I can see the $16 Balkans expansion now...leaders and flavor plus a core QOL improvement to force everyone to buy it.
- 4
- 1
Hearts of Iron IV - 26th Development Diary - 25th of September 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.
I can see the $16 Balkans expansion now...leaders and flavor plus a core QOL improvement to force everyone to buy it.
Not done reading the full thread (on page 10) but I got to say that does it really matter what they are called. They had to have a name for each of the 3 branches, why not go with the same ones they had in HOI 1 and 2?
Base Strike: In HOI this is the Carrier focused doctrine...technically, at game start NO ONE was carrier focused. The IJN was turning towards a carrier doctrine, the USA and RN were experimenting with integrating them into their carrier fleets, but no one was building true carrier fleets in 1936.
Fleet in Being: In HOI this is the Battleship focused doctrine...every country in the game in 1936 was probably this at game start. The IJN was moving away from it due to the limitations of their shipyards. The USN was forced away from it by the destruction of PacFleet at Pearl Harbor. Germany realized they couldn't compete with the RN and switched to convoy raiding when they realized they couldn't afford Plan Z.
Trade Interdiction: In HOI this is the Submarine/light units focused doctrine. No one really was on this path in 1936, most that moved to it were forced onto by the realities of the war.
Base Strike: In HOI this is the Carrier focused doctrine...technically, at game start NO ONE was carrier focused. The IJN was turning towards a carrier doctrine, the USA and RN were experimenting with integrating them into their carrier fleets, but no one was building true carrier fleets in 1936.
Fleet in Being: In HOI this is the Battleship focused doctrine...every country in the game in 1936 was probably this at game start. The IJN was moving away from it due to the limitations of their shipyards. The USN was forced away from it by the destruction of PacFleet at Pearl Harbor. Germany realized they couldn't compete with the RN and switched to convoy raiding when they realized they couldn't afford Plan Z.
Trade Interdiction: In HOI this is the Submarine/light units focused doctrine. No one really was on this path in 1936, most that moved to it were forced onto by the realities of the war.
- 1
I can see the $16 Balkans expansion now...leaders and flavor plus a core QOL improvement to force everyone to buy it.
Then you need to have your eyes checked
Paradox DLC policy is the best in the industry.
- 6
- 1
I wouldn't think of it as a 'restriction' per se, beyond the capacity restrictions of the dev team being only so big so couldn't do national focusses for everyone, at least straight away - that was the way I think it was explained. So if they charged us all $100 for HoI4 at launch, they could probably have unique everything in there, but we'd all be complaining about the price instead of the generic national focus trees
. In terms of generic stuff, I think we've heard there'll be generic national focusses and some generic businesses/generals/ministers (not all of them, but some) in the minor nations. I'd expect to see some generic equipment in there as well (either 'medium tank 1940' or using a major's model for that tank) - but I'd expect mods to cover this off before too long - Vonboe's already on the case .
If any are ever added, they'll just be included in free patches, just like NI in EU 4
- 1
Looking at the icons for Base Strike, I don't see one that indicates the doctrine of coordinating multiple carrier air groups like Japan's First Mobile Striking Fleet or the later war American Fast Carrier Task Force. I was hoping Japan would get an early edge there since Japan's unique (at the start of the war) ability to combine six carrier air groups into a single striking force was a tremendous advantage.
Last edited:
- 4
It's possible that the second one in the carrier line covers what you mentioned. I'm not exactly sure what it meant, but it could be a general coordination bonus.
Looking at the icons for Base Strike, I don't see one that indicates the doctrine of coordinating multiple carrier air groups like Japan's First Mobile Striking Fleet or the later war American Fast Carrier Task Force. I was hoping Japan would get an early edge there since Japan's unique (at the start of the war) ability to combine six carrier air groups into a single striking force was a tremendous advantage.
Or maybe that kind of coordination is less of a general doctrine and more of a admiral's methodology, if that's the case we could have an admiral with an inclination of doing exactly what you said.
You're right, can't be sure without more info but those surrounding ships look like escorts to me not extra carriers so I don't believe it to be the case.
