Hoi4 Dev Diary - Thoughts & roadmap

[styroler]

Then give me a few limited options with clear advantages and disadvantages. Give me a low, medium, high width setting and hide the number from me. I don't need single digit finetuning. I need understandable strategy. I don't need to be guessing what my optimal width is and whether I need to add 1 more or 1 less to the number to hit the watershed where it jumps and becomes radically different.

Quick question. What is the optimal width. Perhaps that is too vague, and already that's part of my issue. But let's put that aside and be more specific, what is the optimal width for soviet troops. And one more caveat, I need trotsky to win the civil war, defeat germany and eventually conquer america (and the world) under the democratic control of the supreme congress of soviets.

If you can explain to me what my division width should be, preferably set it and forget it to win all of those tasks, great. Otherwise, give me an answer for civil war, german front, american front.

My issue is, I doubt you can give me a simple answer or anyone can. It's far too much "trial and error" introduced into the equation.

The calculations have already been made by numerous players. Ill post the basic guide I always go by these days, but they are pretty objective depending on the situation. You generally want to go as big as possible but without it becoming a drain on your equipment (esentially, dont make one of the larger divisions if you cant afford to actually build it). You always balance this against the minimum number of divisions you need to cover a front, so when playing as the Soviet Union you start with small divisions because you have alot of front, then upgrade to large divisions after you have built up the industry, but if you're playing as a large industy small front nation like the UK you want to immediately go into larger divisions because they are always better and you will be able to afford them much earlier. Also when going down the Mass Assault doctrine for the Soviet Union (or any nation that uses it), you will have to change your division temblates after the one which reduces infantry frontage because it increases the amount of infantry you can use for the same width (its meant to simulate the sort of mass assault human wave tactics the Soviet Union is always uses in comparision to small unit tactics which have been adopted by small western countries). This will increase the cost of your units, but you are compensated by the fact that you have more powerful units per combat width than the enemy (since it essentially means you can literally bring more infantry to each battle).

As for the optimal combat widths here it is (from mathematical calculations of the guy who created it (and just to be clear I did not make it so thanks to him)):

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/rjwo2u

Keep in mind that the Soviet Union is also almost entirely Desserts and Plains so if you dont want to rely on the guide then hover over a plain tile in your country and check the combat width of that tile and make sure that all your divisions are factors of that number. I prefer to just use the guide because I'm lazy and dont want to check and I know that calculation was done using the average amount of tiles from across the entire game so it is generally close enough in all scenarios.

 

[TrotBot]

The calculations have already been made by numerous players. Ill post the basic guide I always go by these days, but they are pretty objective depending on the situation. You generally want to go as big as possible but without it becoming a drain on your equipment (esentially, dont make one of the larger divisions if you cant afford to actually build it). You always balance this against the minimum number of divisions you need to cover a front, so when playing as the Soviet Union you start with small divisions because you have alot of front, then upgrade to large divisions after you have built up the industry, but if you're playing as a large industy small front nation like the UK you want to immediately go into larger divisions because they are always better and you will be able to afford them much earlier. Also when going down the Mass Assault doctrine for the Soviet Union (or any nation that uses it), you will have to change your division temblates after the one which reduces infantry frontage because it increases the amount of infantry you can use for the same width (its meant to simulate the sort of mass assault human wave tactics the Soviet Union is always uses in comparision to small unit tactics which have been adopted by small western countries). This will increase the cost of your units, but you are compensated by the fact that you have more powerful units per combat width than the enemy (since it essentially means you can literally bring more infantry to each battle).

As for the optimal combat widths here it is (from mathematical calculations of the guy who created it (and just to be clear I did not make it so thanks to him)):

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/rjwo2u

Keep in mind that the Soviet Union is also almost entirely Desserts and Plains so if you dont want to rely on the guide then hover over a plain tile in your country and check the combat width of that tile and make sure that all your divisions are factors of that number. I prefer to just use the guide because I'm lazy and dont want to check and I know that calculation was done using the average amount of tiles from across the entire game so it is generally close enough in all scenarios.

