• 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.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Bag of Tricks : the Sequel

Greetings all!

Today’s dev diary contains the details of a few smaller features coming to the table in No Step Back. In addition, I’ll get ahead of the curve here and point out that there will be no diary next week - we’ll be back the week after with more to see.

Scorched Earth

One of the enduring tactical practices of the Soviet defense during the German invasion, was the use of scorched earth. In No Step Back, you’ll be able to spend Command Power on ordering the strategic disabling of railways in the event of a tactical retreat.

0.png

(All visuals WIP!)

Enacted on a state level, every railway present receives full damage, and is immediately flagged, making sure that your eager workers do not attempt repairs.

1.png


The pending repairs will show up differently in your construction queue, and won’t be worked on. Rather than re-enable these all manually, you can toggle the state of Scorched Earth off on a state, in the same way it was enabled. All affected railways will begin repairing at once.

Scorched Earth is a pretty simple mechanic here, but has potentially devastating effects on invaders. In addition to the rail conversion time that exists on captured railway, damaged rail must now be repaired in order to continue supply flow onwards. While we considered extending some effects to factories, we determined that this was likely to affect balance far more than we wanted.

Preferred Tactics

We touched on this feature briefly during a previous diary, however, due to some good feedback from the community and from inside the team, we’ve made some alterations to how it works.

Where previously, you set a preferred tactic on a national level, giving a positive chance modifier for that tactic to be chosen in combat, your generals and field marshals will now also possess the ability to earn a favored combat tactic.

3.png


At level 5, you’ll be prompted to choose a preferred tactic for your generals. This represents their doctrinal school of war - a choice that affects all units under their command.

Note here, that we are not removing the national preferred tactic, and that the additive weight will compound from national -> field marshal -> general. To pre-empt the question, you can of course stack all 3 as the same tactic, although this drastically reduces your flexibility, and potentially makes it very easy to be countered. The overall additions granted by preferred tactics, have of course been reduced somewhat to account for this.

We wanted to avoid a rock-paper-scissors choice here, and in order to further emulate the core, doctrinal nature of a general’s fighting style, we have chosen to make this choice permanent for characters.

Strategic Redeployment

As we hinted at, strategic redeployment will now make use of railways in order to simulate more realistic army relocation. This applies a different weighting to the regular pathfinder, resulting in choices that largely look sensible where routes of a similar weight are encountered.

4.png

Here, we take a train followed by a scenic bus-tour in order to avoid the long connection.

5.png


Sometimes it becomes difficult to predict what will be considered 'sensible' in every scenario - there will be edge cases where pretty looking behaviour and logical behaviour do not overlap.

That’s all we have for today’s diary - just a final reminder that next week there will not be a dev diary - tune back in on the 29th!

As usual, I’ll be around to answer questions in the thread below!

/Arheo
 
  • 172Like
  • 29Love
  • 10
  • 7
  • 3
Reactions:
All of this will completely transform the game. Looking forward to this upgrade so much.

Fingers crossed for an AI that's up to the task, though :p .
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Will the Strategic Redeployment allow for things such as redeploying over water when there is a land connection like if your faction owns a land path from north africa to Europe but it is significantly longer will it choose to take a port or will it still take the land route say from libya to italy?
 
Can we have a hotkey or another means to hide the units on the map? I know I can hide the entire GUI, but I wish to be able to select a land province underneath a unit. Yes, I can simply move the unit or find a free land part, but that might not be easy for small states (especially in modded maps). I think the best would be for the "terrain map mode" to do as it says and display only the terrain.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Will throughput be a factor in the Strategic redeployment, or is it just as if there are unlimited trains with unlimited capacity to go by rail?
Yeah there really needs to be a capacity limit (based on how many Trains you have available) to Strategic Redeployment. So you are limited at how many troops you can move around at once on a strategic level. The lack of this has been the main problem with Strategic Redeployment since release. The way it works now is like magic and completely unrealistic.

Hope we see the Soviet AI utilising the scorched earth feature
Countries that used scorched Earth in real life WW2 should be scripted to use it in the game. USSR/Germany on Eastern Front especially. Probably in China too.

yes, there are separate speed calculations for both the current rail level and the current infrastructure level. The pathfinder will work out which is the fastest route based on both these speeds so if there are no railways between 2 points but there are varying levels of infrastructure it will still find the fastest path.
Speed shouldn't be the only factor when it comes to Strategic Redeployment. See my above post. If you want to move a 1 million man army but only have 20 Trains it should take a long time.