That kind of coordination has to be more than just an innovative officer improvising on the spot. 1st Air Fleet and the six carriers started training together in April 1941 (Well, Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu in April then Shokaku and Zuikaku were integrated when they were commissioned later in 1941.)
That kind of coordination has to be more than just an innovative officer improvising on the spot. 1st Air Fleet and the six carriers started training together in April 1941 (Well, Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu in April then Shokaku and Zuikaku were integrated when they were commissioned later in 1941.)
- 2
Looking at the picture, I would guess that the third picture on the far right is what you are looking for, as a closed fist along with aircraft speaks to me of a concentrated strike on the enemy with the first two simply being proper co-ordination with their escort groups.
- 3
Yeah, those are definitely escort ships, but that's the closest thing i can see from the chart.
This is possible, according to the devs that's the floating airfield tech, every doctrine has access to it, but base strike gets it much earlier.
Hopefully, air group coordination is in there somewhere. Thank you both for the responses.
I can see the $16 Balkans expansion now...leaders and flavor plus a core QOL improvement to force everyone to buy it.
A Balkans expansion? I doubt it.
The collective arguing in the community about leaders, provinces, resources, and demographics would preclude podcat or Johan getting any work done.
- 5
- 1
The historical reality is carrier commanders did everything possible to avoid night surface actions against battleships.
It should be easy to define a naval combat system where battleships sink carriers in bad weather & at night, and carriers (if equipped with sufficiently advanced planes) sink battleships only in clear weather.
Then you have a realistic balance, and it makes sense to build both battleships and carriers.
I don't think "attacking" or "defending" is particularly meaningful in the naval context. Both sides try to exert control over an area of sea, and that involves denying the enemy the ability to sail in that region. Eliminate the enemy's combat assets, strike their soft targets, protect your own. You can have situations where one side has the preponderance of the soft targets in theater under their banner, or a side has combat assets that are extremely difficult to bring to battle (IE: submarines) leading to a more 'defensive' character of the engagements (as the only options left are convoy defense / retaliatory strikes on soft targets), but the goal is still the same whether it's "your" waters or not.
And I'd concur with the consensus that for Germany in the game's time-frame, having a navy that can really assert control over the Royal Navy is just not an option. Can't defeat the enemy combat assets, have few soft targets to defend, thus focus on hitting enemy soft targets - meaning you want submarines, convoy raiders, and so on. Notably though this would cause a severe problem with any attempts to do things like launch amphibious invasions, as you don't have the 'weight' to actually fight a fleet battle with the Royal Navy on the surface (does anyone, other than USA / Japan?). If you can get -total- air superiority (good luck) and a lot of good anti-shipping aircraft based in range, this may be salvageable, but at that point strategic bombing starts to look like a better option IMO. Invading over waters you can't control is just not good, particularly in terms of logistics to supply your troops. Though to be honest I don't think it's at all a winnable fight.
- 2
I definitely agree with this, but it's the language Denkt want to use so i have no choice in my wording.
- 1
It is not just carrier focused (I think focused on a particular ship are wrong to describe the difference between the 3 doctrines). I would call it the flexible or balanced doctrine. In HOI4 it did not have the best convoy protection or best convoy raiding but it was not worst in either. Yes it do give more benefit to carriers then the other two doctrines but given the flexibility carriers and it's aircrafts posses I think it is fair. The doctrine is thus for the ones that needs a navy that can do everything in a good but not great way. US is a good example who need the ability to strike down Japanse convoys (and navy) as well as protecting its own convoys from German raiders.
Again I think it is wrong to look at this doctrine just as Battleship focus. The whole point of this doctrine is to make it as hard as possible to sink your convoys. Thus this doctrine probably carry with it the most effective escort mission as well as the most effective patrol mission. It also most likely have the best ASW. The focus on Battleship also play into the defensive focus on the doctrine, for an offensive navy the Battleship slow speed and high cost may not make it a good choice but speed may not be as important for a battleship that escort convoys. It outranges all other ships but carriers and got the most ability to take damage, and damage dealt to the Battleship could mean less damage dealt to the convoys.
