Hearts of Iron IV - 48th Development Diary - 11th of March 2016
- Thread starter podcat
- 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.
The thing about this is that in HOI3, ENG is ripe for invasion because of the proximity of so many high level 10 naval bases, and similar situations occur in continental Europe around the traditional invasion routes. The balance was such that you'll need a very large force to counter anything that manages to take a single level 10 naval base, and a lot more if a slightly larger zone is controlled. In that, typically no one bothers defending the coast in vanilla MP because of the high attrition and huge commitment to prevent a landing. It's far easier to hold troops far behind in reserve and simply move to crush any landing afterwards like what Daniel did in the WWW. Also, in HOI3 you can paradrop an empty level 10 port and it's 100% operational. Even pushing back defenders only trigger the standard push-back destruction which amounts to 1-2 levels at the most if defended by a whole corp.
I was hoping for some kind of increased destruction (not necessarily scorched earth though that would be interesting if included via the old pushback mechanic but simulating the need to reorganise a captured port before operations). That, combined with some kind of portable harbor (level 1 ports held in reserve, or for instant deployment) would help bring a more complete logistical side to naval landings.
On another note, it's also important to consider how many troops can actually be landed against the number of potential defenders. If any country can just magically conjure up another 100 divisions like Daniel does without wrecking their own local supply routes, it's basically going to cause any landing to be a huge failure. I imagine GER could simply deploy 100 divisions of fresh infantry straight into France and have them fighting shortly afterwards in any landing, and same goes for ENG, Italy and so on.
Furthermore, supply and division count seems to be quite skewed which I hope the beta will fix. In Italy, the number of troops fighting were only a small fraction of the potential troops both sides could deploy, but the infra is completely unable to support this. Perhaps division building is too easy/cheap on menpower at the moment.
TL;DR. Maybe destroy ports that are taken from a defender to prevent a huge force from using a freshly captured level 10 port to supply troops without time to repair/reorganize.
- 2
- 2
Are these available in pop-ups by any chance? I know they are death in MP, but some of us rely on them in SP.
- 1
Can I get around the long prep time required by a large invasion by splitting it into several simultaneous small invasions?
- 1
if you have enough available ports to run them from yes. Generally this means you need to manage more naval supremacy
- 10
Yes, I know about "supply cache" every unit carries with them. But air supply is the least important for paratroopers - army in general used them as well to great extent. Just because it is a PLAN for an offensive to link up with paratroopers, does not mean that it will happen - plans in war usually do not go as you originally thought.
And that is why we need air supply missions. I get it, new air and supply system makes it impossible to air supply a single province - but what about copy of current supply system, naval convoys, for air supply? Just like naval convoy would supply port-to-port and its efficiency depend on naval superiority in the region - we could have "air" convoys airport-to-airport who's efficiency would depend on air superiority. Just like subs do convoy raiding, so could interceptors. After all, it was possible to supply large portions of the army that way.
And it has gameplay value as well - you might not have naval superiority, but do have air one. That way you could supply your units for an extended periods of time instead of just 30 days, and enemy has to deal with it.
And, for instance, low infrastructure and far regions in let us say Africa - air supply could help a lot for a small force.
I do hope supply system gets a major rework because it is missing a lot. What we saw in WWW was way too much - supplying hundreds of divisions in eastern Siberia and Tibet from Berlin, over huge destroyed regions, with poor infrastructure overall, filled with partisans? Ain't gonna happen. Ever. Not even today something like that would be possible even remotely.
In general, supply system works (simulates) for European battlefield. Everything else, it breaks up. Of all the things in HoI4, supply system is the weakest link. Removing air supply is just another nail in the coffin of the system.
Oh, and btw, I think that 30 days is way to much, even if it dynamic system (penalties get worse over time of those 30 days). A division involved in fighting would be out of supply much faster than that. Out of the fight, depends on the division. But we should be able to drop a paratrooper unit and supply it through the air, just as was the case in all the previous games.
That is how Sea Lion worked for me - blow up RAF out of the sky, drop paratroopers to surround the ports with big coastal fort values, take them as fast as possible and hold the line until some heavy equipment could be brought in. And I needed air supply to do it. Not to mention supplying surrounded troops. Demyansk pocket held for almost 4 months due to air supply. There is just no way around it - you cannot simulate and abstract it like most other things in HoI4. You need at least some basic airport-to-airport supply mechanics if not general airdrop mechanics.
I understand how new system works so I thought airport-to-airport should be doable. The best option would be both airport-to-airport and airdrop, with airdrop having penalties and smaller supply value - but I it is too much to ask. I don't think that copying existing naval convoy to air system is too much to ask though. I hope something like that comes as soon as possible in one of the patches.
