Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron IV announces new expansion Man the Guns

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 45581 Bug Reports 15243 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Fleet in being mechanic. Read it and realise we need it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

Example:
  • Placing Tirpitz in Norway (ship stays in port)
  • Influences close sea zones (naval superiority, but less % than out of Port)
  • Penalty to convoy efficiency of enemy convoys
  • AI is forced to patrol and protect threatened zones
  • Effect of fleet in being increases with number of ships and classes (1 Tirpitz is bigger threat than one DD)
How to counter?
  • New naval mission: Intercept (Fleet leaves port when enemy ship moves)
  • Send ships on patrol or search and destroy mission
  • More attacks by naval bombers at area of fleet in being
Misc:
  • Sending a fleet in being to puppet will lower their autonomy slightly by time ( it protects them)
  • New diplomatic action:Ask a country for port usage
 
Lustus said:
Fleet in being mechanic. Read it and realise we need it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

Example:
  • Placing Tirpitz in Norway (ship stays in port)
  • Influences close sea zones (naval superiority, but less % than out of Port)
  • Penalty to convoy efficiency of enemy convoys
  • AI is forced to patrol and protect threatened zones
  • Effect of fleet in being increases with number of ships and classes (1 Tirpitz is bigger threat than one DD)
How to counter?
  • New naval mission: Intercept (Fleet leaves port when enemy ship moves)
  • Send ships on patrol or search and destroy mission
  • More attacks by naval bombers at area of fleet in being
Misc:
  • Sending a fleet in being to puppet will lower their autonomy slightly by time ( it protects them)
  • New diplomatic action:Ask a country for port usage
Click to expand...

Agree that Navies should have a greater role/impact on diplomacy. Like your ideas to do with the dip side. The idea of a ship giving out direc naval superiority or disrupting convoys from in port doesn't really add up, and would represent a major buff to the Axis (one they dont need) with them sitting their navies in ports especially in med.

Navies as a diplomatic tool are were a very real concept, and that is what the 'fleet in being' is about. This DLC is the best opportunity for paradox to implement a major feature of maritime history ,that is really needed, to their games sincerely hoping they deliver in this DLC.
 
Ser Josheth said:
Agree that Navies should have a greater role/impact on diplomacy. Like your ideas to do with the dip side. The idea of a ship giving out direc naval superiority or disrupting convoys from in port doesn't really add up, and would represent a major buff to the Axis (one they dont need) with them sitting their navies in ports especially in med.

Navies as a diplomatic tool are were a very real concept, and that is what the 'fleet in being' is about. This DLC is the best opportunity for paradox to implement a major feature of maritime history ,that is really needed, to their games sincerely hoping they deliver in this DLC.
Click to expand...
Since a time developers some time says that diplomace/politics need a revamp.
 
BabTheOnlyOne said:
So if i get it rigth the USA get newer focus tree?:D(at least a part of it will be new)And will it be in the free part of the expansion?;)
Click to expand...
USA gets its focus tree reworked, and apparently the alternate-history portion (or paths) of it will be in the DLC and the historical part of it will be free for everyone, like Germany and Japan in Waking the Tiger.
 
Oh boy, USA gets its tree reworked. Oh boy, I can change the variants of my ships now.
How the hell can you convince me to spend money on this DLC when there are game breaking bugs in the current game and no hope of seeing them fixed for SIX MONTHS??
Naval air missions are broken (after a "total air rework" mind you), AI is atrociously dumb, and the peace system, oh dear God the peace system...

Yeah, no way I'm buying this until the game gets a total re-work. I urge you all to do the same. Speak with your wallets or continue to get less for more.
I have 1,239 hours in this game and I've bought every DLC on release. Never again Paradox. Never again.
 
anastiel said:
I would like to know if you have any dates for the new development journals.
about the new patches and the new dlc even being far from the release date I feel a little abandoned by the community
Click to expand...

We expect the first development diary later today actually based on podcats twitter.
https://twitter.com/podcat_paradox

Here is the teaser he posted:

Dgr1vOPW0AAu-dl.jpg
 
Given the PDX Con announcement by Grand Moff Podcat it got me thinking about his comments regarding greater player intervention in naval battles. Much needed, it also sounds a bit nightmarish if you are playing a major maritime power, where disparate naval engagements can happen at the same time, coupled with land battles and air battles in other places. QA player cannot be expected to give their full attention to them all, and will surely focus on the one or two key battles they have to deal with. I am not sure what happens to the rest. This is also going to be coupled to a more realistic C2 system, which also sounds pretty good (if they create more Admirals to allow that to work that is). So a thought popped into my head, although it may just have been a flea, that will really hack off some people, but I would float it (no pun intended) nevertheless.

What if the AI appointed your Admirals, based on whoever you chose as your Naval CoS? Players could intervene and change these people if they wanted to, but would not have to. The Naval CoS would appoint based on whatever favoured doctrinal approach they had: so a 'Decisive Battle' man would favour the appointment of 'Decisive Battle' people and set fleet postures (whatever they are changed to in MtG) that encourage the instances of decisive battles. A player may intervene to replace that officer with a 'Screens' guy, for example, as convoy protection is a more important role for that particular command.