Just because Plan Z was supposed to be made of differen't types of surface vessels don't make it in HOI4 world a Fleet in Being navy because what is important here is how the navy would be used and Plan Z was a pure Trade Interdiction navy.
Again it is not the ships that make the doctrine but how they are supposed to be used. Nations that employ this doctrine are nations that will use most of its navy on convoy raiding missions as this doctrine are all about making the life of enemy convoys as difficult as possible no matter what ships you choice to use. Yes it have the most benefited submarines but submarines are about as pure offensive you can get as submarines have little defensive value. Yes I would say Germany had Trade Interdiction in 1936 because the whole idea was the need to destroy enemy convoys to win.
Maybe picture 4 in the right column (the one which aircrafts bomb a ship). I could see Japan start with more of the doctrine researched then US. Given that Carriers aircrafts will also need air doctrines resarched to be effective, you may find what you are looking for in the air doctrines.
Well saying that attacking or defending is not meaningful in naval context is about as correct as saying that attacking or defending is not meaningful in the land context. Yes the ultimate goal in the end is the same for any navy but the ultimate goal is the same for any army as well.
The difference between the 3 doctrines is how they use their resources. The Trade Interdiction doctrine focus on getting to enemy convoys and sink them (and any enemy warship that make itself a target). The Fleet in Being Doctine instead use its resources to make what Trade Interdiction tries to do as hard as possible. The Base Strike doctrine admit the need of both protection your convoys and sinking of enemy convoys and look to do both as well as looking for enemy warship to sink.
The ideal case that whole enemy fleet is gone is very far fetched, so the 3 doctrines offers you the choice of what you think are the most important role of your navy. Why I emphasis the convoys is that the only role a navy has is related to convoys (deny/sink enemy convoys and protect your convoys).
What I call offensive actions is everything directly releated to sinking convoys (including sinking enemy warships who are protecting convoys or hunting raiders) and defensive actions are directly tied to defending your convoys (including activly search for and sink raiders).
Yes they all try to reach the ultimate goal but it is what they focus on most that defines the doctrine.
- 2
- 1
- 1
If you're looking for navies that need a flexible or balanced doctrine, the US is a good example, but the RN is a (marginally) better one
.For example, the RN was doing this before the US was even in the war, with both battleships and carriers (and corvettes!)
That said, we don't really know what all three doctrines do yet, all we've seen are most of the little icons that show us what they can do. Further, the icons aren't that different from each other (particularly between fleet-in-being and base strike). From the icons, though, I'd say that fleet-in-being is more of a 'jack-of-all trades' doctrine, while 'base strike' is a bit more focussed.
The little icons seem to roughly correspond to techs that HOI2 had. I never really liked the system. I understand the concept of different doctrines but in game terms it never meant that the ships were used differently. It just meant that IJN and USN were better than the rest especially late game, because they had a lot more efficient carrier fleets. While HOI3 system is not as interesting, it offered the choise to develop doctrines to ships you have rather than to ships someone at paradox thought you traditionally should have.
Edit: maybe they have balanced the system after HOI2. In hoi2 the base strike was so much better than the other two that i often used some time to switch the doctrine as UK.
Edit: maybe they have balanced the system after HOI2. In hoi2 the base strike was so much better than the other two that i often used some time to switch the doctrine as UK.
- 2
I like this system better then HOI3 because this force you to make trade offs. Well you could say you did have to make trade offs in HOI3 as well but the thing is in HOI3 if you had enough points you could be great in everything. Another thing HOI3 offered was the ability to max or forget also known as min maxing.
I think carriers will not be as much of a balance issue in HOI4 as well I think the 3 doctrines will be more balanced.
I think carriers will not be as much of a balance issue in HOI4 as well I think the 3 doctrines will be more balanced.
- 2
It would be cool if you had to gain air and naval xp before you could research certain doctrines though. Günther Lützow and Werner Mölders developed the finger four formation for fighter aircraft during the Spanish civil war for example.
- 1