• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Developer Diary | Small Features #2

Greetings all,

We’re still well in the middle of Swedish vacation time, but our regular schedule is not entirely interrupted: today’s diary covers a few of the smaller features being added in AAT.


Special Forces Doctrines

For a while now we’ve wanted to give countries a way of specializing their special forces. Numerous militaries relied heavily on these elite troops, and some branches of what HOI4 terms ‘special forces’ really found their identity during and around the second world war.

I believe we’ve reached a good saturation point for equipment designers, and I wanted to tackle special forces in a manner that better befits strategic capability over detailed stat modification. The prolonged global conflict our game portrays led to significant doctrinal development when it comes to how militaries employed elite forces, and this seemed like a good place to start.

In AAT, a fourth doctrine page has been added:

image20.png


While any country can continue to make use of the Mountaineers, Marines and Paratroopers they are familiar with simply by researching the tech, doing so will unlock the ability to choose the corresponding special forces branch specialism.

These doctrines will also cost experience, however unlike the other military doctrines each branch here will use the corresponding experience type: Army XP for mountaineers, Naval XP for Marines, and Air XP for paratroopers.

The number of branch specialisms you can pick is limited however: initially to 1. Some nations earn the early ability to unlock a second (and final) branch specialism in their focus trees, but all nations that reach major status (this condition may be relaxed) will eventually earn the right to pick their second branch during the progress of the war.

Why not all 3? The [Insert Country Here] military used all three of these!

Well, partly for balance reasons, and partly because these specialisms don’t represent the ability to use paras, mountaineers or marines, but the adoption of their capabilities as part of a military’s core doctrinal philosophy.

We also wanted these doctrine choices to do more than give you stat bonuses - although of course these will be present. We wanted the choices you make here to a) change how you consider designing your divisions, and b) potentially change how you actively use your special forces on a strategic level.

Mountaineers

image19.png


Initially, elevating the mountaineers will grant you a mountaineer supply usage reduction (decimal bug noted!), and some general special forces combat bonuses. Importantly, you’ll also unlock the Rangers support company: a more combat oriented alternative to mounted recon, with higher organization, bonuses in adverse terrain types, and which can be further specialized by the mountaineers branch specialism in the following two doctrines:

image18.png

image13.png

Here you are making the choice to train your elite ranger companies in rough+hot or rough+winter terrain. I’ve added a Snow adjuster here (usable by mods, of course - although for performance reasons this does not extend to one adjuster per weather type I’m afraid) which means you can guarantee improved combat performance in your preferred terrain/weather type, and the support company now also exerts a division-wide buff to cold/hot acclimatization.

While I won’t go through each doctrine individually, we’re making use of the new battalion modifiers to adjust how you are incentivized to build divisions:

image11.png

Mountain artillery gives you a good reason to use artillery support in your mountaineer divisions, at the cost of a mutually exclusive choice with the following option:

image4.png

Balance subject to change, of course.

The final choice (and a choice which exists in each of the branch specialisms) is to decide between adopting your mountaineers as the core of your elite armed forces, or integrating them more widely:

image9.png

The new modifier ‘[Type] Special Forces Cap Contribution’ is a dynamic modifier that reduces the cap consumption of that special forces type, when counted against your cap. So, you’ll be able to support significantly more mountaineers, but not more paratroopers or marines.

image14.png

Here you’ll get bonuses that are more applicable to a wider array of circumstances. If you plan on unlocking and utilizing a second branch of special forces, this option might be more your cup of tea.

Marines

image23.png

The initial investment for the Marines branch will net you some similar small bonuses to special forces efficacy, a slight increase in naval invasion capacity (which can be acquired quite early), and you’ll unlock the Pioneers support company.