But you don't see how this would be better if the game simply gave options for say 10, 25, 50 (or some similar simplified scale), and locked all other options out? The fine control just makes for more confusion with no benefit.

Thank you though, you did solve my personal confusion and I will make use of this guide as soon as the parts for my new PC arrive.

 

[styroler]

But you don't see how this would be better if the game simply gave options for say 10, 25, 50 (or some similar simplified scale), and locked all other options out? The fine control just makes for more confusion with no benefit.

Thank you though, you did solve my personal confusion and I will make use of this guide as soon as the parts for my new PC arrive.

Absolutly not. What you are describing was literally the old system, and the problem with the old system is that it relied so much on "Metas" that nearly every division had been distilled to the "perfect division type" (if I remember correctly it was 7 infantry and 2 artillery and that was the only acceptable division type in the whole game). It was far too rigid of a system. The modern system is designed to support different play styles and it has absolutely suceeded at that goal. I would never want to return to the ideal division type days. The key to the modern system is it tradeoffs which are specific per country and this is a massive improvement.

 

[Balesir]

Quick question. What is the optimal width. Perhaps that is too vague, and already that's part of my issue. But let's put that aside and be more specific, what is the optimal width for soviet troops. And one more caveat, I need trotsky to win the civil war, defeat germany and eventually conquer america (and the world) under the democratic control of the supreme congress of soviets.

There isn't - or, at least, there shouldn't be - one. The obsession with division width is gamey nonsense. And, now that variable province frontage is a thing and there is a supply system that makes some sense, this really is far less critical in the game.

There are a multitude of factors that determine what unit you might best use in a specific circumstance. And you almost certainly won't have the "perfect tool" even if you can determine what it might be. Too big a unit may cause supply issues. Too little force will not prevail in battle. Remember the frontage boost from multiple angles of attack. The best game setup should force all players to eyeball it; having a clear "best width" is just gamey silliness.

But you don't see how this would be better if the game simply gave options for say 10, 25, 50 (or some similar simplified scale), and locked all other options out? The fine control just makes for more confusion with no benefit.

Thank you though, you did solve my personal confusion and I will make use of this guide as soon as the parts for my new PC arrive.

Nope. Stop thinking of the units as game opti-bits and think of what the situation looks like on the ground in the imagined war. What are the factors? Is there supply enough? Is the terrain rough and harsh or smooth and gentle? What is the weather like? Once you understand the situation you are dealing with, most of the answers will be obvious (at least close enough to be "good enough"). Or, at least, this is how (I think) it should work for both a good, absorbing game experience and a realistic game.

 

[styroler]

Too big a unit may cause supply issues.

I completely agree with your message, though I did want to point out that technically smaller units are worse for supply than bigger units (since smaller units use more equipment and have more companies per combat width). That is part of the wonder of the current system though, that players can have different ideas of different mechanics and those conflicting views dont actually end up impacting their games because of the end of marginalization.

 

[mineralko]

I honestly think that the best remedy for this is to let go of control freakery and accept that shit happens in war. Stuff goes wrong. It really isn't humanly possible to run any sort of military (or even non-military!) operation in the real world without stuff going belly-up. Just accept that and roll with it. Enjoy the sensation of dealing with life's tribulations. Sometimes units don't do as the commander, with his or her birds-eye view, would like them to. The bird's eye view may see the bigger picture, but it also doesn't see the detail on the ground that might be making all the difference.

I'm not talking about positioning. Please invade Greece and see your frontlines disappearing. Six years later, you still have to manually set frontline in Crimea or loose. Really tough bug to squash... Six years later we're still on WWI simulator - basically HOI3 logic copy-pasted with no serious effort invested in it's improvement. But hey, spies, trains... I'd really wish I could say "enjoy life's tribulations" to my customers and let them enjoy my bad design choices, but unfortunately I cannot, I have to fix them.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not talking about positioning. Please invade Greece and see your frontlines disappearing. Six years later, you still have to manually set frontline in Crimea or loose. Really tough bug to squash... Six years later we're still on WWI simulator - basically HOI3 logic copy-pasted with no serious effort invested in it's improvement. But hey, spies, trains... I'd really wish I could say "enjoy life's tribulations" to my customers and let them enjoy my bad design choices, but unfortunately I cannot, I have to fix them.

