HOI4 Dev Diary - Bag of Tricks #3

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

So is a division design rework in the cards for the next expansion or two after this one? While radical changes like 10 support companies or more dynamic combat width and whatnot would be intresting something as simple as artillery brigades being 1 combat width each and having an appropriate thirding if size would alone solve many problems. Also, are subs going to stay underpowered? Because ASW is seriously OP in the current game.

 

[xtfoster]

Not to mention that an actual DOCTRINE in July 1935 titled "Tentative Landing Operations Manual", which was adopted by not only the Marines, but the Navy and Army also. From "The US Marine Corps Story" by J. Robert Moskin, Third Edition, page 223.
I can understand the need for parity across all countries for "balance", but other majors have Marines to start, so the US should have them also it would seem.

Yes, but the "Tentative Land Operation Manual" was not accepted by the Navy (and Marine Corps) as official doctrine until 1938 when it was published as "Fleet Training Publication 167". The Army didn't adopt it until 1941 as "Field Manual 31-5".
But I think you are confusing 2 different techs. The US (and every other country in the game) starts with the ability to conduct multi-divisional (up to 10) invasions. What they don't start with is specialized DIVISIONS trained for that role.
Prior to the FLEX 1-5 exercises, the largest operation that was attempted by the USN/USMC involved a reinforced Regiment, not a division and certainly not the multi-divisional invasions that are available. The primary result of FLEX 1 (1935) was the determination that dedicated landing craft were needed instead of using the ships boats, as well as the need for better communications equipment.
FLEX 2 (1936) found that the new landing craft still weren't suitable, but that naval barrage-type bombardments were effective.
FLEX 3 (1937 - finally utilizing more than a single brigade plus, and for the first time, an Army brigade - but still only 4,700 total troops in the landing force.) The only improvement was that the Army radios were effective and that pack howitzers could be suitably deployed on the beach. The aerial components also learned that ground support attacks had to be made from certain right angles of attack to prevent friendly fire casualties. This was also the first use of cargo nets to load troops in boats already in the water. And the first suggestion for Destroyer-Transports (APDs) to act as both troop transports and naval gunfire support.
FLEX 4 (1938 1st Marine Brigade vs 3 NG regiments) The first use of recon elements. Still no suitable landing craft identified.
FLEX 5 (1939, USN/USMC only) First use of a Destroyer as a transport (USS Manley, DD-74 soon to be converted to APD-1). End result: The USMC decided that the Bureau of Construction and Repair was not able to fill their needs for a landing craft and tested commercially available solutions, resulting in the Higgins' Boat.
FLEX 6 (1940) Finally found suitable landing craft (Higgins' Boats, Tank Lighters, and rubber rafts.) First use of the newly refitted APD-1 USS Manley.
FLEX 7 (1941) Largest so far, 1st Marine Division formed around the 1st Marine Brigade aboard the USS Texas. Extensive use of Marine Recon night landings.

So, prior to 1941 the USMC did not have a formed Marine Division and should NOT start with the Marines tech. FLEX 1-7 represent the research to get Marine 1 (and 2) plus the 1940 transport tech. Bonuses to get these techs are available in the NF tree. Just because something is called a Marine, doesn't mean it is trained in Divisional amphibious assault operations.

 

[meioutaxes]

The Balkans have been further… balkanized, and the states for Montenegro and Macedonia have been adjusted.

It's really great that all former Yugoslav republics get their long-waited and deserved own tags, it would be even better that the borders between Croatia and Slovenia on Istria peninsula and between Croatia and Serbia close to Belgrade could be adjusted correctly, and some/tiny countries like Sao Tome, East Timor, Cape Verde, and even Kosovo could also be added to the HOI IV game!

 

[Zarathustra_the]

Is that time to build or time to launch? If launch, there's still a fair bit of work to do - here's a stirring vid of Prince of Wales launching after 28 months on the slips, and there's no armament and no small amount of the superstructure is yet-to-be-completed.

Let's not derail the thread though - if you want to keep talking about the possibility of a 12-month battleship, maybe start another thread or PM me?