Pioneers are used here to represent marine-trained sappers and combat engineers, and will be an alternative to standard military engineers. They have increased offensive capability in notably hostile environments, and can be further specialized as shore parties or jungle climate specialists:

image3.png

image5.png

The second mutually exclusive choice in the Marines tree is as below. If you want to go all-in on highly elite, more self-sufficient marines, you can go down the Marine Commando route. Marine commandos are a new line battalion that have the ability to perform quick hit & run naval invasions with an equally quick getaway plan - they no longer need to be at a port in order to exfiltrate. All battalions in a division must have this ability in order for it to function.

image17.png

Further down the tree you can capitalize on the hit & run playstyle:

image16.png

The alternative path will take you down a combined arms path, integrating more closely with other branches of your military:

image6.png

image12.png


Paratroopers

image22.png

Elevating the paras will grant you tougher air transports, generally improved special forces, and the ability to field a small amount more paras.

image7.png

The first choice you will have to make is which paradrop effect you want to adopt. Aimed at disruption, the recon and sabotage doctrine will damage enemy constructions after a successful landing.

image8.png

Combat insertion is intended to augment well-planned general advances. If utilized carefully, this approach can put a hole in even the best fortified enemy frontline - however, the risk is high.

image10.png

It had to be done.


The mutually exclusive branches for paratroopers once again distinguish between a focus on paratrooper combat and support ability, or a wider combined-arms benefit:

image21.png

Make use of signals companies to coordinate a hasty defense after a drop.

image1.png

At the cost of increased training time, ensure that only the toughest recruits find their way to the paras.

Or choose to integrate the paras more traditionally into your armed forces:

image2.png

image15.png

2023-08-01_13-38.png
2023-08-01_13-41.png
2023-08-01_13-58.png

2023-08-01_13-59.png
2023-08-01_13-59_1.png

2023-08-01_13-59_2.png
2023-08-01_14-00.png
2023-08-01_14-00_1.png
2023-08-01_14-00_2.png
2023-08-01_14-01.png
2023-08-01_14-01_1.png
2023-08-01_14-01_2.png
2023-08-01_14-02.png
2023-08-01_14-02_1.png
2023-08-01_14-02_2.png
2023-08-01_14-03.png
2023-08-01_14-03_1.png
2023-08-01_14-03_2.png

That’s all I have to show this time - as always, feedback on the details is encouraged; constructive criticism welcomed.

/Arheo
 
  • 59Like
  • 45Love
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
New marine commandoes will wreck Axis in MP, unless it`s really hard to stack them powerful enough that a regular coastal garrison will generally beat them in defence.

Naval invasion is a huge risk/reward situation, and removing that risk is very, well, risky.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Great job with these "small" but not-so-small features!!! :)

Do special force gain experience faster?
I'm not able to see veteran units so often :(

I hope to see a third bunch of features sporting more "RPG" features, like more and more officers/generals portraits (I hate to see ever the same 4 faces) and ability to change the divisions name template without the need of a mod! More division and army icons, more equipment models and icons would be appreciated too !!! :)
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Greetings all,

We’re still well in the middle of Swedish vacation time, but our regular schedule is not entirely interrupted: today’s diary covers a few of the smaller features being added in AAT.


Special Forces Doctrines

For a while now we’ve wanted to give countries a way of specializing their special forces. Numerous militaries relied heavily on these elite troops, and some branches of what HOI4 terms ‘special forces’ really found their identity during and around the second world war.

I believe we’ve reached a good saturation point for equipment designers, and I wanted to tackle special forces in a manner that better befits strategic capability over detailed stat modification. The prolonged global conflict our game portrays led to significant doctrinal development when it comes to how militaries employed elite forces, and this seemed like a good place to start.

In AAT, a fourth doctrine page has been added:



While any country can continue to make use of the Mountaineers, Marines and Paratroopers they are familiar with simply by researching the tech, doing so will unlock the ability to choose the corresponding special forces branch specialism.

These doctrines will also cost experience, however unlike the other military doctrines each branch here will use the corresponding experience type: Army XP for mountaineers, Naval XP for Marines, and Air XP for paratroopers.

The number of branch specialisms you can pick is limited however: initially to 1. Some nations earn the early ability to unlock a second (and final) branch specialism in their focus trees, but all nations that reach major status (this condition may be relaxed) will eventually earn the right to pick their second branch during the progress of the war.

Why not all 3? The [Insert Country Here] military used all three of these!

