Hearts of Iron IV - 22nd Development Diary - 28th of August 2015

[alanschu]

As another example you have your neat little 1st panzer army led by kleist, and notice that you need to detach 4 divisions onto another advance. You don't think selecting four divs of the same type is enough so you'd need to select two pzdivs and assign, then one mot-inf and assign, then one mot-inf-AT and assign. Alternatively you select all 13 divs, deselect 9 and assign. It's just a whole lot of unnecessary clicks for a very simple goal.

In my own experience it was still a lot of unnecessary clicks to find and investigate the hierarchy in HOI3, barring maybe the odd specific one that I can remember of a particular battle.

Could be that I should've done a better job naming my corps and whatnot I guess, in hindsight. But the biggest issue I had with HOI3's OOB was that creating it was fun, but updating and reorganizing it was not intuitive and led to a ton of micromanagement.

 

[ASPGolan]

Not being able to add more than 5 support units seems extremely gamefied and with no real reason. I'll take it this way as well, it's not that important, but Pdox please consider making such design decisions moddable. I think this would quell most arguments against such a design decision.

IMHO, it should depend more on doctrine, first of all and then on economy restraints considerations. If the doctrine is rigid, human waves kind of stuff, then such generals would not understand the need for diversifying the skills of their divisions, they'd rather have mono-role divisions (with maybe one addition support weapon), I reckon. If the doctrine favours mobility and versatility, then such generals would favour divisons having all needed weapons with with them, given the budgetary constrains (and the added disadvantage of making them harder, more expensive and more time consuming to train). Etc. If the game still needs that win-lose kind of balance, then design should focus on the advantages/disadvantages that come with with research and military doctrines.

 

[ASPGolan]

Will support units affect all divisions stationed/moving/fighting in the same place and the same time with the division where that support unit is embeded in? I.e. if I cross a river will the engineering support expansion of one division affect the crossing time of all divisions that receive the order at the same time and have the same movement speed with the divison where that support is embeded in? Combat hospitals, recon and maintenance crews would fall in the same category, imo. They should help all soldiers, but prioritise their own division, or something of the sorts. This would allow player to workaround the 5 support units limitation.

Also, how does adding & changing support units work for divisions that are on the front line (not necessarily engaged)? Is this something doable with active divisions, or is this something that should be done in advance of the unit actually seeing combat? I'd prefer if swapping support units would be easy and give only temporary negative effects.

 

[Joppos]

In my own experience it was still a lot of unnecessary clicks to find and investigate the hierarchy in HOI3, barring maybe the odd specific one that I can remember of a particular battle.

Could be that I should've done a better job naming my corps and whatnot I guess, in hindsight. But the biggest issue I had with HOI3's OOB was that creating it was fun, but updating and reorganizing it was not intuitive and led to a ton of micromanagement.

Indeed, the hoi3 hierarchy was mostly just a lot of work however one chooses to look at it. No-one wants the hoi3 system back--definitely not me at least. The point is that there's no inherent good/bad to a hierarchy system, and as i've argued there is a lot of good potential in streamlining and general gameplay benefits from having the option to use some kind of hierarchy within leader groups for hoi4.

Large nations in hoi4 will have to adapt to making less and less detailed battle plans the more divisions they have, in order to minimize either leader portrait clutter or constant individual division micromanagement.

Comparatively this wasn't the case in hoi3 where you either had whole bunches of divisions on completely automatic advancing, or complete individual division micromanagement. Hierarchy wasn't truly useful in any of those cases, as you in the former case did nothing and in the latter clicked through every division stack anyhow.

But this is not how hoi4 combat will work. You will arrange a plan of varying complexity for a leader group, assign subsets of divisions to elements of that plan and execute. Since the game now is based on this (e.g. assigning groups to fronts, arrows), you have neither use of always having to go through every division stack to move the right divisions, nor do you have the option to fully automate a front. Neither do you want a flurry of independent leader groups with their own associated plan just becuase you have a lot of fronts and divisions.

You want to be able to create a plan for a 50 divisions group of say six advance and defend orders, then only have to select those groups you want on those orders. You simply select the on map counter for the 30 division subgroup and assign it, since you already know its got the right mix of divisions. Then you fork off with the 10 divisions group inside it with just a couple of clicks. Not first dig through the inf stack and assign some from there, then the mot stack, then the armored stack, then have to double check if you actually remembered to add that inf-eng to one of the orders.

 

[alanschu]

But this is not how hoi4 combat will work. You will arrange a plan of varying complexity for a leader group, assign subsets of divisions to elements of that plan and execute. Since the game now is based on this (e.g. assigning groups to fronts, arrows), you have neither use of always having to go through every division stack to move the right divisions, nor do you have the option to fully automate a front. Neither do you want a flurry of independent leader groups with their own associated plan just becuase you have a lot of fronts and divisions.