All this looks great, I hope now the siege of Leningrad will be more interesting by adding a supply route on Lake Ladoga or some kind of event called "The Road of life" to get a little more temporary supplies during the winter, although the divisions may suffer wear at the end.
One of the previous Dev Diaries mentioned a mechanic for this but I didn't like it. It sounded like Soviet troops surrounded anywhere can get magically resupplied which doesn't make any sense.

This should damage general infrastructure as well. Historically in WW2 not only were railways damaged or destroyed, the retreating side often destroyed virtually all buildings in their area to deny the enemy warm housing (particularly brutal during -40 degree winters) and damaged, blocked and mined roads to slow down the enemy.
Yes definitely.

if the current system is totally surreal that a general had the ability to command so many divisions the same commander.

The opposite would have to be done, it would have to limit much more the name units that a commander would have to be able to carry
I think Generals should only be able to control 12 Divisions. That is more historical to my knowledge.

It would be cool if scorch earth did a "ticking" set of damage to everything that does damage and costs CP over time, that way a fast advance can salvage some of the infrastructure before it's destroyed
The way Scorched Earth should work in my opinion is this: it requires a Division to be in a State/Province. It takes time to do depending on how much you want to destroy. It possibly should affect the morale of your population although I am not sure about this.

While it's true that in nature generals would hardly change their strategy, often being portraited as stubborn individuals, it's also kinda true that not changing a losing fighting strategy isn't something you often see in warfare, as leaders tend (at least should) addapt their strategies to whatever variables they're facing.

I understand the core concept of this, but it may unnecessarily penalize bad choices in the long term.
Rather than making it permanent, maybe make it semi-permanent. As completely changing your ideas/personality/behavior is something that takes time and is not instant. Unless you are a very adaptable person.

You’re right, but I think they’re hoping to make players swap out generals more often, making this more of a gameplay than realism decision. Right now you can often just pick a few generals and prioritize them through the whole war, new assignments are just to fill gaps.

Part of the reason for that is they allow a General to control too many Divisions - 24 when it should be more like 12.

I would like to make a request for 2 small features to be added to No Step Back:

1. Bocage terrain added to Northern France.

2. Degradation of the Urban battlefield over time (like Stalingrad). If a lot of fighting occurs in a city it slowly turns into rubble and becomes easier to defend/harder to attack.

Edit: If you're worried about Scorched Earth with regards to multiplayer balance just make it a Game Rule setting. It doesn't make sense to design the game around multiplayer balance in the first place though.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I... just... that's...
Wow. Mind blown.
Yes, as was said, that's a very good point.
Indeed!
Though there is already some reasons why they don't : AFAIK, the majority of merchand marines back then were steamers using coal.

but there was also some using actual fuel, different size of merchand ships, army transport ships...

currently convoys are a very wide abstraction merging too much things, but good enough for the game.
I realy regret army transport ships are not represented by its own ship class, and also the possibilitie for warships to transport troops (used a lot by Japan).

Although if there can be an argument for convoys not using fuel (run on coal), there can't be at all for logistic trucks. They have to consume fuel.

I'm a bit still worried about the devs not confirming if that would be moddable to makes logistic trucks consume fuel
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Though there is already some reasons why they don't : AFAIK, the majority of merchand marines back then were steamers using coal.

The impression I've got is that by the outbreak of WW2 it was no longer the majority, but the data I've come across are patchy. As per the second quote below, there's no question that, where possible, ships substituted coal for oil where possible and the supply situation made sense. That being said, there's a strong argument to reflect oil use in convoys, with perhaps an option for convoys being more discoverable if they're running on coal (so countries could choose to use coal, but it would make their ships more vulnerable - due to more visible exhaust fumes). It'd be a very rough way to do it, but having HoI reflect the varied composition of merchant shipping probably isn't something the devs are shooting for.

In July 1940, the Vichy French naval forces (the Marine Nationale) only had 1,650,000 tons of merchant shipping available to them, of which two-thirds were oil burners and needed converting to coal firing due to oil shortages (resulting in many being laid up in French ports). Vichy French merchant ships could only be used under strict conditions placed on them by the Armistice Commission, including a requirement (albeit rarely strictly followed) that they scuttle themselves if threatened by British capture. (The French Navy in World War II, p. 171, 177)

As was mentioned earlier, about half the British oil-fired steamers were equipped to burn coal as an alternative, and indeed some habitually used coal on outward voyages and oil for inward ones. On 20th March 1940 all owners of dual-fired ships were asked to adopt this practice." (from "Oil. A Study of War-time Policy and Administration" by D J Payton - Smith, loc 2091)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I'm a bit late to this one after traveling for most of last week, but I do have one question.

