Hearts of Iron IV - 45th Development Diary - 19th of February 2016

  • 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.
Joeenochs, I'm think of the planning bonus more as getting everyone ready, rested and the logistics all in line. It's not the magnificence of the plan, but rather the level of preparation to act that brings the advantage.

Exactly, but if I can ignore the plan by manual control of every unit, what is the point of it?
 
Exactly, but if I can ignore the plan by manual control of every unit, what is the point of it?

There is some hope that the planning mechanism will lead to natural "operational pauses". Rather than attack for six months straight, you attack for a couple of weeks, pause to build up bonus, attack for another few weeks, etc. At minimum it's a bonus for keeping your units sitting still and out of combat for a period of time.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That certainly looks like a strong compromise beetween micro and macro, automation and manual control and will probably add to the feel of commanding armies. I hope though that going away from the plan too much would incur penalties at some point, that would add a nice layer of strategy I think instead of just being a convenience feature.

What does "that" refer to? If manually controlled units near the plan keep the bonus, you have to use plans AND micro for optimal results.
 
Exactly, but if I can ignore the plan by manual control of every unit, what is the point of it?

In pure gameplay terms?

Not having to micro-manage every unit, but not punishing you for getting involved and making the quick, and satisfying, choices that encircle/cut-off or otherwise turn the tide of the battle.

Why have any planning bonus in the first place? Well to advantage a defender against any totally mad-cap last minute plans in multiplayer? Because it fits into the flow of the game, working to build up and then unleash the war engine.

Because it's fun the make plans, and not have the stick completely to them!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
There is some hope that the planning mechanism will lead to natural "operational pauses". Rather than attack for six months straight, you attack for a couple of weeks, pause to build up bonus, attack for another few weeks, etc. At minimum it's a bonus for keeping your units sitting still and out of combat for a period of time.

I would also hope for these kind of restrictions. But I don't infer them from Podcat's diary.
 
What does "that" refer to? If manually controlled units near the plan keep the bonus, you have to use plans AND micro for optimal results.

"That" refers to the battle plan. What I mean is, if you're crushing the ennemy, there is little point in doing micro (well, you might save 5 men...). On top, you don't have to order every single move. There's a greater scheme in the background and you just have to manage the small bits that need to, but no need to take every single regiment by the hand and tell them to attack the neighbouring province. That's how I see it at least but I'll have to see how it goes in the practice (hence why I said it "looks like" and not stated that is it a "strong compromise").
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Because it's fun the make plans, and not have the stick completely to them!

What is the difference between not sticking completely and not sticking at all to plan? That is my question. Players will push every feature to the limit and that is fine. Limits, if any, need to be imposed by the system.
 
Looks like an engaging system!
 
I would also hope for these kind of restrictions. But I don't infer them from Podcat's diary.

I'm not sure what you mean by "these kind of restrictions". The idea that a planning bonus makes operational pauses more attractive doesn't depend on any particular limit to plan modifications.

Toss planning completely out the window and imagine a "resting" bonus that divisions accumulate when they aren't moving and aren't fighting and that depletes once they start doing either. If you want to fight with a good bonus, you will want to work pauses in. If you don't, you risk a big counterattack from an enemy who has been resting a portion of their troops.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
"That" refers to the battle plan. What I mean is, if you're crushing the ennemy, there is little point in doing micro (well, you might save 5 men...). On top, you don't have to order every single move. There's a greater scheme in the background and you just have to manage the small bits that need to, but no need to take every single regiment by the hand and tell them to attack the neighbouring province. That's how I see it at least but I'll have to see how it goes in the practice (hence why I said it "looks like" and not stated that is it a "strong compromise").

I think we are on the same page here. The battle plans are somewhere between gameplay and convenience and I think, that at this point even Paradox may not know where they are on this line. I am strictly voting for the side of gameplay even it might alienate some players who want to keep the option to do full manual control without any disadvantage. Because as Podcat pointed out they only have resources to make one good game and not multiple ones.
 
Toss planning completely out the window and imagine a "resting" bonus that divisions accumulate when they aren't moving and aren't fighting and that depletes once they start doing either. If you want to fight with a good bonus, you will want to work pauses in. If you don't, you risk a big counterattack from an enemy who has been resting a portion of their troops.

A planning bonus, which is reduced to a waiting bonus, sounds pretty lame to me.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
You have to keep your troops out of battle for some time to get a bonus for some time. Thats the trade off. I imagine having some armies automated while microing others. When the bonus is used up I can either continue without a bonus or find a place along the frontlines where they can rest and regain bonus. This makes for some interesting choices.
 
You don't get any malice for attacking without a plan or without spending time preparing. However the side that takes the time to draw up a plan and prepare their troops to execute said plan will, naturally, be more effective.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
You don't get any malice for attacking without a plan or without spending time preparing. However the side that takes the time to draw up a plan and prepare their troops to execute said plan will, naturally, be more effective.

The difference between a bonus for one side and a malus for the other side is just a convention.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Organisation has a much shorter spend/recharge rate and planning bonus isn't lost with fighting or moving, but with time. Organisation and bonus are two different things. And some people worried the game would be dumbed down... :)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Important question: is possible to mod the size of battle plan arrows? I want my battle plan arrows thick like German sausages, not skinny like Italian noodles. ;)

Seriously though, I would really like to have bigger thicker arrows if possible.
 
A planning bonus, which is reduced to a waiting bonus, sounds pretty lame to me.

As long as it's a binary of "on-plan vs off-plan", you don't really have good choices. Either you can vary the plan tremendously and the planning bonus reduces to waiting, or plans are unrealistically strict. It's very hard to justify a particular line there.

If they are willing to asses degrees of divergence, then they could have partial penalty to the planning bonus. Like moving one province off of the plan reduces bonus by 1/5 of the accumulated bonus or something. Then you'd be able to say that the plans you made actually mattered, but they weren't set in stone. The trick would be evaluating "divergence from previous plan" in an intuitive way.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Time for another friday diary! Today I'll be talking about one of the biggest changes in Hearts of Iron IV compared to the previous titles: Battle Plans.
This is the HOI4 feature which I am anticipating the most. :D

When you think it is ready, I'd love to see a WWW or equivalent showing off someone using the Battle Plans to set up and use a complex plan (such as your Barbarossa plan).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As long as it's a binary of "on-plan vs off-plan", you don't really have good choices. Either you can vary the plan tremendously and the planning bonus reduces to waiting, or plans are unrealistically strict. It's very hard to justify a particular line there.

If they are willing to asses degrees of divergence, then they could have partial penalty to the planning bonus. Like moving one province off of the plan reduces bonus by 1/5 of the accumulated bonus or something. Then you'd be able to say that the plans you made actually mattered, but they weren't set in stone. The trick would be evaluating "divergence from previous plan" in an intuitive way.

I get your point. Note however that there are two dimensions. One is how much you stick to a plan and the other is how much you overwrite AI control, which is also linked to plans. You can use manual control and still roughly stick to the plan. I think that even the usage of AI can be made a gameplay decision in the sense that the more you use manual control the more you will be punished. This will also help the AI to be a good opponent.