HOI4 Dev Diary - Acclimatization and Special Forces

[Fulmen]

Can't the game model a regimental system?

I thought each regiment was composed of several battalions, which are the smallest maneuver unit represented in HoI4. ( What are called "support companies" are that, support...not the force-on-force element of the unit. And I understand that there is a movement afoot to rename the "support companies" as "support battalions".)

HoI4's division designer allows for a unit to be made up of several battalions.

One would think that is sufficient for the game to model a 2 or 3 regimental system.

But there may be other considerations to contemplate and I could be missing or mis-interpreting something important.

Thoughts?

Technically yes you can have a historical triangular or binary division but because of the current width system they end up extremely sub-par in performance.

Yet Another Multiplayer Mod and Fulmen's Historical MP Mod make it so that the optimal INF/SF template is a 3 regiment division with 4-5 line ART/AT/AA. In vanilla an ART battalion is actually a 36-gun regiment (three btns!), as most countries IRL used 12-gun ART btns. These along with a few other btn. types have been toned down to be more historical.

 

[JerkyJerry]

The whole idea about preventing players from building only marines or mountaineers

Has PDX posted this somewhere?

 

[Meglok]

Has PDX posted this somewhere?

In the DD SF section. Players are creating a "balance problem" by replacing regular infantry with SF so PDS has decided to place a cap on the number of SF you can have.

Why they felt the need to intervene is puzzling. If the reason is balance in a single player game, isn't HOI4 about allowing sandbox play? Shouldn't players be allowed to create whatever armies they want and can field? If the problem is about balance in MP play, take a look at all the in house rules most MP games have. Surely the issue would be addressed there.

Why force an artificial cap upon players? @podcat

 

[Ksyr]

In the DD SF section. Players are creating a "balance problem" by replacing regular infantry with SF so PDS has decided to place a cap on the number of SF you can have.

Why they felt the need to intervene is puzzling. If the reason is balance in a single player game, isn't HOI4 about allowing sandbox play? Shouldn't players be allowed to create whatever armies they want and can field? If the problem is about balance in MP play, take a look at all the in house rules most MP games have. Surely the issue would be addressed there.

Why force an artificial cap upon players? @podcat

Why limit manpower at all? Why don't all equipment cost the same? So you have to make a choice. Personaly I think this is going to involve meaningful decisions.

 

[Syntalynder]

oh I probably should have explained that more. Its visible in one of the screenshots with the tooltip. Being in the area with those effects will see you gain acclimatization. If you are actively fighting it however goes much faster

Hi Podcat, does it go faster if you train your troops in those regions? Thank you.

 

[thexmassteam]

Hi Pdx
There is a lot of cool things in your next update/DLC. But (yes, there is a but ), as usual, all those things are pointless if AI can't handle them (and I don't start a talk about AI handling vanilla game ... ).
So, have you give more CPU time to AI? Can I plan on longer AI turn, more CPU charge (and game length) and no more AI madness/weirdness? Or will all those cool features need to be added on the list of AI weakness?
Cheers (genuinely)

 

[Had a dad]

At least I don't call magazines or clips "cartridges" anymore!

why would you call things that hold cartridges, cartridges?

 

[fabius]

In the DD SF section. Players are creating a "balance problem" by replacing regular infantry with SF so PDS has decided to place a cap on the number of SF you can have.

Why they felt the need to intervene is puzzling. If the reason is balance in a single player game, isn't HOI4 about allowing sandbox play? Shouldn't players be allowed to create whatever armies they want and can field? If the problem is about balance in MP play, take a look at all the in house rules most MP games have. Surely the issue would be addressed there.

Why force an artificial cap upon players? @podcat

It's not "artificial". It's historical and reality that not all soldiers are perfectly suited to soldiering. So with special tasks units, armies have very high standards to try and make up for things like lack of heavy weapons by having a selection process to try and concentrate highly motivated, fit, and psychologically suited soldiers.

 

[xtfoster]

<SNIP>but currently the game is -basically- focused only on production management.. almost no "tactical" perspective it's introduced:
<SNIP>
we already know the good points of this game, but the worst bad point is that we are far from a WWII simulator, since the "tactical" perspective is completely absent..
<SNIP>

Well, HOI is a Grand STRATEGY Game, so I would hope the tactical perspective would be reduced, not increased.