Like I said, I wouldn't be unhappy if this was in the game I'm just not confident enough from what I've read to push for it myself.

Axe, you missed the forest for the trees. The 12 month battleship was done to make the point, that the limitation with building a battleship has more to do with expense and willpower than anything else.

My more important point was that by 1936 the United Kingdom had the most experience and refined methods of ship production. This is what the comparative construction times between the UK and the US seems to demonstrate. Comparable British and US treaty specific battleships have a 8 month launch date completion and a corresponding commissioning time difference. The British also had a longer time between building vessels than the US and that needs to also be factored in. When we extrapolate this, it would appear the UK was between 10-20% more efficient at the construction of a Battleship in comparable conditions. Even the Iowa's were built slower than the KGV's. This includes the quad turret that caused the British considerable trouble. This is in plain black and white in both Janes Fighting Ships and Conways. It is not actually a stretch to therefore make the conclusion that the British as more efficient ship producers made ships more quickly, rather than cheaply. We find this data by comparing dates of launch and dates of commission.

 

[MarsEco]

Great additions, but I would like to go a tiny bit further:
1) Noting that you are adding Maldives and Equatorial Guinea (these are 'small' (at least) part island or all island nations, giving tags for "São Tomé & Príncipe" (releasable from Portugal), "Cape Verde" (releasable from Portugal), and "Comoros & Mayotte" (currently part of the new releasable "Madagascar" (tag) Nation, releasable from France). Comoros is a nation with long, current claims on the "French Department of Mayotte" part of Comoros Archipelago and in-game, is currently a single state.
2) I would also like to note, that there are no tags for the countries of "Seychelles" or "Mauritius" (former British colonies) and they don't need them, but the "French Department of Réunion" as also been lumped in with the "Madagascar" (tag) Nation and was never apart of the country or colonial dependency. So I would request, to leave it without a tag and as still part of France, like with the British examples I just gave.
3.a.) Now above in the post, it says (but doesn't show) the tag "Fiji/Melanesia". Is this unfinished or the actual tag that lumps multiple states in the area of Melanesia together? If it is the later (Melanesia,) let me inform that Melanesia is comprised of: the ENTIRE Island of New Guinea (which would include your new tag of Papua New Guinea, so would both tags have claims of that half of the island, just like on the West-side of the island, the Melanesia tag would have claim on the same state as Indonesia/Dutch East Indies?), the Bismarck Archipelago (part of the Papua New Guinea (tag) Nation / state, the island country "Solomon Islands", the Santa Cruz Islands (part of the Solomon Islands) the island country Nauru (debatable), the island country "Vanuatu", and the "French Department of New Caledonia" (which has been having referendums for Independence), and of course, the island country of "Fiji". So are all those states/provinces going to be lumped under that "Fiji/Melanesia" tag? I'd like that explained.
3.b.) My suggestion on dividing up Melanesia: (1) Papua New Guinea (tag), which includes the East half of New Guinea Island & the Bismarck Archipelago (which if the Bismarck Arch. isn't its' own in-game state, you might wanna do that separate from the rest of Papua New Guinea or Solomon Islands) & Bougainville Island (which the the large Northwestern most island of the Solomon Islands, which has in fact, never been part of the nation of the Solomon Islands, so might need to give it a Port and divide it off from the Solomon Islands in-game state), (2) Solomon Islands (tag), including the Solomon Islands & the Santa Cruz Islands (which in-game is the blue (fr) cluster of small islands in the french state of Caledonia, so that would need to probably get a Port and join the Solomon Islands state to be part of that tag), (3) New Caledonia (tag), which includes the New Caledonian Islands & the Vanuatu's islands (possibly 2 states), and (4) Fiji.
4) If you take my suggestion in (3.b.), to round it off, making a Samoa (tag) would be a nice little addition. It's pretty decent size too (as far as Pacific Island Nations go). With cores on the New Zealand Samoa state and the American Samoa stat, if you wanted to split it up with America, making another new state like it is today and has been for along time, divided that is. I mean it is on the other side of the Inter. Dateline because it does trade/business with NZL and AST more, where as, the East islands (American Samoa) does trade with the Americas, primarily. Historically it was a pretty important splitting Agreement between Germany the USA and the British, who renounced claims in favor of getting favors in West Africa/the Tonga colony and the Solomon Islands colony, all from Germany.
5) Easter Island (the Pitcairn island state) should be apart of Chile, currently I think the British have control of it or the French, one of them does anyways. Chile annexed it in 1888 and never changed hands after.
6) I would touch the rest most of the other islands that Japan/USA/Britain have in the Pacific are already WAY too big in size compared to the large islands like Fiji's, Solomon's, Tahiti's, etc. and all except Tahiti of French Polynesia are not even on the map. Most of which, those islands are bigger than any of those other chains. I'd stay make a country tag for French Polynesia, but there are not other islands/states even on the map and it honestly don't need to be made into it's own lumped up country.
7) I think more islands and better state splitting needs to happen in the Caribbean too, including but not limited to: (1) the Dutch colonies in the Lesser Antilles, (2) not merging all the extra British and French Islands that aren't given a personal country tag, (3) adding the rest of the Leeward Antilles Islands (there are more than just the 3 ABC Islands), (4) adding more islands to the Virgin Islands and other islands in the Northern parts of the Lesser Antilles, (5) this I'll make separate in 8.
8) Almost forgot, the current "British Territory of Turks and Caico", is about to become part of the "Bahamas'" country tag, but it was never part of that colonial group. In fact, it was actually conjoined with Jamaica, but it would probably be weird to combine those into a new Nation. So I suggest, making a country tag for them, as well. It's already its' own state, with multiple provinces and ports.
9) Might want to add different cores to the state of (Jammu and) Kashmir (and Peshawar when you divide the state better), that is part of the "Pakistan" (tag). For "Pakistan", "India", "Sinkiang", and "China" (and by extension "Communist China"), as well as, cut it into two, adding the Northwestern area into the Peshawar State. So to have better Pakistani and Indian administrative borders. I would almost maybe reshape the Northern border a bit, looks a little off to historic borders. When Qing Dynasty fell, the British took a little bit more land into, what is in-game "Sinkiang", and was later was taken back by "China", bits in "Kashmir" and "Jammu". So that's why the "China/Communist China/Sinkiang" core claims.
10) SIDE-NOTE: Add more impassable lands, whether that's mountain ridges or chunks in the Amazon, center of New Guinea Island 'aka' Papua (was highly unexplored at the time), center of Borneo 'aka' Kalimantan, and maybe even all except the Northwest cost of Central Australia. Just some ideas, this would help with AI troop movement too, I believe. Especially when for Japan, just taking the coast was all that was needed, no having to micro troops to take all the little provinces it tedious and extraneous when you have all the other small islands and ports to micro for uniformed invasions, near impossible to do in MP, even for veterans.

