Wishlist of fixes to internal mechanics

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another battleplan change I'd love to see, probably as like a toggle on the general button menu (like next to the aggressiveness level) is something that will make this general's units support any ongoing attacks but not launch any of their own. It's infuriating that when I kill enough enemy divisions that I don't care to micro anymore and set up a tank spearhead order, my infantry will not join combats or attack from other directions to expand combat width without ordering a full assault across the front (since I basically only ever use FM frontlines for infantry).
 
  • 3Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
The term fixes when it comes to games goes to mechanical problems

In general, when you are referring to "fixing mechanics" that indicates you're taking something that specifically makes the gameplay less playable

These changes might make them more fun (depending on personal perspective), but the underlying issues in each do not reduce playability

No, that's a bug report. There's an entire forum dedicated to those kinds of fixes; not this one.

And yes, bad AI and making something too easy (boring and unchallenging) or too hard (broken/OP) does make gameplay less playable. It may not be on the nose, but it's there.
 
Just some examples of why bad suggestions are bad:
  • Penalizing equipment capture makes an already questionable option worse. It also introduces significant micromanagement as you now have to untick equipment in divisions over trivial stuff. All of that for...how many meaningful gameplay choices being made? Oops, that duplicated template is out of "infantry equipment 1 from Iran", get rekt until you update it to "infantry equipment 1 from Netherlands". No thanks.

Given that these differences had real-world implications, making them more realistic makes it less easy for players to capture their way to victory. It's incredibly abstracted already, and so adding in some incentives to not mix equipment will furthermore encourage the AI to stop spamming divisions.


  • In practice, logarithmic vs exponential penalties in supply will change gameplay decisions...how exactly? You are already more penalized (by a lot) for being low supply with motorized/tanks, being out of supply is already bad/crippling if it's low for meaningful periods of time. The system mostly works, in a game with multiple systems which do not work, objectively.

and yet dismounted infantry can march 500 miles through trackless desert no problem, while motorized infantry get more debuffs. If dismounted infantry have fewer logistical penalties than motorized, then it makes division spam more viable, not less. Especially when you consider that cramming more bodies can allow a dismounted defender to outlast a smaller, more nimble motorized force from ORG alone.


  • Resistance is an abstraction, and functions in that capacity. If you have sufficiently good anti-resistance investment (through collab + garrison troop type + policy), you can trivialize damage. You can also take tradeoffs to get more production + more resistance. Crushing resistance a few times making it stop would damage the abstracted tradeoffs, with no proposed model for why players would still pick different options then.

Any viable attempts to grow collaboration allow resistance to grow and become a problem. And given how even a small amount of resistance can slaughter hundreds of garrison troops per month like clockwork (before we multiply by several regions), then this is a one-dimensional drain of manpower and equipment.


  • "Escort" air mission does not change the approach to air combat in any meaningful way. You already get this by putting superiority in the same air zone as your bombers.

And if you don't have total air superiority but want to drop a nuke? One-off attacks are not the same as a sustained bombing campaign. Limiting players to only one of the two methods cramps gameplay.


  • "Artillery is powerless" strikes me as a false assertion. Maybe you prefer its nerfs reversed, but there's no argumentation along those lines here.

Artillery gameplay-wise functions like 18th-century artillery, in a purely direct-fire role. The massive advantages in indirect fire, interdiction, etc. are not abstracted and so players can't choose quality over quantity. They just get a bigger boom from their direct-fire weapons.

It's a difference in kind, not degree.


  • What is the gameplay benefit to adding more tank support companies, rather than just putting them in a line battalion? You don't got into detail here, so it's not surprising people rejecting the OP don't go into detail either.

I mentioned it in the link to the full description, and have answered other replies. It's cost-effective for low-IC/low-fuel nations that can't mass huge numbers.


  • The game already abstracts degrading entrenchment and fort damage (sustained attacks force org rotating, and damage forts).

yes, and they're exactly the same. Masses of peasant militia with SMGs can breach the Maginot Line. Having them be damaged by different kinds of attacks (not degrees) then this will discourage human wave assaults against land forts, while still allowing infantry to overcome entrenchment.


  • 2.6 is literally in the game already.

No, they change other stats. Bullets don't hit as hard and breakthrough is gutted, but this does not change combat width.


  • Similarly, units in low supply already have junk stats.

and unless their opponents have better supply (which in Russia, North Africa, and the Pacific is rare), then the defender can't fight either and so the attacker isn't held up at the gates of Moscow or El Alamein. They just waltz right in.


