• 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 - Naval Access

Diary time! Today, in the 7th diary, we continue showing off features in Man the Guns, but don’t worry - there are loads more coming! The topics for today both concern access.

Sea zone access
With MTG it will now be possible for players to mark sea zones as either Avoid or Banned. A zone marked as Avoid will be treated as dangerous and, well, something to avoid if possible. This goes for all ship routing. So if enemy submarines are decimating your shipping you will be able to route it elsewhere, perhaps somewhere safer and closer to an ally. Ships will still route through a zone marked as Avoid if there is no other way to get where they are going.

route.jpg


A Banned zone won't allow moving through it at all, except by manual player moves, or say if it’s an invasion order triggered by the player. It will for example even shut down trading if there are no other possible paths. Zone markings are shown in the naval mapmode and can both be toggled directly on strategic area alerts, or in the new “state view” for the sea. Here we also show a proper breakdown on the level of naval supremacy in the area much like you are used to for air zones instead of the old sparse tooltip. You’ll have to excuse my sneaky censoring as not to spoil a future topic however ;)

state.jpg


At this point I am sure some aspiring u-boat captains are wondering why the enemy can’t just shuffle their shipping routes constantly to avoid being located and interdicted. Changing your route will put its efficiency at 0, so if you continuously change settings you won’t be able to move things through the route. That said, there might be some good strategy in sometimes changing things up to make it harder for the enemy to concentrate their raiders.


Docking Rights
Asking for or receiving Docking Rights are new diplomatic actions. They function like military access “light” and allow someone access to base out of, resupply and repair in your naval bases. In fact military access by necessity automatically comes with docking rights. Docking rights can give you better reach and avoid troublesome paths. For example, German subs will be able to operate out of Spanish ports (if permission is granted) and threaten British shipping in areas where defending them is trickier and they won’t have to pass through the channel or more guarded waters.

dr.jpg


When it comes to repair and such you will be at a lower priority than the owner of the port, but you will have to wait for a future dev diary for more details on how the new repair system functions in detail. Ships in a neutral port that are there due to docking rights can not be attacked with aerial strikes on the base, so if you want to get rid of ships operating there you will need to draw the harboring nation into war also.

That’s all for this time folks. Tune in next week for a *cough* explosive update.

Rejected Titles:
  • This feature was inspired by the famous documentary Das Boot
  • A pouch of tricks
  • Tuesday Teaser Extended Cut HD
  • Nono, these U-Boats are on holiday here in Spain
  • “Should we be worried that Command is sending us, specifically this ship, into a zone marked as Avoid?”
  • Blockchain for dummies - naval edition
  • This dev diary has probably the worst Dev-Time-Needed to Feature-Dev-Diary-Length ratio
 
This would be exploitable in multiplayer, e.g. German/Hungarian planes bombing shipping in the Straits of Malacca from neutral Siamese and Japanese territory. Realistically this'd also be an act of war by the host country, making it a pointless feature.

Historically the Russians did use Estonian airfields during the Winter War to bomb Finland, but this would better be simulated by either transferring provinces in the Baltics into Russian ownership after they accept mil.access from Russia (a historical event currently not in the game) or just by turning them into puppets that through follow-up events are later coup d'etated into communist and annexed directly into the USSR around the time Germany takes Paris. And in any case on a political level Finland viewed Estonia as an ally of the enemy and bombed Russian bases outside of Tallinn in Estonia as a response to the Russian bombers flying out of there. This would not be possible in-game without a state of war existing between the target and the host country of those airplanes, which again makes it a pointless feature as it'd be no different than just being at war.

Beyond that I can't really think of many instances when neutral airfields were used by combatants. Maybe Irish airfields were used by a few RAF planes, but Ireland was also still a British Dominion, even if it was otherwise neutral.

Not even the Luftwaffe planes stationed in Finland in June 1941 flew against Russia before Russia had resumed hostilities against Finland first.

Flying combat missions out of neutral bases is such a niché occurance historically that it's not really worth creating special mechanics for.
Appreciate your reply, and combining this with responce from mr. podcat, i'm really confused why you both assume neutral countries first of all. This makes me think that i indeed just don't know that feature to use airbase of countries, which already involved in the same war as you, on the same side (just not in the same faciton) is already in the game. Is it?
 
Hi.
It's interesting and good news, however, this topic is very close to something that it doesn't quite address and is closely related to naval pathfinding, in particular:
-It looks like there is only option to ban entire large sea zone, not particular smaller(smallest) area where the ships are actually going to be and combat is going to be. Do I understand that correctly? (I would hope it to be for the smallest areas).
-At one of the patches aimed at improving performance, pathfinding algorithms were changed (I think it was written before that they used to be super complex and even philosophical). As a result however, paths started to be very far from shortest, and going from England to Egypt would send the fleet along Spanish coast(instead Africa coast which would be shortest and safest), then along Italian coast, all increasing the duration of the trip and exposing more to enemy attacks. Will this be reversed/fixed(imho the gained performance does not justify breaking the pathfinding), or are there other solutions to this maybe(e.g., if we could ban only particular of the smallest areas within sea zone, that would also take care for this)?
-So far as I have noticed, it looks like planes that can reach one area in sea zone, can effectively reach all of sea zone, even if with decreased efficiency. This has result that allied shipping may be bombed and air superiority established through the whole zone, so e.g. planes from Italy proper, Sicily and Corsica can dominate air near Gibraltar for which they don't actually have the range. Is something being done about that in this patch/expansion, please?

