Hearts of Iron IV - 18th Development Diary - 26th of June 2015

[Gamer_1745]

Not really covered yet in a DD.

 

[Vidkjaer]

can somebody answer me about this plz.

We know submarines can hunt in strategic naval areas. We dont know much beyond that yet. But i am sure it will come soon in a development dairy.

 

[rogerfenwickxii]

Love the Downfall reference!

 

[Mannstien]

What if he was soft and gentle with you instead?

That is epic lol

 

[henzington]

Looks great

 

[Alliegorical]

Oh, and yes, there will be NATO symbols there for those that prefer those. And probably an option to use NATO symbols instead of great-looking-informative-paradox-style ones.

Dammit, now I'll feel guilty about using them

 

[Secret Master]

That is epic lol

I was surprised at how applicable the dialog in the book's blurb was to Hitler's foreign policy.

 

[BBBD316]

I think we are all missing an even bigger tease in the DD. Obviously they are going forward with my idea for a nWo DLC if they are putting this guy in charge of Berlin.

Seriously, once again looks amazing.

 

[Duritz]

It would be nice to have Great Britain be able to use New Zealand, Canadian, South African and Australian forces. It would also be nice for German to use Hungarian and Romanian forces. using the tag "cheat" to get the game to do this was always a niggle. Maybe this is a similar issue to colonies.

That's what Britain thought too.... luckily for Australia, the government had other ideas and stopped the British using our troops as cannon fodder!

You want realism, then Britain doesn't get control of Australian forces. Perhaps the dominions should just be hard wired to be more likely to give expeditionary forces to Britain?

 

[Swinds]

That's what Britain thought too.... luckily for Australia, the government had other ideas and stopped the British using our troops as cannon fodder!

You want realism, then Britain doesn't get control of Australian forces. Perhaps the dominions should just be hard wired to be more likely to give expeditionary forces to Britain?

I agree with the second line.... Tobruk, Alamein anyone? Think that Britain might have learned from ww1 ;-)

 

[Axe99]

That's what Britain thought too.... luckily for Australia, the government had other ideas and stopped the British using our troops as cannon fodder!

While this was definitely the case, we still committed quite a few troops (relative to what we had available) to the North Africa campaign early on. I'd think something like we'd provide a significant number of expeditionary forces to the UK up until the entry of Japan into the war, and then send them to the US instead (which is pretty much what we did - MacArthur had overall command of the Pacific theatre). In both cases, as far as I recall, we had control at the division level, but outside of southern PNG and Australia, we generally let either the UK or US tell us where to send those divisions (although I have a nagging memory that towards the end of the war, we engaged in some rather pointless and not asked for clearing of Japanese positions that had been passed-by by the main thrust up through the Phillipines).

 

[Duritz]

While this was definitely the case, we still committed quite a few troops (relative to what we had available) to the North Africa campaign early on. I'd think something like we'd provide a significant number of expeditionary forces to the UK up until the entry of Japan into the war, and then send them to the US instead (which is pretty much what we did - MacArthur had overall command of the Pacific theatre). In both cases, as far as I recall, we had control at the division level, but outside of southern PNG and Australia, we generally let either the UK or US tell us where to send those divisions (although I have a nagging memory that towards the end of the war, we engaged in some rather pointless and not asked for clearing of Japanese positions that had been passed-by by the main thrust up through the Phillipines).

You're right. Once the US got involved we basically handed them over to them but that act in itself (demanding their return from North Africa and also rebuffing Churchill who wanted them sent to Burma and/or Singapore) was a giant leap forward for us in terms of Foreign policy.

You're thinking of the Borneo campaigns - Tarakan, Balikpapan etc. We were told that we were going there to liberate Australian and allied POW's and stop the Japanese oil exports from refineries there but by then the POW's had moved and the refineries were cut off from the mainland. The more things change...

Anywho, the point is - no British control of the Dominions.

Dury.

 

[Swinds]

You're right. Once the US got involved we basically handed them over to them but that act in itself (demanding their return from North Africa and also rebuffing Churchill who wanted them sent to Burma and/or Singapore) was a giant leap forward for us in terms of Foreign policy.

You're thinking of the Borneo campaigns - Tarakan, Balikpapan etc. We were told that we were going there to liberate Australian and allied POW's and stop the Japanese oil exports from refineries there but by then the POW's had moved and the refineries were cut off from the mainland. The more things change...

Anywho, the point is - no British control of the Dominions.

Dury.

As you said before stronger expeditionary forces, worth having a read of the second Australian Imperial Force on wikipedia, 8th Division was in Singapore at it's fall in 1942. The New Zealand 2nd Division stayed in N. Africa and moved to Italy in 1943 and Canadian troops severed in Europe and N. Africa but the point was they should be offered to the bigger Allies.