In a thread about "fixing" things, one normally expects this to concentrate on aspects of the game that do not work at present, not suggestions that add more complexity (in many cases without changing actual tradeoffs/player decisions in practice) into a game that objectively can't handle its present level of complexity (given the vast quantity of confirmed issues).

You are literally proposing to penalize equipment capture in a game which gives false information about equipment capture ratio (per 71cloak's tests, 10% is more like 5-6%). If we're talking "fixing" something, the things in the game that lie or don't work would be the place to start. Amusingly, you only mention the UI in passing, despite that it is one of HOI 4's most glaring flaws...a setup that requires tons of extra unnecessary inputs, arbitrarily penalizes micromanagement while forcing micromanagement to play well, lies about what it will do, and has multiple trap options + bugged displays.

This isn't a forum for bug reports; they have one dedicated to fixing things that don't work. This is about fixing design flaws that are technically functional but require elaborate statistical math to balance. Making these fixes would reduce the amount of statistical math necessary, give players more options, and make the AI smarter. Oh, and less division spam.

If you want to talk about the UI, then go right ahead and discuss it. This is the place where I want to talk about such matters. If there's something you want to add, and I haven't thought of it, then start with that. Half of my ideas came from commentators who offered counter-proposals.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
No, that's a bug report. There's an entire forum dedicated to those kinds of fixes; not this one.

And yes, bad AI and making something too easy (boring and unchallenging) or too hard (broken/OP) does make gameplay less playable. It may not be on the nose, but it's there.
Yes, fixes when it comes to games is almost universally referring to bugs or hopelessly broken mechanics

And yes, bad AI is the one thing on your list that can legitimately be called a fix

Which is why this list can't really be called "fixes"

Two entries amidst Twenty Nine are not enough to claim that this list is mostly referring to fixes
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Yes, fixes when it comes to games is almost universally referring to bugs or hopelessly broken mechanics

And yes, bad AI is the one thing on your list that can legitimately be called a fix

Which is why this list can't really be called "fixes"

Two entries amidst Twenty Nine are not enough to claim that this list is mostly referring to fixes

Unrealistic mechanics that lead to cartoonish OP/UP combos makes for worse gameplay. Fixing mechanics that enable division spam and cheesing are no less "fixes."

Your definition is too narrow.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Encirclement, tactical withdrawal, withdrawal, pursuit, evade, guerilla tactics, mass charge, masterful blitz, and all bridge tactics adjust combat width

They change the combat width of the province, not the division. 30-width divisions don't become 60-width if the general is using "mass charge." The division stays 30-width, no matter what.
 
Your definition is too narrow.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to dredge up a previous argument

Just because you define something a certain way, doesn't mean that the rest of the world defines it that way. The point of language is to make yourself understood, and as your definition is not understood the way you intend, then it is your definition that is incorrect, not mine
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
They change the combat width of the province, not the division. 30-width divisions don't become 60-width if the general is using "mass charge." The division stays 30-width, no matter what.
There is no practical difference. The effect (greater or fewer units participating in the combat for a short period of time) is exactly the same
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@Michael Gladius I'm really curious why you keep mentioning "division spam". The number of divisions seems like a very low priority thing to change about the game compared to other things like actual literally non-functional mechanics or stuff like heavy fighters being basically useless and there being no incentive for players to build capital ships besides heavy cruisers, especially since in most cases if anything you'd want the AI to be recruiting even more divisions to stay competitive with the player after taking losses.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
@Michael Gladius I'm really curious why you keep mentioning "division spam". The number of divisions seems like a very low priority thing to change about the game compared to other things like actual literally non-functional mechanics or stuff like heavy fighters being basically useless and there being no incentive for players to build capital ships besides heavy cruisers, especially since in most cases if anything you'd want the AI to be recruiting even more divisions to stay competitive with the player after taking losses.
Unfortunately I can answer that one

The number of divisions is directly related to the game's performance. The more divisions on the field, the slower the game runs

That being said, none of the list directly addresses the issue, only provides work-arounds that might trick the AI to make fewer divisions
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Unfortunately I can answer that one

The number of divisions is directly related to the game's performance. The more divisions on the field, the slower the game runs

That being said, none of the list directly addresses the issue, only provides work-arounds that might trick the AI to make fewer divisions
Sure, but was any of this explicitly about performance? If you want the AI to make fewer divisions, just introduce a cap like kaiserreich or something. And take away the stupid tiny templates that cause Central American nations to spam micro-divisions.