Then, when it came to individual battles, the SNO in that particular engagement would be more inclined to act according to the RoE set by the naval CoS, or their own tactical inclination, without the players having to run around firefighting. It would/should involve a broader set of naval tactical postures but I am not sure that would be a bad thing generally.

This would work just as well for land warfare, of course, so a player with a large army to manage would, again, only have to really focus on commanders who would be in charge of their Spring Offensive or a particularly important line of defence and so on.

Now, i know this involves trusting the AI to do something sensible. And I know that HOI players are loathe to undertake such an action in most cases for very understandable reasons. But this is not a very complicated task for the poor darling, far less than the 'Battle Planner', and if players want a greater degree of C2, without increasing micromanagement to bewildering proportions, the AI has to be trusted at some stage. Even then, this does not stop player intervention, but rather allows players to choose when and where they wish to intervene rather than making it mandatory for command appointments.

K
 
Does anyone out there ave accurate information on when Man The Guns will release? Another question is what exactly will this mod be bringing to the table? I am curious as I've tried to find out more on the web but nothing clear is actually being laid out for consumers beyond what is stated at the start of this thread. It also seems that this expansion is U.S.A. heavy. Any word on if this expansion will provide improvements to other nations?
 
Mccartney2006 said:
Does anyone out there ave accurate information on when Man The Guns will release?
Click to expand...
No, not even the devs know when it'll be ready for release yet.

Mccartney2006 said:
Another question is what exactly will this mod be bringing to the table? I am curious as I've tried to find out more on the web but nothing clear is actually being laid out for consumers beyond what is stated at the start of this thread. It also seems that this expansion is U.S.A. heavy. Any word on if this expansion will provide improvements to other nations?
Click to expand...
Reworked and expanded focus trees for USA, UK and some other allied countries (we don't know which ones yet, but they should be related to either USA or UK) including alternate history paths (2nd American Civil War has been hinted at in the teaser), and reworked naval combat, navy mechanics and probably admirals as well. Lots of big changes, apparently.
 
Chiron said:
Less doom stack planes would be nice.

Thousands of fighters in some Arial combats in 1939 alone in some games.
Click to expand...

I don't think 'doomstacks' are the problem with air combat, more like there is no real way to counter such a thing without an even larger doomstack. Regional AA does nothing, division level AA does nothing. In fact there's no real reason to build AA units at all, especially not AA variant tanks. I say solve problems with available mechanics. Too many planes in air = ground based AA can start shaving some off the top just by being nearby. Maybe have AA variant tanks be especially good at this, since they have high mobility.
 
I would so like a 'fleet designer', just like the division designer so that I didn't have to micro ship placement...
 
rmdsc said:
Do we get preorder bonuses if we receive Man the Guns through the Expansion Pass?
Click to expand...

Actually a good question! Unfortunately I do not have the answer to that, I'll see with our team here (might take a while though as most of the office is out on holidays)! I'll keep you posted!
 
I suppose this junk will be free for the pass season. These guys, just amazing.
 
Hi there, guys,

Regarding England, i would like to suggest a few alterations to the tech/equipment tree, considering historical accuracy.

  • The Ground Attack/CAS Aircraft from 1936-1939 should be the Fairey Battle;
  • The Naval Strike Aircraft from 1936 to 1939 should be the Blackburn Skua;
  • The British only adapted proper medium tanks from 1941-1942 when the . Until then the Tank Tree should have both light and heavy (infantry) tanks: in 1936, Mark VI and the Matilda I. from 1938-1939, the new light tank was the Cruiser A9 and the new heavy tank the Matilda II; From 1940 onwards, the Crusader enters as the first standard (medium) tank.
  • The 1936 Heavy Fighter aircraft was originally intended to be the Whirlwind, but only 2 squadrons were equiped with it, because of engine trouble. The other Heavy Fighter prototype was the Boulton Paul Defiant but it also was a flop, it only had guns in a rear turret and the losses were heavy. The Blenheim IF was developed for the night fighter role, which could be a new class of aircraft for all nations from 1939 on, specifically to fight night heavy bombers.
Regarding naval ship classes for all nations, regardless of type (Carrier, Battlecruiser, Battleship, Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Destroyer, Submarine, etc...) the classes should be sorted by antiquity as most starting ships are all in the same age level, despite being built from 1900 to 1939 (i think in HOI 3 this already had been implemented):

  • Pre-World War I - for example, the german armoured ships Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien and the greek Averoff, and the italian San Giorgio;
  • World War I - for example, the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge Battleship classes in the UK or the German cruiser Emden, built post-war but according to 1914-1918 standards;
  • Between Wars - the Nelson and Rodney in the UK, the Deutchland heavy cruisers/pocket battleships in Germany.
Still in naval ship classes and specifically commerce raiding (and i know this is a recurrent suggestion), a new type of surface ship could be introduced, the armed merchant cruiser. Built at a lower cost then a light cruiser, essentialy a converted cargo ship/transport with 105mm/150mm guns, torpedo tubes and sometimes, floatplanes. Germany had them in both world wars and they were cost effective against merchant shipping sailing alone or in small groups. Germany, Japan, Italy and them in the offensive role, UK, France, USA used them in the defensive role. This could be a complement for developing a submarine fleet or as a complement for a main surface fleet, patrolling or raiding more remote sectors.


I hope some of these suggestions can be considered for this DLC.

Best regards,

João Machado
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back