• 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 2

Hi and welcome to another diary! I am home sick today, so this gives me something to do (besides suffering)! Today it’s time for another Bag of Tricks diary where we cover a couple of features that aren’t necessarily connected. Two of these do fit quite well with the expansions sub-theme of fleshing out democracies. Lets dig right in!

Expeditionary Force Requests
The Allies are made up of many nations and coordinating them can be difficult. To help with this Man the Guns adds the ability to request expeditionary forces from multiple nations directly when organizing your forces.
Screenshot_2.png


The AI will respond immediately and assign the troops to your plan if it approves. That means you can control how they get there, should you wish it.

Screenshot_3.png


It is also possible to request expeditionaries straight from an empty army. To do that click the new expeditionary army button at the bottom of the new army button:
Screenshot_1.png

Useful if you have no units in an area, but an ally i your faction does. Then you could draw a plan there and tell them what to do. AI will prefer picking troops close to the plan if they can.

The AI is pretty helpful, but will not give you more than it can spare and still ensure its home areas are safe. It will also be a bit watchful, so if you always send them ahead to die you might find that it doesn’t want to hand over as much troops anymore. Depending on what plan you draw up it will also try to send suitable units. So marines for invasions for example. This means that for the AI to know if and what it should send you must first draw up the plan before sending your request.

Note that I am talking about AI here. This action isn't available towards players. It's just a lot simpler to talk to each other and use existing expeditionary sending for that.

To be able to request expeditionaries, you must either be the faction leader (which with MTG can now change from whoever created the faction), or have subject nations as the action is also available for those. The action is available for all ideologies, but we think it fits the democratic theme the most considering the plethora of smaller nations banded together against the axis.


Supervised State
Supervised States are a new autonomy level in MTG. Designed to let democracies do puppeting in a way that suits them better, and ensures the targeted nations can't just turn around and go against them.

Screenshot_8.png


West Germany is here a supervised state set up by the British. A supervised state is not particularly oppressive, but does come with restrictions.
  • The nation is locked into masters faction.
  • They will ideologically drift towards master, and can not use other ideology ministers to affect things.
  • The master will be able to get some cheaper trade and more trade access.
A Supervised state is essentially on a timer, as they will also slowly regain autonomy, so you can not really keep them a subject forever. They also do not have any other steps and go directly to Free once they are autonomous enough. At this point restrictions drop and they are free to leave factions etc.


On-map decisions
This one is something I’ve been wanting as soon as I noticed that people wanted to be able to do state based or decisions with location. Often the interesting part of a decision is where, and huge lists of states isn't all that nice to scroll through. We actually had to restrict some stuff for Waking the Tiger because the list of states would have become unmanageable otherwise. To deal with that the 1.6 Ironclad update will also make decisions available on map as long as you have the decisions view open. Some are simply mirrored, so you can pick them in either the list or on the map, and some are only on the map. A good example of the second type is the Blackshirt Marches when turning UK towards fascism. A lot of different states with different costs make for overwhelming choice, but on the map it is quite easy to see both where and how costly they are.

map.png


Here is one of the prospecting decisions, already activated, if you control Nigeria:
map2.png


And @Bratyn 's favorite, activating the flooding defenses of Netherlands, directly on the map!

Screenshot_1.jpg


See you all next week and don’t miss out on the stream at 16:00 CET for more United Kingdom gameplay.

Rejected Titles:
- "Commonwealth, assemble!"
- HOI4, now with less giant decision lists of places you secretly don't know where they are but are too embarrassed to ask
- CLICK ALL THE THINGS
- What do you mean “A slightly less oppressed chess piece” isn’t clear art direction?
- FEATURE: Britain can now accurately represent the brilliant idea that was the Dieppe Raid
- Deliberately flooding your country is now 200% easier
- Click ~here~ to become fascist
- We are running out of chess pieces for autonomy level
- Winston Churchill has a BRILLIANT IDEA and only needs a few Colonials to do it..
- Clickbait
 
Last edited:
So is a supervised state is an option in peace deal next to puppet? Does it replace puppet for democracies? If so what happens to GB's colonies?
The U.K.'s colonies will have a 99% chance of staying the same so don't worry about that, but what has me a little concerned is the fact that countries like the U.K. which are Constitutional Monarchies won't be able to puppet people any more and be able to expand their colonial influence (as well as bleed the land of it's manpower before annexing the owner of said land).
 
this is pretty cool, though to make hoi4 better there should be some free content, some of this shouldn't be dlc only.
Whenever they release new DLC they bring a new update that has a bunch of free content to go with the new DLC so they do not restrict all content that they make to paid DLC.
 