A division cap is probably the only even semi-feasible answer anyway (plus then incentivizing the AI to improve the quality of their templates) because without it if only the AI makes fewer divisions then players will just walk over them even more. Unfortunately like most AIs already don't make as many port guards and such as would be ideal, so I'm not sure this would lead to good outcomes anyway...
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to dredge up a previous argument

Just because you define something a certain way, doesn't mean that the rest of the world defines it that way. The point of language is to make yourself understood, and as your definition is not understood the way you intend, then it is your definition that is incorrect, not mine

Yes, it is a previous argument. But just because it's been used before doesn't mean it's correct. In this case, it's repetitive and unimaginative.

You have yet to show where in the dictionary (urban or Webster's) it says that the narrow definition is correct. If you can't, you're just making things up and claiming "the rest of the world automatically knows" to cover up for the fact that you don't have a solid argument apart from "less bloat this, less complexity that"

Your argument is fundamentally predicated on the notion that one-dimensional gameplay is better that dual-purpose/toggle gameplay. Fun fact: it isn't. One-dimensional gameplay is incredibly boring and unchallenging, and doesn't count as an "improvement" or "fix" unless one likes monotony. Dual-purpose/toggle designs are more dynamic and lend themselves to better combos, instead of take-it-or-leave-it cookie-cutter gameplay.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
There is no practical difference. The effect (greater or fewer units participating in the combat for a short period of time) is exactly the same

Haha, no.

For example, a 20-width division would, with a 25% increase in its combat width, be able to fill a 25-width terrain type more easily. If it uses a 50% increase, then it now fills a 30-width seamlessly.

Or try a 12-width that can use a 25% stretch to fill a 15-width terrain type. This is before we consider compression, wherein a 12-width could squeeze into an 8-width if it was advantageous.

The point is, this mechanic would make division design more flexible without requiring divisions to be janky or ahistorical. It would also make them less predictable, as they could switch tactics and suddenly make space for extra units.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
@Michael Gladius I'm really curious why you keep mentioning "division spam".

Unfortunately I can answer that one

The number of divisions is directly related to the game's performance. The more divisions on the field, the slower the game runs

Exactly. Sounds like a fix, amirite?


@Michael Gladius The number of divisions seems like a very low priority thing to change about the game compared to other things like actual literally non-functional mechanics or stuff like heavy fighters being basically useless and there being no incentive for players to build capital ships besides heavy cruisers, especially since in most cases if anything you'd want the AI to be recruiting even more divisions to stay competitive with the player after taking losses.

Can you name any of these non-functional mechanics? You know, add something to the conversation?

The AI recruiting more divisions to stay competitive should be a desperate last measure, not standard operating procedure. There's a reason Germany didn't create the Volksturm until they had no other choice.

That being said, none of the list directly addresses the issue, only provides work-arounds that might trick the AI to make fewer divisions

The AI makes its decisions based on numbers. Right now, the numbers favor masses of spam dismounted infantry because motorized/mech can't chew them up. The dismounted infantry can also march farther because they consume less supplies per capita, making them much more viable than motor/mech.

Far from "work-arounds that might trick the AI," this is actually changing the calculations. If the AI calculates that spamming divisions won't work against a motorized enemy, they won't do it. If the AI can't march pazergrenadier-space-marines through 500 miles of desert with fewer issues than morotized, then it won't try. The AI doesn't have a suicide wish.


Sure, but was any of this explicitly about performance?

Why would a discussion about mechanics not involve improving performance? Isn't that the point of mechanics in the first place?


If you want the AI to make fewer divisions, just introduce a cap like kaiserreich or something. And take away the stupid tiny templates that cause Central American nations to spam micro-divisions.

A division cap is probably the only even semi-feasible answer anyway (plus then incentivizing the AI to improve the quality of their templates) because without it if only the AI makes fewer divisions then players will just walk over them even more. Unfortunately like most AIs already don't make as many port guards and such as would be ideal, so I'm not sure this would lead to good outcomes anyway...

Caps are arbitrary and bolted on top of bad mechanics. Making good mechanics is a better approach, especially when you try to argue that players will walk over the AI's fewer divisions.

If you want to see a straightforward way, try entry 5.2 on reserves. Amazing how a reserve system can cap the number of divisions on the field in a way that scales to a country's size/manpower/industry without arbitrary flat rates! And it can toggle, rather than being one-dimensional!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, it is a previous argument. But just because it's been used before doesn't mean it's correct. In this case, it's repetitive and unimaginative.

