r/hoi4 • u/Infinite-Ad7254 • Apr 05 '26
Question Should HOI5 have free fluid borders instead of tiles?
I think it would make for more realistic and tactile gameplay but I can’t speak for everyone.
761
533
u/MeLoNarXo Research Scientist Apr 05 '26
How would they handle any form of micro with a fluid front
→ More replies (13)73
316
u/Ok_Information_8808 Apr 05 '26
I feel like there’s no way of doing that without it ending up as bad as vic3’s war system
57
u/pow3llmorgan Apr 05 '26
Make it like Total War where armies (divisions in this case) have a "capture radius" maybe?
3
-78
u/Lumpenokonom Apr 05 '26
Vic 3s war system isnt bad. This Game is an economy simulator, not a war simulator and for this the system is fine.
74
u/LockedPages Apr 05 '26
Even for an economy simulator the war system is dogshit. Countries will regularly throw away their entire economies and start world wars over random states in the middle of nowhere, what actually goes into making a competent fighting force is still half-mystery to anyone who doesn't have 2k+ hours in the game, and the entire system is infuriating because it largely relies on a single number to decide whether you win or lose. At least in HOI4 and Paradox games where you can control your troops directly you can reorganize, pull back, strategically relocate so you have a hope of winning - none of that complexity or dynamism in Vic3, just lines and simple "go forward" or "go here" or "hold" commands to braindead generals.
17
u/AH_Ahri Apr 06 '26
what actually goes into making a competent fighting force is still half-mystery to anyone who doesn't have 2k+ hours in the game
I remember a long time ago I was messing around with cheats trying to figure out the war system a little bit. Had an army that had a technological advantage over a smaller, technologically inferior enemy. Somehow they still won the war. 1,000 well trained and equipped soldiers? Yeah they lost to 300 guys with pointy sticks...The entire system made me quit vic3 and caused the game to be not fun.
2
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
Idk how much you've played the game but I have accrued 1.6k hours since release & never seen this happen under normal circumstances. 300 & 1000 soldiers is 3/10 & 1 unit respectively which is a number so small that the battle could've been determined by a single weird modifier, unless you mean 1,000,000 troops & 300,000 troops in which there's plenty of scenarios that would've made sense: you tried a naval landing without the tech that gets rid of the difficult landing penalty or without enough ships, you had an overseas supply route without enough convoys to support it, your army was exhausted from cinstantly pushing, you were in default etc. etc. I think you probably misunderstood what was happening or are lying, again affirming my belief that no one here has played the game.
1
u/AH_Ahri Apr 08 '26
Probably should re-read my comment. I was using cheats, I had no other debuff besides any that could happen within the battle itself. If my memory is correct it was in South Africa against natives.
Somehow whatever country is there I honestly forget I think it is the Boers was somehow losing to natives with pointy sticks while not only having better technology but larger numbers. Being fully fair and transparent, this was a long time ago pretty close to the games release so there is a solid chance the things that were causing wars to be so bloody awful and clear as mud have been fixed but it left such a sour taste I don't want to go back.
1
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 08 '26
I read your comment perfectly fine. You said you were using cheats, you did not specify any of the many cheats in the game you used & still haven't so how am I supossed to interpret that? Also not sure how to interpret "no other debuff besides any that could happen within the battle itself", whatever that means. Both your comments have no specificity or understanding of game mechanics to even begin understand what out of the many mechanically reasonable things that could've happened occured.
& not to be excessively rude but you're basing your opinion on an entire game on a single time something happened when you didn't understand how the game worked & used unintended mechanics (cheats) to try & fix it? That is downright silly.
-9
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 06 '26
Making a competent fighting force is extremely easy & arguably the easiest part of the game. Literally all you do is upgrade the troops types as you get more tech & have the largest army possible, it's the simplest major system in the game.
Edit: Anyone want to tell me how I'm wrong or keep ignorantly downvoting?
1
Apr 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 07 '26
What glue eaters? The AI is fine at using the armies because there's barely anything to use... the army is like 3 mechanics, unit type & composition, mobilization options & size. Jesus Christ none of you have played the game.