Well, partly for balance reasons, and partly because these specialisms don’t represent the ability to use paras, mountaineers or marines, but the adoption of their capabilities as part of a military’s core doctrinal philosophy.

We also wanted these doctrine choices to do more than give you stat bonuses - although of course these will be present. We wanted the choices you make here to a) change how you consider designing your divisions, and b) potentially change how you actively use your special forces on a strategic level.

Mountaineers

View attachment 1009606


Initially, elevating the mountaineers will grant you a mountaineer supply usage reduction (decimal bug noted!), and some general special forces combat bonuses. Importantly, you’ll also unlock the Rangers support company: a more combat oriented alternative to mounted recon, with higher organization, bonuses in adverse terrain types, and which can be further specialized by the mountaineers branch specialism in the following two doctrines:


Here you are making the choice to train your elite ranger companies in rough+hot or rough+winter terrain. I’ve added a Snow adjuster here (usable by mods, of course - although for performance reasons this does not extend to one adjuster per weather type I’m afraid) which means you can guarantee improved combat performance in your preferred terrain/weather type, and the support company now also exerts a division-wide buff to cold/hot acclimatization.

While I won’t go through each doctrine individually, we’re making use of the new battalion modifiers to adjust how you are incentivized to build divisions:


Mountain artillery gives you a good reason to use artillery support in your mountaineer divisions, at the cost of a mutually exclusive choice with the following option:


Balance subject to change, of course.

The final choice (and a choice which exists in each of the branch specialisms) is to decide between adopting your mountaineers as the core of your elite armed forces, or integrating them more widely:


The new modifier ‘[Type] Special Forces Cap Contribution’ is a dynamic modifier that reduces the cap consumption of that special forces type, when counted against your cap. So, you’ll be able to support significantly more mountaineers, but not more paratroopers or marines.


Here you’ll get bonuses that are more applicable to a wider array of circumstances. If you plan on unlocking and utilizing a second branch of special forces, this option might be more your cup of tea.


The initial investment for the Marines branch will net you some similar small bonuses to special forces efficacy, a slight increase in naval invasion capacity (which can be acquired quite early), and you’ll unlock the Pioneers support company.

Pioneers are used here to represent marine-trained sappers and combat engineers, and will be an alternative to standard military engineers. They have increased offensive capability in notably hostile environments, and can be further specialized as shore parties or jungle climate specialists:


The second mutually exclusive choice in the Marines tree is as below. If you want to go all-in on highly elite, more self-sufficient marines, you can go down the Marine Commando route. Marine commandos are a new line battalion that have the ability to perform quick hit & run naval invasions with an equally quick getaway plan - they no longer need to be at a port in order to exfiltrate. All battalions in a division must have this ability in order for it to function.


Further down the tree you can capitalize on the hit & run playstyle:


The alternative path will take you down a combined arms path, integrating more closely with other branches of your military:


Elevating the paras will grant you tougher air transports, generally improved special forces, and the ability to field a small amount more paras.


The first choice you will have to make is which paradrop effect you want to adopt. Aimed at disruption, the recon and sabotage doctrine will damage enemy constructions after a successful landing.


Combat insertion is intended to augment well-planned general advances. If utilized carefully, this approach can put a hole in even the best fortified enemy frontline - however, the risk is high.


It had to be done.


The mutually exclusive branches for paratroopers once again distinguish between a focus on paratrooper combat and support ability, or a wider combined-arms benefit:


Make use of signals companies to coordinate a hasty defense after a drop.


At the cost of increased training time, ensure that only the toughest recruits find their way to the paras.

Or choose to integrate the paras more traditionally into your armed forces:


That’s all I have to show this time - as always, feedback on the details is encouraged; constructive criticism welcomed.

/Arheo


Yes, yes, yes!!!!

