Hearts of Iron IV - Development Diary 4 - Land Doctrines

[Big Nev]

@big-nev

theirs a fairly simple answer to that, where you have a doctrine tree related to multipurpose equipment use. you give weapon systems buffs in their not intended roles, in exchange for negatives (for example, german 88's being overbuilt for AA roles).

the more you progress down the tree, the more generic the unit becomes, paying the price for being a jack of all trades. you then make the tree open to everyone (so not doctrine locked) that meets universal criteria (e.g. a certain level of education and industry)

I just have one problem with that.

It would make The 88 very very mediocre and, therefore, a very poor representation. It was a superb AA weapon, it was a pretty good medium artiller piece and it was a superb AT weapon too. Probably THE best AT weapon of any nation until about 42/43.

The "cost" for this weapon system should be the build cost, fuel use (it's Mech remember) and maybe a little extra supply.

 

[nimrod123]

I just have one problem with that.

It would make The 88 very very mediocre and, therefore, a very poor representation. It was a superb AA weapon, it was a pretty good medium artiller piece and it was a superb AT weapon too. Probably THE best AT weapon of any nation until about 42/43.

The "cost" for this weapon system should be the build cost, fuel use (it's Mech remember) and maybe a little extra supply.

i meant the IC cost increases, due to the enhancements to the base to allow negative depression, whereas standard AA guns of the type require comparatively less work (due to never depressing enough that complex recoil systems are required). the other example that springs to mind is the quad .50's of the US army, where the use of a lighter weapon allowed for a multipurpose weapon system (instead of using 20mm's, requiring more work but extending AA range as a example)

its all tradeoff's, if it does both jobs well it costs effort, otherwise its cheap and medicore at both. their are very rarely free passes due to the specific requirements of the roles those weapons where meant to preform.

 

[Alex_brunius]

its all tradeoff's, if it does both jobs well it costs effort, otherwise its cheap and medicore at both. their are very rarely free passes due to the specific requirements of the roles those weapons where meant to preform.

When it comes to the 88mm gun though there was a lot of synergies. You generally want a gun that fires high velocity shells (flat trajectory) with minimal reload time ( higher rate of fire ) and does so accurately ( more hits ), regardless of if your target is an aircraft, a tank or ship.

 

[nimrod123]

When it comes to the 88mm gun though there was a lot of synergies. You generally want a gun that fires high velocity shells (flat trajectory) with minimal reload time ( higher rate of fire ) and does so accurately ( more hits ), regardless of if your target is an aircraft, a tank or ship.

but that high velocity comes with a price, it creates significant recoil. as long as that style of gun remains in a high elevation the forces can be relatively easily transferred into the ground with simple recoil collection methods.

once you lower the elevation of the gun you reach the point where the horizontal moments are so great that a standard AA gun recoil mechanism is insufficient to deal with the forces.

thats the cost, the mount has to be designed and made for the role, the 88 mounts that where portable are signficantly more complex then a standard portable AA mount. they are capable of elevations aproaching 90+ but also negative as well, its easily portable, it can be aim in AT mode.

all those developments are not free, or easy. some one had to design them, someone had to make them, they are all in excess to a "normal" large cailbaur AA gun

 

[Alex_brunius]

all those developments are not free, or easy. some one had to design them, someone had to make them, they are all in excess to a "normal" large cailbaur AA gun

But on the other hand it was much cheaper to make then a comparable gun only designed for only one role due to how many were built ( economy of scale ). These guns ( or quite similar designs for little extra development cost ) went on anything from submarines, capital ships, AT / mobile brigades and the list goes on.

So the hypothetical question then becomes. Did the complex design add more to the unit cost then was saved from the extra numbers produced?

 

[Hayro]

inb4 everyone chooses superior firepower for more supporting brigades

 

[Big Nev]

But on the other hand it was much cheaper to make then a comparable gun only designed for only one role due to how many were built ( economy of scale ). These guns ( or quite similar designs for little extra development cost ) went on anything from submarines, capital ships, AT / mobile brigades and the list goes on.

So the hypothetical question then becomes. Did the complex design add more to the unit cost then was saved from the extra numbers produced?

I don’t know about that, over 20,000 produced so you'd think you'd benefit at least a little. One thing I am sure of is that a single weapon system capable of multiple rolls means that you don’t need as many weapon systems in total.

