Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron IV - 28th Development Diary - Weather & Terrain

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45578 Bug Reports 15241 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
podcat said:
Of course, all that is included in the packages of infantry equipment you produce. tougher terrain with more attrition (like in cold winter) = need more packages.

I'm sure some mod will break it down into lots of details (we must have jungle boots be separate!) but I dont think thats something the average player wants to deal with when they are busy fighting on the map.

its an abstraction for gameplays sake.
Click to expand...

There goes my dream of sending artic equipment to africa as Italy for role playing reasons, but the argument makes sense.
 
Why do this DD is stickyed ? I didn't find it at first when looking at the forum this morning, I thought Podcat was ill today.

Will this be the new practice to keep the DDs at the top ?

On topic, happy that the weather will be more transparent/visible. Curious to see if the modifiers will be adjusted after Beta testing, some added and some removed.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Hills
50% added to time to move through.
20% penalty to attack.
33% smaller combat width
5% better protection against enemy air superiority.

Urban
20% added to time to move through.
30% penalty to attack

Desert
5% added to time to move through.
30% extra attrition

Wouldn't it make more sense for hills to give a malus to air protection. A tank sitting on a hill is a fairly easy target to hit.
By that reckoning, desert (zero cover) should also give a malus and urban a significant protection bonus.
 
Praetori said:
From 1-100% You could find any figure as it's highly dependent on the circumstances. I wouldn't want Paradox to trust what's written in the forum in any case when it comes to hard-facts as they're pretty slick in doing their own research (as well as having their own experiences). There are researchers out there that does a mighty fine job of actually doing their job so that us ordinary folk don't have to dig through the archives and read every actual war-diaries of divisions and doctors.


If memory serves me right close to 60% of the German casualties in December of 41' was due to weather/exposure (although most were operational-losses rather than "dead") and about 2/3rds of that number were from units that was mobile up to the Russian counter-offensive. Now I'm not stating that ALL of those units were not/less dug-in than on other fronts and the non-combat attrition-rates are also naturally higher in units in frequent combat due to a lack of hygiene, food, rest etc but the numbers are still high enough that one cannot readily disregard them as just a fluke.
I would recommend reading Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis by Nigel Askey for a thorough breakdown on German casualty-rates but I'm not going to start digging through my library just to bring you quotes. You can believe the statement or disregard it as you please.


It's not only about temperature but moisture, air-pressure, temperature, equipment, training, logistics/food/hygiene, lodging, officers, terrain, enemy actions etc etc etc and it's not a battlefield simulation we're talking about but a strategy-game. It might not even make sense to use historical/accurate figures due to game-play reasons and in any case a game on the operational/strategic level don't need to delve into casualty modifiers on that level of depth. I'm not trying to tell PDS HOW to develop a game (since they're clearly better at it than me) but there's not a word about digging-in/entrenchment in the new terrain-modifiers system and that is the reason I asked.
Click to expand...
And I asked you, could you explain how much it metered. It is strange that you can`t simply give an answer, if that is something that should meter a lot in game.
 
v.Falkenhayn said:
In my opinion, defending side should be able to use difficult terrain and some types bad weather to their advantage.
Click to expand...

Depends on the terrain. If you chose to defend only at certain areas due to the terrain being favorable then your're bound to lose, it's been true since von Clausewitz days when armies actually started bypassing the resistance and go for strategic objectives on a grand scale. Sure if it's a mountain-pass or similar but even that can be bypassed (as evident by German forces in the Norwegian campaign). Also with weather. Some of the largest Soviet successes happened in bad weather with lots of cloud and/or mist that hid their deployment and breakthroughs to the enemy. In Normandy the bad forecasting by German vs Allied weathermen ment that the Germans predicted bad weather for Overlord and thereby was taken with more surprise than had otherwise been the case.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Praetori said:
Depends on the terrain. If you chose to defend only at certain areas due to the terrain being favorable then your're bound to lose, it's been true since von Clausewitz days when armies actually started bypassing the resistance and go for strategic objectives on a grand scale. Sure if it's a mountain-pass or similar but even that can be bypassed (as evident by German forces in the Norwegian campaign). Also with weather. Some of the largest Soviet successes happened in bad weather with lots of cloud and/or mist that hid their deployment and breakthroughs to the enemy. In Normandy the bad forecasting by German vs Allied weathermen ment that the Germans predicted bad weather for Overlord and thereby was taken with more surprise than had otherwise been the case.
Click to expand...

I meant terrain and weather effects on tactical engagements, not strategic choices a player makes.
 
lrbaumard said:
A tank sitting on a hill is a fairly easy target to hit.
Click to expand...

A continuous hill region is called a plateau, there tanks would be an easy target.

