Does HOI4 still have corps,army,army group ?

[BarrosRodrigues]

"It's true" and "it's my belief" are two very different statements.

I said that "IMO it is true" which is the same as saying that "it’s my belief", in short this is my opinion with the information that is available to everyone which, again IMO, it is plenty.

What I've seen of dev statements (back in alpha, admittedly) is that AI knowledge of your battle plans is tied to intelligence. They may know what you're planning to do, but it's far from a given.

I don´t want to be disrespectful but one thing is what is said the other thing is what I see when playing like the AI seeing trough fow in EU IV and sometimes reacting to my distant moves (...) I even recorded several sequences that prove beyond any doubt that the AI knows where I will move my army even if I am several provinces away. Wiz says it is a bug but it still happens in 1.9.2. The AI navies react to my fleet movements when I am 2 provinces away and sometimes more (...). Regardless of my belief why do you think the player is being forced to use automation or else face steep penalties? It does not add up unless there is a purpose like for example helping the AI perform better (IIRC Podcat even admitted some changes help the AI).

Same here. Things can be "written somewhere" on the Internet and still be completely false.

So you're saying that what I said is completely false is that it? I can link you to videos showing the AI always invading the ungarrison (but surronded) port and I exploiting it because I was fighting much superior foes (in numbers).

 

[albso437]

Wiz says it is a bug but it still happens in 1.9.2. The AI navies react to my fleet movements when I am 2 provinces away and sometimes more (...).

What Wiz actually wrote was that the AI reacting on your navy 2 sea zones away is WAD. If the AI reacts to your navy while it's 10 sea zones away, then it is a bug.

The first is a design choice.
The second a bug.
In neither way it tells us anything about how/if/when the AI in HOI4 will respond to Battle-plans.

 

[wingo]

Of course I am assuming there is some advantage to using a Battle-plan but there cannot be a huge advantage, at the most there may be no attack delay because why would one Panzer Division within a battle-plan be superior to another Panzer Division that is being controlled manually.

Why should a Panzer division, that has been sent near the front lines without any orders or information why are they there (and nobody except Hitler himself knows why are they there) be even remotely as effective in an attack after receiveing the order 1 hour before they are supposed to attack than a Panzer division that has been sent as a part of a well thought out and organized attack plan and had time to train specifically for their role, has maps, intelligence etc.?

 

[Modestus]

Why should a Panzer division, that has been sent near the front lines without any orders or information why are they there (and nobody except Hitler himself knows why are they there) be even remotely as effective in an attack after receiveing the order 1 hour before they are supposed to attack than a Panzer division that has been sent as a part of a well thought out and organized attack plan and had time to train specifically for their role, has maps, intelligence etc.?

The Panzer division with the maps will be more effective but.....

There is I presume 2 ways to move your units either manually or within a battle-plan and while you can give units within a battle-plan some type of advantage you cannot give them an overwhelming advantage.

The simply truth is that a Panzer division inside or outside of a battle-plan is still basically the same Panzer division and any advantage it gets from being within a battle-plan must be related to the type of advantage that a plan can offer.

So obviously they don’t get more powerful guns or armour but its conceivable they could have more supplies and will not suffer from an attack- delay penalty however there seems to be a cost and that appears to be a lack of flexibility, once you deviate from the plan you lose the advantage of being part of that plan.

Not only does that seems to be at odds with what a good General is or what well trained troops are meant to do ( adapt quickly to a changing tactical situation) the penalty can only be the removal of the advantage.

Your Divisions do not suddenly become useless so the question then is what real overall advantage can be gained from using a battle-plan , can that advantage be so great that you will want to use a battle-plan? Personally I don’t think the advantage can be greater then the ability to adapt and be flexible.

Of course the fact I don’t have a clue how battle-plans work is slightly problematic for my argument.

 

[Kikaider]

So obviously they don’t get more powerful guns or armour but its conceivable they could have more supplies and will not suffer from an attack- delay penalty however there seems to be a cost and that appears to be a lack of flexibility, once you deviate from the plan you lose the advantage of being part of that plan.