Fully automating a front still seems possible? Dump everything into a Field Marshall and let 'er rip? I guess it depends on the number of units. I saw 50 for the largest (which probably won't be enough, I concede) but I thought I also saw in a video that 100 was the max (which might be sufficiently large).

You want to be able to create a plan for a 50 divisions group of say six advance and defend orders, then only have to select those groups you want on those orders. You simply select the on map counter for the 30 division subgroup and assign it, since you already know its got the right mix of divisions. Then you fork off with the 10 divisions group inside it with just a couple of clicks. Not first dig through the inf stack and assign some from there, then the mot stack, then the armored stack, then have to double check if you actually remembered to add that inf-eng to one of the orders.

It seemed reasonably straight forward to move units around in the videos I saw, but admittedly they are videos and I may have been misremembering aspects or making implicit assumptions.

In general the flow I saw seemed pretty good, so I guess we just have differing levels of estimation for how annoying (and frequent) the worst case stuff could be which is fine (we ARE different people! ). I won't deny that there could be better implementations and things that allow superior control. Opportunity costs and all and on some level features all ship at a "We think this is good enough" IMO. Hopefully it is!

 

[xtfoster]

Unless the support companies provide a bonus which is applied across divisions of unlimited size.

From what I understand support companies/battalions are a simple yes/no switch.
Engineer Company? Yes: Reduced river crossing penalty, reduced fortifications assault penalty, increased dig in bonus (or something like that).
Military Police Company? Yes: Increased suppression...
etc.

 

[xtfoster]

Large nations in hoi4 will have to adapt to making less and less detailed battle plans the more divisions they have, in order to minimize either leader portrait clutter or constant individual division micromanagement.

Why?
Do you really think I will lose control as the size of my army increases?
The Devs have said (many, many, times) that if you wan't to control things at the division level you can, so what makes you think that you are going to forced to use only a set amount of plans?
That is one of the most idiotic assumptions I have heard yet in this complaint. Have you seen one post (from a DEV) that backs up your point? Or are you just pulling fears out of the ether to worry the natives?
From what I understand:
1) You can select all the divisions for an entire front, draw the plan, and fin...you are done.
2) Or, you can select all the divisions for an entire front, then select portions of that front, draw their plans, and fin...you are done.
3) Or, you can select portions of the units on the front, draw plans, and fin...you are done.
4) Or, any combination of the above.

 

[xtfoster]

I don't think you will be permitted to put MAR and ARM in the same column / regiment. ARM has to be in a separate regiment, but can be grouped with TD, just not INF types. I think they allow INF types and ART types to be combined though. However, I think that is a poor design choice. I think if you want to add the BOOM of more ART, you should have to open an extra regiment column.

Again, why are you making this assumption? Has one developer post said this? Just because it hasn't been done on any of the screenies you have seen (probably because it aint the smartest thing to do) doesn't mean you can't do it.

 

[misterbean]

Or go fully manual. You lose the benefits that a plan offers, but you're in complete control.

 

[Joppos]

Fully automating a front still seems possible? Dump everything into a Field Marshall and let 'er rip? I guess it depends on the number of units. I saw 50 for the largest (which probably won't be enough, I concede) but I thought I also saw in a video that 100 was the max (which might be sufficiently large).

Well yes, assuming you also dump all your units into one single advance arrow all the way to the opposite end of the to-be-invaded territory. To make sure that there is some gameplay value in the battle plan system when playing against both AI and other humans, that will be likely be balanced to be a very non-feasible strategy.

It seemed reasonably straight forward to move units around in the videos I saw, but admittedly they are videos and I may have been misremembering aspects or making implicit assumptions.

In general the flow I saw seemed pretty good, so I guess we just have differing levels of estimation for how annoying (and frequent) the worst case stuff could be which is fine (we ARE different people! ). I won't deny that there could be better implementations and things that allow superior control. Opportunity costs and all and on some level features all ship at a "We think this is good enough" IMO. Hopefully it is!

The flow in all vidoes i've seen have been based on box-selecting random chunks of divisions and assigning them, which the game hopefully won't be balanced around. If the various division types are to have any weight and somewhat realistic representation, they will have to be used in certain combinations which currently only tedious sorting or multitudes of small leader groups can represent. Combinations like Armored, motorised inf and motorised inf-AT, mechanized for spearheading as just one example.

 

[misterbean]

Well yes, assuming you also dump all your units into one single advance arrow all the way to the opposite end of the to-be-invaded territory. To make sure that there is some gameplay value in the battle plan system when playing against both AI and other humans, that will be likely be balanced to be a very non-feasible strategy.