So, whilst it was an expensive weapon, you didn't need to provide so much dedicated field artillery because you had 3.5"/20pdr (rapid fire) guns all over the place.

 

[nimrod123]

But on the other hand it was much cheaper to make then a comparable gun only designed for only one role due to how many were built ( economy of scale ). These guns ( or quite similar designs for little extra development cost ) went on anything from submarines, capital ships, AT / mobile brigades and the list goes on.

So the hypothetical question then becomes. Did the complex design add more to the unit cost then was saved from the extra numbers produced?

thats not the question. the question is if a single unit would cost more or less, if you bring long production into it, then you apply it to both.

 

[Alex_brunius]

thats not the question. the question is if a single unit would cost more or less, if you bring long production into it, then you apply it to both.

The cost of a single unit is totally irrelevant. No army is in the slightest interested in buying a single unit of anything.

If you want to compare something relevant you can for example compare:

88mm multi purpose design that can be used in both AA + AT + naval gun role ( produced in 21k units total )

versus

3 different designs each produced in 7k units total (21k guns)

Due to economy of scale and mass production each extra unit you build will be slightly cheaper then the previous ones generally speaking ( so unit no #20000 will cost for example half as much as unit no #7000 from the same production line )




You could also ask any General if he would prefer to have say 1000 AA guns that could all be turned into 1000 AT guns, or be limited to 600 of each lacking this flexibility, I think most would prefer the former option despite having less guns in total.

 

[Big Nev]

The cost of a single unit is totally irrelevant. No army is in the slightest interested in buying a single unit of anything.

If you want to compare something relevant you can for example compare:

88mm multi purpose design that can be used in both AA + AT + naval gun role ( produced in 21k units total )

versus

3 different designs each produced in 7k units total (21k guns)

Due to economy of scale and mass production each extra unit you build will be slightly cheaper then the previous ones generally speaking ( so unit no #20000 will cost for example half as much as unit no #7000 from the same production line )




You could also ask any General if he would prefer to have say 1000 AA guns that could all be turned into 1000 AT guns, or be limited to 600 of each lacking this flexibility, I think most would prefer the former option despite having less guns in total.

Or 1,000 AA guns that can be turned in to AT guns AND do the job of medium artillery or 500 of each?

I’m pretty sure the main reason there’s no unit (in the official HoI releases) is because it’s too much of an exploit. Germany wouldn’t need AT guns, for example. Add to this the CA classification of AA as “Direct” and AT becomes totally obsolete.

The fact that German AT was pretty much obsolete when faced with the Char B, Matilda II, KV-1 (the list goes on throughout the war) doesn’t seem to carry any weight.

But let’s think about CA for a moment.

What if you made Mech-AA a support unit? As in Eng & AC fire type Support. This would encourage the German player to build his expensive AA and still use Art & AT alongside it as was the case IRL. His AT becomes more effective because the unit benefits from the Piercing of the 88. In tank engagements this would reflect very well what actually happened. The 88s pick-off the heavies and the Pak 40s take-on everything else. The only thing he stops building is “regular” AA & Mot-AA.

Of course, this is in HoI TFH terms.

We don’t know how combat is going to work in HoI IV

 

[shri]

Or 1,000 AA guns that can be turned in to AT guns AND do the job of medium artillery or 500 of each?

I’m pretty sure the main reason there’s no unit (in the official HoI releases) is because it’s too much of an exploit. Germany wouldn’t need AT guns, for example. Add to this the CA classification of AA as “Direct” and AT becomes totally obsolete.

The fact that German AT was pretty much obsolete when faced with the Char B, Matilda II, KV-1 (the list goes on throughout the war) doesn’t seem to carry any weight.

But let’s think about CA for a moment.

What if you made Mech-AA a support unit? As in Eng & AC fire type Support. This would encourage the German player to build his expensive AA and still use Art & AT alongside it as was the case IRL. His AT becomes more effective because the unit benefits from the Piercing of the 88. In tank engagements this would reflect very well what actually happened. The 88s pick-off the heavies and the Pak 40s take-on everything else. The only thing he stops building is “regular” AA & Mot-AA.

Of course, this is in HoI TFH terms.

