Then everyone should have it researched at the start of the game.
Hearts Of Iron 4 Features wanted LIST Thread
- Thread starter wildbillhdmax01
- Start date
-
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.
Then everyone should have it researched at the start of the game.
Nations with less available manpower do not use it. Nor do nations with better options (technology, professional armies, etc.).
Human Wave is the tactic of nations with conscript armies. Russia, China, North Korea.
Human Wave is the tactic of nations with conscript armies. Russia, China, North Korea.
Every major power had a conscript army in WW2. "human wave" is no more a "doctrine" than "Blitzkrieg".
I'm sorry if my short response wasn't clear, I'll try to explain better.
To say that army doctrines do not exist is just plain wrong. Doctrine is how you train and equip your troops and generals to fight.
Human Wave was the universal doctrine used by all nations in WWI, combined with Superior Firepower. At the beginning of WWII, most nations were still using that doctrine and it's the #1 reason Germany had such rapid success early on. Eventually, everyone caught on and turned the tables with their own versions of the Lightning War doctrine.
I should have said MODERN Nations with more education, wealth, freedom and/or individual initiative tend to avoid human wave doctrines.
I hope this helps.
To say that army doctrines do not exist is just plain wrong. Doctrine is how you train and equip your troops and generals to fight.
Human Wave was the universal doctrine used by all nations in WWI, combined with Superior Firepower. At the beginning of WWII, most nations were still using that doctrine and it's the #1 reason Germany had such rapid success early on. Eventually, everyone caught on and turned the tables with their own versions of the Lightning War doctrine.
I should have said MODERN Nations with more education, wealth, freedom and/or individual initiative tend to avoid human wave doctrines.
I hope this helps.
In previous HOI games, one could not simulate submarine attacks on ports, or have a surface fleet bombard it. I hope this is included in HOI 4. I want to do a Scapa Flow raid so badly...
No one said "doctrines do not exist". Please don't misquote people. What was said was that "human wave" is no more a doctrine than "blitzkrieg", both actually being an agglomerate of different things.
There was no universal WW1 doctrine, let alone "human wave", nor was there a "lightning war" doctrine in WW2. Each major industrialised nation developed their ideas on using vehicles in war. It was not a steady improvement, but a series of compromises, between desires of the military, and the capabilities of the industry, both in ww1 and ww2.
nothing to do with "freedom/initiative" fantasies. All to do with industry and production capabilities. As production capabilities increase, you can equip your troops better. Which why, for example modern-day China has a much smaller army size than 25 year ago. They can now afford to equip their troops better, hence they no longer need a huge army.
Better AI. It doesn't matter what new stuff you add if the AI it's so bad it can't even invade Russia or China properly.
So are you saying that we should get rid of Grand Battle Plan and replace it with Human wave for France and England?
Or that France and England were backward countries, because Germany crushed their army in a month?
Education, wealth, freedom and/or individual initiative have nothing to do with Human wave.
Human wave is just sending in as many troops as you can gather, that's all.
There is no need to research something to do that. It is exactly what happens if you have not researched any doctrines. Or if your officers has no clue how to implement the doctrines you researched - the situation of USSR before the 1943, as very few of it's officers had a proper training.
Why should I waste my time teaching them to know nothing? If this doctrine is so old and widespread, why I have to research it in 1939-1945?
P.S. Anyway, we should not discuss who crushed whom and how fast, otherwise it will end - as it always do - in a flame war.
Last edited:
Really hope you incorporate many features from DIG and BLACK ICE.
Also give us the freedom to give provinces to allies. Example: When I am taking Soviet land, would like to give some provinces to Romania and Finland. Provinces that they have a claim on.
The sea and air battles/units needs to be worked. Really couldn't figure out how many Air fighter units to put in one group. I always put 3 in a group, but it was a little confusing. Same to say about bombers and ground support. Sea units, I really like the "Capital Ship" thing you guys did, as I always hunt for the capital ships from France and England to sink them, but the battles I feel can be improved.
Let me say again: please incorporate DIG and BLACK ICE features, really enjoyed those Mods
Really looking forward to this!! Long Live the BLUE DIVISION!
