Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron IV - 44th Development Diary - 12th of February 2016

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 45542 Bug Reports 15235 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Cheers for the DD and extra detail Podcat, much appreciated :D. Really like the fundamentals of the system you've put together - a big step up from HoI3, and I reckon there's the potential it could help form the basis of a better resistance mechanic in other PDS games as well. Also think it's a great 'fundamental' system that allows expansion in interesting and plausible ways. Very much looking forward to the Battleplan DD as well and, of course, the game when it's done - hope the beta's going well :D.

Any thought given to anti-resistance force also radiating outwards, so a strongly garrisoned region that was pushing down resistance there might have some impact on a neighbouring region? Just a thought.

podcat said:
No there isnt, but you can send equipment as part of staging a coup/civil war which is similar I guess.
Click to expand...

This sounds like good fuel for future DLC - stuff like the SOE and the like. Combine that with maybe the potential (but not guaranteed) spawning of on-map partisan units in a region with 100% resistance (maybe needs a GiE or allied action to trigger?) and you'd have a system that covered off most of the historically plausible options without lots of clicking-spam like the HoI3 model, but with real risk of outright rebellion if things got bad enough. It'd also force Germany to garrison the USSR broadly, rather than a few key supply corridors. That said, I like the 'radiating outwards' resistance model.

Mannstien said:
Indeed, I can agree with that but it just seems expensive to have even just one Calvary/Infantry regiment in all of the provinces just to suppress Partisans unless I'm missing that it's only needed on a state level which I doubt. I mean I suppose you don't have too have them in all but I thought industry was at a state level hence any provinces within the state would require suppression to reduce losses to factories.
Click to expand...

It sounds from the DD that it's a state rather than province-based thing (resistance is calculated at a state area), so hopefully will all be good. Would look a little odd if divisions had to be garrisoned in every province.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Italy has always had their eye on those non-aggressionist Swiss.
 
HoI won't need to represent partisans in annexed territory because there is no 'coring' system in HoI - all annexed prov's suffer a huge non-core penalty already.

None of the HoI games ever had any partisan activity in pre-war annexed territory, or the German-claimed Polish territory (not to be confused with the rest of Poland, which was occupied).

The fact that partisan activity can assist invasions and coups counterbalances the need for any partisan units represented on the map.

Instances like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising shouldn't be in the game because (*censored*). If you allow (*censored*), you bring in aspects of (*censored*), which leads to issues. Discussion of issues like (*censored*) can lead to (*censored*).

Since all partisan units are essentially civilian, there really isn't any need for representation of those units in the game. I'm glad they're gone.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
podcat said:
No there isnt, but you can send equipment as part of staging a coup/civil war which is similar I guess.
Click to expand...

Can a resistance movement that's left completely unchecked for long enough (i.e., if Germany under-garrisons France because the eastern front is a huge disaster or whatever) turn into a full-blown civil war? Or are those just two completely separate systems?
 
Axe99 said:
It sounds from the DD that it's a state rather than province-based thing (resistance is calculated at a state area), so hopefully will all be good. Would look a little odd if divisions had to be garrisoned in every province.
Click to expand...

That would be a relief because if you look at infrastructure it's definitely province level so if partisans are only measured at the State level that would be the preferred route so you only need Div's to cover the State size area instead of the individual provinces.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
First off, love this DD, and the changes from Hoi3. This looks great, from the effects to how we can interact with it.

That said, some detail decission disagreements. (But still very positive about this DD !!! )

podcat said:
After a peace deal the land is no longer occupied, so in say 1948 when you carve up europe and defeat the other side you will not get a polish resistance anymore. Non-core territory still doesnt give the same perks as fully yours but it wont cause any trouble for you....
Click to expand...

Anti Communist Resistance lasted a long time in Eastern Europe. Eg

  • Baltic partisans known as the "Forest Brothers" fought until eradicated in the early 1960s.
  • Polish partisans known as the "Cursed soldiers" fought until eradicated in 1963.
  • Bulgarian partisans known as "Goryani" fought until eradicated in the early 1960s.
  • Croatian partisans known as "Crusaders" fought until eradicated in the early 1950s.
  • Serbian partisans known as "Chetniks" fought until eradicated in the early 1950s.
  • Slovenian partisans fought until eradicated in the early 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies

I'd really like to see the possibility of resistance continue. It would make the post and inter war game so much more.