 

[JerkyJerry]

In the DD SF section. Players are creating a "balance problem" by replacing regular infantry with SF so PDS has decided to place a cap on the number of SF you can have.
Why they felt the need to intervene is puzzling. If the reason is balance in a single player game, isn't HOI4 about allowing sandbox play? Shouldn't players be allowed to create whatever armies they want and can field? If the problem is about balance in MP play, take a look at all the in house rules most MP games have. Surely the issue would be addressed there.
Why force an artificial cap upon players? @podcat

I'm with you 100% here my friend! So players build only SF then complain that they build only SF? So a person walks into a glass panel on purpose and all glass panels must be replaced with wood? Rather than informing the person he can't walk through glass?

Where are these posts? I don't recall any.

This entire DD is very strange to me. We don't have weather we have temperture? Why?
And PDS has to cap something that players themselves do of their own choosing? I have to have a cap because of the way someone else plays? Less and less of this is making sense as each day passes.

It is weird because most players with little to no experience are all excited about this DD yet some veteran players are just not seeing the purpose. Well, I'm not anyway. Unless these things are just a part of something that is going to be much larger then I don't see any reason to incorporate either of these DD items.

I love Podcat and trust the cat however, I'm just not seeing any real benefits to this DD at all.

 

[Victor Omnium]

It seems to be very nice. Will this affect any doctrine?

 

[Sourlol]

why would you call things that hold cartridges, cartridges?

Clearly you dont go to Costco, every time I go I end up with a box to carry all the boxes of shit i just bought!

 

[billcorr]

Two considerations why the HoI4 design team are looking to limit the number of special units:

• Reality (bell-shaped curve)
• Industry standard to limit the amount of special units
• Gameplay über alles.

Why they felt the need to intervene is puzzling. If the reason is balance in a single player game, isn't HOI4 about allowing sandbox play? Shouldn't players be allowed to create whatever armies they want and can field? If the problem is about balance in MP play, take a look at all the in house rules most MP games have. Surely the issue would be addressed there.

I'm all for "the less rules and prohibitions, the better."

Just guessing here, trying to chase away the mists of bepuzzlement:

Do you think that reality might have had something to do with the design choice to limit the amount of special units? The dictate of The Bell Shaped Curve lays out that some people are above average, others are average, and then there are those who are below average.

In a population, a fraction of individuals will have what it takes to be in the special units.

This portrait is probably based on someone's fine old grandpa.

But to think that this portrait represents a mountaineer with the vigor, stamina, and strength to scale mountains while hauling 100 + kg of gear and after 50 km ruck march, engage the enemy...

(Tangent. This post inspires an idea...going to jot it down here so I can come back later and put it in the mind-oven so it doesn't come out half-baked. "5 tiers of recruitable population. Below below average. Below Average. Average. Above Average. Above above average").

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in games, gameplay trumps reality and history.

As for making "special" units, "special", I'm inclined to think that PDX has embarked along a path pioneered by many other wargame designers.

Limit the amount of special units. A random selection of 10 games from a list of wargames will likely show some sort of method to limit the number of "super" units. Cost is a primary method (IIRC, cost was mentioned as an alternative way to limit special units in HoI4 in this thread).

With a change in the number of special units, gameplay will be affected. Players will have to re-adjust their playstyle (Baddo has prophesized that D-Day will be more difficult. Something about an impossibility. But we'll see. Gamers are smart enough to overcome obstacles, even overcome a more vigorous defense of the West Wall).

A bit of a stream-of-conciousness post here. Meglok's quote about "puzzling" got me thinking about the "why intervene and change a feature of the game".

Discussion about gameplay will likely be the most fruitful.

 

[Had a dad]

Clearly you dont go to Costco, every time I go I end up with a box to carry all the boxes of shit i just bought!

BJ's, but as it turns out I wan't aware of the technical definition of cartridge when used to not describe ammo. I mean it makes sense in hindsight (ink cartridge, toner cartridge, etc...) if I am ever in a gun store I'm gonna ask if they have any cartridge cartridges

 

[Farquarsen]

I am not opposed to the cap per se, I think 5% is too small. I have shown the US had 20% of its real life land forces dedicated to specialized leg infantry battalions. I know some of you disagree with 54 regular infantry battalions dedicated to river crossings and amphibious assaults. The game is an approximation of what could be so I compensated in the calculation to match reality to game. Infantry transported by foot or by truck and supported by engineers can successfully assault a river line (game function for marines). All infantry units I have been assigned to train to do this. The same battalion with the right equipment can assault a mountain (game function for mountaineers). The 10th ID is not the only division in the war to face mountains.

Para dropped forces do require a bit more training. Air crews also require training. This was particularly true when the Red army para dropped three brigades in the Dnieper Offensive in 1943. The infantry men were trained but the air crews had not done this before.

I think instead of designating a battalion as marine or mountain, the battalion should gain specialized infantry points for river assault or mountain assualt, similar to the buffs given generals and fms when their troops do something outstanding time and again like amphibious assaults.