Has the initial factory or infrastructure distribution within the Soviet Union been altered? I understand the scorched earth mechanic outlined here only sabotages railroads, but the main way in which Soviet players currently "scorch the earth" in un-modded HOI4 is by building factories exclusively east of Moscow. There are enough open building slots east of the Urals in states with infrastructure levels as high as those in Ukraine and Belarus that it just doesn't make sense to build west of Moscow. It doesn't even make much economic sense to upgrade the infrastructure west of Moscow because you can extract more resources by upgrading it east of the Urals.

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that there are few factories west of Moscow in either start date, meaning the Soviet Union's historical predicament of losing vast industrial output to the German occupation is minimized. A potentially easy adjustment to this situation would be to locate a greater proportion of the Soviet Union's starting industry in Ukraine and Belarus. I'm not sure how much this would affect the game's simulation of the Eastern Front, but I think it's worth testing at the least.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The impression I've got is that by the outbreak of WW2 it was no longer the majority, but the data I've come across are patchy. As per the second quote below, there's no question that, where possible, ships substituted coal for oil where possible and the supply situation made sense. That being said, there's a strong argument to reflect oil use in convoys, with perhaps an option for convoys being more discoverable if they're running on coal (so countries could choose to use coal, but it would make their ships more vulnerable - due to more visible exhaust fumes). It'd be a very rough way to do it, but having HoI reflect the varied composition of merchant shipping probably isn't something the devs are shooting for.

You quote something saying that British steamers used oil for inbound routes and coal for outbound. Why?

(Not why did you quote it, but why would that operational difference be in place in that way.)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You quote something saying that British steamers used oil for inbound routes and coal for outbound. Why?
Personal guess: the UK had an oil shortage, so had to conserve the fuel they already had on the British Isles, but then used fuel when they were overseas and it was more plentiful?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You quote something saying that British steamers used oil for inbound routes and coal for outbound. Why?

(Not why did you quote it, but why would that operational difference be in place in that way.)

Personal guess: the UK had an oil shortage, so had to conserve the fuel they already had on the British Isles, but then used fuel when they were overseas and it was more plentiful?

A good question :) Safe-keeper's a safe pair of hands here and is spot-on. It was difficult getting enough oil to Britain, so using coal on ships that could on outbound journeys made a lot of sense. In peacetime, it may have allowed for flexibility in terms of the cheaper fuel at the time (although that's purely speculation on my account, and could be silly).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The pending repairs will show up differently in your construction queue, and won’t be worked on. Rather than re-enable these all manually, you can toggle the state of Scorched Earth off on a state, in the same way it was enabled. All affected railways will begin repairing at once.

Any chance to have a separate construction line for repair just like the current naval repair. We can control how much civ to be used for repair task. It will be a QOL for maintaining repair esp during offensives.
 
  • 11Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Any chance to have a separate construction line for repair just like the current naval repair. We can control how much civ to be used for repair task. It will be a QOL for maintaining repair esp during offensives.

This is such a good suggestion - if it's not already in the suggestion forum, it's well worth popping in there :)
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Nice.
This would enable to set different behavior of force and logistics movement in different countries.
For example. Germany mooved tanks by rail as much as possible to reduce fuel usage- what they successfully acchieved troughout the war.
While the US Army buildt the "Red Bal Express" route in france for there logistics to avoid train/railway problems and keeping speed instead - what they successfully acchieved because they had enough trucks and fuel.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don’t like that scorched earth icon. It’s too bright and looks out of place with everything else... Surely that’s not what we are going with?
Here's a hint. Anytime you see an icon/image/whatever that is fuchsia (or whatever crazy pink that is), you can be sure it is a placeholder image. I know its standard for PDS, and most likely for most other game design studios.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Here's a hint. Anytime you see an icon/image/whatever that is fuchsia (or whatever crazy pink that is), you can be sure it is a placeholder image. I know its standard for PDS, and most likely for most other game design studios.

It's a an excellent way of keeping them front-and-centre so it's hard to miss unfinished UI images, at least until PDX start working on a My Little Pony or similar-palletted strategy game :) (Hoofs of Iron!)
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: