|
I think its because they said they wanted this one to be paid DLC, and future ones will definitely be. People already have issues with Paradox's DLC policy.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
Drone posted:"Civil War historian" on the Paradox forums tends to mean "owns some Confederate flag paraphernalia" and/or is someone who is 90% likely to refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression. Which would also mostly describe Shelby Foote.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:What do ya'll intend to play first after all the pre-order nerds say whether or not it's good or stellaris'd again? I'm terrified to play France. Interwar France and the Battle of France are of particular interest to me, but in HoI 3, even HPP or BIce, surviving into 1941 breaks the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
The OOB and TOE could be fleshed out. Military formations without artillery would have been unthinkable in 1916, let alone 1936.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
I understand that artillery is available as an attachment. What is surprising is that it is not a default attachment for all nations, and all divisions in 1936, and also that it costs XP to get organic artillery (within a regiment) that lowers Org, and is also not a default in 1936. It's just weirdly anachronistic.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Also for some reason artillery battalions increase your divisions combat frontage... I think it may represent "Combat footprint" or "Logistical overhead" because yeah it makes no sense for artillery to take up frontage.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:How do you know what the default attachments are DD's plus all the World War Wednesdays. Danial is playing France in 1936 right now, and French Infantry Divisions start without artillery. That's mind mindbogglingly inaccurate.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Maybe those are a lighter militia or colonial division he's made  No regimental artillery. I think earlier in the playthrough there was no divisional, but it's hard to find it on youtube. French Division 1940 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Wooper posted:That says the French division has 24 heavy artillery guns, exactly as many as in game. What an outrage. It says they have 24 155mm guns, but that each regiment also has a battery, as well as AT, AA, infantry guns and mortars. Which is a pretty huge difference. At least having the 36 75mm guns in regimental artillery, brings the total to 60 which is a big leap from 24. Enjoy posted:So the formation has some artillery, it's just not 100% accurate, is that your complaint? It's an omission that didn't have to be made. They have the system for divisional artillery (support tab) and they have the system for regimental artillery (battalions in the columns) so why not use their own systems? Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Let me reiterate I understand what you're saying, and as someone else pointed out I'm sure it will be modded in but 75mm guns are absolutely artillery pieces. Besides that, France did have AA and AT guns in their infantry divisions in 1936, as well as sappers and recce companies, so why are those attachments empty as well? I guess I'm just seeing lots of wasted research and spent XP to put stuff in that should already be there.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Modelling the infantry battalions is good because then you can make lighter divisions of militia/coast guards, and you can bulk out specialist anti-tank divisions that go where the enemy tanks are concentrated instead of being spread out You could still do that with regiments. Three infantry regiments and an artillery regiment better represents a division than 9 lone infantry battalions. In game Italy has simply weaker binary divisions with 6 battalions, which mostly just makes the player spend XP to have triangular divisions. Historically, this was offset by having MSVN in a division (militia) but under the current system, again that would just be adding more infantry battalions. It's just odd to break down divisions don to the battalion but not model it accurately or treat artillery the same way. I'm not asking for motor pools or mechanics' shops, just evenly applying details that is already there.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
You can spend political points to have Henshel or Porsche make tanks, and that will differentiate your tanks as well. e: although having 1936, 38 and 41 equipment is weird too because France can't make Ms. 401 until 1938 or Dewoitine until 1941, for example. It seems like many things were balanced for sandboxy multiplayer instead of having some accuracy representing the world in 1936, which could be a sandbox after that. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
ExtraNoise posted:The system that appears to be in place now is a happy medium. I don't want to spend so much time setting up each of my armor divisions that I never actually send them into battle. I agree, for the most part. How the medium works is a little puzzling. For instance if you look at German and US tank divisions in 1941, 1943 and 1944 you see fewer tanks and more infantry and artillery. I get the feeling that right now it would work better to have as many regiments, with as many battalions of tanks as possible.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Wooper posted:Are you for real? I can't tell. Yes. It's a Paradox game. Who do you think buys Matrix/Slitherine/Paradox/Battlefront games? People who know and care about the subject matter.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Adding a little detail won't turn this into WitP or TOAW. If you're going to add TD battalions, why not add assault guns? If you'll have those, why not have schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilunge?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:How exactly does a TD Battalion differ from a SchwPzJAbt.? They're not part of a division, that would be the big difference.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