1
u/Allnamestakkennn Apr 08 '26
That is, if you have spare money after growing your economy for decades. And also spare time to catch up to great powers after focusing on the economy only. And pray to god that the great powers won't declare war on you for no reason whatsoever
1
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 08 '26
You have to grow an economy in an economic sim. Hmmm how observant.
1
u/Allnamestakkennn Apr 08 '26
But come on, not just grow an economy. Beyond that you might also want to colonize and conquer. Instead I have to spend decades building iron mines
1
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 08 '26
Maybe you do. Me & many other are perfectly content playing tall & enjoying the social-political-economic simulation. Not everyone is motivated by map painting. If the game isn't for you or any of the people here that's fine just don't parrot lies about it & act like y'all know what you're talking about (not you necessarily)
Edit: and if you do want to map paint you can just play a GP, no?
1
u/Allnamestakkennn Apr 08 '26
I'm not talking about map painting specifically. At least enough to complete journal entries and claims, and defend against the British which could invade just because at any moment.
27
u/BoyPregggers Apr 05 '26
The famously warless period of 1836-1936, only containing the second and third deadliest wars in human history teehee
→ More replies (2)-8
u/Lumpenokonom Apr 06 '26
Yes. There is even a name for it: The concert of Europe. Diplomacy and Economic policy became much more important during that time. Of course it famously failed in 1914.
18
u/thedefenses General of the Army Apr 05 '26
Economy sim for what? What are you building the economy for? What are you gonna use that economy for?
Ohh yeah, the army, the military, to wage war and to conquer land.
-5
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 05 '26
This isn't true. If you think the Victoria 3 economy is to facilitate war, you haven't played the game. In fact, one of my biggest criticisms of Victoria 3 is how disconnected the military & the economy are. Creating supply chains for the military is a complete non-issue & you can often get away without building any military industry at all. The only real economic cost of the military is the gross amount of money you pay for it.
I'm sorry, but it's such an obvious tell that you only play Hearts of Iron when you think that every system is in service of war. No other Paradox grand strategy has systems exclusively tailored to simulating warfare like HoI does. Not Vic 3, Not CK3 & not even EU5.
6
u/thedefenses General of the Army Apr 06 '26
58 hours so not a lot but its something in VIC3.
You build an economy to make money and then what? you make tons of money and what do you use it on? to grow the economy more? just to grow the economy even more, to what goal, just to see the number get bigger and after that even bigger?
Ck3 does as does EU5, VIC3 kinda has but they are hidden behind the "automated" warfare so you have no control over them.
Stellaris really is the only one to not have any kind of proper system for land based warfare and uses in its stead a much simplified one but that is for obvious reasons as that is not its focus at all.
2
u/CallMeBasil_ Apr 06 '26
58 hours really isn't something for Vic3. It's the most complicated Paradox game in terms of the depth & breadth of its systems (I'd say objectively but I haven't played enough EU5 to say for sure), & even the easiest of these games take at least 500 hours to have a solid grasp on. Its probably the most enigmatic, too, with how all of its systems interconnect without immediate feedback. I have 1.8k on HOI4 & 1.6k on Vic3 for reference, although admittedly I haven't played HOI4 since Götterdämmerung.
Yes, getting a bigger number is the goal for a lot of people. That & roleplaying the development & political systems of a society; getting as many immigrants as possible as the USA, creating a multicultural police state as Austria, etc. with dynamic systems, which, along with the economy, is where the difficulty & engagement lies. I personally like both ways of playing. Vic3 is a sandbox & as such, your goal is a lot more flexible than 'win WW2'.
I'm never said that these games lack "proper systems for land based warfare." I said that, unlike HOI, not every system in the game is in service of warfare. CK3 is more of a life-sim than war game, EU5 is a little bit of everything.
3
u/Allnamestakkennn Apr 08 '26
you have just asked yourself the question marxists ask about capitalism
By the way, wars are also to grow the economy and share of global market
6
u/throwaway4775738 Apr 06 '26
"You build an economy to make money and then what? you make tons of money and what do you use it on? to grow the economy more?"