P.S.: I think this dev diary is not yet on forum title page.
 
Oh and one other question, I hope that if e.g. Spain will allow docking to say Germany, I will be able to DOW Spain as democratic nation, provided I'm at war with Germany? Since that's clear and explicit violation of neutrality.
 
Oh and one other question, I hope that if e.g. Spain will allow docking to say Germany, I will be able to DOW Spain as democratic nation, provided I'm at war with Germany? Since that's clear and explicit violation of neutrality.
DOW seems very unlikely. In game terms that would literally just mean that they are part of the Axis the moment they allow Germany navalbase rights. If there was embargoes or something...
 
DOW seems very unlikely. In game terms that would literally just mean that they are part of the Axis the moment they allow Germany navalbase rights. If there was embargoes or something...
Well, yes and no. It would(should) give rightful causus belli, unless e.g. Britain decides that it's better to suffer attacks from Spain ports then risk e.g. Gibraltar. But it's essentially allowing enemy to use your land for attacks on another country, and this effectively means war.
You can compare it perhaps to US naval exclusion zone, that favored the allies, factually it was violation of neutrality, but Germany had reasons not to officially view it as such. Problem would be if allies being democratic with DOW restriction (even though this is ahistorical, see occupation of Iran done by UK in ww2), and further exposed to Spain being used as enemy base...
 
Appreciate your reply, and combining this with responce from mr. podcat, i'm really confused why you both assume neutral countries first of all. This makes me think that i indeed just don't know that feature to use airbase of countries, which already involved in the same war as you, on the same side (just not in the same faciton) is already in the game. Is it?
Ah, you want e.g. Allied planes to fly out of Russia while both are at war with the Axis, or Axis planes to fly out of Japan, while both are at war with the Allies. Now, do me a favour and name a single instance that actually occurred IRL, excluding one or two instances of small foreign volunteer squadrons (e.g. the Normandie-Niemen) that cannot be handled through decisions. Actually, even the Normandie-Niemen was in practice a part of the VVS and thus under Russian control.
 
Well, yes and no. It would(should) give rightful causus belli, unless e.g. Britain decides that it's better to suffer attacks from Spain ports then risk e.g. Gibraltar. But it's essentially allowing enemy to use your land for attacks on another country, and this effectively means war.
You can compare it perhaps to US naval exclusion zone, that favored the allies, factually it was violation of neutrality, but Germany had reasons not to officially view it as such. Problem would be if allies being democratic with DOW restriction (even though this is ahistorical, see occupation of Iran done by UK in ww2), and further exposed to Spain being used as enemy base...
The thing is there are no limited cb unless you forbid Spain from ever joining the Axis, because if the Allies wanted to really just get rid of the naval bases a conquest and subsequent destruction or even just a bombing without occupation would do. Yet such a limited war goal would lead to Spain joining the Axis and fighting till the end.
 
I consider running planes from neutrals a lot closer to an act of war and would be quite imbalanced I think. I think the reaction from britain vs france would have been quite different between allowing subs to refuel vs german bombers hitting gibraltar from spanish bases.
Different from allowing basing a sub fleet there? Why? Enemy sub fleet, in bases immune to attack(if this is considered aligned to neutrality, which it is absolutely not), stationed on lifeline of Brittish empire would not be considered act of war?:eek:

Graf Spee was not based in neutral ports! Never ever! It was allowed to visit such ports under certain circumstances for certain duration(much like other belligerents), but never ever could this be considered as comparable to stationing a fleet there allowing extensive resupply and repairs in "neutral" dockyard!
 
Please put this dev diary up on the front page.

I was wondering when the HoI 4 dev diary came out. I had to navigate to HoI 4 forum to find out.
 
The thing is there are no limited cb unless you forbid Spain from ever joining the Axis, because if the Allies wanted to really just get rid of the naval bases a conquest and subsequent destruction or even just a bombing without occupation would do. Yet such a limited war goal would lead to Spain joining the Axis and fighting till the end.
Yes, provided that Spain allowed use of it's ports as bases by German submarines on business as usual basis, allies would not tolerate it except if it was deemed in their interest. The agreement and first such use would be considered act of war, and allies would only delay official declaration till they did minimal amount of preparations (either reinforcing or evacuating Gibraltar, sending invasion force to remaining Spanish colonial areas).
 