No, the Panzer Division's Gun/Armor/Speed ratings would all be fixed, but there are more bonuses to planning that can be conceived of that would instinctively lead to better battle performance besides a supply and no-attack-delay bonus. There could, for example, be bonuses related to:

1. An attack bonus for "preparing to take an objective", such as for for amphibious invasions and as a "pre-assualt" recon bonus for N weeks as you have studied the enemy's defensive/offensive capabilities over the previous winter lull. Especially amphibious invasions (both European and Pacific) needed a lot of set up time, and bonuses like that would simulate the sudden German invasions of Poland and USSR that caught those nations flat-footed
2. A coordination bonus for acting with other units on offense and defense (unit cooperation bonus and lower unit stacking penalty/lower unit frontage usage to use HOI3 terms)
3. Bonus Org
4. Bonus to logistics (setting up/extending lines, however it will work) because you know what and where you'll need the logistic tails to go, making it easier to maintain an offensive farther before you over-extend
5. Bonus reliability to tanks/vehicles (or less attrition malus): you know what's going where for the most part, you can optimize routes the units will take to minimize the impact terrain will have on your less than stellar drive-trains

And that's not an exhaustive list by any means, but definitely shows that battle plans can have a lot of tempting bonuses that couldn't/shouldn't always be ignored.

TBH/IMO: It maybe that one of the better options for the player would be to have a large chunk of your troops applied to a battle plan for whatever efficiency bonuses it provides, and then hold back a set of assets (e.g. a corps of 5 Mar divs, a corps of Panzer divs, and a couple corps of Mot and Leg infantry) to support parts of the line that are struggling, close encirclements, to force positions/river crossings when necessary, and perform "daring flanking maneuvers" (e..g, dropping 5 Soviet Marines behind the Romania/Bulgaria lines on the Black Sea coast and funneling some Inf/Mtn/Mot/Arm in after them to cause havoc was always hilarious). It's how I modeled/role-played corps-level assets, special forces and "Kampfgruppes" in HOI3: giving me flexibility while letting the AI handle the minutia of dealing with the "red/grey/blue" tide.

 

[Modestus]

No, the Panzer Division's Gun/Armor/Speed ratings would all be fixed, but there are more bonuses to planning that can be conceived of that would instinctively lead to better battle performance besides a supply and no-attack-delay bonus. There could, for example, be bonuses related to:

1. An attack bonus for "preparing to take an objective", such as for for amphibious invasions and as a "pre-assualt" recon bonus for N weeks as you have studied the enemy's defensive/offensive capabilities over the previous winter lull. Especially amphibious invasions (both European and Pacific) needed a lot of set up time, and bonuses like that would simulate the sudden German invasions of Poland and USSR that caught those nations flat-footed
2. A coordination bonus for acting with other units on offense and defense (unit cooperation bonus and lower unit stacking penalty/lower unit frontage usage to use HOI3 terms)
3. Bonus Org
4. Bonus to logistics (setting up/extending lines, however it will work) because you know what and where you'll need the logistic tails to go, making it easier to maintain an offensive farther before you over-extend
5. Bonus reliability to tanks/vehicles (or less attrition malus): you know what's going where for the most part, you can optimize routes the units will take to minimize the impact terrain will have on your less than stellar drive-trains

And that's not an exhaustive list by any means, but definitely shows that battle plans can have a lot of tempting bonuses that couldn't/shouldn't always be ignored.

TBH/IMO: It maybe that one of the better options for the player would be to have a large chunk of your troops applied to a battle plan for whatever efficiency bonuses it provides, and then hold back a set of assets (e.g. a corps of 5 Mar divs, a corps of Panzer divs, and a couple corps of Mot and Leg infantry) to support parts of the line that are struggling, close encirclements, to force positions/river crossings when necessary, and perform "daring flanking maneuvers" (e..g, dropping 5 Soviet Marines behind the Romania/Bulgaria lines on the Black Sea coast and funneling some Inf/Mtn/Mot/Arm in after them to cause havoc was always hilarious). It's how I modeled/role-played corps-level assets, special forces and "Kampfgruppes" in HOI3: giving me flexibility while letting the AI handle the minutia of dealing with the "red/grey/blue" tide.

Hmm good points what your saying is certainly true but I have some doubts about how you can turn reality into game play.

For example I could understand that if the player decided to send an army (manually) across the Channel to invade France without any plan the game could impose some harsh penalties and the invasion would result in failure however I would be less sure that because Guderian turns his Panzers towards Moscow rather then to surround Kiev that the same harsh penalties could apply.

Flexibility and the willingness to deviate from a plan could in fact be the very attribute that allows you to win a battle.