Hello home Sick, I'm nostalgic for late 80s to early 2000s Canadian Music, thanks for the update. Please don't ask why.

Dieppe: British Victory!, wait Americans were involved, sorry Canada
 
Supervised states in particular are a nice addition for democracies, hopefully the AI will make use of it in peace conferences.
Yes these will be lovely new additions since in most of my playthroughs like one where I played as Nationalist China the United States annexed the Baltic and France annexed Galicia (in eastern Europe not Spain) as well as Romania (I went to war with both the Soviets and the Germans since was in the Allies and the Soviets did something to start WWIII just shortly after WWII) and this really doesn't make any sense/
 
Hello home Sick, I'm nostalgic for late 80s to early 2000s Canadian Music, thanks for the update. Please don't ask why.

Dieppe: British Victory!, wait Americans were involved, sorry Canada
What exactly does this have to do with the subject at hand?
 
Sorry, ADHD kicked in. At the beginning of the post being home sick was mentioned and in the alternate titles Dieppe was mentioned. When the news came out about Dieppe it was a British victory and as more was known it was Americans were finally involved and when the extent of the disaster was known the mission was declared Canada only. The reserve unit I was briefly part of served at Dieppe (RHLI) so that caught my limited attention.
 
Do we have an idea of how much from the upcoming patch 'Man the Guns' will be freely incorporated without the need to buy the new DLC?

I am more interested in the new Naval Mechanics and do not wish to spend money for new Focus Trees.
 
@JBftw
The Naval Mechanics will be in the patch, all coming features will be in the DLC.
My Guess:

Free:
Naval update, Ship designer, Amphibious tanks, American an British Focus Trees (Maybe without some alt History like Germany's tree), Fuel, new Tags, Custom game rules
DLC:
Sea Mines, Mexico and Holland Focus Tree, supervised States, Admiral Traits, exiled governments, Expeditionary Force Requests
 
I just think it's kind of insensitive to the fanbase of Darkest Hour for PI to even call HOI4 or 3 an extension of HOI2. The 3 are totally unique games! To call them all 'HOI' and then to flippantly say 'Darkest Hour' is 'obsolete' is just unnecessarily cruel IMO. I'm like wtf? Was that necessary? I just spent another night desperately trying to get into HOI4. I'm finished. IMO the 'JPs' at paradox are just going call Darkest Hour players 'turd nuggets' now, make some funny stupid noises, and try to hide behind their capes.

Please sell DH to another company! Do not hold it hostage!

There's nothing wrong with liking Darkest Hour - as I said before, I've played it a lot myself - but this post just makes you look nuts, especially the bit where you call yourself names.
 
Alright. The opinion of the group has been acknowledged. Few here agree with my criticism of the playability of HOI4. My re-education indoctrination into HOI4 will continue I suppose. Sorry if you didn't agree with the grandma's boy reference. I'm sorry if I angered any other members because I'll likely be dead and gone by the time they come up with an AI that can match the enjoyment of playing a human in either game.

I only have maybe 10 hours invested so far. That's a mere pittance for you guys. How effective that time has been I don't know; watching various youtube videos; perusing for ones I actually enjoy while adobe loads another page of the manual. Perhaps it's that HOI4 is just such a departure from the way most strategy games are played. Most guys explaining it cannot maintain continuity on a specific topic without being distracted by the game mechanics. I'm sure the dev will say that's by design.

I'm just not on board yet, and about this I cannot lie. This game, as beautiful as it kinda looks, is boring the sheep dip out of me. It's taking forever to get a game started. Perhaps the most relevant point I can make, is that it appears the essence of the game; military strategy, has been delegated to an AI that is now more complex. It's become more like my AI vs your AI. All this so we can spend more time for the REAL things; like deciding if the boys should wear Hanes or Fruit of the Loom.

I had so much hope for this game as some sort of successor to World in Flames the boardgame. As beautiful as the interface is, it 's a little tough on my eyes. Is there even a terrain map anymore? Nothing is in proportion. it's like a Salvador Dali rendition of a globe. I'm 59 years old, so if you want to write me off as an old man playing a younger man's game go ahead.
 
Last edited:
All excellent ideas mate. I love the idea with the system of assigning a person that is somewhat prominent in a division or say maybe he is a Colonel or something and his actions in combat and leadership skills as well as the way in which he treats his men that in turn makes his men more efficient (or the shorter version being he gets promoted). I am just worried about the cost for getting those great Generals for a country like the United Kingdom specifically as the cost for getting a new General for them with no cost reduction is 525 pp and that is a lot of pp for you to spend for Achievement mode Normal and up (I didn't think of doing the math on the cost for the U.K. in the previous comment but I did this time and I was quite shocked at the cost to get more Generals and the U.K. along with a lot of nations will need more Admirals with this new update).