As well at the IJN being low on oil and aviation fuel, which is not modelled in HoI 4. Japan only has to build ships, so an oil embargo doesn't impact fleet activity.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Horsebanger posted:Ships require Oil during production and build at a dramatically slower rate if you don't have it. The issue is that Japan already has carriers in '36 and is well on their way to building more. By the time of the embargo in 1940, the carriers are mostly built. Lack of oil only impacts their ability to build more, future carriers. Japan can park off Pearl Harbour for days and operate indefinitely in 1942. The embargo only matters so far as losing carriers at Midway means that replacement ships will take longer to build because of the embargo, which would be the case any way because of building time. So Japan has no reason to attack the USA, UK and Netherlands. Japan doesn't need oil to build a fleet, since the fleet is already built. Japan doesn't need oil to operate since that is free. If Japan does end up in a war somehow, they can operate however they like, and only have to worry about losing ships, the replacements of which would not be ready in time for the war effort with or without oil.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Just imagine Guadalcanal if the IJN didn't have to sit in port at Rabaul. Naval invasions require control of sea zones and the IJN can stay out to sea indefinitely. I understand this system with land units - it was probably harder to keep a Tiger or Panther running than to supply fuel - but it doesn't work for ships. In their lifetimes, ships consumed many times their own weight in fuel oil. The ships existing in the start of the game are 'free' to use from 1936-46 and only cost you if you lose them, which would be costly anyways.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
The wiki says that carrier aircraft have different variants, so that they are either harder to upgrade or more unreliable. I thought that's pretty neat. Also SPAA/SPA/TD can upgrade their guns, with TD guns having better upgrades than tank guns, which is also interesting. http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Variant
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
I really don't understand Daniel's playstyle. Invading Switzerland through the Alps, just to have more frontage against the already bigger Italian and German armies.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
TeenageArchipelago posted:the answer is the chat told him to Therein lies the root of all my problems with WWW .
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Orv posted:The answer to "should we add more complexity for complexities (here read reality) sake?" is always no. Is it really so difficult to grasp the concept of an assault gun? I mean, a tooltip that says "Cheaper than a tank. Uses tank gun. Balance between soft and hard attack. Can be used in Infantry Divisions."
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Koesj posted:For simplicity's sake, combined with the addition of assault guns, you might just as well drop the SPAA, TD, and SPG variants since they got used so much less. That totally depends on what you consider a TD or SPG. Is a medium velocity 75-76mm gun a TD gun or SP gun? Is the StuG a TD? What does that make a SU-76? It's also hard to argue that the StuG, Su-76 and to a lesser extent M-10 were used less, or didn't differ from towed guns. There's a huge difference in performance between towed and M-10 equipped TD Battalions, despite both having essentially the same gun.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Something less expensive than a tank with tank armour and a tank gun is pretty obviously distinct from either expensive thinly armoured indirect fire weapon systems, or dedicated tank destroyers.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
It's a war game that simulates the design, production and use of individual pieces of equipment down to Battalion TOE, how could anyone be surprised?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Worth mentioning is that the AI (again) moved units out of a key sector, Bern, in the last WWW and Daniel had to micro like crazy to recapture it.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