 

[Chaffers]

"Flexibility and the willingness to deviate from a plan could in fact be the very attribute that allows you to win a battle. "

That flexibility however is constrained by the logistics. You could drive deep into enemy territory with your panzers but once the run out of fuel and ammo they are sitting ducks.

With the battle planner, which I thoroughly approve of, the opportunity exists to give bonusses for the level the plan is made at.

 

[Modestus]

"Flexibility and the willingness to deviate from a plan could in fact be the very attribute that allows you to win a battle. "

That flexibility however is constrained by the logistics. You could drive deep into enemy territory with your panzers but once the run out of fuel and ammo they are sitting ducks.

With the battle planner, which I thoroughly approve of, the opportunity exists to give bonusses for the level the plan is made at.

Indeed but turning left or right should not be a problem, deciding on the spur of the moment to launch an amphibious assault would be.

 

[Shynka]

I thought HOI4 will have a simplified HOI3 OOB, with structures except no HQ's. If it doesn't even have a HOI2 corps structure then the game can go bugger itself. Selecting 50 divisions and drawing 3 arrows for them will be fun for around 20 minutes of gameplay. But hey, I'm sure it will make more money so who gives a shit about people that have been fans since HOI2.

 

[Kikaider]

Indeed but turning left or right should not be a problem, deciding on the spur of the moment to launch an amphibious assault would be.

But Moscow has different terrain/infrastructure/rail-line considerations and would require a different logistical tail than what had been set up for months on the drive to Kiev/Ukraine. So while it's easier to redirect panzers than launch an amphibious invasion, FEEDING those panzers is not magically equally easy depending on whether they turn north or south on a whim, and it should be the case that armies that deviate from battle plan (or fight ad-hoc constantly) will more easily over-extend/out-run their logistical tail (which is why I made that battle-plan bonus #4)

I really hope the next DD is on Supply (even better if its on supply AND how you make a "unit" once equipment has been produced, because in many ways that's a derivative of the supply issue: "supplying equipment to units" both new and in the field)

 

[Chaffers]

Deciding to turn left or right on a whim would likely be as big a problem. Those resupply trucks need to know where you will be, they won't roam the battlefield looking for some stray tanks. Comms on the move are tricky nowadays, even assuming supply trucks would have radios ( which is a big if in the 40s) no Corps HQ to communicate with would mean quite a problem.... Even assuming a decent sized convoy did have radios you have the problem of RDF. A quick triangulation onto a likely supply road would bring a swift response in 105mm unfriendliness.

 

[Axe99]

Deciding to turn left or right on a whim would likely be as big a problem. Those resupply trucks need to know where you will be, they won't roam the battlefield looking for some stray tanks. Comms on the move are tricky nowadays, even assuming supply trucks would have radios ( which is a big if in the 40s) no Corps HQ to communicate with would mean quite a problem.... Even assuming a decent sized convoy did have radios you have the problem of RDF. A quick triangulation onto a likely supply road would bring a swift response in 105mm unfriendliness.

This and more - there's also the issue of coordination with other units, having to order the formation appropriately for journey (divisions have hundreds of vehicles and thousands of men, they don't just 'turn on a dime', orders need to put together, sent down the line and acted on, all of which takes time). When a general tells a corps to move, he contacts Corps HQ, who then gets the order, reads and understands it, including interpreting it for his circumstances (if a Corps HQ doesn't look at the order and then think a little about what it means in practical terms, things can get ugly pretty quickly), then passes it down to divisional HQ, that does the same, down to Regimental HQ, that does the same, down to Battalion HQ, down to Company, down to Platoon, down to section/fireteam. All of this takes time, and wasn't well modelled at all in previous HoIs. Large units take time to get moving. However, if through a battleplan they know they'll be moving in advance, they can be ready to move at the appointed time, hence the capacity to launch coordinated strikes like Barbarossa.

The coordination also helps a heap with coordination between as well as within units. If Division A and Division B are coordinating on a battle, they need to communicate to make sure their units don't clash with each other (anything from a traffic jam to firing on each other because of bad coordination - which does happen).