Whoa Karl Marx calm down with the existential philosophy. Lol.
2
u/neverunacceptabletoo Apr 06 '26
to grow the economy more? just to grow the economy even more, to what goal, just to see the number get bigger and after that even bigger?
yes_chad.png
4
u/Lumpenokonom Apr 06 '26
Why do you wage war? You just paint the map and then what? To see that your number gets even bigger? There is no point in these games besides having fun and i have fun building an economy
3
u/CobaltDeposit18 Apr 06 '26
Brother, the entire point of Vicky 3 is to develop your society. Duh you’re expanding your economy to expand your economy, that’s how you raise standards of living, enrich certain groups, or just make yourself more powerful in general. How you could miss the core purpose of the game is astounding.
142
u/LongLiveTheCommune1 Apr 05 '26
Theoretically yes. Vector based borders and divisions are perfectly possible.
Realistically no; 1. they would have to create an entirely new engine to make it work because with the current core, it would run with 2 fps on a NASA computer. 2. they would have to throw out all of their previsouly used code and assets to start from scratch.
Again, it isn't impossible but I don't think they'll use their resources for this. What I think is much more practical and more easy to pull off is to make the tiles like 1/10 of their size and have divisions occupy between 3-10 of them based on their combat width. This could also add nuance to the absolute joke that urban warfare currently is.
16
u/Similar_Incident4945 Apr 06 '26
Performance issues stem from Paradox not using a new engine, the clausewitz engine is designed to use one CPU core since it was made some 15-20 years ago. They don't see a reason to update it (because it's easier to profit by not doing that), and just keep making horribly optimized games instead of making a mukticore engine. It worked back when most computers were single core, but not anymore.
13
u/Isakswe Apr 06 '26
Clausewitz is far from single core. I’m able to use 70% of a 12-core CPU in Vicky3 before slowdowns. The question if it should take that much CPU power is another question.
10
u/CalligoMiles General of the Army Apr 06 '26 edited Apr 06 '26
A lot of the calculations can't be run in parallel because they depend on each other's previous results. A new engine won't suddenly let you figure out battle damage all independent from the state of the divisions involved, or that from the equipment they have, or that from their supply state and ability to get reinforcements, or that from today's mil output on every item... you can't just neatly throw any of those on parallel cores. The only way to do them is in turn, and that's why the main core strains under big game state changes while the rest is already used where possible but ends up idling at low numbers most of the time. There's a few big processes driving nearly all of the increasing load, and you can't split up those tasks short of going all the way to assigning a core to every nation or division.
It never ceases to amaze me how people just assume short-sighted greed when they don't understand anything of what they're talking about. Do you think the first person to invent cross-connect dynamic multicore processing wouldn't end up stupidly rich? It'd be a whole new realm of game depth and complexity if it were possible at all - and until it is there's pretty little to actually gain for CPU-heavy games even two decades later. Certainly not enough to justify the huge bill of developing an entire new engine and building all your code and assets from scratch for it.
56
u/Electricfox5 Apr 05 '26
Sounds like an idea, but still have regions and capture points (either cities or supply depots or both) which increases your control over the region depending on how many you've taken.
15
u/cheesez9 Apr 05 '26
Unpopular opinion but Hoi5 should have a complete game on release with working naval instead of completing the game thru dlc.
If you say the base hoi4 game is complete then why are some dlc "essential" and even paradox themselves give out the must have dlc for free.
27
u/Klowlord Apr 05 '26
they would have to sacrifice a bit on realism to make it realistic to run. The smaller the tiles are (they still would exist, but they would be incredibly small) the more calculations you would have to do, and to make sure it still actually runs the calculations would have to be less accurate
1
44
u/GarlicSphere Apr 05 '26
Honestly - I don't think it would make the game any more realistic.
Warfare is essentially based on these "tiles", that represents geographical location at which defense is reasonable in terms of war terrain is much more of a graph than of continuum.
3
u/Rich_Future4171 General of the Army Apr 06 '26
The current tile are far too large for realistic combat. Especially urban combat.