Above is just the tip of the iceberg too; Groups like ETA resisting (later terrorism) in Spain were still quoting Franco's betrayal on executing prisoners after agreements to the contrary.

podcat said:
Population has no effect, but resistance flows outwards from victory points generally and get stronger from big VPs. So it works quite well in combination with defending occupied VPs to station troops there to reduce resistance.
Click to expand...
I see why you did that. And can see how useful it is to help manage a counter of garrisoning VPs.
Minor niggle- but wasn't resistance largest and most effective in classical guerrilla warfare terrain- cities yes; but also pripet marches; Yugoslavia mountains.

No there isnt, but you can send equipment as part of staging a coup/civil war which is similar I guess.
Click to expand...
Very different I'd say. If the desired effect is attrition, sabotage and intel (which I guess many would want to encourage with SOE arms in game) then very different.

But, still lovin the DD and direction you guys took with this !!! And the factory damage bars :)
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
podcat said:
After a peace deal the land is no longer occupied, so in say 1948 when you carve up europe and defeat the other side you will not get a polish resistance anymore. Non-core territory still doesnt give the same perks as fully yours but it wont cause any trouble for you.
Click to expand...

So, if I understand this correctly, if Germany and Czechoslovakia fight a brief war with each other (say, over the Sudetenland), and the Czechs have no allies (because the UK and France told them to give in), and the Czechs surrender to Germany, then there will be no resistance after their surrender and the territory will behave like non-cored territory.

This means that trying to get an actual surrender out of enemies, as opposed to just keeping the war going pointlessly, has advantages.

You WANT the Soviets to surrender, not because you want to annex everything (you could just occupy it all), but because you don't have to waste time fighting partisans.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I see the army around the borders to protect in the photo. but its only 1 in every province like in www. it seems so little and too easy to just send 10 divisions or more and crush them. whould be better to build up a bigger army
 
Very good DD, I liked the new resistance models, as well the option to give and receive occupied territory to your allies,could help with logistics and management of the territories
 
Mannstien said:
Thank the Stars and the Heavens no more bloody Whack-a-mole, I do think it could be somewhat contained similar to what is proposed for HOI4 resistance by setting up a theater HQ on AI control but it was out of hand at times.

Question though, I mean it makes sense to have MP a support but why not just make them units instead of having to use Calvary (insert players choice of regiment) as the main force? I don't expect my cavalry as an example to do much should they get hit by invasion an invasion force or such but I would think they are more expensive to build and hence will not be useful other than anti-partisan warfare for the cost they incur. If I do have to have a regular regiment to perform such duties is it possible that I can set that template alone to not receive upgrades so as not to dwindle my supply of better equipment which would serve a greater purpose of equipping my front line divisions with equipment? I guess that's two questions ;)
Click to expand...

Cavalry has a higher suppression stat then infantry.
 
You guys have to be more consistent with when to capitalize words. In some of the options you have all words capital, in others a few, and in the rest only the first word is capitalized.
 
Mannstien said:
That would be a relief because if you look at infrastructure it's definitely province level so if partisans are only measured at the State level that would be the preferred route so you only need Div's to cover the State size area instead of the individual provinces.
Click to expand...
Infrastructure is on state level.
Forts are at province level which the 1st picture also shows. Or am i wrong? :eek:
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Vidkjaer said:
Cavalry has a higher suppression stat then infantry.
Click to expand...

Why?

I mean, I know that since at least HOI3 Cavalry have basically been treated as anti-partisan troops, but there really isn't anything about them that particularly suits them to CO-IN warfare more than, say, light infantry. Cavalry being anti-partisan troops is just another thing that was basically invented for game purposes and which has kinda-sorta become accepted as true.

The fact that divisions like Florian Geyer were used for CO-IN was just another example of divisions that were useless for any other purpose being employed in partisan-suppression. It does not mean they were any good at it.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Historically, some horse cavalry units from Hungary and Romania were used for anti-partisan duties far behind the lines, so there was a precedent for using them in the role. I don't thing that they were naturally suited for it, though. Their only real advantage over a foot unit was a bit more tactical mobility, because the partisans had the habit of vanishing before regular infantry units showed up. Their mobility STILL justifies using them instead of regular INF in the previous game to some extent, in order to chase down partisan spawns wherever they occur, but I see not real justification for a considerably higher suppression factor.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Ibn_Solmyr said:
I eventually quite agree that some rebel units would popup at some point : If, as Germany, I managed, to, say, conquer France AND Great Britain, and I estimate at a very low level the risk of enduring an ennemy invasion in west Europe, so I let it completly free of units (ok it's stupid, but.. ;)), wouldn't some nationalist or simply patriotic people organise the liberation of the country ?
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's simulated to do just that. With 100% resistance I would guess that you get 0 manpower, 0 resources, 0 factories etc. And if you tried to move troops through the area your supply would stink and most likely couldn't field nearly enough divisions to stop an eventual invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back