Hearts of Iron IV - 22nd Development Diary - 28th 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.
Corps and Army assests can be switched from helping one unit to another (massive artillery support of US forces in the Battle of the Bulge is a good
example). This does not exist in HOI4 where seperate corps assets would have to be attached to induvidual units deluting their effectivness. The
mechanics again do not exist for this in HOI4 at the moment.
Province improvements do not include soldiers only structures. They are not combat units and cannot inflict casualties. Again the mechanics for this is not clear or does not exist at this time for HOI4. This is not a complaint but a clear observation. Workarounds do not deal with the issue.
example). This does not exist in HOI4 where seperate corps assets would have to be attached to induvidual units deluting their effectivness. The
mechanics again do not exist for this in HOI4 at the moment.
Province improvements do not include soldiers only structures. They are not combat units and cannot inflict casualties. Again the mechanics for this is not clear or does not exist at this time for HOI4. This is not a complaint but a clear observation. Workarounds do not deal with the issue.
A number of points:
Not all equipment of a static division is fixed and would be lost when forced to retreat
You can build new heavy weapons and not provide them with transport - that's how the Russians lost a lot of guns in mid 1941 - they hadn't mobilised their transport by the time the units were overrun.
When we're talking fixed weapons in a defensive system, they were moved there and installed - meaning they can be uninstalled, moved somewhere else and reinstalled given enough time which divisions certainly don't have when under attack - there's probably heavy civilian machinery needed to do that with some guns.
I would disagree (don't I always). Many fortress pieces (but of course not most or all) once emplaced in concrete stay there. They cannot be casually
moved (this does not include many AT guns) but of course again as an example the Maginot guns cannot be undone nor can heavy coastal artillery or the
many captured pieces placed into concrete. Of course any 'static' or 'fortress' unit can withdraw with many light weapons but retreating means leaving the
fortress stuff behind and taking what is not nailed down already. Take away the fortress guns and emplaced fortress mgs from the Maginot troops and
they become very light infantry. German coastal static forces seldom if ever had enough motor transport or horses to haul off the light and medium guns
they did have. Being thrown out of your fort should cost you alot of stuff left behind. Again tho its a question of mechanics that are not apparent in the
game and can only be 'worked around' so far as can be seen pregame. Many static units were not equipped to 'live in the field'.
moved (this does not include many AT guns) but of course again as an example the Maginot guns cannot be undone nor can heavy coastal artillery or the
many captured pieces placed into concrete. Of course any 'static' or 'fortress' unit can withdraw with many light weapons but retreating means leaving the
fortress stuff behind and taking what is not nailed down already. Take away the fortress guns and emplaced fortress mgs from the Maginot troops and
they become very light infantry. German coastal static forces seldom if ever had enough motor transport or horses to haul off the light and medium guns
they did have. Being thrown out of your fort should cost you alot of stuff left behind. Again tho its a question of mechanics that are not apparent in the
game and can only be 'worked around' so far as can be seen pregame. Many static units were not equipped to 'live in the field'.
I have difficulty with the explanation of the 'logistic company'. 10000 men eat, shoot, use fuel for 10,000 men. How can you 'reduce' the use of
such supply/ammo/fuel by simply adding 150 or so more men plus their vehicles? You then have 10150 men who eat, shoot, and use fuel. The
explanation or usage may be an efficency in the use of supply rather than the reduction of usage which sounds just wierd.
Either re-explain the usage or justify it or change it to another type of support unit. Perhaps the 'static fortress artillery' of my eariler post. Would
make more sense for static, garrison, fortress units than a logistics company that simply adds to the logistic usage of 'stuff'.
such supply/ammo/fuel by simply adding 150 or so more men plus their vehicles? You then have 10150 men who eat, shoot, and use fuel. The
explanation or usage may be an efficency in the use of supply rather than the reduction of usage which sounds just wierd.