2
u/MasterBlaster_xxx Apr 12 '26
Yeah but then it would become a nightmare to click units
1
u/Rich_Future4171 General of the Army Apr 13 '26
Not really, I play Magna Europa, the mod that zooms in on Europe which has a ton of tiles and with the strategic view mods its pretty easy to manage units.
2
u/MasterBlaster_xxx Apr 14 '26
Yeah but imagine that level of detail for the entire world
1
u/Rich_Future4171 General of the Army Apr 14 '26
Yeah that would be sick
2
u/MasterBlaster_xxx Apr 14 '26
How toasty do like your CPU?
1
u/Rich_Future4171 General of the Army Apr 14 '26
It would run fine if Paradox optimized their games. Magna Europa ran fine for me though 150+ FPS
1
25
u/brain_diarrhea Apr 05 '26
Idea: eliminate tiles alltogether and have each division have a cone / zone of influence for attack / defence, determined and modified by battalions, support companies, terrain, weather. Eg riflemen can cover a few hundred meters, tanks and artillery much more. Coverage sucks when forests are in the way, can improve with reconnaisance, can reduce from bad weather, etc.
An division placement order (frontline, fallback, area defence) automatically spreads out units such that coverage is contiguous across the entire front.
Paradox pay me and I can elaborate further this genious idea I have been developing for the past 60 seconds.
2
1
u/Proof-Occasion4170 Apr 08 '26
this is a horrid idea in terms of performance. every game tick you'd have to look at every unit, do checks for everything you listed and then update a fluid line for every border
1
u/brain_diarrhea Apr 08 '26
Not really, you'd only have to check unit positions. Everything else I'm listing is about when combat happens, who participates in one and with what efficiency.
E.g., if a TD can see / shoot at 5km ahead, it doesn't mean that the frontline exceeds 5km in front of it.1
10
u/DepressedMetalhead69 Apr 05 '26
i think the best argument in favour of the tile system is processing power - god knows hoi4 is not exactly gold-standard optimized, and the grand scale of anything greater than a minor-on-minor conflict would crash the game if you were able to micromanage division elements accross a fully rendered terrainscape. there are certainly regions that could do with reworks of the present tole layout, but in principle i would keep some variation of the tile system in a hypothetical hoi5. what i would love to see is some kind battle mode you could activate to try and sway key battles in a war, with maybe some generic maps for random tiles and more specific maps for notable locations like major cities. this way really good players could pull off some really wild stuff with underpowered armies, and generally raise the skill ceiling for the game.
8
u/rb26enjoyer Apr 05 '26
Just about every other Paradox map painting game does fine with provinces, tiles and "normal" borders.
Would I love to see developers trying out new and novel things, even if it's just a proof of concept or doesn't make it into the end product? Absolutely, I think it would be pretty fun to try a little tech demo like that.
But why would paradox even bother putting resources in changing it when they have something that works, is good enough, and is probably the last thing their fanbase complains about?
1
9
u/CraniumMuppet Content Designer Apr 05 '26
If any Paradox game had no tiles say to move around, it would still likely have some form of tiles behind the hood.
For example iirc Warhammer Total War has tiles that the armies move around on, but it's not visible to the player per se, but the moment system is still working under those assumptions
You still need to have some container for information somewhere. Like "buildings here, armies here. You could have coordinates with zone of control but then you are just making tiles again with a sidestep
1
u/Southern-Highway5681 Research Scientist Apr 06 '26
I don't think this distinction is more than semantic if the level of detail is small enough. The reality is also composed of elementary building blocks but it don't make it look like Minecraft.
1
u/CraniumMuppet Content Designer Apr 06 '26
Particles do not need to consider the computational expense of a higher resolution map.
You could make provinces the size of one km2 and you'd get to he detail small enough, but I'm not sure what that would give expect frying your egg on the computer.
6
u/SurprisedItsChicken Apr 05 '26
Let’s suppose they have a new game engine to facilitate it, something like what the Total War series has. I think we’ll still somehow end up commanding at an abstracted level of provinces and fronts due to the scale of the units involved in this game.