The flow in all vidoes i've seen have been based on box-selecting random chunks of divisions and assigning them, which the game hopefully won't be balanced around. If the various division types are to have any weight and somewhat realistic representation, they will have to be used in certain combinations which currently only tedious sorting or multitudes of small leader groups can represent. Combinations like Armored, motorised inf and motorised inf-AT, mechanized for spearheading as just one example.

Remember that the people in those videos are all EU 4 and CK 2 fans. Not one of them is a HOI 3 Let's Player. I'm still waiting until some real experts get their hands on it.

 

[potski]

what if I have the 4th Panzer Army in the north and the 2nd Panzer Army in the south and I want to reassign Guderian from the 2nd to the 4th for some special push? I assume I can click on Hoepners' portrait and that will select his divisions. Then I can and assign Guderian to those divisions. But what happens to Guderian's 10 divisions? They now have no leader. I assume that grouping just disappears. Now, I have to mass select and delete divisions until I have just those 10 divisions selected again

This is not correct. They are persistent groupings of units, and not purely dependent on the General. We saw an example of a command group which had no leader assigned to it. Even if in practice this will be brief, it's irrelevant. Remove Guderian and the command group doesn't disappear. It is a leaderless group waiting for you to assign a new leader. Or more probably, you just replace Guderian with a new leader, Guderian goes back into the general pool, then you replace Hoepner with Guderian.

Also, the name of the command group isn't linked to the general.

It seems to me there is no difference between the functionality of a command group, and one of the higher level commands in HOI3, with these two differences. You can have as many Divs in it as you want, no five unit limit. And you can't include another command group within a command group.

You can create sub-groupings within a command group, which have different objectives to the rest of the group. But these do not appear to be persistent, operating together only for the period that phase of the battle plan is being executed. This again fits exactly how Corps were often used in the Armies.

If you have a Pz Army under Guderian with 12 Divs, you can assign 5 of them to a temporary objective on the right of your axis of advance, 5 on the left. The other 2 unassigned units are then a reserve force. You can micro-manage them, or at any stage add them into one of the flank subgroups to provide more strength, or create a temporary third subgrouping with an objective of their own. So even the Panzer Army can have quite sophisticated tactics applied to it's advance, such as to force a river crossing, encircle an enemy city etc, with you controlling it quite closely. If you want. Or you just lump all 12 into one objective against Moscow and let the AI get on with it.

 

[Emmanuel_M]

You basically have three options. One is to mass it all along the front under one high-tier leader (if you have one) and hope that the AI can keep a coherent frontline for you (at least the AI general will be able to coordinate within his whole group). You might lose armored cohesion as the AI will throw around those armored divisions wherever it deems necessary but then again it's a choice you make.
Option two is to create multiple commands of say army or corps-size and manually keep track of said forces to keep the cohesion of the front-line and adjust the battleplans to ensure that the different generals are playing along and "cooperating" not exposing the flanks of his neighbor.
Option three is to create overlapping commands where the infantry in one area is led by X and the armor is led by Y and their battleplans are independant of one another.
Or you could forego any bonuses from planning and just micromanage the hell out of every single division (although you don't even have the corps/army structure of HOI3 to do so) which will probably be a complete bore.

You forgot option 4

Create a "Lutwaffe" command with Reserve infantry and Allied Corps to handle the fornt
Creata Schwerpunkt Combat Groups with High Tier leader and mobile shock troops for where you want to initate action
Keep a pool of "free divisions" for reserve

 

[tommylotto]

Again, why are you making this assumption? Has one developer post said this? Just because it hasn't been done on any of the screenies you have seen (probably because it aint the smartest thing to do) doesn't mean you can't do it.

2. brigades have (moddable) limitations, so only some things match. You cant mix armor and infantry in the same brigade, but you can mix different size of tanks, TDs etc

So, tanks and infantry don't mix, but I have seen artillery mixed with infantry, which is not really historical. The vast majority of nations placed all of a division's artillery battalions in separate artillery brigades or regiments. See here.

This is not correct. They are persistent groupings of units, and not purely dependent on the General. We saw an example of a command group which had no leader assigned to it. Even if in practice this will be brief, it's irrelevant. Remove Guderian and the command group doesn't disappear. It is a leaderless group waiting for you to assign a new leader. Or more probably, you just replace Guderian with a new leader, Guderian goes back into the general pool, then you replace Hoepner with Guderian.
Also, the name of the command group isn't linked to the general.
It seems to me there is no difference between the functionality of a command group, and one of the higher level commands in HOI3, with these two differences. You can have as many Divs in it as you want, no five unit limit. And you can't include another command group within a command group.
You can create sub-groupings within a command group, which have different objectives to the rest of the group. But these do not appear to be persistent, operating together only for the period that phase of the battle plan is being executed. This again fits exactly how Corps were often used in the Armies.