Also give us the freedom to give provinces to allies. Example: When I am taking Soviet land, would like to give some provinces to Romania and Finland. Provinces that they have a claim on.
The sea and air battles/units needs to be worked. Really couldn't figure out how many Air fighter units to put in one group. I always put 3 in a group, but it was a little confusing. Same to say about bombers and ground support. Sea units, I really like the "Capital Ship" thing you guys did, as I always hunt for the capital ships from France and England to sink them, but the battles I feel can be improved.
Let me say again: please incorporate DIG and BLACK ICE features, really enjoyed those Mods
Really looking forward to this!! Long Live the BLUE DIVISION!
Ship building dependant on shipyard/Harbour size, and a maximum number of ships built at one time at one particular harbour. Harbours taken with ships in quee should be transfered to occupators quee.
Night fighters
BETTER AI, is no 1 priority
Option to also control your allies economy and forces
Better trade
Remove 99999 rule
Night fighters
BETTER AI, is no 1 priority
Option to also control your allies economy and forces
Better trade
Remove 99999 rule
Buying and selling IC's, after they are built, like units. To anyone else you aren't at war with.
Capitals cut off should not be supplying themselves, from operating city industry.
Capitals cut off should not be supplying themselves, from operating city industry.
Some more thoughts off the bat:
Separate messages for engaging enemy battlefleet and a stray transport. I want to pause and be warned when my CTF encounters a bunch of RN battleships. When they catch their fifth unescorted transport this day, not so much.
A warning message when a vessel in a fleet is down to X strength. X better be customizable, but hardcoding it to, say, 50 is tolerable. Ditto for air units. Losing stuff that takes 2 years to build just because you have neglected to check its condition every 6 hours is a guaranteed ragequit.
Separate messages for engaging enemy battlefleet and a stray transport. I want to pause and be warned when my CTF encounters a bunch of RN battleships. When they catch their fifth unescorted transport this day, not so much.
A warning message when a vessel in a fleet is down to X strength. X better be customizable, but hardcoding it to, say, 50 is tolerable. Ditto for air units. Losing stuff that takes 2 years to build just because you have neglected to check its condition every 6 hours is a guaranteed ragequit.
how about changing trade so that there is kind of agreements, which are declared after price competion of how much each buyer is willing to pay for certain products and those who pay the most, will win the agreement, lets say, for a year, or a month or so, something which also could be set, that how long durability that has.
and only a embargo would then affect the capability to take part of such competitions among certain nations.
and only a embargo would then affect the capability to take part of such competitions among certain nations.
also would be nice if player could determine where to build forts in province. (direction of defence) so they are build at borders of other provinces, and affect only the defence fight between those two provinces troops..
also, ability to make division to defend only a one direction only in a province, which gives it full defend ability, and if it spread its forces to 2 borders, it halves the ability, and if its 3 province borders, its 33% per border.
This also would allow other divisions move though the province without getting involved in battle, or just stay behind the frontline in reserve/refit. As in Hoi3, every div that is in province which is attacked by enemy, will defend that province, and if player decides to pull one div from that battle to next province, game mechanics make it appear as withdrawal with grey arrow, and during that movement, you cannot stop their movement or control which way they go, untill they arrive at first set destination. and if that province they arrive has been captured meanwhile by enemy, you lose that div just like that.
this way, one could set during attack a flank covering divs throuh 1 province thick area, while others are free to advance.
also, if province which has troops get attacked but from direction where there isnt set defence, defender should get malus for some time, as they have gotten flanked, and, attacked should have bonus of flanking and attack speed, perhaps even capture enemy supplies etc.
of course it demands more micromanagement
also, ability to make division to defend only a one direction only in a province, which gives it full defend ability, and if it spread its forces to 2 borders, it halves the ability, and if its 3 province borders, its 33% per border.