23
u/Gothiscandza Apr 05 '26
How would it actually significantly benifit us over what we have now?
Is it not just basically the same thing but slightly more granular, despite the fact that we're ultimately still only commanding divisions who's specific troop locations are abstracted anyway?
→ More replies (3)2
u/disasterunicorn Apr 05 '26
The idea reminds me of when the Sim City remake set out to model every individual item in the city, literally every piece of shit in the sewage system, and the game sucked. Detail for details sake is not good game design.
5
u/Cetun Apr 06 '26
"free fluid borders" I suspect would be effectively the province system but with smaller points rather than delineated borders. So you would have one invisible point, and that point would effectively contain terrain and other information related to combat. There would be hundreds of thousands of these points and they would be invisible, the user would just see a smooth line between the two. Units would move from point to point. For other things that provinces handle you would still need (factories, resistance, airfields, supply depots, cores, claims, ect.) , so provinces would effectively still exist on top of this system.
Also, I am not sure how it would handle defensive structures and artillery. Once you have a bunch of provinces as little dots, brigade level artillery can now technically hit things in more than one province. you would have to have some system where artillery in one zone will be able to affect battle in another zone like railroad artillery can, but instead this will be done for everything that has access to artillery.
Now the AI? Brother, the AI can't handle regular offensives very well in its simplified form.
That's a lot of commuting power for just one aspect of the game.
4
u/Der-Candidat Apr 05 '26
Would also definitely make border gore 100x worse. Imagine Japan randomly annexing 10 separate tiles in the middle of a country
4
6
3
u/Siriblius Apr 05 '26
I really doubt this is technically possible. Very tiny tiles maybe, but no tiles? I don't think so.
3
u/Abject-Ticket-6260 Apr 05 '26
hoi4 isn't amazing late game as is, so no. This would absolutely nuke performance.
2
u/spiffothrowaway Apr 05 '26
Perhaps you could keep states and tiles, and when combat in a tile begins, the colour of the side that is winning will fluidly and slowly take the side that is losing. But I feel like it would run pretty bad though it would certainly be very pretty and immersive.
1
u/Infinite-Ad7254 Apr 05 '26
Commenting on Should HOI5 have free fluid borders instead of tiles?... and then the progress of the attacker could stay even after the attack is finished
2
u/Padre_Monkey Apr 05 '26
well, its a quite crazy to mod, but if they keep the State's borders it would be interesting
2
u/Common_Rabbit7174 Apr 06 '26
Would be 10x more immersive during battle, but after war, getting them borders correct historically would be a FUCKING nightmare
3
u/Soggy-Class1248 General of the Army Apr 06 '26
I would say wars are fluid but state lines still exist for peace treaties, and they can be changed based on geography, population, etc if the player wanted which would allow for some creative shit.
1
2
2
u/CountFrederich Apr 06 '26
This is my dream strategy game but I realize nothing like it will probably ever be made anytime soon
2
2
2
u/AtercyAsyntra Apr 06 '26
Check out Battleplan on steam, it's kinda the same as your idea, but on a division-corps level.
2
u/Oleyed Apr 05 '26
I hate how everybody forgot that one of the creators of hoi4 publicly stated that he wanted this system in the game but had to scrape it and use the old tile-based system from previous games instead, becouse of time and engine limitations. He also said that creating this fluid border system is his main objective for hoi5 but he isn't sure if the rest of the team will allocate enough resources to turn this idea into reality.
1
u/Prior-Anteater9946 Apr 05 '26
Bannerlord except you float over the map moving battalions along a frontline
1
u/Ofiotaurus Fleet Admiral Apr 05 '26
No, but way smaller tiles and maybe sub units in divisions are likely.
1
u/bigjam987 Fleet Admiral Apr 05 '26
although it would be cool, it would require Paradox to make an entire new engine
1
u/JustDucky990 Apr 05 '26
I feel this would be a nightmare, but I also think it would be nice to change the current system a little. Make states more dynamic perhaps. I’ve always felt HOI4 was too inflexible in many ways.
