Hearts of Iron IV - 38th Development Diary - 18th of December 2015

  • 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.
Looks awesome! Is there any concept of escorts for the convoys like in HoI3? I know you mentioned in an earlier diary that there wouldn't be corvettes. Also will submarines have a better sense of supply this time around? In HoI3 they could be deployed indefinitely.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
@keynes2.0 - you can assign destroyers on an escort mission. are they not then destroyer escorts? I do not understand what you mean when you say there are no destroyer escorts maybe you mean something else.

He (me too) wants to have Corvettes, Frigates and Destroyer Escorts as separate Units in the game.
This will be a task for modding :p
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Say a group of submarines in a battle sinks an all the convoys going to some particular destination. Like supplies from UK to North Africa. How long will the supply to North Africa be disrupted from this one event, assuming the UK has lots of spare convoys?

the efficiency of the route will go down even if you have spare convoys so the negative effects will apply anyway. THis is one thing that should make it work better than in hoi3

Thanks podcat! This DD was certainly much awaited :D

Quick question: will we still have to assign subs/naval units to regions, or can we just tell them which supply line to attack (or to disrupt trade between two particular nations)?

its all regions baby
 
  • 22
  • 2
Reactions:
@keynes2.0 - you can assign destroyers on an escort mission. are they not then destroyer escorts? I do not understand what you mean when you say there are no destroyer escorts maybe you mean something else.

There were destroyers and smaller destroyers class called destroyer-escorts. Those were specific for escorting conveys, they were smaller and had pretty much only ASW duties. :)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
how is the technology tree of submarines and navy for minor nations? do we have another screenshot?

and do we have to choose just one of the doctrines? I mean I wanna boost my submarine technology but also make a carrier research. is it possible?
 
how is the technology tree of submarines and navy for minor nations? do we have another screenshot?
Everyone use the exact same tech tree. Picture and names are just for flavor.

and do we have to choose just one of the doctrines? I mean I wanna boost my submarine technology but also make a carrier research. is it possible?
You can only pick one doctrine but you can change your doctrine later on.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
..and what the hell is the red camel? :eek:
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It looks like naval techs have columns for years and rows for ship type. I recall that tanks were the opposite, rows for year and columns for tank type. Will that be made consistent across all techs?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Yay for the Dev Diary but I think the Naval Doctrine tree is missing a part.

Commerce Defense

It should be a parallel track that a player can research regardless of the tree they're on.

Efficiently running convoys, training destroyers to attack subs, how to coordinate air and naval forces for sub hunting, how to coordinate the sightings of subs, developing efficient sonar, and radar that can detect subs.

This is a huge. Running convoys with 150 ships and getting escorts to work together requires training, the formulation of doctrine, a unified command structure that can coordinate convoys and escorts across thousands of miles.

I just read The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II by Mark Parillo.

His main point is that the American subs were so effective in the Pacific because the Japanese Command did not do the leg work and devote the time needed to wartime commerce protection.

To quote the book, "In the thinking of Japanese naval officers, antisubmarine warfare was 'defensive' and not worth major expenditures of the Navy's time, money or most fertile minds."

Now, I understand why the game designers don't want to make the player build the historical 1000 destroyer escorts and corvettes to protect the Atlantic trade.

But I am worried that you are adopting and allowing the players to get away with the same hubris that doomed the Japanese shipping effort.

Preparing to defend civilian commerce against subs and airplanes isn't just about having the ships. It's something that a Navy and a country has to devote a lot of resources to in order to do well and I am worried that they won't have to.

Japanese destroyers were often better than American and British ones on paper, but American and British Destroyers sank far more of the submarines they encountered because they put the time, the training, and the resources into developing effective doctrine.

The Japanese, by contrast, were focused solely on the Mahanian idea of decisive battle and destroying the enemy fleet and thus neglected commerce protection as unimportant.

In game terms, Japan went for the Base Strike Tree and didn't research commerce protection because it took time, money and gifted minds.

I know destroyer escorts are too much micro for you, but can you please make good escort policy cost research time?
 
  • 19
  • 2
Reactions: