Hearts of Iron IV - 20th Development Diary - 14th of August 2015
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
Hopefully they add expansions granting Individual Focus Trees for each nation... Wouldn't be a bad idea 
It was mostly the honor and distinction of what earned the unit the status that mattered but they did get more juicy stuff as well (although not entirely uniform).
The Regiments got bigger with added MG Bats and more SMGs while the HQs got more resources and the division as a whole grew a bit with more artillery, AT etc.
The most important part however was that they got a larger share of the manpower reserve with allegedly better recruits and a larger trickle-back from previously injured or sick returning for duty.
In in-game terms this would be like making a new "guards rifle" template and assign it additional battalions and more ART ant AT while increasing the priority for equipment and reinforcements. Then pick a unit which you believe has distinguished itself and has enough experience and assign it the new template. Renaming it to "Guards" and pick a suitable Icon to go with it.
- 1
the first national focus is "Sweden is not overpowered!" which grants sweden 0 neutrality, cores on finland, norway and denmark and mobilises the moose population into the swedish army as equipment which will supply the swedish "motorised" divisions as replacements for trucks, saving sweden a lot of IC from having to build and maintain proper trucks
- 2
Right but at the end of the day Soviets imposed communist governments in their "area" as well as the Allies did with center right democracies. In those countries where communists (in the Allies area) were part of the government there was a change (for example in Italy communists were kicked out "democratically" until the party was disbanded in 1991 and in Greece with a military putsch). So, at the end, if DDR was a puppet the same should be considered Italy, Greece, etc.
Maybe the concept of puppet is broken and it should be replaced by the concept of "satellite" quite well explained by Edward Luttwak.
Last edited:
Then just have "install democracy" install a democracy that's friendly to the Allies. Give them a relations boost or something. Problem solved.
Most of the "puppets" set up by the allies are best represented by a collaboration government occupation type. They lasted until the end of the war, and then were transferred relatively peacefully afterwards. Japan is probably the biggest outlier, and even that is still a question of time.
- 1
Then for Soviets just have "install communism" that's friend to Soviet Union. The point is that both sides: Allies and Soviets should be treated similarly (apart from the fact that some western countries had colonies).
The same did the Soviets: They transferred peacefully the control to national governments.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Occupied for years on end, far longer than the time frame of the game.
The FRG was not formed until 1949. It's outside the time frame of the game. Before that, West Germany was occupied by the Allies. (East Germany is another kettle of fish, but we're just talking about democracies here.)
Japan was an occupied state until 1952 when the US and Japan signed the Treaty of San Francisco. That is outside the time frame of the game.
The Repubblica Sociale Italiana is clearly a puppet of Germany, but the Kingdom of Italy voluntarily joined the Allies. You could argue that Italy becomes an Allied puppet, but a formal peace treaty with Italy did not go into effect until September of 1947, which is practically outside the timeframe of the game (three months to go). Either the Kingdom of Italy is acting according to its own devices (and WWII has become an Italian Civil War), or Italy is an Axis state occupied by the Allies (large portions of the country are under occupation by foreign powers). Either way, I wouldn't call Italy a puppet of the Allies.
Perhaps, but I think it's better to just call it what it was called legally in Japan and Germany on the Allied side: an occupation.
- 1
The point is not exactly what happened but what could have happened within or not the game time frame. For example the game (or a mod) could expand the limit to 1948 and that would include Italy and could include as well FRG if the Allies had decided to end the occupation earlier.
The discussion started from this question: why Soviets can puppet and Allies cannot? Philippines was a puppet whilst I think that Germany, Italy and Japan were not. My suggestion was to consider them as "clientes" (Latin) as Luttwack explained that this is the preferred strategy for the USA.
Last but not least Poland, Hungary, DDR, etc. in my opinion can't be considered puppets of Soviet Union but they should be considered as satellite states (as well as Italy, Germany, Japan, etc.)
Last edited:
- 1
That is pretty much spot on. Pulling from Page 258 from the manual for Gary Grigsby's War in the East:
"A common misconception of those not students of the Eastern Front is that the guards units were the Soviet equivalent of the Waffen SS. Rather than being a separate branch of the military specially trained, equipped and organized as was the case with the SS, "Guards" was an honorific awarded ordinary units that had distinguished themselves in combat. With the exception of the guards rifle division which for much of the War had an extra submachine gun battalion and a couple extra batteries of artillery, guards units only differed from non-guards units by a higher priority for new equipment (sometimes) and the assignment of the most dangerous missions (almost always). Winning the guards honorific did enhance a unit's esprit de corps which translated into a higher level of performance but the guards were not "elite" in the same sense that German units like Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler were elite."
- 3
And will there be an Ikea national focus? Sell cheap do-it-yourself military equipment to other countries and wait for it to crumble a few years later or be unusable because some pieces are lacking.
- 1
You can desing your divisions, but could there also be an option to design your squad size, equipment etc. ?
"As you can see on the screenshot below, we have truly dumbed down the game"-Johan, begrudgingly accepting a necessary and long overdue facelift. TBT, main reason I'm getting HOI4 is it's easier to jump into. On paper, I should love all these kinds of games but the interface has always irritated me, even after "getting it". Cool Entry though, I like how it wrapped up what you can and can't do at the end!
- 2
No you can't change battalion sizes. Some equipment such as tank can be modified some others like infantry weapons can't be modified.
All right. It would have been nice to design your squad setups. How many soldiers per NCO and how many MGs per squad etc.
- 1
- 1
BlackICE allowed you to change the size of different types of units; infantry, artillery, special forces and so on. It was pretty neat. Smaller units would take less space (so for example, you could fit more para units in transport planes), whereas bigger units of course had more stopping power, while also using more manpower, fuel and supplies.
In HOI4, maybe this could be part of the core stats of every nation. Or doctrine trees. As in, one or more superior firepower doctrines may increase the size of your artillery units?
. I don't blame the devs for being a bit frustrated by that.
In HOI4, maybe this could be part of the core stats of every nation. Or doctrine trees. As in, one or more superior firepower doctrines may increase the size of your artillery units?
Hehe, I chuckle every time I hear someone say that HOI4 is "dumbed down"
. I don't blame the devs for being a bit frustrated by that.
The two green arrows and the exclamation mark symbol (see the Collectivist propaganda and Positive heroism), what is its meaning? Does it symbolize the mutual exclusivity of these two focuses?
Last edited:
