Hearts of Iron III

salty mud

Deity
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
4,949
Location
die Schweiz
All the other Hearts of Iron thrwads haven't been posted in for a number of years, so I decided to make one based the latest version of the game, with Semper Fi and For the Motherland. I recently gifted my friend this game over steam for Christmas. So far he is impressed and pleased with it but it's taking a while to understand its complexity. I myself have played some Pdox games, name EU3 and Victoria 2; EU3 I can play quite well, Vic 2 I never quite understoodd how to play... Maybe because it was broken and never properly patched. Just too complicated and non-sensical. But I digress.

How is HoI3 for a EU3 player in terms of complexity and scale? Both me and my friend findThe WW2 an interesting period so would be happy to learn the ropes so to speak to have a fun, engaging historical game of the period. The ideology aspect sounds interesting too - choosing your allies pre-war and becoming.brothers-in-arms against a common enemy. Please, share information about the game and images of your countries after your war successes/defeats, or whatever you would wish.
 
HOI-3 had a very rocky release... for which I feel a bit guilty, since I was one of the beta testers... but the SF and FtM expansions have turned it into a very good game. It was a very ambitious project: over 14,000 provinces, historical leaders and cabinet ministers, hundreds of techs, customizable units, and the most intricate supply and logistics system that I've ever seen in a wargame.

In terms of complexity... the economy is much simpler than EU-3 (or even EU-2), and the diplomacy is more black-and-white, in keeping with the "Total War" ideology of the WW-II period. The military aspects of the game are far more in-depth, allowing you to choose your own military doctrinal approach and design a range of units which fit into that doctrine.
 
Should a new player stick to HoI 3, or delve straight into the expansion packs?

The expansion packs improve the game tremendously, and correct most of the problems with the initial release. A new player should at least get the Semper Fi expansion, and I would recommend adding For the Motherland as well.
 
I also suggest going here and looking over a mod or two.... I suggest DiDay's ICE mod:

Spoiler :
What is DiDay’s I.C.E.?
DiDay's ICE is an extensive mod of HOI3 under development by DevilDread and many other members of this forum. ICE began as "DiDay's Unique Units" add-on mod. Over time more and more material was added into the mod and it became DiDay’s I.C.E. (Iron Cross Edition). ICE is perhaps the most widely used and respected mod for Hearts of Iron III. ICE has the main goal of adding three major things that many believed to be missing from Hearts of Iron III, realism, depth, and fun. DiDay's ICE strays away from the open ended "Sandbox" nature of HOI3 to provide a more realistic, and historically plausible game. To do this, DiDay’s ICE adds an incredible amount of content into HOI III, produced by members of the Paradox Community. This includes hundreds of events and decisions, new units, new techs, and much more! This content drastically changes the way the ICE is played compared to vanillia HOI3, and makes the player feel much more connected to his or her game.

What does ICE add to HOI3?

  • 100+ New Units: This includes units which we believe should have been included in the original game, such as self propelled AA, escort fighters, long range transports, and many others. Also, many country specific units were added for flavor and game play, such as SS units for Germany, Red Guards for the Soviet Union, Lend-Lease Sherman brigades, and many, many more!
  • 150+ New Techs: Including country specific techs and a reorganization of the tech folders.
  • 800+ New Events and Decisions: The surrender events have been completely rewritten. A huge amount of events covering historical events have been added for flavor. Events have also been written to encourage a more historically plausible game.
  • Completely Rebalanced Unit and Country Stats: All unit stats have been rewritten to provide a more balanced and historical game. Country IC and resources have been adjusted for a more historical game play.
  • Scripted Invasions AI Invasions: The invasion AI of HOI3 is unfortunately lacking, which makes it rare to see historical large scale invasion like D-day. To fix this extensive work has gone into producing a large number of scripted invasions to produce a more historical feel to the game.
  • Hundreds of New Leaders and Ministers
  • Historical Starting OOBs
  • Unit Descriptions
  • New Strategic Effects
  • New Victory Conditions
  • And MUCH more!

 
That entire tutorial was one huge chuckle-fest... Who knows what they were smoking when they made that. :lol: The poor moustachioed man going to shoot himself...

Anyway; the tutorial does a reasonable job of explaining the very basics. But there are some things that are still eluding me. Which is a good nation to play to get to grips with? Should I pick one right at the heart of the action like Germany, or a more obscure nation like Canada? With my IC points, which of the sliders is more important to invest most in? I'd say the upgrade slider is most useful but I'm also thinking it will vary depending on the situation. Could I get away with just giving the lowest recommended amounts of consumer goods, to put more effort into my war machine?
 
That entire tutorial was one huge chuckle-fest... Who knows what they were smoking when they made that. :lol: The poor moustachioed man going to shoot himself...

Anyway; the tutorial does a reasonable job of explaining the very basics. But there are some things that are still eluding me. Which is a good nation to play to get to grips with? Should I pick one right at the heart of the action like Germany, or a more obscure nation like Canada? With my IC points, which of the sliders is more important to invest most in? I'd say the upgrade slider is most useful but I'm also thinking it will vary depending on the situation. Could I get away with just giving the lowest recommended amounts of consumer goods, to put more effort into my war machine?

