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.

sandman2575

My guess -- and just a guess -- is that it should be all but impossible for Germany to do that. To launch an amphib. invasion, you need to have 'sea supremacy' between you and your target. Even from the French west coast -- that's a lot of ocean territory between you and the Dutch East Indies! I suppose maybe you could station German divisions in Italian-occupied East Africa and try launching an invasion from there.

I suppose that would also mean making a big push to build a strong German surface fleet -- and I just don't see how that's possible without seriously compromising production of more important land and air forces. Naval combat is unfortunately pretty lame in HOI4 right now -- AI seems to use the "Combine all your ships into a super fleet and roam the waves" strategy that's all but impossible for weaker navies to counter. Also, port strikes are *devastating* (probably way overpowered at the moment) and very difficult to counter even with solid air cover. So the odds of Germany building a powerful surface fleet are pretty slim. Royal Navy is too powerful, and protecting your ports from airstrikes too difficult.

Rayfer

Quote from: Pete Dero on June 28, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Rayfer on June 28, 2016, 10:03:54 AM
Quote from: Pete Dero on June 28, 2016, 09:46:30 AM
When building divisions don't forget to look at the combat width.

If you have a frontline of 80 and your division has a combat width of 20 you can fit 4 divisions on the frontline while the rest go to reserve.
If your division had a combat width of 21 only 3 would fit and 17 frontline width is wasted (80 - 21x3).

For that reason I always go for 20 or 40 and avoid all other possibilities.  Adding one piece of artillery might strengthen your one division but could give you a weaker frontline as one entire division gets dropped.   (Base combat width is 80, additional attack directions bring 40 extra per direction)

Pete....help me understand this. When you say 'frontline of 80'....80 what?  And 'combat width of 21'....21 what?

I don't know what this represents in real life but it is what HOI uses :

from the wiki :

Combat width. Represents the size of the fighting unit. In order to fit in battle, the unit needs to fit into the provided combat width of the battle field. Different unit types increase the designed width with different amount: For example, infantry and armored battalions use 2 width and artillery, anti-tank and anti-air battalions use 3 width. Support battalions do not increase the combat width of a division.
Combat width

Combat width works a lot like in HOI3, but is now more detailed. Each division will have a combat width which will tell you how many divisions fit into the frontline for active fighting. The available width of the combat goes up the more directions you attack from, so tactical flanking is needed if you want to leverage a numerical advantage. Width is also affected by certain combat tactics. Base combat width is 80, where additional directions bring 40 extra per direction. The combat width of a division depends on how it has been designed.


Thanks Pete....your screenie helped with division width, but where do you find the combat width of the battlefield?

sandman2575

Also worth pointing out that, although the rubber crunch is a problem for Germany, the malus for lacking a resource isn't too severe. If you're producing a vehicle, say a fighter plane, and have all the resources but completely lack the required rubber, you'll take a max. 30% production hit -- which I *think* means those aircraft will take 30% longer to build than if you had the necessary rubber. (Arguably that's way too lenient -- something like 50-75% would feel more realistic to me).

Still, given the insane casualty rates for air combat, and the fact that aircraft demand more rubber than anything else you build, any shortfall in rubber definitely hurts.

Jarhead0331

Quote from: mikeck on June 28, 2016, 11:33:15 AM
I am trying to keep up but the posts are so long in this thread that it's difficult. I'm getting ready to start a game are there any "must-have "mods around? the ones that almost everybody gets or you really need to deal with an  inherent design problem or bug

There are no "must have" mods in my opinion. However, the mod that permits you to modify, edit and create new division templates without the need for army experience points is useful. The color buttons mod, the more theater symbols mod, and the mod that adds more historical names to equipment are helpful. Otherwise, the mods I use all add more historical flavor, such as more period music, use of historical flags, etc.

Keep in mind, a lot of the mods are not compatible with the beta version of the upcoming patch.
Grogheads Uber Alles
Semper Grog
"No beast is more alpha than JH." Gusington, 10/23/18


sandman2575

Quote from: mikeck on June 28, 2016, 11:33:15 AM
I am trying to keep up but the posts are so long in this thread that it's difficult. I'm getting ready to start a game are there any "must-have "mods around? the ones that almost everybody gets or you really need to deal with an  inherent design problem or bug

Mike -- echoing JH's point -- right now, things are still so raw and in flux with HOI4 that there are probably no completely *essential* mods. To me, the game feels pretty unbalanced in several different areas, and I don't think any mod 'corrects' those balances so much as shifts them in different (and no less problematic) directions. The upcoming 1.1.0 patch does the same thing (I'm using the beta) -- it's corrected some imbalances but introduced new ones as well. It's going to take a lot of time to get it right, patches and mods-wise.