Summary Add: Cape Verde(tag), Comoros & Mayotte(tag), remove other islands from Madagascar(tag), separate this "Fiji/Melanesia"(tag) into 4(tags)(with state changes), NEW "American Samoa" State & a Samoa(tag)(including both halves of Samoa), Turks and Caico(tag). Giveback: Easter Island to Chile. Add: Multiple CORES on Kashmir & Peshawar States & Reshaping, and maybe some more impassible lands/borders.

Hope some of the Devs actually read this monster, I actually put a lot of thought into some of these ideas, and they are just the surface, but I'm going from what you guys are current looking at adding/fixing and what you can do (that's a note at not actually updating the graphics of the map, like land reshaping or adding of land islands, just adding new states or moving provinces, state to state, but not reshaping them or just adding color/filters. Not sure at will ever happen, but here is hoping. Thanks for reading, if anyone does.

 

[elandread]

A full land combat system and division designer rework is outside of the scope for this DLC.

Hopefully, the next DLC will be focused precisely on that. Together with the Soviet tree/mechanics rework, as they offered the most land-based fighting against the Germans in the entire war by a considerable margin, so this seems fitting.

 

[MacedonianSukhoi]

Great to finally see Bosnia! weyoo!

But macedonia's and montenegro's new states make it IMPOSSIBLE to make realistic WW2 borders(in a WW2 game) so please consider adding new new states for that or smth..

