Is anyone else puzzled by Pdox's half-hearted 'rollout' of Hearts of Iron IV?

[Ian C]

I do wonder why they keep coming up with their own ideas for these mechanics, instead of falling back on something that resembles history. I get that you wouldn't want to confuse/burden the more casual gamer with having to study actual history, but that's the aspect of historical games I always found most appealing: if you DID your homework, you could become a better player. Figuring out some designer's abstract/streamlined reinterpretation of something like this, is less appealing to me.

You've hit the nail on the head. Absolutely right. Maybe in our lifetime we'll see something surpass this.
Although, these days I tend to accept what a game is, and not get bitter about what it should be.  I find I enjoy games more this way.
I am looking forward to HOI4 though.


EDIT: this week's dev diary is out. I like the idea of Focus Trees in the game.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hearts-of-iron-iv-46th-development-diary-26th-of-february-2016.910637/

[Ian C]

I've read something over on the Paradox forums that has somewhat reduced my enthusiasm. Actually, it horrifies me.
Apparently, air units cannot be intercepted while travelling through regions to their target, only at their target. A dev (Podcat) has confirmed they 'teleport' there, from their point of origin, to a distant target.

Quote: "Podcat basicly said: Bombers teleport and get only intercepted in the target zone. There is no path tracking."
Podcat: "correct".

As Cpack pointed out: "England can bomb italian industry by flying through german occupied France (with hundreds of interceptors) just getting intercepted by a handful of outdated italian fighters at target Region? sorry...strange"

Am I over-reacting or is this particularly horrible?


This is a rather long thread but the first 5 or 6 pages spell it out: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/fighters-dont-attack-planes-passing-trough.909877/

Apparently this issue was also staring everyone in the face in the first game dev article on air combat.
See bottom left on hand-written note:

http://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/100225/DD7%20notes.JPG


I can see this being game-breaking.

[Philippe]

I'm glad you brought this up, because if it is a feature of the final product, it is certainly game-breaking.

Did it work this way in the earlier versions of HOI ?

[MetalDog]

I seem to remember that any air units on a mission could be intercepted in a province they were traversing.

[undercovergeek]

yeah that was the whole point of interceptors - you could put them at points you knew enemy air was crossing and ambush them

im not really a huge fan of the air game, it never seemed to have any bearing on any operations i planned

[MetalDog]

Bombing runs were great for opening the fog of war.  And they could really ruin units days.

[undercovergeek]

i suppose in my italy aar game having taken all of eastern europe i never came across a decent enemy airforce and by the time i took germany they were too busy with russia

[JasonPratt]

I bet they made air planes teleport over because the AI was having trouble with something something.  ::) :P

My brain is dying at the notion that an Army can have as little as one division, and one division can have as little as one brigade BATTALION -- so that an army can be as little as one brigade BATTALION -- but there are no corps.

And I'm someone who runs an extended multi-book joke about a commander being egotistic in calling a group of companies a brigade, and then assigning those companies (once she about triples her numbers from around 200 to around 600 soldiers) into divisions so that she can have an "army". That's supposed to be a subtle satire! 

[sandman2575]

I agree this is disappointing and a little hard to fathom why Podcat's team didn't expect serious blowback over this dubious design decision -- but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it game breaking. If only because the strategic air campaign in HOI has always been a bit of a shambles. It's never really worked properly, rather like amphibious invasions. Once again, it won't really work properly. Still, it may represent a modest improvement over HoI3, which is all I can ask for at this is point.

Overall I'm actually a big proponent of the decision in HoI4 to do more to abstract the air war. In HoI3 trying to get air units to behave realistically was an enormous headache in micromanagement. I don't expect HOI4 to completely redress to shortcoming of HoI3, but I do think overall it will be an improvement.

[jamus34]

Well it almost completely eliminates the need to tech up interceptors...at least as far as fuel is concerned.

Unless they code it in a way that the bombers don't get intercepted until they are at the target hex however all interceptors in the area have a chance to attack prior to the bomb run. That may work but then what if you set up to bomb runs in different locations where a given interceptor is in range for both?

If they code any interception attacks prior to the bomb run it may work but it really makes fighter escorts worthless then.

Dunno...I guess I can see why they may do it...but don't necessarily agree it's the BEST way to do it.

The OOB is much more concerning in my mind.

[sandman2575]

Dunno...I guess I can see why they may do it...but don't necessarily agree it's the BEST way to do it.

The OOB is much more concerning in my mind.

Judging from the response here and in the Pdox forum, it doesn't appear that anyone besides Podcat thought this was a good way to model strategic bombing...

I'm also in the camp of those who are bitter about the loss of OOB.  Still, I'll be able to forgive it if the game winds up being as good as it looks like it is going to be --

[OJsDad]

I think the order of battle would be a bigger issue if it was a turn based game.  Being that it's real time, I felt like trying to juggle a multi layered OOB was taking away from the game.

[JasonPratt]

I probably won't care as long as the end result can be used in a way that makes organizational sense. After all, strictly speaking the only land units on the map in HOI2 (and its descendants like Darkest Hour) are corps. No armies per se exist, but the attachment of an HQ unit to a stack essentially makes that stack, and any nearby stacks benefiting from the HQ, an army. And while divisions do exist as distinct units, they don't operate on the map outside a corps container. So a "corps" can have one division -- meaning it's really only a division. And the labels for the historical units tended to reflect this, with some "corps" being actually labelled a "division" and some being actually labelled an "army".

And I adjusted to that oddity of implementation and made it work, once I understood what the internal logic was supposed to be.

[sandman2575]

I think the order of battle would be a bigger issue if it was a turn based game.  Being that it's real time, I felt like trying to juggle a multi layered OOB was taking away from the game.

No question the OOB system in HoI3 left a lot to be desired. It was clunky and needlessly elaborate (the managing of discrete HQ units was a headache). But my hope was that HoI4 was going to streamline things, not just eliminate the OOB structure entirely.

I still marvel at HoI3, in that it is a deeply flawed game that does a lot wrong from a game mechanics and UI standpoint, and yet I still think it's one of the best -- maybe the best -- WW2 grand strategy games ever made. It is Paradox's most paradoxical game (ha).

At this point I just want HoI4 to get released. I'm not thrilled about the loss of the OOB or this newest revelation about strategic bombing. But I still think it's going to be a tremendous game, and much better than its predecessor.

[undercovergeek]

im going to colour myself a logisitcs and micro managing geek - assignment of HQs to divisions and army groups was very RPG for me - you were rooting for each division in each corps because youd made them and out the commanders in charge - it made the OOB much more yours than the games