As mention by others previously, no one (at least no one in this conversation) is advocating Hoi3-like arbitrary limits to the size of these groupings. With that said, I have not seen that these groupings are persistent and survive after the reassignment of the general, but if they are persistent then that is very good. I hope you are right. Still even with with the persistent command groups (and the non-persistent sub-groupings as you describe it). The system would still benefit greatly from a customizable division organization system where you could create persistent groups and subgroups (of any size) that could quickly be selected with a hotkey or whatever. You could hit one key or one click and select a large persistent group and turn it into a command group and assign a general. That large group could already be divided into smaller sub-groups. One click or key-stroke selects one of those smaller groups and you can give it its separate objective in the battle plan. Another click or key stroke and you select another small group and can assign it its part of the battle plan. Otherwise, you are endlessly sorting, selecting and deselecting divisions inside your larger command groups to customize your battle plan.

More organizational tools are better.

 

[keynes2.0]

So, tanks and infantry don't mix, but I have seen artillery mixed with infantry, which is not really historical. The vast majority of nations placed all of a division's artillery battalions in separate artillery brigades or regiments.

What if I want to represent post-revolutionary Iraqi divisions?

 

[alanschu]

Remember that the people in those videos are all EU 4 and CK 2 fans. Not one of them is a HOI 3 Let's Player. I'm still waiting until some real experts get their hands on it.

They were also new to the game and in a multiplayer environment as well which expedites decision making.

 

[Praetori]

You want to be able to create a plan for a 50 divisions group of say six advance and defend orders, then only have to select those groups you want on those orders. You simply select the on map counter for the 30 division subgroup and assign it, since you already know its got the right mix of divisions. Then you fork off with the 10 divisions group inside it with just a couple of clicks. Not first dig through the inf stack and assign some from there, then the mot stack, then the armored stack, then have to double check if you actually remembered to add that inf-eng to one of the orders.

And that's the thing. HOI4 is very centered around the map (which is a good fresh thing) but it also includes some drawbacks since your entire army management is in-effect constricted by a two-dimensional geographical system. Your "sub-groups" of say 10-20 divisions are what would normally constitute a field-army consisting of a, at least semi permanent, grouping of divisions suitable for the task. And (here's the important part) it's NOT bound by geography or stacks. No matter if you peeled off a division to strengthen an allied formation or moved it back to rest or guard a river-crossing, if you select the Corps/Army it's still going to be there and not just another division in the long list of divisions assigned to a general.
Throwing in another armored-corps to help with counterattack and then move it somewhere else to help out isn't really possible as there are no subgroups other than the temporary ones in the battleplan on-map. You'd have to select each and every division you're after (possibly spread out over several provinces and maybe somewhere within a stack of other units) and then assign them to the general in question, then assign said divisions to the battleplan arrow you intended (again they will mix up with other units along that same arrow) and then after the encirclement is completed and you need to move them off to exploit a breakthrough elsewhere it's rinse-and-repeat.

I'm not saying that the HOI3 system was in any way favourable to the battleplan system but then again it wasn't the OOBs fault that the system was a bit clunky and that it's silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To have semi-permanent grouping of whatever size and the possibility to name them would go a long way of creating some order in the massed lists of divisions.
Just a little button under each general to pop-up the hierarchy would do nicely as a compliment to the map and selecting the sub-groups (either on the arrows on-map or the names) instead of clicking through the list of divisions or selecting each and every one on the map would be nice. Hell it might even help the AI to be a bit more structured and not stampede around with unassorted divisions when something happens on the frontline.

 

[potski]

Remember that the people in those videos are all EU 4 and CK 2 fans. Not one of them is a HOI 3 Let's Player. I'm still waiting until some real experts get their hands on it.

Quill18 has a number of HOI3 videos online. One series playing as Germany, the other as Republican Spain.

 

[xtfoster]

So, tanks and infantry don't mix, but I have seen artillery mixed with infantry, which is not really historical. The vast majority of nations placed all of a division's artillery battalions in separate artillery brigades or regiments.

I stand corrected. Although it doesn't really matter. Since the Division is still the smallest unit that matters, does it matter if have all of your infantry (even leg infantry) in 2-3 brigades, and the supporting armor in a separate brigade?

 

[tommylotto]

It will matter in the amount of experience required to add tanks to an infantry division. Let's say you want to add just one battalion of tanks to your infantry, like all those independent tank battalions used by the US. If you could add it to one of the infantry brigade columns, it would only cost 5 exp. But you can't. You have to open up another whole brigade / column, which will cost you 25 exp. I think it should be the same case to add an artillery regiment/brigade column. But then most starting infantry templates should have at least 4 columns already open with three columns for infantry and one column for artillery. In 36 a US infantry division (square) should have 4 columns of infantry and at least one column of artillery. It is going to be interesting how historically accurate PDX makes the starting templates for each nation.