Please @podcat, delay this cap until you can get the focuses in the countries most affected. Those countries where mountains are critical to their armies, such as Austria, Switzerland. Those countries who depend on amphibious assault to protect themselves such as Japan, UK. If the focuses for these countries do not allow them to build the specialized infantry they need, the game balance will be off. This is a complicated game, a change like this will ripple through its various parts and could have consequences you cannot foretell until you have extensively tested the resulting code base.

 

[Sourlol]

I am not opposed to the cap per se, I think 5% is too small. I have shown the US had 20% of its real life land forces dedicated to specialized leg infantry battalions. I know some of you disagree with 54 regular infantry battalions dedicated to river crossings and amphibious assaults. The game is an approximation of what could be so I compensated in the calculation to match reality to game. Infantry transported by foot or by truck and supported by engineers can successfully assault a river line (game function for marines). All infantry units I have been assigned to train to do this. The same battalion with the right equipment can assault a mountain (game function for mountaineers). The 10th ID is not the only division in the war to face mountains.

Infantry can hold mountains in game, they can defend and assault rivers. Mountaineers and Marines are simply better at it. If I have 3 mountain tiles to defend and 1 mountaineer division and 2 infantry divisions, then I have a choice to make. If I have all infantry or all mountaineer there is no decision.

The % is fair game to be argued over. In my opinion whatever the figure is, the goal should be that even with max SF battalions, one should still need to make choices. If i have 20 tiles of mountains and hills with no research I can put mountaineers in 6 tiles (lets say). With max research i shouldnt have access to 20 mountaineer divisions. I should still need to plug a few infantry divisions in there.

Maybe the new general progression system will address the competitive MP scenes' complaints (maybe their traits make up for the loss of marines everywhere or mountaineers). maybe 40w divisions will be harder to make due to slower access to recruitable population. We can all still pray paradox takes another look at fort balance

Im much more concerned with resources and their affect on balance than I am with a cap on SF battalions. If current 1936 resource levels stand, the Decisive Action system and the effect of infra on resources is going to dramatically shift the distribution of resources. From a realism standpoint the changes in resources are potentially worrysome.

 

[billcorr]

I have shown the US had 20% of its real life land forces dedicated to specialized leg infantry battalions.

/wise guy
It appears that in the 1940s, the USA completed a focus (or drew a random card or rolled greater than a 5 on a d6) that upped its quota to 20%.
/end wise guy



Nice work, BTW.

And, while we are talking about nomenclature (cartridges and all that), you (collective you, to include our Swedish-as-a-first-language friends) aren't saying that airborne infantry are leg infantry, are you?

 

[Secret Master]

A story where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the recruitable population are above average.

Even when you are scraping the barrel to put 100 million troops into uniform, they are all suitable for use as MTN, MAR, or PARA.

(I laughed and laughed at your statement, by the way.)

 

[Farquarsen]

@billcorr
I am leg infantry. I have the parachutist badge. When my comrades leave the drop zone, they too are leg infantry.

 

[BeauNiddle]

This entire DD is very strange to me. We don't have weather we have temperture? Why?

I'm sorry but I don't understand this comment. Temperature and weather have been in the game since day 1. Current regions are already flagged as hot, very hot (or same for cold). The new DD is only about a new way of adapting to the current system.

Previously the choice was (a) brute force through the issue or (b) spend time and effort fitting everybody out with maintenance & logistic companies.

Now we have option (c) be selective with what units to send and how they are trained. When I play as Britain do I train my tank forces in London or do I ship them to Egypt and train them there with the knowledge that the extra attrition will limit me to only 5 divisions not 6. I'm going to guess that pretty much every Russian General will have the "Winter Expert" ability giving every Russian unit the equivalent of an extra maintenance company FOR FREE. All of a sudden the Red Army will have a lot more spare equipment available.

It's the same with the limits on Special Forces. At the moment the choice is "Can you afford the extra Equipment YES/NO". With the change suddenly it will be worth paying special attention to specific units and how they are used (just make sure not to send them from Africa straight to Siberia or else they wont adapt that well)


For the future both of these changes hold great promise. Suddenly the attrition of extreme cold & a blizzard can be increased since there are more options for the player to deal with it & special forces can get more & more useful bonuses since they only improve the select few rather than the standard default.

Maybe you are such a veteran player you have long since surpassed any such concerns but speaking as somebody as merely hundreds of hours I think both changes are great and serve nicely as the cream on top of an already great Cornflakes dish. (I love how hundreds of hours is still a rookie in Paradox games!)