What about toughness or defensiveness? Low toughness means higher losses on attack, yes?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Just be consistent in game design so it isn't a mess to play? Have only one tank imo. Having more than 1 AFV from 1936 to 1947 is a mess?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Can't find a single reference to a "John Montague" anywhere. I'll dip by the Regimental museum to flip through the Army yearbooks from the war years. Thomas Victor Anderson was the pre-war head of the Army and replaced in 1940, but it's a fair choice. Charles Foulkes was a fairly typical division commander. I have no idea how Harry Crerar was left out.  Gort posted:It bugged me more that Germany was able to complete their entire doctrine tree (including the "desperate defense" stuff like conscripting the disabled and elderly if you so choose) before the war starts. I noticed that too. It seems like national focus and doctrine doesn't take very long at all to research. In WWW France will be done before too long.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Slaughterhouse-Ive posted:Yeah I was being glib with the D&D talking point but Rommel was pretty enthusiastic about the whole Nazi thing in the beginning and I hate the "clean Werhrmacht" bullshit. A lot of this stuff goes back to the 60's when the Bundeswehr needed traditions and heroes to look back on. Germany in the 60's still had people in government, industry and the military with a questionable past but it was better to talk about 'Good Germans' and conscripted Wehrmacht soldiers with no idea what those awful nazis were up to (Or SS, or Waffen SS, or Military Police, or...) than to ask really uncomfortable questions. Since the 70's in academic literature and maybe since the 90's in pop history the Wehrmacht's involvement in war crimes has been better publicized. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8WxFXbUN4BU Of course Rommel became famous for actions in Sedan, which is not desert. Since this is a sandbox, who's to say he wouldn't be sent to the Balkans or Russia?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Wooper posted:France abandoned Maginot to attack Germany? Wow. I've seen that happen a bunch. I guess we'll hear about stuff like that on Friday?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Navy and air screens are impossible to track. From what I can gather, navy losses don't translate to manpower losses. I've lost some subs and sunk dozens of convoys but my war contribution shows nothing. France is balanced really weirdly. Not having enough rifles in 1936? Not having any artillery or H35s in storage?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Tuskin38 posted:I did a thing Having the Ram (Maybe use Sherman art?) instead of the Cromwell would be great. Most of the American companies would be appropriate too, since Windsor was basically an extension of Detroit at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Why can naval aircraft no longer convoy strike? Seems a shame to build FW200s and Beauforts and throw them at battleships. As France in the Pacific it'd be really nice to bomb convoys. Likewise hitting land targets with naval aircraft would justify the cost of having them around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
TeenageArchipelago posted:god drat the whole 2/3rds of actions are right click, 1/3rd are left click thing is going to drive me insane That too!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Maybe it's because I have no idea how the air system works, but it's September 1939 and I've lost several hundred modern fighters and am using biplanes, despite building both and Dt fighters at 3/day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:someone tell me how on earth you're supposed to penetrate the nightmare that is "getting your planes to do things" Seriously. That and teleporting planes. Setting up any kind of air defence is fruitless when the enemy can just appear anywhere. This is especially relevant as a country with limited IC. If I can only have 600 modern fighters, the enemy showing up anywhere at any time in any number is frustrating beyond belief. Tactical bombers sure miss their missions. Without logistical bombing, airfield strike and interdiction, I feel like I'm getting way less mileage out of my air force.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Groogy posted:I worked a lot on making the AI know where to put it's air force, especially the fighters. Might be too much though since the Ai will always be instant to react and know exactly what to do based on the information he has. I think placement is generally okay. The AI puts aircraft roughly where I would. My allied air forces are not of much help, but that's not very different than HoI 3. Groogy posted:If you were to boil down exactly what is the frustration what would that be? The most simply way I suppose would be: Airplanes are exactly on target and only on target. The first point is a defensive problem. As France, if I tool up industry and research I might build a few hundred fighters of modern type (compared to the thousands of the Armee de l'air, but I digress - French aviation was a mess). Anyways, those fighters must be over Northern and Southern France just to defend. So I put air wings in the various bases and set missions. German and Italian aircraft then appear anywhere in France and start bombing me. That's if I don't also allocate aircraft to Benelux. It's frustrating the "The Bomber Always Gets Through" when that was not the case, certainly in 1939-43. The second problem is aircraft having one giant area. If I'm France, and I want naval bombers over Indochina, I need to split my limited force between Gulf of Thailand, South China Sea, Straits of Malacca and South East Asia air zones. The (less than ideal) solution in HOI 3 would be to let me have the aircraft fly over only the straits, or areas of interest. France cannot build enough naval bombers to any of that well, and I feel like I lose the flexibility to just patrol around and maybe hit the odd Japanese convoy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
Is there a way to scrap old equipment or upgrade it to new variants / SPG/TD? I have a lot of old tanks and am short on TDs. Tuskin38 posted:1949, but if there is a war going on that involves 3 or more Major powers the game won't end. Oh wow! Shaping up nicely!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 15:46
|
|