You have yet to show where in the dictionary (urban or Webster's) it says that the narrow definition is correct. If you can't, you're just making things up and claiming "the rest of the world automatically knows" to cover up for the fact that you don't have a solid argument apart from "less bloat this, less complexity that"

Your argument is fundamentally predicated on the notion that one-dimensional gameplay is better that dual-purpose/toggle gameplay. Fun fact: it isn't. One-dimensional gameplay is incredibly boring and unchallenging, and doesn't count as an "improvement" or "fix" unless one likes monotony. Dual-purpose/toggle designs are more dynamic and lend themselves to better combos, instead of take-it-or-leave-it cookie-cutter gameplay.
My argument is that people do not understand your words. And as definition is about getting people to understand what you're saying, and your definition is not doing so, then clearly your definition is wrong
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Haha, no.

For example, a 20-width division would, with a 25% increase in its combat width, be able to fill a 25-width terrain type more easily. If it uses a 50% increase, then it now fills a 30-width seamlessly.

Or try a 12-width that can use a 25% stretch to fill a 15-width terrain type. This is before we consider compression, wherein a 12-width could squeeze into an 8-width if it was advantageous.

The point is, this mechanic would make division design more flexible without requiring divisions to be janky or ahistorical. It would also make them less predictable, as they could switch tactics and suddenly make space for extra units.
1) It's a difference of scale, not scope. Changing the width of individual units affects more units than increasing the width of the battle, but the end goal of changing the number of units in battle is the same

2) You don't choose tactics, so planning around them isn't reliable (and therefore wise) in any way
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The AI recruiting more divisions to stay competitive should be a desperate last measure, not standard operating procedure. There's a reason Germany didn't create the Volksturm until they had no other choice.

The AI makes its decisions based on numbers. Right now, the numbers favor masses of spam dismounted infantry because motorized/mech can't chew them up. The dismounted infantry can also march farther because they consume less supplies per capita, making them much more viable than motor/mech.

Far from "work-arounds that might trick the AI," this is actually changing the calculations. If the AI calculates that spamming divisions won't work against a motorized enemy, they won't do it. If the AI can't march pazergrenadier-space-marines through 500 miles of desert with fewer issues than morotized, then it won't try. The AI doesn't have a suicide wish.

Caps are arbitrary and bolted on top of bad mechanics. Making good mechanics is a better approach, especially when you try to argue that players will walk over the AI's fewer divisions.

If you want to see a straightforward way, try entry 5.2 on reserves. Amazing how a reserve system can cap the number of divisions on the field in a way that scales to a country's size/manpower/industry without arbitrary flat rates! And it can toggle, rather than being one-dimensional!
This is not the problem you think it is

The AI doesn't make a bunch of troops because it's optimal. It does so because it's programmed to. Because the AI is an idiot

Division spam is the only strategy that works with the way the AI is programmed to prioritize actions. Because it's so stupid, having fewer but better troops would not help. It needs every unit because it's constant reshuffling, inability to plan, inability to handle pockets, inability to prioritize, etc. means it needs to have extra units to plug every problem. And it's not even good at that

Division spam is a problem for computers. But it's not one that can be solved without a complete rewrite of the underlying combat AI
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Haha, no.

For example, a 20-width division would, with a 25% increase in its combat width, be able to fill a 25-width terrain type more easily. If it uses a 50% increase, then it now fills a 30-width seamlessly.

Or try a 12-width that can use a 25% stretch to fill a 15-width terrain type. This is before we consider compression, wherein a 12-width could squeeze into an 8-width if it was advantageous.

The point is, this mechanic would make division design more flexible without requiring divisions to be janky or ahistorical. It would also make them less predictable, as they could switch tactics and suddenly make space for extra units.
This is inane. There must be some other special rule in your mind that you're not telling us about, because otherwise there is little to no practical difference to the sort of blanket modifications from tactics on either the size of the combat or the size of the templates. Whether you're increasing the size of the combat to allow more templates in, or you're reducing the size of each template to let more templates in... either way, more templates get in under that tactic. Or if you make the combat smaller/templates bigger, less templates get in.

If we get the encirclement +50% width on a 90w plains battle, we can bring another 45w for a total of 135. If encirclement was changed into -33~% template width and we had 45w templates, they would be reduced to 30 and we could still fit 3 of them into the 90w combat, for a total of 135 effective fighting width. It's functionally identical either way, with perhaps a few exceptions with how the added width from flanks isn't increased by tactics currently.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.