 

[Axe99]

Anywho, the point is - no British control of the Dominions.

Aye, totally agree - I'm just wary of a situation like HoI3, where you'd regularly see Australia and New Zealand have no involvement at all in terms of land forces outside of their home turf and 'allocated Imperial' areas like PNG, New Britain and the Solomons (and while Canada usually contributed a little, it was generally far less than historically). What I'd like to see is when the dominions are AI run, they commit significant expeditionary forces (land, sea and air) to the 'most aligned major' - so initially to the UK, and then when the US gets involved, then split between the UK and US (while Australia pulled its troops and ships back from the European theatre, we had a lot of airmen serving there until Germany's surrender). I agree that the whole 'full military control' option of HoI2 wasn't optimal either, but it provided far, far more plausible situations than the mess that was allied support and expeditionary forces in HoI3. All being well, they'll have a better EF system for HoI4 that'll be able to handle things better.

Edit: In Podcat we trust (and it's worth noting that in EU4 allied troops are a lot better, although still not up to 'WW2 Dominion contribution quality'), but if they can't improve the EF system for HoI4, then I'd far prefer a return to military control. It's not perfect, but it makes for both a better game and a more plausible outcome than what prevailed in HoI3.

 

[Charles Reeps]

Posted by Axe99

"(and it's worth noting that in EU4 allied troops are a lot better, although still not up to 'WW2 Dominion contribution quality'),"

Yeah, in EU4 you can count on your allies to commit to battles and to aid in the conquest of a country you are trying to subdue; an ally will even ship those forces if necessary. Numerous times I have had an ally completely subdue a smaller enemy country while I took down the bigger prey. I cannot imagine allied interactions in HOI4 would be frozen to EU4 levels so I expect to see a robust allied interaction in play.

 

[Balesir]

1) The Defense of Burma in 1942 was a showcase of how bad Allied coordinated command was at first. The British deployed too far forward, Stilwell massively underestimated the Japanese numbers and abilities, the Chinese were the only ones with experience fighting Japan but they weren't listened to...

Indeed - which is why I said "eventually" in parentheses. Actually, I think it was not so much a failure of coordinated command as it wasa total cluster of poor preparedness and eyes well off the ball.

And the British retreated to save their own butt without bother telling the Chinese (or intentionally so)...

In Burma 1942 it wasn't so much a retreat as a rout. Poor preparation, flawed theatre appreciation (" the jungle is impassable") and a flawed appreciation of both the enemy and the available allies all contributed to a complete catastrophe. Turning all of that around within three years was a remarkable achievement, however.

 

[Abadon777]

The one thing I haven't seen in the division template is a template for a militia division. Is a untrained Infantry division supposed to represent a militia division and if so will it be named 25th Militia division or get the same name as a regular division ?

 

[Denkt]

The division will always use its division template name.

 

[rjohansen]

The division will always use its division template name.

But does the template also take into account training, age of recruits, or just equipment and what regiments it consists of? Also, what if the division is later renamed? Or converted? I asked earlier and I see that others also has asked - havent seen an answer yet.

• 100. Infanterie-Division → (converted to motorized) 100. Infanterie-Division (mot)
  • The game will not make another 100. Infanterie-Division now?
• 100. Infanterie-Division → (renamed to) 100. Random Name Division (or whatever the user decides)
  • The game will not make another 100. Infanterie-Division now?
• 100. Infanterie-Division → (renamed to) Random Name Division (without number or whatever the user decides)
  • What will happen then? Can the user decide if another new built division get the number 100 or not?
• 100. Infanterie-Division → (converted to a militia template) 100. Militia-Division
  • Or a choice?

And what happens in you convert this division into a another branch of the military? Like naval infantry? Armored? Will the user have the choice of renaming automatic or to use the same number or generate a new?

 

[Swinds]

But does the template also take into account training, age of recruits, or just equipment and what regiments it consists of? Also, what if the division is later renamed? Or converted? I asked earlier and I see that others also has asked - havent seen an answer yet.

• 100. Infanterie-Division → (converted to motorized) 100. Infanterie-Division (mot)
  • The game will not make another 100. Infanterie-Division now?
• 100. Infanterie-Division → (renamed to) 100. Random Name Division (or whatever the user decides)
  • The game will not make another 100. Infanterie-Division now?
• 100. Infanterie-Division → (renamed to) Random Name Division (without number or whatever the user decides)
  • What will happen then? Can the user decide if another new built division get the number 100 or not?
• 100. Infanterie-Division → (converted to a militia template) 100. Militia-Division
  • Or a choice?

And what happens in you convert this division into a another branch of the military? Like naval infantry? Armored? Will the user have the choice of renaming automatic or to use the same number or generate a new?

I noticed that paradox have not replied to anything since the day they posted this thread. Busy making the game great All good questions