This is a huge improvement, and minimally invasive. Well done, guys! :D

My only suggestion would be to add a few bonuses in each tree to apply more broadly. For instance, mountain artillery would benefit both mountaineers and paras, while paratroop tanks would benefit both paras and marines. A small tweak, but would be nice.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I just realized that an extension of the theory trees also means a soft debuff on Russia, already starving for XP by default. Re balancing seems apt.
Which in reality should not. The USSR began to form the Airborne Forces in 1930, when most countries began to create them in 1936 under the impression of the teachings of the troops of the Kyiv Military District in 1935 (in which 1,200 soldiers were parachuted and another 2,000 were delivered to the airfield by landing method). Already in 1935, at the exercises of the troops of the Kyiv Military District, the USSR transported small tanks under the fuselage of a transport aircraft. In 1936, according to the unit of the Airborne Forces, the brigade should be armed with 6 45-mm guns, 18 82-mm mortars, 16 T-37A light tanks, 6 D-8 armored vehicles, 32 vehicles and 6 motorcycles.

How Paradox will implement changes in the USSR, which already had the Airborne Forces and certain doctrines for the use of the Airborne Forces according to the Deep Operation, I don’t know.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
And I think the world is not unified: I understand armies each have their own legacy, why mimic the American one?
Maybe because the official English dialect of the game is (or at least originally was) American English.
 
Maybe because the official English dialect of the game is (or at least originally was) American English.
Language is a tool, and many players enjoy localization. Sorry, but that's an awkward remark. Then you expect same focus trees? Same Senate mechanics everywhere?
Fun fact: I didn't know that, but the jerrycan (Jerry can) was a German invention, and it proved so good in 1939-40 that the armies of the world copied it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I can't help it - to all people who think that specialization and unit size for different terrain is too complicated - again you don't have to do it.

Nevertheless, I highly appreciate the developers keeping the game interesting by not following a trodden path with a meta solution that beats the majority of scenarios. Please keep it up!

Then yet, for history buffs and for alternate historians alike, who want to try new things, I want to highlight this mod. There are mods and there are MODS.
This is not a reprimand to the developers, but shows instead what improvements can pull off to keep interest and motivation to play growing. Kudos!

As I have said, I am glad that the developers keep adding, as the (already good) game even gets better. It does not necessarily take a start from scratch with a new release of HOI, but the motivation and spirit to continuously improve a good idea.

The future is bright!
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Which in reality should not. The USSR began to form the Airborne Forces in 1930, when most countries began to create them in 1936 under the impression of the teachings of the troops of the Kyiv Military District in 1935 (in which 1,200 soldiers were parachuted and another 2,000 were delivered to the airfield by landing method). Already in 1935, at the exercises of the troops of the Kyiv Military District, the USSR transported small tanks under the fuselage of a transport aircraft. In 1936, according to the unit of the Airborne Forces, the brigade should be armed with 6 45-mm guns, 18 82-mm mortars, 16 T-37A light tanks, 6 D-8 armored vehicles, 32 vehicles and 6 motorcycles.

How Paradox will implement changes in the USSR, which already had the Airborne Forces and certain doctrines for the use of the Airborne Forces according to the Deep Operation, I don’t know.
You bring an interesting topic. We all saw those images of paradrops from the 1930s, and also we know the figures that, by the time of the war, the USSR had as many planes as all the other countries combined.

However, then there were the 1934-1938 purges, the obsolescence and catastrophic destruction of the Soviet air force in first days of the war (>4000 planes) and, more important: we never see in WWII documentaries actual Soviet paradrops operations. All this makes us believe that its merits were all relative.

But you're right, they existed: Vyazma airborne operation in 1942 was a defeat, but the support in the Dnepr/Kiev operation in 1943 was successful. But that's it: we never mention that the Stalingrad encirclement was also possible thanks to paradrops. It's unfortunate that our WWII documentaries keep showing the same images, but don't dig in lesser known achievements.

1691538310714.png
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You bring an interesting topic. We all saw those images of paradrops from the 1930s, and also we know the figures that, around that time, the USSR had more planes that all other powers combined.

However, then there were the 1934-1938 purges, the obsolescence and catastrophic destruction of the Soviet air force in first days of the war (>4000 planes) and, more important: we never see in WWII documentaries actual Soviet paradrops operations. All this makes us believe that its merits were all relative.