That's not to say that plans can't (or shouldn't) be deviate from - it's very important that they can be - but that the benefits of planning are effectively removed from those units deviating from the plan. Examples include supplies running down rapidly, so that if they deviate too far from the plan they'll need to stop and let the supply train catch up - Rommel in France, for example. Another example would be poorer coordination when attacking an enemy - a 'planned' attack has thought-out orders given to every unit taking account of terrain, the unit's capabilities and the estimated capabilities of the enemy. An attack 'on the run' is far more ad-hoc, and prone to failure. It's no problem against a routed enemy that's in disarray, but an 'ad-hoc' attack against a 'planned' defense should put the attackers at a significant disadvantage.

 

[Praetori]

The goal is to make the player inteligence the less valuable as possible and to tip the AI of your movments (...) Also doing a battle plan introduces latency so latter the picture might be different therefore not an optimal plan/move anymore and you can't rearrange divisions on the fly for an oportunistic job anymore; these are all nerfs to the player and clutches for the AI to appear to be better when in fact it still has the intelligence of a ~rock. I am sure there are more implications and variables but you get the idea.

Truth to be told the reality of war is that no one ever had the possibility of having both a strategic, operational and tactical insight at the same time. Higher echelon commanders trying to pry loose individual divisions and sending them off to fulfill som seemingly operationally obvious task rarely corresponded to the physical reality of what was going on neither at the intended target or at the divisional level. Chaos ensued most of the time and most military historians often come to the conclusion that the detours were folly to begin with compared to the alternative of sticking to the original targets.

Guderian, Rommel, Rybalko, Patton and others had a nack in grasping their part of the operational scope and using it to their advantage but it's not as if Guderians divisions were not "planned" to go to the channel-coast or Rybalkos tanks to scythe up to Potsdam, it was just the manner and timeframe in which they did that wasn't on the table of the high-command.
The battleplans as highlighted by PD so far have shown that while the overall objectives and main axis of attack and defense are pretty unspecific there are both the option of doing very detailed plans for basically every division and province in several steps as well as the opportunity of letting the commanding general move about the units as he (it) deems suitable to reach the intended objectives.

If this gives us the option to both acquire or lose leaked or spied battleplans, prepare defenses and attacks and at the same time have an AI that is capable of putting up a meaningful fight then I'm clearly intrigued.
I would however STILL wish to see some form of OOB tied into the system if not for anything more than the immersionbreaker that stacks of random units ala RTS zerging through the oppositions would yield.

 

[Modestus]

I think people are imagining a more complicated situation then perhaps the game will be able to provide I understand your points but have some doubts if it is even possible to have this detail.

You can see from the video demonstration that you can create attack vectors with a very broad brush stroke and Divisions within that plan have a lot of leeway over a wide geographical area to make their own way to an objective.
They have almost complete freedom to move in any direction they want and as long as the player does not interfere there appears to be no issue with supplies or communication.

It is slightly ridiculous that a player could then click on one of those divisions and alter its direction and be penalised when in fact within the plan the division has only the broadest of instructions to reach an objective. In fact you could argue that there is no plan for individual divisions just a vague instruction to go here

Which then raises the issue of what happens if you create a more detailed plan, is there less freedom for divisions to deviate from that plan ? Is it wiser to assign 40 Divisions to a single attack vector with a single objective or is it wiser to have a number of attack vectors and a number of objectives? Or perhaps the wisest choice is still to have no plan.

 

[Death6]

I would be disappointed by a lack of OOB. What I would ideally have is a more simplified version of the HOI 3 OOB. A compromise on both ends. Not too complicated but not too streamlined. A balanced approach would be the best call.

That would still allow players to design and enjoy their own OOB's but also would let the players who are not interested in the process give the OOB structure to the AI.

 

[phantomrider]

I am a little confused by the "battleplan" approach (maybe Paradox is too vague or I am slow on the uptake). Most of the battle plan stuff I see is big arrows on maps pointing into "enemy" territory -- i.e. an offensivive. What I don't see or know about is what the nation/force on the strategic defensive has in their battleplan and how that works. For example, strong frontal defense across all areas, hold in certain spots and force/allow breakthroughs in others to set up mobile reinforcement counterattacks into the flanks of the breakthrough on either local, tactical or operational scale.

I also agree even with battle plans you need some sort of order of battle other than mouse circle pointing on every division in east Prussia occupied north Poland and assigning all to an arrow pointing at Leningrad (you might want to keep a reserve force in East Prussia northern occupied Poland for example that could reinforce either an attack on Leningrad or Moscow or to use as a "northern pincer" for a Kiev pocket in a Barbarrossa attack.