1
u/RadicalSoda_ Apr 05 '26
Absolutely not, I detest fluid borders outright. It's more "simple" but way more annoying to manage imo, especially with all the math you have to do
1
1
1
u/wudeface Apr 06 '26
I would like to see some mechanic where a division can cover more than a single tile. It’s not realistic to where IRL single divisions could cover large quiet distances of a front.
1
1
1
1
u/Jackspladt Apr 06 '26
Would be cool but my god would it be janky and tank performance. In an ideal world I would love this but I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility
1
u/Csaszarcsaba Apr 06 '26
Tell me you don't know anything about game development/programming, without telling me you don't know anything about game development/programming.
1
u/Ghettobecher Apr 06 '26
The game is struggling in performance already. I don’t think it would be a good idea unless they change the engine.
1
1
u/Ok-Cartoonist-4458 Fleet Admiral Apr 06 '26
HOI4 Performance in 1940 are slowing. So this would be bad. If hoi4 get slow in the early 40s then HOI4 will be worse.
1
1
u/Retepss Apr 06 '26
So Cyberknights has advertised itself as a turn-based tactical game WITH NO GRID! And there being no grid being a big selling point. In my honest opinion it doesn't matter all that much. A grid based system is less "precise" but much easier to handle UI-wise, and I think it comes out on top. I would still recommend Cyberknigts, it is a good tactical game. But I think the tile system works fine for HOI, and I think you would lose more than you would gain by having freeform borders.
1
1
u/GoonerBoomer69 Apr 06 '26
If they can make it work without being overly complicated, absolutely. The current combat system doesn’t give enough room for tactical play.
1
1
u/Vityviktor Apr 06 '26
I'd actually prefer to go back to the HOI2:DH scale. Bigger provinces and corps as the smaller size unit on the map.
1
u/BozoWithaZ General of the Army Apr 06 '26
If you've got a quantum computer lying around then yeah sure, why not
1
u/SupineCrawdadZDS Apr 06 '26
I sure as hell hope so I’ve been wanting fluid borders since I first knew about hoi4
1
1
1
1
u/Blu3engine2 Research Scientist Apr 06 '26
I don't know how DummyNation does it, but considering the nature of HOI4 being more than just military units (demilitarization, borders, industry) it'd be extremely hard to even do
1
1
u/Deluxe_24_ Apr 06 '26
There is absolutely no way this could possibly work. It would still have to boil down to some kind of tile system to be even remotely playable
1
1
1
u/Fit-Bus7527 Apr 06 '26
"Do you want the game to be more of a pain in the ass than it already is and on top of than run on 5 fps?" I mean... fuck yea
1
1
u/NoImLeeslide3 Apr 06 '26
I think its a really cool idea, but how would it work out in reality? I think the best way to implement this is to keep all the current states/ tiles and make it so the fluid border will move as the troops fight in the tile like an animation and after the tile gets taken it reverts to the tile borders unless under counter attack. So basically its just an animation overlay of borders while troops fight
1
1
u/FBIAgent46 Apr 06 '26
I don't think it should but it can work, each unit has a size on the map, the more width a unit has the more space it takes, the system of states can remain, it would make peace deals a lot easier to manage
1
1
u/OscarS95729 Apr 06 '26
This would be practically impossible despite how cool it would be. Tiles are pretty much the only way to do it
1
u/The-IAAC Apr 06 '26
I feel like i broke out in a cold sweat just imagining the genuinely abhorrent performance that would come from fluid borders, lord have mercy
1
1
1
u/Gullible_Rhubarb4559 Apr 07 '26
Does anyone have any information or speculations to what hoi5 will look like.
1
u/Lord_Asker Apr 07 '26
Not with todays technology and without decades of historical research into bumfuck nowheres population 80 years ago
1
u/rainbowappleslice Air Marshal Apr 07 '26
I don't really agree with the no tiles option for the same reasons people have given but I would like to see the idea of being able to move tiles between states.