But you're right, they existed: Vyazma airborne operation in 1942 was a defeat, but the support in the Dnepr/Kiev operation in 1943 was successful. But that's it: we never mention that the Stalingrad encirclement was also possible thanks to paradrops. It's unfortunate that our WWII documentaries keep showing the same images, but don't dig in lesser known achievements.

View attachment 1011569
Thank you for posting this awesome picture. It looks like those parts either have to climb out the top of this modified bomber, or clung onto the fuselage.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember make and model of this plane, but I also recall that it could be equipped with undercarriages to hold a fighter under each wing for long range missions.

Challenges in retaining these gems in history could maybe be the secrecy of Soviet documentation, language, or the historical evidence was somehow lost, which, in all cases, would be sad. This is interesting.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I r
Thank you for posting this awesome picture. It looks like those parts either have to climb out the top of this modified bomber, or clung onto the fuselage.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember make and model of this plane, but I also recall that it could be equipped with undercarriages to hold a fighter under each wing for long range missions.

Challenges in retaining these gems in history could maybe be the secrecy of Soviet documentation, language, or the historical evidence was somehow lost, which, in all cases, would be sad. This is interesting.
I recommend the BBC World at War series from 1973-74: it's a bit old but very interesting and detailed (26 episodes!), adding interviews from actual protagonists, often for the last time.
See this sequence in particular.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You bring an interesting topic. We all saw those images of paradrops from the 1930s, and also we know the figures that, by the time of the war, the USSR had as many planes as all the other countries combined.

However, then there were the 1934-1938 purges, the obsolescence and catastrophic destruction of the Soviet air force in first days of the war (>4000 planes) and, more important: we never see in WWII documentaries actual Soviet paradrops operations. All this makes us believe that its merits were all relative.

But you're right, they existed: Vyazma airborne operation in 1942 was a defeat, but the support in the Dnepr/Kiev operation in 1943 was successful. But that's it: we never mention that the Stalingrad encirclement was also possible thanks to paradrops. It's unfortunate that our WWII documentaries keep showing the same images, but don't dig in lesser known achievements.

View attachment 1011569
During the Second World War, the USSR conducted about 30 tactical landing operations.
In addition to Vyazma and the Dnieper, for some reason people forget about the Mtsensk landing operation, which was very successful: - more than 6,000 paratroopers of the 5th airborne corps with 8 T-37A tanks (as in the video), guns, mortars, trucks were airlifted to the Mtsensk airfield (one battalion to the Orel airfield) right in front of the advancing troops. They cut off the Orel-Mtsensk highway on the bridge, successfully defended their positions before the arrival of tankers from the 4th Tank Brigade (future 1st Guards), and jointly counterattacked. Here the Paratroopers acted as rapid deployment troops.

Many small operations that were during 1941 - 1942.

The largest Soviet airborne operation was forcibly interrupted. It was a classic Deep Operation. "Operation Polar Star" 1943. 5 Guards Airborne Divisions (about 50,000 paratroopers) were supposed to parachute behind enemy lines. But due to the betrayal of two high officers, the Germans began their offensive and the Paratroopers were forced to be deployed to the front line for defense. I don’t know how, where, how many aircraft should have been used in the operation, even historians who are interested in this issue, the archives of this operation are still secret.

If you look, the Soviet theory of the Airborne Forces already in the 1930s was superior to other countries much further, it was really an advanced concept. The problem is that the industry did not keep up with the military. The industry could not produce many transport aircraft. And the outbreak of the war simply destroyed all plans, not only plans for the Airborne Forces such as replacing the T-37A with the T-40, creating light armored personnel carriers on the T-40 chassis, and producing TB-7 transport modifications. But all the plans as a whole for the USSR: the production of SVT-40 in millions of units, the production of advanced tanks like the T-34M, the creation of a fleet, and so on.

