Main Menu

Hearts of Iron IV

Started by Ian C, May 13, 2016, 01:07:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jarhead0331

Well, my WWII Databook arrived today. Wow. Just wow. I'm going to sleep with it and have like 100 of its babies. Its awesome.

Thanks for the recommendation!
Grogheads Uber Alles
Semper Grog
"No beast is more alpha than JH." Gusington, 10/23/18


sandman2575

I'm no expert on WW2 naval warfare either and don't mean to mislead -- what I wrote was from memory based on reading, so imperfect certainly, and probably too influenced by GG's War in the Pacific AE. "One CV per TF" was putting it too categorically -- but I'm pretty sure that early war USN doctrine favored smallrt, flexible TFs built around 1 (or 2) fleet carriers. This grew as the war progressed. But I think WITP means to simulate this by having an air-strike coordination penalty for USN early in the war -- so if you load 4 CVs into a single TF in '42, you're actually penalizing yourself *as the US player* -- you'll actually dissipate your air-strike potential, not maximize it.  Things are quite the opposite for the IJN player, since as has been pointed out, IJN certainly did put together large TFs for the large scale strikes against Pearl - the 'Kido Butai' - and Midway. The TF for Midway was enormous taken as a whole, although I think it was parcelled out in ways that meant the whole 'main body' was not in proximity at any one time -- i.e. Yamamoto's flagship Yamato was nowhere near Nagumo's carrier strike fleet when disaster struck -- the battleships were kept separate from the CVs, even though in a broad sense they were part of the same strike force.

So yes, it would be realistic if in HOI4, in the early Pacific war anyway, USN assembled smaller carrier TFs, and IJN assembled larger TFs. Still, even by this measure, the HOI4 AI puts together insane fleets: 80 destroyers, 6 carriers, 7 battleships, plus subs etc. And as US player, if you don't do the same, your fleets will get completely wiped out.

sandman2575

Quote from: Ian C on June 29, 2016, 08:55:34 AM
I have a copy open of John Ellis' World War II Databook (US: https://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-Data-Book/dp/1854102540  UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-II-Data-Book/dp/1854102540  if you don't own one, order one right now. You won't be disappointed).

I overlooked this earlier -- now I want this too!

mikeck

#768
Quote from: sandman2575 on July 05, 2016, 07:37:45 PM
I'm no expert on WW2 naval warfare either and don't mean to mislead -- what I wrote was from memory based on reading, so imperfect certainly, and probably too influenced by GG's War in the Pacific AE. "One CV per TF" was putting it too categorically -- but I'm pretty sure that early war USN doctrine favored smallrt, flexible TFs built around 1 (or 2) fleet carriers. This grew as the war progressed. But I think WITP means to simulate this by having an air-strike coordination penalty for USN early in the war -- so if you load 4 CVs into a single TF in '42, you're actually penalizing yourself *as the US player* -- you'll actually dissipate your air-strike potential, not maximize it.  Things are quite the opposite for the IJN player, since as has been pointed out, IJN certainly did put together large TFs for the large scale strikes against Pearl - the 'Kido Butai' - and Midway. The TF for Midway was enormous taken as a whole, although I think it was parcelled out in ways that meant the whole 'main body' was not in proximity at any one time -- i.e. Yamamoto's flagship Yamato was nowhere near Nagumo's carrier strike fleet when disaster struck -- the battleships were kept separate from the CVs, even though in a broad sense they were part of the same strike force.

So yes, it would be realistic if in HOI4, in the early Pacific war anyway, USN assembled smaller carrier TFs, and IJN assembled larger TFs. Still, even by this measure, the HOI4 AI puts together insane fleets: 80 destroyers, 6 carriers, 7 battleships, plus subs etc. And as US player, if you don't do the same, your fleets will get completely wiped out.

I don't know, but don't let it kill your IMMERSION!! Lol.

Stacks-of-doom suck but what your describing doesn't seem TOO bad...

I guess what I'm saying is that in your game, you are trying to utilize one fleet model but the Japnese are utilizing another with superior numbers and winning.  In order to avoid getting your butt whipped, you have to create your own super-fleet....but isn't that what happened in the Pacific from jan 42- late 1943? The U.S. Increases TF size?


Please tell me though that the AI is at least using "combined arms" in its fleet composition though? It's not deploying a TF consisting of 9 carriers and 10 battleships or some such! I hope it includes large numbers of cruisers, destroyers and subs.
"A government large enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."--Thomas Jefferson

SirAndrewD

Considering the ocean region sizes, I actually think "doom fleets" sort of make sense. 