You are 100% correct... It shows the inherent weakness of the entire State system for Hearts of Iron 4 as a whole.

I wish one day to resolve this they'll either add more states like Eastern Albanian Macedonia, Srpska Kraina and Vranje region that Bulgaria occupied.

OR somehow make it so that you can occupy countries on a province by province basis.

 

[C is for Cookie]

There's probably gonna be an achievement for succesfully installing the Kaiser in Germany. Calling it now.

 

[jammindonut]

@podcat

I don't know if this has already been asked, but is there any way to tell what kind of design enemy ships got? How can we tell if ships have let's say only ASW equipment or full AA setup to react to that?

@Bratyn
Quoted from my post in the other thread. Is there anything planned on this? Not knowing what your enemy fleet composes of would take away a lot of the new and great Ship Designer imo.

 

[Whisper9000]

Woot Woot! More flexibility in ideology.

 

[Al Davoodi]

All those countries that were added weren't countries back then either.

yeah and somehow Stalin tried to create some "buffer state" names Kurdistan around Mahabad right after the war. It was just short lived but he created one even it was crushed easily after the Soviets left so it would make sense. And also somehow an event about for the Soviets and the reaction of the Allies mostly the UK like it happend in RL back then.

 

[Vokasak]

A number of new tags were added:

...

Macedonia

...

The Balkans have been further… balkanized, and the states for Montenegro and Macedonia have been adjusted.

View attachment 422177

:[

 

[Jpace]

this all looks awesome! cant wait to try out netherlands

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

@SeekTruthFromFx

No, training for both air and naval units has been confirmed for a while now. There's a dev diary on it:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hoi4-dev-diary-mtg-bag-of-tricks.1113934/

Thank you. I must have been so excited over the naval training that the air training passed me by.

Should Zambia and Dominion of Rhodesia be renamed to North Rhodesia and South Rhodesia respectively?

As releasable nations? No. Northern Rhodesia never had any significant number of white settlers, so if it had been granted independence in the 1940s it's quite likely that it would have abandoned its colonial name. Southern Rhodesia actually got most of its white settlers after the War, but the white settlers were already firmly in control by then.

Before your post yesterday, I hadn't seen you on here for a while, Axe99. I suppose you are busy with other things and just show up when a new DD comes out.

I very much hope that @Axe99 is busy beta-testing the new naval warfare mechanics, since he's the forum's leading naval expert. Of course, the beta-testing rules mean that he can neither confirm nor deny, so we'll never know.

 

[Luckierexpert]

Free France is boring not because it doesn't have an unique Focus Tree, but because their historical situation kinda sucks. De Gaulle at the beginning had only a few colonial territories without much value and less than 10.000 French volunteers for his army.

His logistic situation was even worse because even with the forced conscription in the colonies he depends on the British to even equip a few good divisions. Most goverments in the world didn't want to help De Gaulle because the Vichy Regime was the internationally recognised government. Even American politicians didn't recognize Free France as the legitimate goverment even after Operation Torch.

The government in exile mechanics in Man the Guns will help them with a few good divisions, but adding more help in a revamped Focus Tree would most likely result in unfair and ahistorical buff.

I do think that a French revamped Focus Tree should instead change the facist path with a some focuses regarding the complicate relationship with Germany and Italy, so Vichy France can use that focus tree instead of the generic one, which is boring and also overpowered.

The USA is often considered boring at the moment as well, as most of the time your just waiting to build up and for the world tension to climb high enough to join a faction or just waiting to have Japan declare war on you. The Man the Guns revamp seems to offer a interesting set of things to do before the war, mainly though the focus tree. France could also have similar activities if the Free France path is taken. I feel that what you mentioned on legitimacy is going to be part of governments in exile in the game, as its already a feature but we have no details on what it does. This could produce an interesting political tug of war between Free France and Vichy. My main point is that in the current game, the historical route, which the AI or player will usually take or be forced to take if France goes to war with Germany and something goes wrong, is pretty bare bones. I want to see Frances a-historical paths expanded as well, as they are fun to play and have loads of potential.

