions and numberous updates. More complexity doesnt mean more difficult game, it just matters how well it is done and HoI3 is on ass-level. Like I have no idea if this game breaking bug is ever fixed or will be:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...defensiveness-and-toughness-ever-fixed-for-SF

HoI3 is really ugly retarded child. Paradox modding policy made it even worse, thought it has never been so open like in civ4 and thats why it is still very popular. HoI3 has even less mods than HoI2.

Thats why better if paradox simply forgets this awfull game serie. It is really so badly done that even person like me who owns eu2, eu3, eu4, riccy, hoi2 and ck2 refuses to touch it. Telling "IMHO HoI3 is a great game" is not simply true. You may enjoy it, but simply vast majority gives a sad nod and says nothing.

If you've never touched it how do you know if it is any good?

HoI is one of paradox's better selling lines if I am not mistaken, I'd be willing to bet HoI3 sold more than anything but CKII, so saying the "vast majority gives a sad nod" is a bit silly.

 

[Calad]

Pretty sure what you are referring to was fixed more than a year ago.
It may very well be that you do not enjoy HOI3 but others saying they like it does not make them wrong. We make different games that focus on different aspects of strategy. If you prefer some of our franchises better, great play those. There are a whole lot of people that think HOI3 is a very good game and play it a lot. As long as they enjoy it and have fun, it is in fact correct that in their opinion it is a great game. You cannot tell them that their opinion is wrong, it is their opinion. You are free to have yours but you have to accept that other do not share your opinion.
As an aside, It always amazes me when people that claim a game is "awfull" and a "really ugly retarded child" are still posting in the forum for that game years after it came out. I mean your advice to us is to forget this entire series, while you yourself do not seam able to do so. Now I do not mean to single you out as it is a trend in general that I notice and am commenting on, I realize I have a pretty big bully pulpit and try and respect that.

It is always nice that developer answers so lets talk like equals.

Taking attention away from my points and writing calmly is good way to behave but even then reality cant be buried. I dont think paradox staff enjoys hoi3 or plays it because there are so few good features to defend, more about this later. Now pointing out my provocative way of writing sure makes you look like an adult, but please could you focus on hoi3 instead of me. Here are my points why hoi3 is truely sad game:

First hoi3 is popular because it is only ww2 strategy game that covers whole conflict. And thats all. There may be others, I dont know, but this is the biggest reason why it has popularity because there are no competitors.

Second it still has game breaking problems and covers history extreamly poorly. Before I go deeper I must say what should be done with hoi4: remove features or atleast design them well. HoI3 is not well designed at all. That one bug I mentioned before is only one of many problems first relase had. Original relased did have cities that made ww2 so famous (Leningrad) or were placed wrong (Stalingrad).
Now please name features you are proud of. I cant belive you can name many of them. Here is my list what you should be shamed of: map, historical events, ai, diplomacy, some units, suply system and over all how whole conflict is made. I dont think many players have played classic ww2 beyond year 1945 because game is too linear: you simply make units and steam roll over everything. Eastern front usually is direct German victory or USSR slowly pushes to Berlin well before historical year. Suply is still an issue and rockets are are ridicilous overpowered. Historically V1 and V2 were ineffective but here you can level whole nations. Also battles could be better: siege of Leningrad and Sevastopol are simply not possible to present in current battle system. Naval battles are simply throwning ships against each other.
So if paradox is planing to make hoi4, make it like axis&allies or make it very well. Biggest problem for me is that I think hoi3 is extreamly insulting for those who experienced ww2 because it is so casual. Makes ww2 look like easy, fun, walkover fieldtrip.

Third problem is that there is so little to mod. Really why it is like that? Games that are extreamly modable like civ4 and simcity4 are even today still popular and constantly recommed, this means they still generate cash. Game with many design flaws and very little modability offers very little to customers and generates less cash for you. It is this easy to make game lose most of its potential, so why does hoi3 take this road? Situation could still be saved with weekly hotfixes and regular updates but there are few of them. Only reason why paradox follows this very unpopular and ineffective policy is because of poor organization and leadership, or outdated company politics. Another reason can be that paradox has calculated regular expansions and finaly next generation game generates more income. This is very sad and somehow moraly wrong but good for you because thats how you earn your salary.

Why Im telling this all? Because Im a customer and I can point out clear flaws my product maker has.

 

[podcat]

Its is still a joke after three expansions and numberous updates. More complexity doesnt mean more difficult game, it just matters how well it is done and HoI3 is on ass-level. Like I have no idea if this game breaking bug is ever fixed or will be:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...defensiveness-and-toughness-ever-fixed-for-SF

HoI3 is really ugly retarded child. Paradox modding policy made it even worse, thought it has never been so open like in civ4 and thats why it is still very popular. HoI3 has even less mods than HoI2.