Either re-explain the usage or justify it or change it to another type of support unit. Perhaps the 'static fortress artillery' of my eariler post. Would
make more sense for static, garrison, fortress units than a logistics company that simply adds to the logistic usage of 'stuff'.
- 2
- 1
another point on forts is that they should have a 'facing' of a province opposite to them when built. This can be coastal or a land province. On attacks made
upon them from non 'facing' sides the effect of the fortifications can be reduced so flanking a WestWall or Maginot line would decrease the effect
of the defenders fire. You can perhaps have them face two provinces but with reduced value forcing you to increase their overall fort value or build more
flanking forts to defend them. Islands fortified face in all directions I would suppose.
Fortress facing can be shown on the map by a haze on the province edge facing the province it is built to defend from. This can be added to a map filter.
Also how can engineer companies help in the defence of forts? The movie version of them throwing
sachel charges under tanks is cool but usually untrue. They are not antitank units but specialists.
Engineers can, of course, help improve field fortifications but other than adding the effect of more 'light infantry' engineers in the defence would not add much more to the defence but would of course in the reduction of forts.
upon them from non 'facing' sides the effect of the fortifications can be reduced so flanking a WestWall or Maginot line would decrease the effect
of the defenders fire. You can perhaps have them face two provinces but with reduced value forcing you to increase their overall fort value or build more
flanking forts to defend them. Islands fortified face in all directions I would suppose.
Fortress facing can be shown on the map by a haze on the province edge facing the province it is built to defend from. This can be added to a map filter.
Also how can engineer companies help in the defence of forts? The movie version of them throwing
sachel charges under tanks is cool but usually untrue. They are not antitank units but specialists.
Engineers can, of course, help improve field fortifications but other than adding the effect of more 'light infantry' engineers in the defence would not add much more to the defence but would of course in the reduction of forts.
Last edited:
My composition of infantry divisions for majors (with some mods):
3 * Inf Brig: 3 * Inf, Inf Art, Brig Support.
Fire Brig: 3 * L. Art, H. Art, Rct.
Support Brig: 2 * Eng (maybe 1 for each of assault and bridging), Signal, Recon, MP.
Logistic Brig: Hospital, Maintenance, Logistic, AA, AT.
Or in this way:
Infantry division A:
Brig 1: 3 * Inf, L. Art, Mx Cannon (AT & AA).
Brig 2: Mix Support (2 Eng comp and 1 comp for each of Signal, Recon and MP), Mix Logistic (1 comp for each of Hospital, Maintenance and Logistic).
Infantry division B:
Brig 1: Inf, H. Art, Rct, Assault Gun, Infantry Tank.
Brig 2: Same with that in Inf Div A.
And the Ratio A : B is 3 : 1.
3 * Inf Brig: 3 * Inf, Inf Art, Brig Support.
Fire Brig: 3 * L. Art, H. Art, Rct.
Support Brig: 2 * Eng (maybe 1 for each of assault and bridging), Signal, Recon, MP.
Logistic Brig: Hospital, Maintenance, Logistic, AA, AT.
Or in this way:
Infantry division A:
Brig 1: 3 * Inf, L. Art, Mx Cannon (AT & AA).
Brig 2: Mix Support (2 Eng comp and 1 comp for each of Signal, Recon and MP), Mix Logistic (1 comp for each of Hospital, Maintenance and Logistic).
Infantry division B:
Brig 1: Inf, H. Art, Rct, Assault Gun, Infantry Tank.
Brig 2: Same with that in Inf Div A.
And the Ratio A : B is 3 : 1.
Last edited:
Don't forget. They are just companies, not regiments, not brigades. They will be just support.
So kind of division should be combat troops and support companies will be complementary effect, I think so.
So kind of division should be combat troops and support companies will be complementary effect, I think so.
I believe that they are all battalion strength as most divisions carried battalion strength support units.