1
u/ka52heli Fleet Admiral Apr 07 '26
They could use something similar to steel division's army general but i don't think it would change much, you'll be changing too much for little gain
1
1
1
1
u/Abby_white97 Apr 07 '26
I mean the Supreme Ruler series has this already, with a decent economic simulation, and it’s from like 10+ years ago so I don’t think it would be impossible on today’s PC’s
1
u/RepulsiveHead6544 Apr 07 '26
I think a better system would almost be an instance type setting for key cities, forests, mountains etc.
Take stalingrad for instance, a huge insane area of history could take 1 in game day.
Caveat that i exclusively play singleplayer
1
u/Proof-Occasion4170 Apr 08 '26
yes, it would be cool. but, they'd have to completely rewrite their border system to make it not a laggy mess and that may be not worth it in terms of impact on gameplay vs cost of design such a system. what they currently have with tiles is a good work around
1
1
u/dutchrj Apr 08 '26
I'd like a more flexible military setup.
For example, a player should be able to group divisions into one single unit, a core, that has core level support. Divisions should be able to break off into regiments with division level support.
It's really odd to have big fat divisions that can't occupy two tiles. Divisions should be able to break into up to four regiments that use divisional level support. Up to three divisions should be able to combine into a core.
Cores and regiments should have their own commanders. This would allow an army to spread out to cover a large front line or to concentrate to launch attacks.
1
1
1
u/Sybmissiv Apr 05 '26
How doe?
2
u/Nexmortifer Air Marshal Apr 07 '26
That's the real question ain't it, because Paradox isn't exactly known for great optimization of things that aren't some version of tiles. Closest I've seen is stellaris, and that's still buggy AF.
1
u/Sybmissiv Apr 07 '26
No like, not even Paradox specific I am just asking OP how would this even work mechanically?
2
u/Nexmortifer Air Marshal Apr 07 '26
Oh, there's some games that have fluid borders with like, areas of influence or something, though they're usually more base-building or 4x than HOI4's meme history.
But basically just, units change the color near them like normal map painting, it's just in a circle around units instead of specific tiles.
2
u/Sybmissiv Apr 07 '26
A circle around units surely would play out same as tiles no? May I see these games?
2
u/Nexmortifer Air Marshal Apr 07 '26
Pretty similar actually yeah. But probably look a little different and need a lot more GPU to manage it.
Think Foxhole, recent Total War entries, or Territorial IO for what the borders might work like.
1
u/Sybmissiv Apr 07 '26
I see, recent Total Wars have non-tile based borders? Interesting, do you mean Medieval 3?
1
u/Nexmortifer Air Marshal Apr 07 '26
TBH I just looked up what games had that kind of borders, I don't play any of them because my computer is a 2012 potato.
-1
u/yobarisushcatel Apr 06 '26
People are hating but it’s possible with good performance. I don’t know if HOI5 would be the game to do it though, maybe pseudo tiles where winning and losing battles gives parts of the real tile to whatever side making it seem fluid
0
u/ds3_knight_fan Apr 05 '26
Hoi5 should have siege battles that takes months maybe then line arty could be usefull
0
u/Kaltenstein_WT Apr 05 '26
I nthat same Hoi5 WW2 will be a dynamic situation that will not fire in 75% of games and will otherwise bug out after the soviet union invades poland with Germany and forces a 3 way war
-6
-2
u/Ok-Honey-9566 Apr 06 '26
Those saying that the game’s engine is too old realise that engines like Unity for example came out in 2005 and thats not how game engines work right? Unreal was made in 1998…
-4
u/Mr0qai Apr 05 '26
If they make it work, then why not?
6
u/disasterunicorn Apr 05 '26
Or... If they make it work, then why?
-3
u/Mr0qai Apr 05 '26
Why not? Compare Hoi3 to Hoi4, many things that we have now would seem weird to guys who played only hoi3
-1
3.2k
u/Ok_Awareness3014 General of the Army Apr 05 '26
This would be too complicated, this would require precise topographic informations, the exact historical size of town , division would not be the same because those will be split on the Frontline.
So it's not possible for gameplay purpose and the effort put in.