I use several mods, but beyond the "No Experience Req. for Division Designs" mod -- and that's really just personal preference -- there are no other mods that I feel I have to use. Lots of graphics / cosmetic stuff, but again that's all personal preference.

The big 'rebalancing' mod at the moment is:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=704100462&searchtext=

I tried it in an aborted play-thru.  It clearly makes the AI divisions more powerful, but maybe too much so. I was playing as USA and at one point decided to see what AI Germany was doing, so loaded up a save -- and was flabbergasted. Germany had literally over 20,000 tanks in the field (in 1941). Production numbers seemed off the charts. Case in point, I think, of how 'rebalancing' at this point really means 'unbalancing in new directions.'

Pete Dero

Quote from: Rayfer on June 28, 2016, 11:50:02 AM
Thanks Pete....your screenie helped with division width, but where do you find the combat width of the battlefield?

Click on a battle icon - the middle row shows your width, combat area width and the enemy's number.

(this is an older picture - where you see 30 for combat area width, now you should see 80,120 or 160)



Rayfer

Pete...again, thanks. The depth of detail in this game just keeps unfolding deeper and deeper. Personally, I think it's an incredible accomplishment.

sandman2575

Quote from: Rayfer on June 28, 2016, 12:24:50 PM
Personally, I think it's an incredible accomplishment.

Agree 100%.  HOI4 has a 1,001 problems right now, but even so, it's an absolutely amazing game. And it will only improve from here.

Ian C

Quote from: sandman2575 on June 28, 2016, 08:38:30 AM

I initiated a bit of a flame war on the pdox forum in arguing strongly that division design should *not* be limited by 'army experience points'. I truly hate this mechanic and so I use the mod that eliminates it (sadly that mod isn't compatible with some other important ones, so there's still a bit of a trade off).

It's been updated: "Now compatible with other mods like expanded industry, thanks to Kaseyawolf2!"
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=698620155

Quote
I don't buy for a second the argument that the 'exp. points' price somehow prevents exploitative play. I want to be able to design divisions as I see fit, when I see fit. And especially since the default division templates HOI4 gives you are such rubbish, I don't see why we should have to wait for months and months to accrue arbitrary 'points' so that we can do basic things like attach engineer and artillery support to our infantry divisions.

I agree entirely but for purists there is a way in-game to accrue Land Experience faster, even in peacetime. If you set all land forces on Exercise and also add a particular general/minister to your government/high command, there's a steady experience increase. The minister/general in question is available in either chief of army, high command or ministers. He adds a + x% per day.

jamus34

Quote from: Ian C on June 28, 2016, 12:42:45 PM
Quote from: sandman2575 on June 28, 2016, 08:38:30 AM

I initiated a bit of a flame war on the pdox forum in arguing strongly that division design should *not* be limited by 'army experience points'. I truly hate this mechanic and so I use the mod that eliminates it (sadly that mod isn't compatible with some other important ones, so there's still a bit of a trade off).

It's been updated: "Now compatible with other mods like expanded industry, thanks to Kaseyawolf2!"
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=698620155

Quote
I don't buy for a second the argument that the 'exp. points' price somehow prevents exploitative play. I want to be able to design divisions as I see fit, when I see fit. And especially since the default division templates HOI4 gives you are such rubbish, I don't see why we should have to wait for months and months to accrue arbitrary 'points' so that we can do basic things like attach engineer and artillery support to our infantry divisions.

I agree entirely but for purists there is a way in-game to accrue Land Experience faster, even in peacetime. If you set all land forces on Exercise and also add a particular general/minister to your government/high command, there's a steady experience increase. The minister/general in question is available in either chief of army, high command or ministers. He adds a + x% per day.

Except that's at a cost of extremely high attrition. I would much rather have a max pool design on how you can build divisions that is upgraded by research. You are almost being charged twice to create INF divisions... Once to design then and then you need the supplies to actually build them.
Insert witty comment here.

Pete Dero

Quote from: Ian C on June 28, 2016, 12:42:45 PM
I agree entirely but for purists there is a way in-game to accrue Land Experience faster, even in peacetime. If you set all land forces on Exercise and also add a particular general/minister to your government/high command, there's a steady experience increase. The minister/general in question is available in either chief of army, high command or ministers. He adds a + x% per day.

I guess I'm a purist then  ;D.

I get the idea why Paradox introduced this 'feature' : only through training and combat you find out your divisions are not what they should be and how you should change them.
Also you can't change the total structure of a division at once because this could create chaos (and that's why you are limited to the available XP).