This also would allow other divisions move though the province without getting involved in battle, or just stay behind the frontline in reserve/refit. As in Hoi3, every div that is in province which is attacked by enemy, will defend that province, and if player decides to pull one div from that battle to next province, game mechanics make it appear as withdrawal with grey arrow, and during that movement, you cannot stop their movement or control which way they go, untill they arrive at first set destination. and if that province they arrive has been captured meanwhile by enemy, you lose that div just like that.
this way, one could set during attack a flank covering divs throuh 1 province thick area, while others are free to advance.
also, if province which has troops get attacked but from direction where there isnt set defence, defender should get malus for some time, as they have gotten flanked, and, attacked should have bonus of flanking and attack speed, perhaps even capture enemy supplies etc.
of course it demands more micromanagement
I would like a checkbox to turn off a history mode. With the concepts of neutrality and threat concepts it is difficult to make realy alternative history. I am not against history at all. But I want to be able to choose the game mode regarding history.
My list
1. It was mentioned earlier but you did not add it, so i must ask, better AI control for human interface either thru the battle plans actually working which would be awesome but if not just better AI control, able to tell the AI to Hold ground or wear the enemy down of let the pierce the middle then circle them. So you can get some of the human control bonuses thru the AI control systems. I find this is very important for any non-extreme players that control every unit.
2. Better Theater control that is not so buggy, I would like the army group Theater where the AI will focus army groups but it will still cross over if the Main Theater needs help.
3. Defiantly want to second the air and Sea Theaters Maybe even make the ocean into larger Providences so you can assign ships and or upgrade with mines and listening stations fortified water ways. You could also make to types Coastal and then Deep Ocean plots that have different stats, which may effect stack size or stealth ability.
4. The money system in 3 was also weird if i ordered a tank or something it cost 50% of my money Some things or events should be able to effect number of not the percent of.
5. I have to bump the later Date and the Early date, even if you did it as a selection in the beginning with you pick the start dat of those available like 1930, 1933, 1936, and 1940 then you choose Game speed like Epic, Marathon, Normal, Quick those would modify tech dates, and or end dates and anything other that would make sense to link to these.
I am sure i have a bunch more these are deffinitly my top ones except the money one is not that big of a deal.
1. It was mentioned earlier but you did not add it, so i must ask, better AI control for human interface either thru the battle plans actually working which would be awesome but if not just better AI control, able to tell the AI to Hold ground or wear the enemy down of let the pierce the middle then circle them. So you can get some of the human control bonuses thru the AI control systems. I find this is very important for any non-extreme players that control every unit.
2. Better Theater control that is not so buggy, I would like the army group Theater where the AI will focus army groups but it will still cross over if the Main Theater needs help.
3. Defiantly want to second the air and Sea Theaters Maybe even make the ocean into larger Providences so you can assign ships and or upgrade with mines and listening stations fortified water ways. You could also make to types Coastal and then Deep Ocean plots that have different stats, which may effect stack size or stealth ability.
4. The money system in 3 was also weird if i ordered a tank or something it cost 50% of my money Some things or events should be able to effect number of not the percent of.
5. I have to bump the later Date and the Early date, even if you did it as a selection in the beginning with you pick the start dat of those available like 1930, 1933, 1936, and 1940 then you choose Game speed like Epic, Marathon, Normal, Quick those would modify tech dates, and or end dates and anything other that would make sense to link to these.
I am sure i have a bunch more these are deffinitly my top ones except the money one is not that big of a deal.
one that i thiught of: capturing troops gives you the chance to capture their equipment. like encircling russians and destroying them has a % chance of capturing a t34 for reverse engineering/ inspection. if researched it would give "+1 vs t34" or equivalent.
some historical examples: la5 fighter captured during the war and flown by a german ace led to a specific strategy against it. it was found to perform well at low altitudes but was terrible up high so germans tried to lure it to climb.
another example: allies capturing enigma ( say after an HQ is overrun/shattered)
capturing enemy armor reveals some weakness with it, if researched. capturing enemy AT guns reveals their true penetration and gives a bonus. etc
some historical examples: la5 fighter captured during the war and flown by a german ace led to a specific strategy against it. it was found to perform well at low altitudes but was terrible up high so germans tried to lure it to climb.
another example: allies capturing enigma ( say after an HQ is overrun/shattered)
capturing enemy armor reveals some weakness with it, if researched. capturing enemy AT guns reveals their true penetration and gives a bonus. etc
another idea: attaching commanders to units works great in hoi3. how about attaching aces to units. after battles there is a chance an "ace" like wittmann or audy murphie is created and can be attached to battalions for small bonuses.