We don’t know how combat is going to work in HoI IV

As a side benefit, in early war--- 1939-1942, it would give a decisive superiority to Germany that was historically present in 1:1 battles, (though this had a lot of combinatorial factors included in it)

 

[nimrod123]

The cost of a single unit is totally irrelevant. No army is in the slightest interested in buying a single unit of anything.

If you want to compare something relevant you can for example compare:

88mm multi purpose design that can be used in both AA + AT + naval gun role ( produced in 21k units total )

versus

3 different designs each produced in 7k units total (21k guns)

Due to economy of scale and mass production each extra unit you build will be slightly cheaper then the previous ones generally speaking ( so unit no #20000 will cost for example half as much as unit no #7000 from the same production line )




You could also ask any General if he would prefer to have say 1000 AA guns that could all be turned into 1000 AT guns, or be limited to 600 of each lacking this flexibility, I think most would prefer the former option despite having less guns in total.

the single unit cost is totally relevant, the change in the structure of the weapon system means the cost changes, at the same time as its efficency at its roles.

your example of 21k vs. 3 x 7k is misleading as well, just because it may get a bigger reduction from gearing and the like, dosn't mean it the same price to begin with, or that its more reliable or as disposable.

 

[Alex_brunius]

your example of 21k vs. 3 x 7k is misleading as well, just because it may get a bigger reduction from gearing and the like, dosn't mean it the same price to begin with, or that its more reliable or as disposable.

Not sure it's so misleading, in the 3x7k example you also need to design, test and tool for 3 different designs, this means the multi purpose design can afford 3 times higher development and tooling costs if we are making a fair compairson.

But yes indeed the price to begin with is probably different, I have agreed with that all along, and it brings us back to this again:

So the hypothetical question then becomes. Did the complex design add more to the unit cost then was saved from the extra numbers produced?

If the added changes made it 50% more expensive to build, but the added production volume counteracted that by lowering the price back to the initial level, then you don't have a problem.

Do you understand what my point is now and can we leave this discussion to make room for going back to land doctrines?

 

[Invader_Canuck]

After taking a quick look at the Soviet losses during the first year of Barbarossa I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that Soviet doctrine during 1936-1942 was "the most effective set of doctrines put into use".





I think your missing their point. The short "mass mobilization" branch of the Mass assault doctrine is designed to be abandoned in favor for the longer Deep battle path which Paradox is calling:

I was not referring to the pre-war period, nor the opening few months of Barbarossa, I was referring to the war in totality.

My understanding was that the entire doctrine path was designed to be abandoned. If that is not the case, so be it. If it is the case, it is absolutely ridiculous. I certainly hope you are correct, however, I'm not sure you are?

 

[Alex_brunius]

I was not referring to the pre-war period, nor the opening few months of Barbarossa, I was referring to the war in totality.

My understanding was that the entire doctrine path was designed to be abandoned. If that is not the case, so be it. If it is the case, it is absolutely ridiculous. I certainly hope you are correct, however, I'm not sure you are?

I'm pretty sure it's only the mass mobilization path that is designed to be swaped out.

You may notice from the image that the Mass Mobilisation path is shorter than the others. This is because it's more of a series of stopgap measures for nations in dire straits than a real doctrine, and we want to encourage nations to swap out of it when/if their situation improves.

The Soviet Deep Battle path looks like it is just as long ( same number of doctrines ) as the others, so I think it will be just as powerful ( if not even more powerful ):

the innovative Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, which makes use of the modern tools of war and boosts the capability of Armour, artillery, and mobile units.

 

[jamesd]

Going back to specific doctrine trees is a step backwards. In reality there are no mutually exclusive paths. Knowing how to conduct Mobile Warfare doesn't prevent you from knowing how to use Superior Firepower. I think a better way of handling this would be to increase training time for units based on the number of doctrines they are expected to know. That way a 1914 infantry unit that knows how to fire rifles and march in formation is much quicker to train than a 1945 infantry unit that knows how to use fire and movement, infiltration tactics, call in air strikes, advance behind creeping artillery barrages and prepare defences in depth etc.

Maybe its a case of divisions needing to sit in place out of contact with the enemy for X number of days to learn a new skill once its been unlocked. Known skills could also be marked as inactive so that newly formed divisions will not spend time learning them.