 

[safe-keeper]

We know litterally nothing about the battle planner, so probably best to withhold judgment until we do. All we have is footage from the pre-alpha stage, and it's grown since then.

 

[potski]

I would be disappointed by a lack of OOB. What I would ideally have is a more simplified version of the HOI 3 OOB. A compromise on both ends. Not too complicated but not too streamlined. A balanced approach would be the best call.

That would still allow players to design and enjoy their own OOB's but also would let the players who are not interested in the process give the OOB structure to the AI.

But what would be the compromise?

Take out Corps, there's alot of them and it would remove much of the micro of managing all of the HQs. But Corps can have 5 Divs and you can have 5 Corps in an Army. So you go from one Div operating on it's own, to a formation with up to 25 Divs in a battle plan. Too wide a gap?

Paradox cover this with commanders who have different levels, with a max. number of Divs, so you can have an intermediary force, something more of the level of a Corps (even if it doesn't directly have that name), commanded presumably by a Lt. Gen. The compromise is that there is no HQ on the map, no radio range and no tedious arrangements to form a group of Divs into a Corps. Produce 4 Divs and send them all to a province/state, select them all and assign a Lt Gen. There a Corps, simples. Then from that stage you can give orders to the commander and the 4 Divs will move.

So the compromise is to remove higher levels? What about Army Group? It wouldn't save many HQs, but what about immersion if you want Army Group North to attack Leningrad in Barbarossa?

It was mentioned that the game would be very crude if you just grab a big bunch of Divs, put them under an FM and send them in the direction of Leningrad. But a formation can have one commander but multiple axis of advance. This was shown in the video of the invasion of Poland. So you can have an Army Group North type formation with a plan for some Divs (Army/Corps size but no separate commander/HQ) to push up along the coast to capture the Baltic States. Or you can separate those Divs into their formation with a Lt.Gen or Gen commanding.

You decide. And if there is a commander who has a high enough command level, or no limit, then if you want you could put all of the Barbarossa forces under one commander and three axis of attack.

Or you can go smaller scale and have several Army size formations mainly comprising Infantry. And a couple of smaller Corps formations with armour and motorised units, so you have more control over the spearhead units.

The compromises are ones that you make, you are not forced to have Corps size formations, or to have Groups. You can mix and match to suit your strategy. And above all the tedious micro of dozens of on map HQs and assignment of commanders who don't contribute anything to the game play is gone.

I'm not clear why anyone thinks that if I send a JAP Infantry Army with 10 Divs into North China, that I must have 2 or 3 Corps commanders/HQs well as the Army. Or why Rommel can't command the DAK on his own, without any lower levels. Nor why we must assign an Army Group and Theatre commander above Rommel, and have their rear echelon HQs on the map.

 

[Joppos]

I'm not clear why anyone thinks that if I send a JAP Infantry Army with 10 Divs into North China, that I must have 2 or 3 Corps commanders/HQs well as the Army. Or why Rommel can't command the DAK on his own, without any lower levels. Nor why we must assign an Army Group and Theatre commander above Rommel, and have their rear echelon HQs on the map.

It boils down to a couple of things. Basically if you assign that 10 div JAP inf army to a vector which is later modified to split into three, you will have to manually sort out each of the divisions intended for each split. Imagine doing this for battle plans involving tens of branching vectors, and say even just weekly plan modifications. Even if all divisions are identical and no consideration to group composition need to be made, it would still be easier to select just one pre-defined army sub-component and re-assign it rather than three or four, each time for each new stage assigning and reassigning for the duration of the operation. Scaling up to battle plans involving hundreds of divisions there need to be a way for the player to get a good overview and fast easy access to tailored multi-division groups. Like knowing that army group north contains three armies which each contain an armored group with a good mix of various armored, motorized divisions ready to be selected and re-assigned quickly and easily. This overview will also be rather important in planning more intricate operations, as having a bunch of assorted divisions in a few independent groups is rather inferior to having the attacking elements already defined and grouped up.

A player will want to, naturally depending on situation, be able to organize small selectable, persistent groups of different divisions that complement each other for the majority of their units, while still being able to group those themselves together.

 

[Centurion1973]

I hope, that if there is OOB (IMO, it will be in HoI4) that it is off map - In HoI3 HQs only created more mess on the map and you had to babysit them to be in rage of their units. etc.