You should always keep just enough points in Consumer Goods to keep your Dissent at zero. The only advantage to producing extra CGs is that it will reduce any Dissent you might have.

I started off playing Germany, since they are strong enough that you can afford to make mistakes. You could try the September 1939 scenario first, which pitches you straight into the war with Poland. It will teach you how combat works. Once you've beaten Poland, you can re-start a new game with the 1936 scenario, and learn research, production, diplomacy, etc.

The USA is also a good learning game, since you are nearly immune to invasion. Not much will happen for the first few years, though, since you are so neutral that most of your production is required in Consumer Goods to keep your population content. As your neutrality drops, more and more production can go into preparing for war.

If you are at peace, upgrades should be deferred as long as possible, as long as you get them done before sending your men into battle. This is because there is an upgrade cost-and-time discount for units that are more than one step obsolete. The unit will quickly upgrade until it is only one step obsolete, then more slowly until it is fully up-to-date... so upgrading it every time it drops behind the curve is more effective (during wartime) but also more expensive (during peacetime).

EDIT:

One of the biggest differences between HOI-3 and other wargames (such as EU-3) is the concept of Movement Is Attack. As soon as you begin moving into an enemy-controlled province, the battle starts; and the combat will finish before your unit actually reaches the province. There will then be a cooling-off period during which the unit will not respond to orders... it is reorganizing, clearing away casualties, bringing up replacements, adusting its supply lines, etc. It might be two or three days before the unit will be ready for new orders.

Another difference is the way that HOI-3 handles stacking limits. EU-3 has no stacking limit, but penalizes large stacks with attrition. Some war-games have hard stacking caps, allowing only a certain number of units to enter a province. HOI-3 handles this matter differently, with Frontage and Combat Width.

Every province-to-province boundary has a certain Frontage... ten Frontage for the first adjacent province, plus five more for each additional province that you are attacking from. So if you were attacking from three provinces into one enemy province, your total Frontage would be twenty (10+5+5).

Combat units have a certain Combat Width... typically one width per line regiment, zero per support regiment, and two per pre-'Spearhead' Armored Regiment (there is a tech you can study that reduces the Combat Width of Armor to the same as that of Infantry).

So a Division composed of three Infantry regiments and one Artillery regiment would have a combat width of three (the ART is a support regiment, width zero), while an early-war Division composed of two Armored regiments, one Motorized Infanty regiment and one Self-Propelled Artillery regiment would have a width of five (two for each pre-'Spearhead' ARM, one for the MOT, zero for the SPA).

You can continue adding units to a battle until you have exceeded (not equalled) the frontage... so for that three-province, twenty-frontage attack mentioned earlier, you could use seven INFx3/ARTx1 Divisions (width 7x3=21) or five ARMx2/MOTx1/SPAx1 Divisions (width 5x5=25).

There are also stacking modifiers, unrelated to frontage, which penalize players who use too many different formations in the same battle. Without penalty, you can attack with one unit plus three more per attack direction... so a one-province attack can use four units (1+3) without penalty; a two-province attack can use seven (1+3+3); a three-province attack can use ten (1+3+3+3); and so on. Extra units beyond the stacking limit will penalize your entire attack (not just the over-stacked units... everybody) by -10% multiplicative per extra unit... so if you are three units over the limit, you are penalized by -27.9% (ie: 90% of 90% of 90% = 72.1%). Your Theatre commander uses his skill bonus to reduce these penalties.
 
So the less of a threat other countries are to you, the more goods you need to keep people happy? Makes sense I suppose.

One country I'd like to play is Portugal... a nice neutral power, not incredibly powerful but also not quite off the grid. I'll probably start with Germany though, just to get to know it a bit better.

Are my dreams of ending WW2 as Afganistan a bit far fetched? :lol:

also, is there anything that can be safely entrusted upon the AI to manage? Until I grasp some other aspects that is.
 
Started a game as USA. Not much seems to happen in the early game, seems like you have to wait for the world to become more ready for war. But I think I am slowly coming to terms with trade and diplomacy, with the AI guiding me through the rest.
 
Are my dreams of ending WW2 as Afganistan a bit far fetched?
There was an AAR a while back where Tibet took over China and half of south Asia...
 
I tried to do a "Horde rises again" game as Mongolia, but that ended in immense frustration. I know people have taken minor powers and done extraordinary things for their size, but HoI3 doesn't have the same wide-open sandbox factor that EU3 or even Vic2 has (i.e. Ryukyu Islands conquers the world).

My favorite is Republican Spain--start in 1936, you have the Spanish civil war up first, and then your choice of the Allies or Comintern as WW2 approaches. You get it all: siege line along the Pyrenees, big air battles (Spain has a decent starting airforce for being a regional power), and naval skirmishes in the Mediterranean with Italy. With proper management, you can turn Spain from a backwater into a valuable member of either the Allies or the Comintern.

I had a few unanswered questions that might be appropriate in this thread: are stacking modifiers affected by having HQ units committed to battle? Or should those always be a province behind the lines? Some players in AARs attached infantry or support units to their HQs and sent them into battle... is that a good idea?
 