I mean, look at the ridiculously large OOB's for battles like Leyte Gulf, or in WW1 Jutland, and it's pretty understandable why massing forces seems to be the best course of action. 

The issue comes in that scenarios like Midway don't really occur, where a much smaller, but better led and luckier force beat a "doom stack".

Of course, if a Midway like result happened in HoI4 people on the Paradox forum would scream about it. 
"These men do not want a happy ship. They are deeply sick and try to compensate by making me feel miserable. Last week was my birthday. Nobody even said "happy birthday" to me. Someday this tape will be played and then they'll feel sorry."  - Sgt. Pinback

jomni

Does the AI actually suffer from their affinity to doom fleets?  Meaning other sea areas are left defenceless.  Maybe that's the problem.

FarAway Sooner

Quote from: SirAndrewD on July 06, 2016, 12:15:08 AM
Considering the ocean region sizes, I actually think "doom fleets" sort of make sense. 

I mean, look at the ridiculously large OOB's for battles like Leyte Gulf, or in WW1 Jutland, and it's pretty understandable why massing forces seems to be the best course of action. 

The issue comes in that scenarios like Midway don't really occur, where a much smaller, but better led and luckier force beat a "doom stack".

Of course, if a Midway like result happened in HoI4 people on the Paradox forum would scream about it.

Not a universally known historical fact, but Midway wasn't really the long shot it's made out to be in some of the earlier English-language books on the topic.  The US had a significant numerical advantage in planes after you toss in the Midway group, and one of their four airfields was unsinkable if easy to find.  The qualitative advantages that the Japanese enjoyed were also somewhat exaggerated (e.g., the IJN had better carrier-based fighters and torpedo-bombers, while the USN had better reconnaissance capabilities and far superior damage control protocols).

The real-world problem with doom stacks tends to be logistical, I think.  The US was able to overcome that in the Pacific starting in 1944, but it took an absurd amount of logistical effort that only the US was able to muster.

Ian C

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 05, 2016, 07:29:08 PM
Well, my WWII Databook arrived today. Wow. Just wow. I'm going to sleep with it and have like 100 of its babies. Its awesome.

Thanks for the recommendation!

You're welcome. I don't publicly recommend anything unless it's overwhelmingly great. In this case, it's a book any WW2 historian/strategy gamer can't be without.

Quote from: sandman2575 on July 05, 2016, 07:48:16 PM
I overlooked this earlier -- now I want this too!

I think you will find it essential for recreating historical OOB and more.

RyanE

I am no fanboi of HOI4 AI.  I mean, the challenge of HOI4 is the complexity, not the AI.  But I really hate to see this forum turn into the Pdox forums where its like people are just waiting for the AI to do something stupid so they can complain about it, without even looking at what happened historically.  I see the AI making a lot of little mistakes that I say to myself, "I would never do that".  Its pretty easy, if you play and replay the same set ups over and over again, to beat the AI.  And, to me, that is the main issue with any AI.  It becomes predictable.  HOI4 seems no different.  But on a first run through of a set up, I find the AI at least as competent as I am, maybe more so.

acctingman

Speaking as a total grand strategy noob and Paradox noob, I find this game intolerably infuriating and I've shelved it possibly forever

But that is more on me than the game  :uglystupid2:

But, once again, I'd like to thank everyone who posted on this thread. I'd like to say it helped me, but it didn't (on me, not all of you)  :crazy2:

Grim.Reaper

Quote from: sandman2575 on July 05, 2016, 07:48:16 PM
Quote from: Ian C on June 29, 2016, 08:55:34 AM
I have a copy open of John Ellis' World War II Databook (US: https://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-Data-Book/dp/1854102540  UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-II-Data-Book/dp/1854102540  if you don't own one, order one right now. You won't be disappointed).

I overlooked this earlier -- now I want this too!

Count me in too

mikeck

#776
Quote from: RyanE on July 06, 2016, 05:54:35 AM
I am no fanboi of HOI4 AI.  I mean, the challenge of HOI4 is the complexity, not the AI.  But I really hate to see this forum turn into the Pdox forums where its like people are just waiting for the AI to do something stupid so they can complain about it, without even looking at what happened historically.  I see the AI making a lot of little mistakes that I say to myself, "I would never do that".  Its pretty easy, if you play and replay the same set ups over and over again, to beat the AI.  And, to me, that is the main issue with any AI.  It becomes predictable.  HOI4 seems no different.  But on a first run through of a set up, I find the AI at least as competent as I am, maybe more so.