Thats why better if paradox simply forgets this awfull game serie. It is really so badly done that even person like me who owns eu2, eu3, eu4, riccy, hoi2 and ck2 refuses to touch it. Telling "IMHO HoI3 is a great game" is not simply true. You may enjoy it, but simply vast majority gives a sad nod and says nothing.

Just because you didnt like the game doesnt mean its terrible, and just because people like it doesnt mean it has no issues and things that could be improved.
However, instead of replying to your shoddy troll attempts I shall instead post a picture of a pretty flower.

 

[Loke]

nice flower...

 

[Calad]

Well I'm sorry to post my personal opinion so I would like to hear yours. What part of hoi3 are you specially proud of castellon and podcat? Or do you play it?

You can keep dodging subject but it tells everybody more than I ever could.

 

[Big Nev]

Well I'm sorry to post my personal opinion so I would like to hear yours. What part of hoi3 are you specially proud of castellon and podcat? Or do you play it?

You can keep dodging subject but it tells everybody more than I ever could.

Dear Calad.

I like the game.

I like its complexity.

I like the way the combat system is both complex & very simple at the same time.

I like that logistics is a MAJOR issue and can screw you up even if you do everything right. I mean, when did anything ever go according to plan?

I like the fact that the AI can surprise me and put me on the defensive.

I like the fact that so very much of HoI III can be changed, re-written, moded to match a player’s personal tastes although it’s strictly limited by a player’s ability to understand the code and what does what.

Yes, there are a few things missing from history that, perhaps, should be included. It would be nice if Germany had Flak-88s, for example or Japan had the Long Lance. There are a great many political events that aren’t included. But there are a great many that are. Some of which are random. So… as a simulation, it’s not supposed to follow history to the letter & date. Why would anybody want that? It’s a game, not a documentary.

One of the things I’d like to see “fixed” relates to the OP. Sinking “convoys” doesn’t constitute sinking the supplies they are supposed to be carrying because there aren’t actually any convoys. Just convoy routes. Where, how many & what the supposed freighters are actually carrying isn’t modelled as ships on the map. I think it would be better if they were but this would require a complete re-work of the supply system. HoI IV hopefully.

There are many games out there that I think are complete & utter rubbish. Every year, for example, there’s yet another football manager game. Seriously? Are we going to see FIFA 2020 in a few years?

You betcha! And lots of people will buy it.

And just how many car racing games can there be? I mean come ON!

Yes, this particular game is one of a kind. I certainly haven’t seen anything that attempts the entirety of WWII. And I like that too.

And I like podcat’s flower.

I see you have your point of view, and you’re entitled to it. You are even entitled to post your point of view but… this is the HoI III forum (incidentally, I like this forum too because it's got lots of nice, helpful people in it) and if you want to be taken seriously here, you should, at least, register your copy of the game.

If you don’t like the game. Don’t play it. Simple. I've got loads of games that I don't like.

 

[creamcheese]

Well I'm sorry to post my personal opinion so I would like to hear yours.

I don't like HoI3, I love it.

I love it for the same reasons I love all PDS games:
1. They have the balls to try things very few other games even attempt.
2. PDS actually supports their releases (unlike many games devs), even if they often turn out buggy/unplayable on release. (although EUIV at launch was excellent)
3. They have fantastic replayability. Even playing the same nation you can go a completely different direction and have what feels like a brand new game. This alone makes them worth the money more than most video games.
4. They are easily moddable. Even someone like me who doesn't have a CS degree or really any knowledge of that sort of thing can mod the games into whatever they like with text files alone.
5. They make for some of the most memorable stories of my gaming career.

You can keep dodging subject but it tells everybody more than I ever could.

You realize you're in the HoI3 forum, right? Not only does everyone love podcat (LAA.exe FTW!) but pretty much everyone except you likes the game.

 

[Danmark Rising]

The entire Hearts of Iron series has had me hooked from day 1. It's grand and detailed and lets you dive down into the nuts and bolts of the war if that's what you want to do; or you can stay up top and play at a more strategic level. I use HOI to get my alt-history fix, and while I wish diplomacy was more in depth I'm happy with the current status of the game, even after the mess that was the launch of HOI III.

 

[themousemaster]

Well I'm sorry to post my personal opinion so I would like to hear yours. What part of hoi3 are you specially proud of castellon and podcat? Or do you play it?

You can keep dodging subject but it tells everybody more than I ever could.

Just so I have your argument clear...

You are trying to have a "debate" with the mods on their own game, in their own forums.

The object of the debate is to prove how horrible it is, precluding people from liking it.

There are numerous people in this thread who state how much they like it.

You are ignoring all of their posts, and specifically replying only to devs.


Ergo, you are trying to prove to the forumbase how much their own opinions are wrong, by categorically ignoring them.