Perhaps the logistics unit carries extra supplies that allows for less requirement at times as it is stored nearer the division, but you're right, 100000 men would need 10000 worth of supplies to function at 100% capacity. A small rewording would suffice?
What is difficult to understand? The logistics company provides trucks ("Requires Trucks & Support Equipment") to move more supplies faster than the usual horse carried supplies.
Why does the description have to spoon feed the information? It's not that confusing.
Why does the description have to spoon feed the information? It's not that confusing.
Last edited:
- 6
If the division was cut off and surrounded, would it still use less supplies? Those trucks and support equipment would be useless to provide anything, except use up more fuel to keep running. So in this example the division would use the same supplies as one without a logistics unit. The only way to understand the explanation is that the logistics company stores supplies for the division to allow for rapid movement, being surrounded and suffering lack of supplies. So in essence the division uses the same supplies but has extra stored with it, the resultant being it 'appears' to use less supplies.
- 2
Again I would say that the trucks and trailers carry more supplies than horse drawn wagons, that fits with your storage explanation and you figured it out all by yourself. The alternative is to envision the supplies being transported faster having a net effect of keeping the unit in supply more effectively.
In the end what difference does it make? The result is the same so why haggle the devs to define something so trivial instead of letting them focus on the big things. If you don't like it change it, you can rewrite your files to say that the troops all got gastric bypass surgery and eat less if you want.
In the end what difference does it make? The result is the same so why haggle the devs to define something so trivial instead of letting them focus on the big things. If you don't like it change it, you can rewrite your files to say that the troops all got gastric bypass surgery and eat less if you want.
As long as the field hospital is attached and rubber isn't in short supply.
- 1
Good que
Remember the trait "logistics wizard" from previous HOIs? It's like that. If you prefer rather than a single individual you can think of it as staff. A bunch of side-stripped general officers roaming around the canteens making sure bullets and butter aren't wasted and a proper supply chain exists.
It's just a gameplay mechanic. No need to overthink it
Remember the trait "logistics wizard" from previous HOIs? It's like that. If you prefer rather than a single individual you can think of it as staff. A bunch of side-stripped general officers roaming around the canteens making sure bullets and butter aren't wasted and a proper supply chain exists.
It's just a gameplay mechanic. No need to overthink it
- 7
Maybe they should remove logistical wizard as that trait allowed for some crazy stuff.
.png){kind=avatar}
This game is going to drive me insane with impossible choices. How am I going to decide which support element to leave out of my in game divisions. I am mentally incapable of building ahistorical divisions...decisions, decisions.
Instead of 5 companies, we need 5 sections. Section 1 can contain the hospital and MP companies, section 2 would contain recon, section 3 would have Eng, AT and AA, section 4 has logistics and maintenance and finally section 5 is signals. Easy. You pick which sections your division has and which companies each section has.
Instead of 5 companies, we need 5 sections. Section 1 can contain the hospital and MP companies, section 2 would contain recon, section 3 would have Eng, AT and AA, section 4 has logistics and maintenance and finally section 5 is signals. Easy. You pick which sections your division has and which companies each section has.
I have to agree with everyone, time to move the conversation on as we all believe the logistics unit is a good thing to have.
Looking at the SS division I see it's set to elite priority. It would seem the status of a division is based on the template, HOI4 Wiki -
Equipment priority[edit]
A division template may be specified as reserve, regular, or elite. Elite divisions will be prioritized for better equipment, followed by regular divisions and finally reserves.
Does anyone know if individual divisions can be set to what you want rather than the entire template? I suppose the way round this would be to create more templates....?
Looking at the SS division I see it's set to elite priority. It would seem the status of a division is based on the template, HOI4 Wiki -
Equipment priority[edit]
A division template may be specified as reserve, regular, or elite. Elite divisions will be prioritized for better equipment, followed by regular divisions and finally reserves.
Does anyone know if individual divisions can be set to what you want rather than the entire template? I suppose the way round this would be to create more templates....?