The one thing I was missing is included in the new beta : create a blank division template.

sandman2575

#686
I don't want to rehash the thread I posted on Pdox forum, but I truly don't understand the decision to link division design to army exp. points. I don't see how removing the cost would be 'unbalancing' -- just because you can design great big powerful divisions doesn't mean you can necessarily *build* them (it takes manpower and equipment), and you still have to unlock better tanks, equipment etc. through the tech tree, which discourages tech rushing (correctly) by the ahead-of-time penalty.

I think the exp. point system makes perfect sense for aircraft/vehicle/ship upgrades.

@Pete -- I'm by no means suggesting 'you're wrong!' -- I get what you're saying. I just differ on the 'philosophy' of division design. I think military doctrine is a greater determinant of divisional structure than 'past experience' -- that, and limitations of manpower and equipment (e.g. the Wehrmacht didn't reduce the size of its panzer divisions in '40/'41 because of doctrinal changes so much as they didn't have sufficient tanks to fill out the envisioned TOE of the earlier, larger divisional structure).

I also think the exp. points cost is a bit of a cover for the larger problem: the AI's inability to build and upgrade proper divisions in the first place.

SirAndrewD

Quote from: sandman2575 on June 28, 2016, 01:02:42 PM

I think the exp. point system makes perfect sense for aircraft/vehicle/ship upgrades.


I also think the exp. points cost is a bit of a cover for the larger problem: the AI's inability to build and upgrade proper divisions in the first place.

I'm 100% in agreement with you here. 

Division structure, especially when it comes to the decision to implement medium/heavy armor shouldn't be tied to Army XP.  Just as one example out of many, the Panzer III was developed prior even to the Spanish Civil War.  Certianly the Wehrmacht didn't need any battlefield experience to decide to employ a design they were already considering using.   This, for me, seems to apply to a lot of the division designs. 

Moreover, the AI just can't use the system as it stands. 

I feel like historically, the XP concept, as you say, is best left to designing vehicle variants, as that was where practical knowledge tended to change the on paper ideas.
"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

Swatter

I don't think tying army xp and division templates is a terrible idea, it just needs to be much cheaper.

I just finished my first game and I really, really like the game. I played as the Soviets and started in '39. I went the historic route and annexed the Baltics and part of Romania and fought a war with Finland. Unlike Stalin, I launched the attack in May 1940 and crushed them. Anyway, I much prefer playing large countries like the USSR in HOI4 versus HOI3. That battle plans work very well, not perfectly, but very well. I much prefer the way you handle your airforces... it just makes tons more sense when you abstract it like they did. That also goes with the naval war, it just works better IMO. I don't mind the naval invasion system, because you need to control the sea and air zones where your invading anyway, plus the invasion takes a long time to plan. I think it all works well. I have already mentioned my praise of the production system and that praise stands after the first game.

Now, here is where I get negative. The AI can really get lost, as far as addressing the priorities of a worldwide empire like Japan, the UK, or the US. After I defeated Germany in '44 (mostly because their air forces were ground to nothing by the Allies), I set about defeating Japan. To the AI's credit, it managed to conquer China and grab India from the UK, so it had a vast empire. I began retaking China and had almost completed the process by the summer of '45. When I invaded the home islands, they had almost nothing there. My armored columns conquered the main island in less than 2 weeks. What a shame.

Also, AI Japan didn't pursue a naval war in the Pacific at all. This is a problem in HOI going back a long ways and they just can't fix it. Another shame. In addition, when I invaded the home islands they still had a powerful fleet. Even without ground forces in Japan, they still could have prevented me from landing if it utilized its naval forces correctly.

One final thing: Infrastructure repair takes far too long to accomplish. There is no way to keep up with repairs if your army is on the advance and your troops will attrit. In reality, it was pretty easy to fix rail lines and keep your armies in supply. Here, your construction queue will fill up with a long list a repairs that will take years to fix.

Having said those negative things, I still highly recommend the game. Even though the Japan AI provided an anti-climactic end to the war, it was a fun game. I will wait on my next game for a few months until the AI is addressed in a major way.

W8taminute

^I agree, the costs for changing a division around should be a tad bit cheaper.  Although I would love to have a blank division template I think it should be an optional feature.

I believe what pdox is trying to accomplish with not having a blank division template is an attempt at simulating the realities of military organization.  Correct me if I'm wrong but even today when a nation's military looks at their army division structures do the planners start with a blank division template or do they look at the existing template and modify it based on current military trends, their own experience, political situations, etc.?
"You and I are of a kind. In a different reality, I could have called you friend."

Romulan Commander to Kirk