- 3
- 3
- 1
Maybe that could be addressed with the permanent loss of some transports/landing crafts participating in the invasion. That would make repeated invasion costly and increase the time between them if you need to build the required number of ships.
- 1
How is that lone Iraqi division going to invade mainland Europe like they did in the older games.
- 1
I'm sure paratroopers involved in Market garden would have enjoyed having up to 30 days without full out of supply penalties before linking with relief troops.
- 3
First, I must say that I agree that air supply should be available.
Second, I don't like all aspects of the new supply system, as I stated in the megathread about that topic (especially the lifetime fuel included in equipment).
That being said, in surplus of the growing out of supply penalties don't forget that in HOI4 equipment has attrition when moving and/or fighting. So an isolated unit involved in heavy fighting would soon be missing equipment and that will also have a negative impact on its fighting value.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
How do you hndle the suppy issue we saw in the WWW, that you Kind of Need a strong force to defeat the enemy but if you bring in enough troops they will not get enough supply? Will it be enough to capture a broad costal area or do you have to hope to capture enough Inland Areas fast enough?
Also is it better to fight the enemy at the beaches due to naval bombing or to procedd Inland as fast as possible?
Also is it better to fight the enemy at the beaches due to naval bombing or to procedd Inland as fast as possible?
Has it been said how effective planes will be against ships? For example, if I'm Germany and have air superiority but not naval superiority, would I be able to cripple the Royal Navy just with planes?
That's what makes this my favorite dev diary yet. One of the more recent ones I saw in DH was Brazil invading Greece all on their own. I'll give them this, though: they made it as far as Slovenia before Germany bothered to stop them.
Last edited:
Very unlikely that aircrafts will be that effective against naval units and getting total air superiority will probably be next to impossible.
Solid DD. Like the other poster mentioned, nice to have info that was not already covered in previous DD or WWW. Thank you for that.
Now that we are 1+ years past our due date, how about give us some actual release time frame and/or date. It’s stupid how every week goes by without release information. If we keep following this path, we will start seeing random DD's about country X. Which for the most part people would care less. But hey it eats up another Friday of a DD.
Spare me the, "it’s done when it done" BS please. Save that for the newbies checking on the forum for the first time. I don’t need a over analytical explanation from users on this forum about game development either. Any gamer with half a brain understand the concept.
Been following this game since day 1, as many of us probably have, we want to know release information more than any more details of the game at this point (im sure I am not the only one who feels this way).
Sincerely,
Now that we are 1+ years past our due date, how about give us some actual release time frame and/or date. It’s stupid how every week goes by without release information. If we keep following this path, we will start seeing random DD's about country X. Which for the most part people would care less. But hey it eats up another Friday of a DD.
Spare me the, "it’s done when it done" BS please. Save that for the newbies checking on the forum for the first time. I don’t need a over analytical explanation from users on this forum about game development either. Any gamer with half a brain understand the concept.
Been following this game since day 1, as many of us probably have, we want to know release information more than any more details of the game at this point (im sure I am not the only one who feels this way).
Sincerely,
- 13
Why not? Aircraft were very effective against ships in WW2. Midway, for example?
What due date? I'm pretty sure there never was one.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
American aircrafts was very effective against Japanese ships but Japanese aircrafts did not find many american targets, a very one sided war in my opinion.
If you make naval bombers destroy everything you will basically make navies largely pointless. Yes you need aircover but you can not sweep away the defender aircrafts by sending a massive amount of fighters and then send in a massive amount of naval bombers against their ships. If the enemy put up, lets say 10 fighters per capital ships, it will be very hard to dislodge these ships with airpower only, you have to send in your own ships, combined arms style which I think the whole game is about.
If you make naval bombers destroy everything you will basically make navies largely pointless. Yes you need aircover but you can not sweep away the defender aircrafts by sending a massive amount of fighters and then send in a massive amount of naval bombers against their ships. If the enemy put up, lets say 10 fighters per capital ships, it will be very hard to dislodge these ships with airpower only, you have to send in your own ships, combined arms style which I think the whole game is about.
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Oups, thank you for info
+1. As for any amphibious invasions untill a huge strategic goal is taken, like a city.. So as long as Marines fail to capture a victory point area, or particular logistic place (or make a Mulberry as said previously), they should very easily experience some suppliies shortages. How will this be handled ?
...Dropping tanks from planes is not a possibility (you need a really big parachute for them
Some were "dropped" but using heavy gliders not parachutes, like the Mk VII Tetrarch and M22 Locust light tanks. Only a few were used in actual operations and did not shine particularly.