Did you learn your debate technique from Fox News? Because the only two places I've ever seen this method used are in political-propaganda pieces, and parents of 3-year old children. And I assure you, no one playing HOI3 is a 3 year old child.






There are things I'd change about HOI3. My signature includes a couple of them. But this is not the Nirvana Logical Fallacy here; something having things you disagree with does not turn it into a steaming pile of refuse, as if there is only two states, "perfect" or "total garbage".

 

[cfp]

Ok, so I like the majority of the supply/convoy system of HOI3 - I think it makes a lot of sense and for the most part accurately (though abstractly) represents the logistics of supplying troops. There's one thing that irks me though:

How come raiding a particular supply line doesn't affect that specific route of supply?

Let's say I'm playing the US and I've got a D-Day invasion going on simultaneously with an invasion of the Phillipines. Let's also assume that the Atlantic is safe, but Japan is managing to wax nearly every supply convoy I send over there. It makes no sense that their convoy raiding should impact my ability to supply my troops on the other side of the Atlantic, who would be using entirely different convoy ships. Their convoy kills are going to be taken from my "global" convoy pool and can impact my ability to supply troops everywhere, even where the Japanese navy is not. That just seems ridiculous.

Also, as convoy raiding efficiency increases there should be a more dramatic effect on supply to that particular route. Again for the sake of the argument let's say I'm playing the US and I'm landing troops in China to help the Chinese. Again let's assume the Japanese navy starts sinking a massive amount of my convoys, but this time I've been smart enough to stockpile a massive number of them. Despite the fact that they could have total naval dominance and know EXACTLY WHICH BEACH THOSE CONVOY SHIPS WILL BE LANDING AT, the game will allow me to continue supplying those troops, unhindered, so long as I have enough convoys stored up. That also seems ridiculous.

Troops should only be supplied insofar as it is reasonable to assume a supply ship could actually make it to the desired drop-off point. If the enemy has a massive number of convoys stockpiled and wants to send them into a dangerous situation, sure, let them, but at least give the troops they are supplying a supply penalty when suddenly everything headed their way gets sunk.

It *does* directly affect that supply, and in your first example.. you can do it yourself: manage convoys yourself, stop any from going into Japanese waters, and voila. They can no longer get to your convoys. It won't affect the supply in Europe, and it will affect supply in the Pacific. They can't sink convoys you're not sending.

Of *course* your convoys come from a total pool - do you think ships are limitless creations? If the US lost more liberty ships to the Japanese than they were able to build, don't you think that would make D-Day (and thus, supplying it) impossible? You're basically saying the supply system is bad because it's realistic (and you don't understand it.) Ridiculous.

Your thread and argument makes no sense. The one thing I agree with is that a "blockade" doesn't really work - but despite being under blockade, the Japanese still managed to get many supplies to distant troops via cruisers, dds, and subs.

 

[Beagá]

It´s more that the problem is that you can park a fleet with 30 ships and supplies will get through normally, unless convoys to that port are sunk, which they seldom are.

But it´s one of those issues Paradox will change for the sequel, I bet.

 

[drewski]

I just skimmed the threat so apologies if this has been said already.
What if for hoi 4 they added coastal provinces, where you could implement all the fun stuff secret master was talking about with blockades last page (coast batteries causing attrition, mines, etc). This way you could still navigate around quite easily without getting all sorts of random attrition, have your blockades if you have the naval capacity, and have the counter measures to balance it. You could either make a lot of small thin strips, making it quite the challenge to blockade a whole coast of a large country, or make a couple big ones but have the defenses cost more.

Another feature I'd love is if you could draw the supply routes yourself, or atleast have some options to choose from. If you have the naval superiority you should be able to choose to go where ever you want, and conversely if you're taking heavy loses you should be able to at least change the route. A example, from england to indian ocean areas you could go through med, go close to west coast of africa, go close to east coast of america, or heck go across the pacific if japan is neutral for some reason. The fact that right now you don't really have a choice (I believe I read somewhere you could change it slightly if you cancel and recreate the convoy, ie from med to around africa, could be wrong though) and just have to suck it up.

 

[Kovax]

The majority of the complaints about this game are because it's a good game, and SO close to being a GREAT game that it's frustrating. If it were a bad game, most of us wouldn't be here, and would have abandoned both the game and the forum after leaving a couple of comments.

The biggest issues at this point seem to be:
1) The starting political conditions are totally bogus. The Faction leaders start at 0 relations with everyone except a couple of exceptions needed to channel the game onto the "rails", and the rest of the world starts out at 75 relations, no matter how well or how badly they got along historically. Espionage should have real but highly indirect results to affect public sentiment and efficiency (closer to the original concept), not the "coup the country" and "steal tech" sensationalist and gamey mechanics it gradually became. The problem is that the game has been balanced around this totally artificial set of relationships, and any changes would require extensive alterations to the AI, decisions, and events to compensate.