BTW, the default British, US & Soviet doctrines were Mobile Warfare, just like the Germans. They all emphasised getting into the enemy's rear areas so as to minimise the time spent attacking dug in defenders. The French in 1939/40 would be best described as having a Superior Firepower doctrine, in that they planned to wait until the reserve artillery could come up and lay a heavy barrage on the enemy, allowing their infantry to advance under its cover. They so neglected mobile warfare that they were unable to effectively respond to the Germans breaking through to the Channel.

 

[Marine]

This new approach to tech trees are something that I have been looking forward for since HOI II.
It will make different countries tactics and strategies come forward more

/Marine

 

[Klausewitz]

Going back to specific doctrine trees is a step backwards. In reality there are no mutually exclusive paths. Knowing how to conduct Mobile Warfare doesn't prevent you from knowing how to use Superior Firepower. I think a better way of handling this would be to increase training time for units based on the number of doctrines they are expected to know. That way a 1914 infantry unit that knows how to fire rifles and march in formation is much quicker to train than a 1945 infantry unit that knows how to use fire and movement, infiltration tactics, call in air strikes, advance behind creeping artillery barrages and prepare defences in depth etc.

Maybe its a case of divisions needing to sit in place out of contact with the enemy for X number of days to learn a new skill once its been unlocked. Known skills could also be marked as inactive so that newly formed divisions will not spend time learning them.

BTW, the default British, US & Soviet doctrines were Mobile Warfare, just like the Germans. They all emphasised getting into the enemy's rear areas so as to minimise the time spent attacking dug in defenders. The French in 1939/40 would be best described as having a Superior Firepower doctrine, in that they planned to wait until the reserve artillery could come up and lay a heavy barrage on the enemy, allowing their infantry to advance under its cover. They so neglected mobile warfare that they were unable to effectively respond to the Germans breaking through to the Channel.

I agree but would take it even a bit further:
There never was a Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle is more a function of the strategic mindset (read the players mindset) than a distinct path of mobile warfare.
The German divisions were fast (mobile warfare), small (numbers compensated for by automatic weapons and artillery => firepower doctrine), the infantry divisions were able to conduct defense in depth and trenchwarfare (attritional containment: you contain and wait the enemy out), etc.
The germans alone already drive roughshod over the idea of one path.
The same goes for the Americans, the brits, the Russians, basically anybody ever fighting on different terrain or evolving or fighting more than one enemy.

 

[Dan1109]

Sorry, I hate it. This is a fallback to HOI2, to make things LESS complex for the masses, so the game can be sold to more people. It's like taking a computerized version of Panzer Leader, and turning it into Axis & Allies, or even Risk(Anyone who knows all of those references should have no hair or grey hair - and from the paradox video, the devs certainly don't qualify).

I want sandbox capability - I want to make tough choices. Sure, Haiti could research Nukes if they wanted, but it would, take all of their leadership until the 22nd century to figure it out. A player should be able to research whatever they want. It's the AI which needs to be improved, on making its choices. In HOI3, even Germany and the US couldn't research EVERYTHING, unless they wanted to less than mediocre at everything. They had to make tough choices too. When I play HOI3 (and now so much better with BlackICE), I love making those tough tech choices.

What is limiting is the way the AI makes those choices, by saying "don't research that path", or "spend 5% of leadership on this path". No, I want the AI to have a set of initial tech line directions and then make CHANGES to based on what's happening. Germany is kick arse with blitzkrieg doctrine, hmmm....maybe we should research blitzkrieg doctrine as well. Oh, I'm behind 2 levels in infantry firearm technology compared to my enemy - I need to focus more on that. How would a human make those choices...needs to be put into the AI.

This is completely over simplifying the game, just so it can be sold to more people. I'm gonna write a song now..."While my Panzer Leader Box Gently Weeps"

 

[kmannkoopa]

I’m pretty sure the main reason there’s no unit (in the official HoI releases) is because it’s too much of an exploit. Germany wouldn’t need AT guns, for example. Add to this the CA classification of AA as “Direct” and AT becomes totally obsolete.

From what I understand the effectiveness of the 88 had far more to do with doctrine than technology. All of the major combatants had a roughly similar gun (especially once they captured a version), however the Germans kept their 88s far closer to the front lines. This can easily be accomplished through doctrine -- in HOI 3 terms, unlocking a particular doctrine adds +X to the hard attack of AA units.

Not sure how accurate this webpage is, but here it is spelled out: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/88-Flak.html#an_3