OK, I maybe didn't realise what you meant exactly - obviously bugs like orders disappearing should be fixed. But the micromanaging individual units (which seems to be a popular 'pastime' among some players) I think actively degrades the quality of the game in many cases.

On "WW1 simulator"; I disagree, although I don't think it's anywhere near perfect. The thing is that, for most of the war, 'lightening offensives' didn't really happen all that fast. Except when they did. Getting to the root of why they did, when they did, and including that in a game, is really hard. Playing in "god mode" where you can micromanage individual units based on the totality of your intel (which is limited only to what the game represents) is almost certainly not a good way to bring out such vagaries of war. The differences with WW1 were mostly in the lack of hardness(1) and differences in supply technology - both of which are covered.

(1) Hardness and armour, though present, are not handled well, IMO. Both armour and penetration should be averaged based on hardness/hard attack, respectively, not over total batallions - but heigh-ho.

 

[Balesir]

I completely agree with your message, though I did want to point out that technically smaller units are worse for supply than bigger units (since smaller units use more equipment and have more companies per combat width). That is part of the wonder of the current system though, that players can have different ideas of different mechanics and those conflicting views dont actually end up impacting their games because of the end of marginalization.

Yeah, what I really meant was situations where you need 3-4 units for the line, but supply is restricted. Using 3-4 big divisions is going to use more supply than using 3-4 small ones. That fact that bigger ones are better elsewhere is a positive feature - you need both to cover all cases.

 

[scroggin]

Ive got two wishes

1. Small stockpiles of raw materials so you dont have to be micromanaging your trade to avoid running out or buying unneeded raw materials. If I only had to open the trade window every couple months that would be good.

2. No penalty for operating your armies manually rather than using the AI battle planner

 

[goodcigar]

Why no more teasers?

 

[kaguravitro]

Ive got two wishes

1. Small stockpiles of raw materials so you dont have to be micromanaging your trade to avoid running out or buying unneeded raw materials. If I only had to open the trade window every couple months that would be good.

2. No penalty for operating your armies manually rather than using the AI battle planner

wrong game, play hoi2

 

[Pompan]

I'm really hoping for an increased communication from the developers/QA to the forums, regarding the current state of the game, planned fixes and planned improvements (roadmaps are great).

 

[Jetosbaldo]

• More National Focus trees

brazil?
pfp related

 

[constantine0025]

So, when will the dev diary be updated?

 

[Araanor]

Let me add my voice to the chorus that the lategame needs some fixing: all the crazy stacks in 1945 makes warfare an absolute tedium.

 

[Delareon]

i really hope they will take a look at the building mechanism, repairing to be more specific.
Currently you have to fight the Game just to get stuff repaired by constantly shifting the priorities in the queue.

Some sort of a seperate Repai Queue where you can dedicate Civs to it (like the queue for ship repairs) would be cool.

 

[Majin Glu]

My words to the devs: keep developing this game in the spirit of large scale (i.e. global) strategy, keep adding 3d models and flavor to the early game factions that have been neglected so far and also to the factions that become independent, continue to improve the AI, and allow each player to achieve their most epic ambitions at the cost of a well-honed strategy.

 

[awmobile367]

i really hope they will take a look at the building mechanism, repairing to be more specific.
Currently you have to fight the Game just to get stuff repaired by constantly shifting the priorities in the queue.

Some sort of a seperate Repai Queue where you can dedicate Civs to it (like the queue for ship repairs) would be cool.

I suspect this is probably a better thing to put into HOI5 but who knows. Alongside what you suggest a priority system to choose what's most important to repair first, rail and mil? Civ and infra? AA and rail?

 

[scotvince]

"continue to improve the AI" I agree !
A try to implement paratroopers for the AI !?

 

[Andreu]

Roadmap update?