Viewing it like that, I think I can see & appreciate why you take issue with that system.

---

Logically speaking, when a country is not engaged in some form of conflict or another, it will naturally make it quite difficult to hand out appointments/promotions based on individual merit in the field (because of course, their aren't many opportunities with which to do so) as well as due to the usually stagnant/dormant size of a countries armed forces (i.e. lack of need to expand/create military formations). Hence when it comes to gaining promotion in such scenarios, a general seeking promotion or vice-versa a leader seeker to promote a general have to expend political capital in order to increase and/or ensure the chances of their chosen "pawn" getting promoted.

When it comes to wartime however, the opposite tends to occur. Unlike peace-time conditions, individuals/officers have a greater-space with which to prove themselves as not only are conditions ripe for promotion (more opportunities to either get killed or get promoted). Naturally when in the midst of war, countries focus more & more of their political & economic resources towards the "war effort" and in particular - expanding their military apparatus - which would mean the procurement of new equipment, recruitment of manpower and organising them into a new military formation - a formation which ultimately needs to be commanded by someone.

With that scenario in mind, I see why under such conditions - using solely political power to "obtain" new commanders throughout seems asinine in hindsight. In game-terms, the sole use of political power to recruiting commanders should only be necessary during the prelude/build-up to war - especially when it comes expanding ones military forces. When the conflict arises however, that is when the transition towards using experience (army, navy, air - you name it) should be utilised instead with regard to promotions as a way of mirroring the conditions of "wartime meritocracy". This may further accentuate the attraction for players to make use of conflicts in between - sending volunteers off to fight in Spain and/or China (assuming they're able to).

Ideally, an option to choose how much political power/experience when recruiting new commanders would be worthwhile. Something like this for example.
  1. 50 political power.
  2. 25/25 experience & political power.
  3. 50 experience.
Even better however would be some sort of slider with which to customize how much one would want to spend in obtaining new heads:

Spend 14 political power = another 36 experience / Spend 29 experience = another 21 political power.​
 
Viewing it like that, I think I can see & appreciate why you take issue with that system.

---

Logically speaking, when a country is not engaged in some form of conflict or another, it will naturally make it quite difficult to hand out appointments/promotions based on individual merit in the field (because of course, their aren't many opportunities with which to do so) as well as due to the usually stagnant/dormant size of a countries armed forces (i.e. lack of need to expand/create military formations). Hence when it comes to gaining promotion in such scenarios, a general seeking promotion or vice-versa a leader seeker to promote a general have to expend political capital in order to increase and/or ensure the chances of their chosen "pawn" getting promoted.

When it comes to wartime however, the opposite tends to occur. Unlike peace-time conditions, individuals/officers have a greater-space with which to prove themselves as not only are conditions ripe for promotion (more opportunities to either get killed or get promoted). Naturally when in the midst of war, countries focus more & more of their political & economic resources towards the "war effort" and in particular - expanding their military apparatus - which would mean the procurement of new equipment, recruitment of manpower and organising them into a new military formation - a formation which ultimately needs to be commanded by someone.

With that scenario in mind, I see why under such conditions - using solely political power to "obtain" new commanders throughout seems asinine in hindsight. In game-terms, the sole use of political power to recruiting commanders should only be necessary during the prelude/build-up to war - especially when it comes expanding ones military forces. When the conflict arises however, that is when the transition towards using experience (army, navy, air - you name it) should be utilised instead with regard to promotions as a way of mirroring the conditions of "wartime meritocracy". This may further accentuate the attraction for players to make use of conflicts in between - sending volunteers off to fight in Spain and/or China (assuming they're able to).

Ideally, an option to choose how much political power/experience when recruiting new commanders would be worthwhile. Something like this for example.
  1. 50 political power.
  2. 25/25 experience & political power.
  3. 50 experience.
Even better however would be some sort of slider with which to customize how much one would want to spend in obtaining new heads:

Spend 14 political power = another 36 experience / Spend 29 experience = another 21 political power.​
This is good stuff! Paradox should really check this out. @podcat
 
Not sure about the on-map decisions, seem a bit strange. Would need to experience them in practice.
Yeah, I'm not sure about this. I already find it difficult to select air bases at times - now it just looks a cluttered mess. :(
 
Not sure about the on-map decisions, seem a bit strange. Would need to experience them in practice.
I assumed they were only shown when the decisions window was open. Am I wrong?