2) The naval game needs a major overhaul. Ships tend to slow down with damage in most real cases, making it harder to withdraw unless you have something (like escorts) to distract the opponent. Carriers shouldn't become "stealth ships" that can block movement across straits without the opponent being able to engage either them or their aircraft. Carrier-based planes shouldn't be able to fly again almost immediately after becoming completely disorganized. Some command hierarchy (with a purpose for its existence) would be a big plus.

3) Supply should radiate from IC locations, not almost exclusively from the capital. Airbases and ports should hold some minimum level of supplies and fuel even when not in use. Supply routing should prefer higher infrastructure over lower, unless the distance is considerably more through the higher. Supplies enroute should not return all the way back to the capital if/when a unit moves. Supply depots need the option to be manually placed or moved; using higher HQs for the task could be one way of handling it.

The ludicrous claims of HOI3 being a "really ugly retarded child" are obviously by someone who doesn't understand (or want to understand) how to play it. I see HOI4 as the ideal time to fix the political and economic issues. These could probably be fixed in the existing game, but the time factor involved in reworking all of the data and rebalancing the game for it would practically justify calling it a new game, even without major changes to the game mechanics themselves.

 

[cfp]

It´s more that the problem is that you can park a fleet with 30 ships and supplies will get through normally, unless convoys to that port are sunk, which they seldom are.

But it´s one of those issues Paradox will change for the sequel, I bet.

Oh I completely agree, just pointing out a lot of things were moved via subs during the war, which could still work even with 30 ships off shore. Obviously the DDs and cruisers would face different problems heh.

"unless convoys to that port are sunk, which they seldom are" Also.. I don't seem to have that problem. If I target a certain port, I can usually find it's supply route and sink a good number. When you sink a supply convoy, note it's destination and origin.. common sense from there! Just keep an eye out for the areas you sink that specific convoy, using the naval map mode.

Coastal combat could definitely use some improvements. All naval combat really. Why would BCs try to close to within gun range of CLs/CAs for example? Wouldn't they attempt to maintain *some* distance, to avoid enemy fire for as long as possible, while still being able to return effective fire? Wouldn't it be nice if we had the option to do both? Mining and smaller torpedo boats.. I don't know how they could work, but being a major part of naval warfare (esp. in WW2) they need to find a way.

 

[BattleMoose]

, just pointing out a lot of things were moved via subs during the war,

Not really. The japanese did use subs to transport some supplies but out of complete desperation as the USN was literally sinking all their merchantmen. It was extremely ineffective and a waste of a valuable submarine.

 

[doulos05]

Not really. The japanese did use subs to transport some supplies but out of complete desperation as the USN was literally sinking all their merchantmen. It was extremely ineffective and a waste of a valuable submarine.

Not sure how "valuable" their submarines were. Like all military equipment, subsequently are only valuable if you use them. Japan had a great fleet of fairly advanced submarines that they used as submersible cargo ships.

 

[BattleMoose]

Not sure how "valuable" their submarines were. Like all military equipment, subsequently are only valuable if you use them. Japan had a great fleet of fairly advanced submarines that they used as submersible cargo ships.

Tell that to USS Wasp.

 

[Secret Master]

Not really. The japanese did use subs to transport some supplies but out of complete desperation as the USN was literally sinking all their merchantmen. It was extremely ineffective and a waste of a valuable submarine.

And Japan had some good equipment on their subs, too. Had they employed them better, it might have made somewhat of a difference. But even according to their own doctrine of attritioning the USN and then forcing a decisive battle, their submarines were used incorrectly. There should have been more Wasps and fewer supply runs.

 

[themousemaster]

And Japan had some good equipment on their subs, too. Had they employed them better, it might have made somewhat of a difference. But even according to their own doctrine of attritioning the USN and then forcing a decisive battle, their submarines were used incorrectly. There should have been more Wasps and fewer supply runs.

That said, had JAP actually tried to get more Wasps, they also would have ended up with far fewer subs. It's not like the USA couldn't have another CV and 3 more CVLs sunk and still had 4x as many as they needed, all now without having to worry about protecting their own merchant ships from the JAP subs that weren't targeting them ;p




I think the JAP hierarchy should have played some games of StarCraft or Civ... rushing high tech doesn't help if you don't put it to the correct use ;p.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, it's a question of better and worse uses for submarines.

Great use: raid convoys

Good use: Sink capital ships, even if they can be replaced (don't discount the psychological effect of losing CVs; a more cautious Pacific Fleet has advantages)

Bad use: Ship supplies to garrisons which are being bypassed anyway while the Allies get closer to Japan.