I don't see much of that on this forum really. In fact, I post here exclusively just for that reason: that people tend to give reasonable opinions about games and have reasonable complaints...I find anyway.

I can't imagine a more complex game then HOI 4. With the amount of things the AI is required to do for each nation, it's surprising to me that it is as good as it is.

At the battle of Chancellorsville (American Civil War) Confederate general Lee divided his smaller army of 65,000 in the face of a larger Union army of over 100k. The next day, Lee again divided one of the parts of his (already divided) army in the face of an opposing larger force. It worked out and Lee was victorious. Considered his greatest victory. Lee won because the Union general (Hooker) froze. Hooker failed to attack through the hole left in Lee's lines and refused to commit 3 unused Corps in a counter attack.

Had the Union general been AI controlled, people would complain it is brain dead and "the AI did nothing as I flanked it...it just sat there in a line".  Had Hooker attacked and split Lee's line between the holding force and flanking force, Lee would have been ridiculed for splitting his army 2x in the face of a superior force. If Lee was AI controlled, people would claim "The AI can't even concentrate forces...March a force behind it, the AI freaks out and splits its force, then sends parts all over the place. Why can't it just keep an army together".

Some AI moves in games are a result of bad AI or bugs and whatnot. All AI decisions are results of algorithms; but to me, it's not immersion killing when an AI makes a stupid move since REAL people do it...so long as it is "reasonably stupid" and coherent.  Marching Lines of Battle back and forth while under fire in Empire Total war being an example.

However, attacking one country and leaving a border with another enemy completely undefended is a problem....as is repeated (failed) amphibious landings in the same spot. I'm not an apologist for bad AI...just asking that people consider that human generals have made dumb decisions.
"A government large enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."--Thomas Jefferson

mikeck

Quote from: acctingman on July 06, 2016, 09:56:45 AM
Speaking as a total grand strategy noob and Paradox noob, I find this game intolerably infuriating and I've shelved it possibly forever

But that is more on me than the game  :uglystupid2:

But, once again, I'd like to thank everyone who posted on this thread. I'd like to say it helped me, but it didn't (on me, not all of you)  :crazy2:

Maybe you should start with EU IV? Same game engine but depending on the time period, fewer mechanics to worry about and less stuff happening. Or maybe Crudader Kings2? Another Clauswitz engine game.

You gave it a shot but if your new to grand strategy, HOI 4 seems like a tough one to start with
"A government large enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."--Thomas Jefferson

RyanE

"However, attacking one country and leaving a border with another enemy completely undefended is a problem"...Maginot Line anyone?

Oddly, I have only played as the US and never had the amphib assault issue.

sandman2575

Quote from: mikeck on July 06, 2016, 10:40:44 AM
I don't see much of that on this forum really. In fact, I post here exclusively just for that reason: that people tend to give reasonable opinions about games and have reasonable complaints...I find anyway.

Couldn't agree more. I think the conversation around HOI4 in this thread has been really insightful and productive -- critical on some points, certainly, but not without backing said criticisms up with well-reasoned claims, as mikeck says.


Quote from: mikeck on July 06, 2016, 10:40:44 AM
With the amount of things the AI is required to do for each nation, it's surprising to me that it is as good as it is.

Again, in complete agreement. The more I've gotten to know HOI4 -- and I've literally played *nothing* else since it released! -- the more impressed I am by what Pdox has pulled off here. The fact that they were willing to produce a game as complex and historically detailed as HOI4 speaks volumes about what they value. Like any smart company, Pdox has attempted (successfully) to broaden its audience over the years -- and they have done so without sacrificing depth, complexity, and attention to historical detail. I think it's extraordinary, really. The widespread complains on the Pdox forums about how HOI4 is 'dumbed down'... I just don't know what planet those folks live on.

Pdox has created a global-scale, real-time strategic simulation of the greatest conflict in history, and done it in a way meant to appeal to a broad audience *without* sacrificing important historical detail for players more knowledgeable about WW2. If that isn't some trifecta that pulls off a seemingly impossible stunt, I don't know what is.

Quote from: mikeck on July 06, 2016, 10:40:44 AM
I'm not an apologist for bad AI...just asking that people consider that human generals have made dumb decisions.

It's like you're reading my mind, man --  8)