But in hilly terrain, you are downhill half of the time or can move between the hills (instead of going up and down using more fuel and breaking more vehicules ), so you can be sheltered at least half of the time or even more if you wisely try to slither your way.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
podcat said:
My argument still hold though. No sane player will ignore winter equipment so why make it a choice? This is a gameplay thing, and has nothing to do with historicity or realism.

btw I am a bit hazy on german winter gear, but afaik it wasn't lack of gear it was weapons and ammo being prioritized first on very limited supply routes that was the issue, not that someone completely forgot that people need coats in winter. I could be wrong tho, was along time since I read up on it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but I could point out a counter argument and that is: Why would a sane player not research all industrial technologies, especially the ones that give production bonuses directly to military equipments such as the machine tool line;)

Atleast the winter equipment technologies would not be useful for everyone but production technologies are universally useful.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
podcat said:
My argument still hold though. No sane player will ignore winter equipment so why make it a choice? This is a gameplay thing, and has nothing to do with historicity or realism.

btw I am a bit hazy on german winter gear, but afaik it wasn't lack of gear it was weapons and ammo being prioritized first on very limited supply routes that was the issue, not that someone completely forgot that people need coats in winter. I could be wrong tho, was along time since I read up on it.
Click to expand...

Who said I'm sane? I'd equip them all with mankinis and rubber cigars (exploding ones for my elites). Bah!!!!!
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
mursolini said:
And I asked you, could you explain how much it metered. It is strange that you can`t simply give an answer, if that is something that should meter a lot in game.
Click to expand...
What are you on about? Casualties grew in percentage during winter compared to the lower number of battles (which were fewer during the winter months).
A lot of the casualties were operational-casualties (ie they didn't happen due to direct enemy action but due to sickness, freezing etc) but a large amount of soldiers still died due to enemy action (around 21% of all enemy-action-casualties during summer and 24% during winter were fatal, or 210 and 240 per 1000 casualties as the Germans themselves counted, even reaching figures of up to 26% for the units involved in operation Juniper and Mars) and this was even more evident in units caught in the open field (which stood for the vast majority of those losses, up to 75% casualties).
Now the above statement isn't just about the fact that there were percentually higher casualty-rates but also that the number of permanent (ie dead) ones increased. Compare that with frostbite injuries of which only had a mortality or permanent casualty-rate of about 1,5%.

It's a threshold, as soon as you have frozen conditions you won't be able to dig in efficiently without major effort (read explosives and machinery). Now units already dug-in won't have this problem.
I'm not going to argue with you about it in a thread discussing something else and derail it so if you want to continue you're more than welcome to send me a PM and I can even point you in the direction of field manuals and reports that describes the various issues.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Nicolas I said:
Why do this DD is stickyed ?
Click to expand...

not sure. I also couldnt find it. we generally dont sticky things because then nobody can find it ;) I dont want to fence with mods tho, so whoever did it can undo it unless they had good reasons

Praetori said:
It's a threshold, as soon as you have frozen conditions you won't be able to dig in efficiently without major effort (read explosives and machinery). Now units already dug-in won't have this problem.
I'm not going to argue with you about it in a thread discussing something else and derail it so if you want to continue you're more than welcome to send me a PM and I can even point you in the direction of field manuals and reports that describes the various issues.
Click to expand...

I know there was something I forgot. dig-in speed is slowed down a lot in extreme cold now.
 
  • 19
  • 10
Reactions:
v.Falkenhayn said:
I don't know of your plans for penalties/mechanics of air attack in difficult terrain (we may need a DD for that), but I suggest the following:
1) forest 50% air defence (germans have to really be thankful to hedgerows and woods in Normandy or they'd have been erased from the face of earth by allied air power, not unlike Panzer Lehr division that got hit by an armada of bombers and ceased to exist);
2) jungle 75% air defence (remember those pesky japanese and more recently red vietnamese escaping US airpower);
3) hills 25%;
4) mountains 35%
5) urban 10%
Click to expand...

I quite agree on that. Numbers seem to be low. Or maybe we should think these abilities to strike/straffe in such terrains related to some air doctrine improvements ?

@ Podcat :
any chance to get answers on this ? :rolleyes:

"Very nice thick DD ! :)

1) Other than terrain modifiers, will weather modifiers be influenced by the stance of your land units ? Shouldn't an attacking infantry division be more impacted by a snowy weather than a defensive one ?

2) Maybe I didn't understand well the handling of air units depending on weather : seriously, you will not make us able to program, say, a heavy bombers group, when I have so few that I couldn't tolerate extra attrition, on a specific airbase to :
Start the mission when the known weather in the area is :
- Clear skies
- Rain
Abort any bombing mission when the known weather in the area is :
- Strom
- Snow
- and even worse
Please let us toggle some weather buttons in order to to make our perations fit exactly what we want.

3) Not any forecast ??
Please let us have at least a group of weathermen able to tell us if we can expect same, worst or better weather in a given area... : When we select a (strategic so ?) region, we have a little mark where we can see it..."
 
Great dev diary! This game is definitely moving in the right direction. :)

A few things though:

1. A suggestion, the weather and terrain should be tweaked, especially weather, they are too similar to each other.

2. There should be traits for generals for all terrain or weather types instead of just cold areas. Like having generals who are good at fighting in deserts similar in concept to those who are good in cold areas. Or generals who are good at tactics in heavily forested areas.

3. Attack should be more reduced in jungles than in forests. Jungles are far more messy things where fighting (or even standing in order and communicating) is much harder than regular forests. And there are a lot of natural hurdles than your temperate forests.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I was in the second-to-last year of people forced into a year of armed services in Belgium. I spend it in the Meteo Wing (well, the kitchen, actually :) ) and I remember the colonel in charge once telling guests that reliable forecast for military ops would be limited to 3 days. This was in 1990-1991. With state-of-the-art computers at the time. How much forecast would you expect in the period '36-'48?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back