Ah, you want e.g. Allied planes to fly out of Russia while both are at war with the Axis, or Axis planes to fly out of Japan, while both are at war with the Allies. Now, do me a favour and name a single instance that actually occurred IRL, excluding one or two instances of small foreign volunteer squadrons (e.g. the Normandie-Niemen) that cannot be handled through decisions. Actually, even the Normandie-Niemen was in practice a part of the VVS and thus under Russian control.

You mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frantic ?
 
This is a pet peeve of mine:. In the attached image, US navy is denied access to the red areas. They are at peace and these are battleships.

I have other examples where destroyers are denied entry to Hawaii from San Diego. Show me in a real historical document where a US destroyer could not move from San Diego to Oahu on its own in 1936. Do you actually think sextons did not exist in 1936? The example below has battleships as well. Where the tooltip rests is an area well charted by the USN. For the love of God, remove these stupid restrictions on a major naval power. If you are attempting some sort of diplomacy; these areas are too far into international waters to be affected by diplomacy. The USN went and goes there today without any diplomatic impediment. Please fix this.

Desktop Screenshot 2018.08.15 - 11.40.14.28.png
Desktop Screenshot 2018.08.15 - 11.49.18.03.png
 
This is a pet peeve of mine:. In the attached image, US navy is denied access to the red areas. They are at peace and these are battleships.

I have other examples where destroyers are denied entry to Hawaii from San Diego. Show me in a real historical document where a US destroyer could not move from San Diego to Oahu on its own in 1936. Do you actually think sextons did not exist in 1936? The example below has battleships as well. Where the tooltip rests is an area well charted by the USN. For the love of God, remove these stupid restrictions on a major naval power. If you are attempting some sort of diplomacy; these areas are too far into international waters to be affected by diplomacy. The USN went and goes there today without any diplomatic impediment. Please fix this.

View attachment 397725 View attachment 397727
That's just the range limitation, nothing odd about that.

EDIT: If you are trying to rebase fleet, that's I think with shift or control(either with click). So if the target is out of range, just rebase to it(so long as it's yours or allied). Then you can move to it too as now you will be in range.
 
Last edited:
Ah, you want e.g. Allied planes to fly out of Russia while both are at war with the Axis
Yes, kind of :) Right now i have weird game as Manchukuo, where Japan joined allies. So right now my faction-less country and comintern advancing in Benelux. We fight together, but all captured land goes to soviets. So i cannot use any planes in this game at all. This is not real-life scenario on its own, but it can happen in the game that troops of two countries which are not in one faction advance on the same front at the same time and capture enemy air base, which only one country can use for some reason :( Is it really unfair to expect to move aircrafts to captured base?
 
Actually, this entire feature can help truly model the high sea adventures of the Admiral Graf Spee. A single powerful surface raider breaking out of the Atlantic and having base rights in South America and Portuguese colonies, would certainly help spread the UK navy thin.
No, it has nothing to do with Graf Spee. Graf Spee and other raiders could operate because of secret network of supply ships, not because of access to R&R in neutral ports. If you want to emulate that, make that a focus that will give % bonus to range of German navy(maybe other navies too), and give option(decision) to its enemies to eliminate that network if certain conditions are met. No need to create uncounterable setup(I'm fine with it provided it will give offended sides causus belli, and provided AI doesn't jump at it).
 
Last edited:
That's just the range limitation, nothing odd about that.

EDIT: If you are trying to rebase fleet, that's I think with shift or control(either with click). So if the target is out of range, just rebase to it(so long as it's yours or allied). Then you can move to it too as now you will be in range.

Note the first pic is a fleet with battleships on a mission in the sea zone with the red markings. its not out of range. In the second picture the fleet is headquartered in the PCZ and the Pacific sea zones where the tooltip points is not out of range, at least it is not out of range USN battleships with oilers which all US fleets had in 1936.
 
Note the first pic is a fleet with battleships on a mission in the sea zone with the red markings. its not out of range. In the second picture the fleet is headquartered in the PCZ and the Pacific sea zones where the tooltip points is not out of range, at least it is not out of range USN battleships with oilers which all US fleets had in 1936.
There is one icon for the fleet deployed in certain larger area. It does not mean it can access all the sectors, and it does not mean ships are in the sector that the fleet icon is displayed to be in.
For the second picture, problem is likely with destroyers, and your fleet range is limited by shortest range of the ships (which is reasonable). The ranges are not exact translation of TTD of individual ships but constitute range in which ships can perform operations. (i.e., it's not from point A to point B, but patrolling particular sea for some time, maybe doing high speed maneuvers and such).
As for oilers, please consider that this is generalization, and while fleets in safe areas would have unrestricted access to them, they would not be available to fleets in contested areas(at least not to the same extent) and they would not be able to keep up with the combat fleet. And as is there is zero reason to patrol uncontested areas.

EDIT: You are of course completely free to argue for removing the range restriction completely. Although my view is that current state is more or less OK.
 
yea basically. no fighting in neutral harbor. you can pretend the sailors meet up in the local bar and there is a really uncomfortable vibe though. possibly fistfights.

You just reminded me of the original Star Trek episode, "Trouble with Tribbles."