I had a few unanswered questions that might be appropriate in this thread: are stacking modifiers affected by having HQ units committed to battle? Or should those always be a province behind the lines? Some players in AARs attached infantry or support units to their HQs and sent them into battle... is that a good idea?

Yes, every Division counts towards stacking penalties... including HQ units.

I am one of the pioneers (on the Paradox forum) of the binary Infantry Division OOB.

It works like this:

A one-province attack has a Frontage of 10. This means that you can commit to the attack units totalling 10 or less width plus one more unit.

Typical 3+1 Infantry Divisions (three INF regiments plus one ART regiment) have a width of three, so you can attack with four of them across a one-province front. That's sixteen regiments fighting (twelve INF and four ART).

Suppose instead you build your Infantry Divisions as 2+2 (two INF regiments plus two ART regiments)... now they only have a frontage of two, and you can commit six of them to the same one-province attack.

Of course, you can only attach five Divisions to a Corps HQ, so your sixth unit must be built around the Corps HQ itself, bulked up to Divisional size by adding one INF regiment and two ART regiments (or vice versa). This allows you to commit 24 regiments (instead of 16) to that same one-province attack... eleven (or twelve) INF, twelve (or eleven) ART, and one HQ.

You will, of course, be getting a stacking penalty of -19% since you are using six Divisions along a single attack axis when the limit for a single-axis attack is four Divisions. However, this is offset by the fact that you are using 24 regiments instead of 16 (+50% more), and can be further offset by a skilled Theatre commander (who reduces stacking penalties by -1% per skill point) and by studying the appropriate Doctrine from the Human Wave branch, reducing the stacking penalty by a further -7%.

Also, as you attack on wider and wider fronts, the stacking penalty shrinks, reaching zero on a four-province front.

Recall that the stacking cap is one unit plus three more per attack axis... eg: one axis = 4 units, two axes = 7 units, three axes = 10 units, four axes = 13 units, etc.

One-province front = 10 Frontage = six 2-wide units = overstack by 2 = -19% penalty

Two-province front = 15 Frontage = eight 2-wide units = overstack by 1 = -10% penalty

Three-province front = 20 Frontage = eleven 2-wide units = overstack by 1 = -10% penalty

Four-province front = 25 Frontage = thirteen 2-wide units = no overstack = no penalty.
 
Bear with me because I'm nowhere near that familiar with the game mechanics. If you have elements from two corps attacking (i.e. 5 divisions from one corps, one division from another) instead of a fighting HQ unit (so all the units are from the same corps), is there an additional penalty? From the perspective of appointing generals to commands, it seems like the extra troop density will require more commanders (and would be a bad idea for nations without enough generals). Is it more important to have fewer generals covering wider frontage or otherwise?

I think I read something you wrote over at the Paradox forums in a debate on binaries v. triangles. Good read from an organizational perspective. OT comment: seems kind of strange to me that the game mechanics favor binary divisions when historically they were considered terrible next to triangles.
 
There is no extra penalty for using units from different Corps... but for me at least it's easier to keep things organized if one Corps exactly fills a one-province frontage. Also, a Corps of six units (five binary Divisions plus a binary HQ "Division") can then evenly fill either a single province (all six) or a two-province front (three each) or a three-province front (two each).

One other advantage of the binary build is that it stretches your manpower further... a 2+2 Division uses only about 8 Manpower, while a typical triangular Division uses about 10 Manpower... so you can build about 25% more binary Divisions from the same Manpower pool.

Naturally, there are disadvantages as well... this build requires more Generals, and also more Officers (NCOs) per Manpower point.

As far as being ahistorical... yes, that's a point. Most countries abandoned small Divisions at some point during the war; with the USSR being the main exception. Their Infantry Divisions, while not officially "binary", only had about 2/3rds the manpower of a full-strength German Division. Nationalist China and early-war Italy also used small Infantry Divisions.

One major advantage to this build is that your Corps HQ commanders actually take part in the fighting, and therefore gain experience (and skill) much faster.
 
Oh, definitely. I like to keep my corps and armies in defined regions of operation, keeps the OOB pretty clean. Although in the chaos of a breakthrough, my units usually get jumbled up and need to be sorted.

How much different is the XP gain between corp commanders leading from the back rank and those who are directly engaged in battle? Can that be modded?

My point on the historicity was not so much knocking the strategy but remarking how it's unusual the game mechanics favor that. Must be because of the firepower per frontage--each unit of combat width in your scheme has an artillery and an infantry, while in the standard triangle division there is an infantry and 1/3 artillery.

I'm just regretting shifting around my entire OOB as Italy, which starts with binary divisions, instead of experimenting with this strategy.
 
How much different is the XP gain between corp commanders leading from the back rank and those who are directly engaged in battle? Can that be modded?...

I find that they gain XP about three times as fast as a leader who just lays back and relies on "trickle-down" XP for his skill increases. You can mod the rate of land, air and naval XP gain... but I don't think you can seperately mod the percentage of "trickle-down" that is passed on to formation HQs.
 
I have Semper Fi. Just thought I should mention that as I subscribe.
 
Back
Top Bottom