I would disagree with more help in a revamped focus tree would be overpowered, as the additions in the Netherlands tree seem to reflect their post-capitulation state rather well (although I'll need to play that way to tell, when man the guns comes out). Frances current tree really isn't built for a historical game, especially as two of the smaller trees are primerlay focused on getting rid of the nasty rebuffs that cripple France militarily, being their bottom of the barrel stability and slow development of land doctrines, which both go away upon becoming Free France. I would argue that the current Fascist path is ok for now, as it allows you into the axis, or forming your own faction, with or without Italy but more expansion would be great.

Also, would the fascist French path work for Vichy France, as I reckon a new but smaller tree would work better, similarly to the Chinese warlords with the option of getting the French tree at a later date. Could be a tree all of Germany and Italys puppets get (such as Slovakia, Croatia, etc).

 

[igisistratos]

dear paradox team , i what to make a correct point about <<makedonia>> tag . so makedonia is one and greek , our northern neighbors have official name and was former yugoslavian republic of makedonia or fyrom . so if the fyrom parliament pass a law about changing theirs constitution theirs new name will be north makedonia . so fix your tag and be more specific because makedonia is a big chung of land and many people occupied inside for the state of fyrom is just the north part and only , so make the changes correctly because as a greek citizen i was offended , thanks .

 

[Vokasak]

It's not even just Macedonia being Greek, it's that in 1936 "Macedonia" has been conquered Bulgarian territory for only around 20 years, less time than the basically-no-time-at-all that modern FYROM has existed. It conceivably makes sense to have the other Yugoslav republics exist as tags since there's some historical precedent for those tags. In 1936 "Macedonia" is basically a piece of Bulgaria full of Bulgarians that has been conquered by Serbs.

Which brings us to the next point; that "Macedonia" only came into existence in 1991. Adding "Macedonia" to HOI4 as a tag is like adding the Soviet Union to EU4.

Lastly, if you're going to have a tag for FYROM just to have all the Yugoslav republics as tags, fine, but don't call it "Macedonia". The name is already inappropriate in modern times but it's alien spacebats unbelievably anachronistic to have it in 1936 before any communist dictators have had a chance to spin fanciful tails about descending from ancient conquerors.



Seriously, first you snub Bulgaria for a focus tree in Death or Dishonor, now you're giving core Bulgarian land to time travelers. What gives?

 

[MacedonianSukhoi]

Paradox...
This can get out of hand..
I seriously hope you take action in this forum as there are clearly some individuals who are spreading nothing but Nationalistic politics as well as Bigotry and Hatred towards another country. Their language is simply dehumanizing, toxic and hateful towards the inhabitants and the people of the "Republic of Macedonia."
And are merely just attempting to assert their own views on a people that is practically voiceless in this matter because we're too few to be heard and are actively scorned and downright discriminated.

My family suffered greatly and had several relatives killed one even downright burned alive since she was a resistance fighter against Bulgarian Fascist occupation. We have heard all of this type of rhetoric you see from these individuals. But this is the Balkans, we have not learned to move forward from this vile sectarianism. Not unlike most normal people in the west. But this hatred doesn't have to spill out into this forum where it simply isn't the topic....

Please Paradox I hope you at least do something...

 

[JackAlNXT]

Macedonia

Technically, the IMRO always had this idea of an autonomous Macedonia which would govern itself and then reunite with Bulgaria when the time was right (tm). There were even plans to make it a German Reichsprotektorate after Bulgaria switched sides...

I doubt that was the reasoning behind including it though. Guess we'll find out if Ivan Mihailov is a leader or not.

 

[Axe99]

since he's the forum's leading naval expert

I'm just an enthusiast, and there are more than a few forumites who have at least as much knowledge about these things as I do (and, of course, naval things are huge - 40+ books in I'd still rate myself very much as a beginner in the field - so there are plenty of things that I'm pretty sketchy on (like the efficiency of British battleship construction in the 1930s and 1940s, for example)) . I might be the forum's most batty naval enthusiast though .

To keep it vaguely on topic, here's a pic of HMS Indefatigable being launched - something that might happen if a UK player took the carrier focus