The only country that could fully use its airborne forces is the United States, it produced a huge number of transport aircraft. If other countries operated hundreds of aircraft in operations, the US could operate thousands of aircraft. Operation Varsity involved 1,595 aircraft and 1,347 gliders. Well, the fact that the main troops were still on the Eastern Front also contributed to the US Airborne Forces. The Red Army also had its own Varsity. In 1944, to force the Danube River. in the USSR, an entire airborne army was created (by uniting all the airborne divisions), they went to the front with their parachutes. And this airborne army was considered to facilitate the crossing of the Danube. But the operation was canceled due to unsuitable conditions for the Airborne Forces. There is even less information about it than about the "Polar Star"
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Another point that I would like to see changes. Transport aviation experience. Now transport aviation gains experience only when supplying troops. Let's say we can't train unit transport planes due to balance. But why don't they gain experience when dropping paratroopers? Or will a successful landing operation not give the squadron any experience?
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Another point that I would like to see changes. Transport aviation experience. Now transport aviation gains experience only when supplying troops. Let's say we can't train unit transport planes due to balance. But why don't they gain experience when dropping paratroopers? Or will a successful landing operation not give the squadron any experience?
Fair point, air transport and sub convoy warfare should yield better XP.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Language is a tool, and many players enjoy localization. Sorry, but that's an awkward remark. Then you expect same focus trees? Same Senate mechanics everywhere?
Fun fact: I didn't know that, but the jerrycan (Jerry can) was a German invention, and it proved so good in 1939-40 that the armies of the world copied it.
No. But when we are talking about the base game when played in "English" we should be using the English (North American English for this game) names for things, not the local version of the names for things. Using your logic, when playing in English I should be able to add Infantry to a division as the US, Strelkovaya as the USSR, Infanterie as Germany, etc. When it comes to military unit types it is recognized that Ranger ≈ Jaeger ≈ Spetznaz
 
  • 5
Reactions:
No. But when we are talking about the base game when played in "English" we should be using the English (North American English for this game) names for things, not the local version of the names for things. Using your logic, when playing in English I should be able to add Infantry to a division as the US, Strelkovaya as the USSR, Infanterie as Germany, etc. When it comes to military unit types it is recognized that Ranger ≈ Jaeger ≈ Spetznaz
Not at all, we got lost in thread. Divisions/unit in the game might have different names, such as Jaegers for Germany. That's for immersion.

But the doctrine menu, the one with the new special forces tab, should be as generic as possible. As mentioned in the DD, there are 3 branches, and I don't see why one of the branch should be "colored" by a specific warfare culture (i.e American Army in my comment). So a plain generic "land special forces", "navy special forces" and "air special forces" seemed more adequate. That's what I was saying.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not at all, we got lost in thread. Divisions/unit in the game might have different names, such as Jaegers for Germany. That's for immersion.

But the doctrine menu, the one with the new special forces tab, should be as generic as possible. As mentioned in the DD, there are 3 branches, and I don't see why one of the branch should be "colored" by a specific warfare culture (i.e American Army in my comment). So a plain generic "land special forces", "navy special forces" and "air special forces" seemed more adequate. That's what I was saying.
1) You do realize that when you play with German, French, Russian, etc. localization it most likely will not say Mountaineers(Ranger)/Paratroopers/Marine but instead whatever the term is in that language? Actually, Paratroopers is already generic instead of Airborne. Not sure how you are going to change the unit type based on country of origin unless you are actually going to have different units for each country, which is not something you will get from Vanilla but instead from unecessarily bloated mods like Black Ice.
2) Technically speaking, in the US none of the 3 were considered Special Forces then, for the most part they aren't even now. The closest we would have during WWII would be parts of those forces or totally separate forces (i.e., the Rangers which weren't part of the single Mountain division).

So just to reiterate what I think you are saying it should be something along the lines of:
Land Special Forces instead of Mountaineers (Alpine Infantry would be more accurate for the time).
Naval Special Forces instead of Marines (Naval Infantry, Naval/Sea Landing Forces, or Amphibious Assault Infantry would be more accurate).
Air Special Forces instead of Paratroopers (Airborne, Air Landing, or Air Mobile were the 3 most common terms in English. Paratroopers were the individual soldiers not the units or doctrines).
 
  • 4
Reactions: