HoI4 Dev Diary - The Imperial Japanese Navy (AAR)

[Magnificent Genius]

From what I recall, the German AI is hardcoded not to attack the Maginot Line.

I last played about eight months ago as Japan, and the AI wasted upwards of 200k soldiers attacking two of my mountain forts in Italy.

Either way, question stands whether the AI will be able to manage the new resources and combat mechanics, or if we'll see a repeat of Stellaris' latest patch where the AI didn't know how to use the new mechanics and is flooded with free resources in an attempt to compensate for its incompetence.

I'd have to disagree, a fair few times I've seen them push through the Maginot, I expect there are various factors that more often than not make them not willing to attack, though it remains a possibility.

Every time I rely on the AI to suicide itself on entrenched/fortified troops, it doesn't, so there is some kind of calculation going on beyond just "lvl 10 forts, do not attack", etc. I have had a few games go awry(mostly attempts at "My Ships Don't Lie") because my plan was to let the AI exhaust itself and then walk over them, and the AI didn't attack at all.

 

[Oerdin]

I turned both Guam and parts of the Philippines into giant shipyards with plenty of AA and aircraft cover. This allowed me to have very secure operating bases close to the action. As traveling back and forward across the Pacific is both dangerous and time consuming. It was still a risk, but a risk I was willing to take

Not to mention that with MtGs going back and forth would use a lot fuel which will be difficult for Japan to swallow.

 

[Daelyn75]

Every time I rely on the AI to suicide itself on entrenched/fortified troops, it doesn't, so there is some kind of calculation going on beyond just "lvl 10 forts, do not attack", etc. I have had a few games go awry(mostly attempts at "My Ships Don't Lie") because my plan was to let the AI exhaust itself and then walk over them, and the AI didn't attack at all.

It would be great if they do their best to bomb the forts to lower them so they could attack. If they don't do that, well then you've got a real long Mexican Standoff.

 

[Narnyay]

already one of my favorite dev diaries from any game

 

[C-Breeze]

That was a good read. As is usually the case, hard lessons learned, but cheers for the AAR.

 

[xoldfashionedx]

Don't worry, they mentioned this in one of the dev diaries. There is a new statistic, positioning, which will be extremely low for doomstacks in addition to big org penalties. Low positioning essentially means that the fleet's capital ships will not be protected by screens, which combined with low org should mean that a small, but powerful and well organized fleet should, in theory, be able to inflict some crippling capital ship losses and route the enemy doomstack while taking very little losses or damage themselves. That's just assuming I've understood the mechanic correctly and that it's actually properly implemented!

I hope you are right, I do hope it scales with even larger fleets having larger debuffs.

 

[LiberiusX]

Can i just say I really enjoy these type Dev Diaries... of course they wouldn’t be very good without the new rules already explained, but they do a fantastic job helping me to understand The practical repercussions of the new rules.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

Yep the Dev Dairies are great again and help very very good to get informed what will come und what is updated / changed.

And look the Vids from them, then you can see it. That´s very cool too. Ok they play it on super Fast Mode, because they have only 1 Hour for every Vid incl. Explenations. Maybe there is a MP Vid for that Dev Dairie too.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yep the Dev Dairies are great again and help very very good to get informed what will come und what is updated / changed.

And look the Vids from them, then you can see it. That´s very cool too. Ok they play it on super Fast Mode, because they have only 1 Hour for every Vid incl. Explenations. Maybe there is a MP Vid for that Dev Dairie too.

The videos were always helpful to understand the game. I used to watch them before the release of HOI4 but on the other hand they used to make me go a little nuts for the game to release.

Maybe it's just down to the personality of the person. I don't need to climb the walls anymore for this DLC as it is.

 

[xtfoster]

Amphibious Tractor can be shortened to AMPHTRAC as was the short name used for it.

Actually, it was usually just AMTRAC

 

[Redwing_HK24]

please stop teasing me and playing with my emotions and release this so HOI can take my money!!!

 

[Taullis]

I, too, am still incredibly concerned about the way the naval combat is currently being portrayed. Yes, it appears to work for the Atlantic and North Seas if you are interested in chasing around the Germans or vice versa. However, my trepidation is only increased following this DD. He straight up says, "They broke through my first two line and THEN bum-rushed and finally sunk my carriers." This reads entirely like his surface fleet was what charged through and chased down the carriers to destroy them. It is very interesting to me that while the Japanese and Americans had mostly removed surface guns from their carriers by 1942, it was the Europeans who still were building or designing carriers with relatively heavy anti-surface complements (I.E. Graf Spee)

The battles in the Pacific quickly found both sides mostly striving to find eachother at range and launching strikes from over the horizon to sink the opposing fleet. The closest thing to an exception to this rule would be Leyte, but even then Surigao was BBvBB and Samar was due to the Japanese successfully surprising Taffy 3 after Halsey was drawn off. Essentially what the current state of MtG presents as the normal type of battle is in fact the extremely rare exception. This is concerning. It is made even more so with the whole "strike force" and "scout force" mechanic.... The devs I think have designed this expansions very well for representing the naval actions of the Atlantic and European theaters, but nothing I have seen in any of the DDs has done a thing to convince me that they have managed to capture - or are fully aware of - the realities of the Pacific, which was arguably the single most significant arena for naval combat of the second world war! Pacific fleets didn't just hang about in port until a PBY or Zero radioed in they spotted the enemy. They roved an AO and only went to port briefly for resupply, refit, and repair.

Both sides recognized the value of distance and so they largely tried to take eachother out at distance. I don't think the current mechanics - based only on what is in the game and what i've read in the DDs - of how naval combat works/is programmed in game are actually even capable of simulating this. Man the Guns seems to be quite the literal description of the short comings of the game design.

Now, i've voiced my negative fears, but here are some suggestions I think could be made to work in the current framework:

1) Fleets with carriers have massively sped up sighting mechanics and much larger ranges to do so (more scout planes, duh!)

2) On the battle screen, add a mechanic to select orders for the fleet to close the distance (yay guns!), maintain distance, or put some distance between. Based off opposing ship speeds, etc, this would mean that for the most part the carriers do the work and the screens do their work as well - just instead of torpedos launched from ships, the AA values of the respective battle lines acts in a similar fashion against aircraft. Fleets wanting to close the gap would have to face a number of rolls where they could get hit before coming in range.

3) add a carrier strike mechanic - simply give an option to launch a strike on a spotted fleet that may be well beyond gun engagement range but still within the range of the carrier aircraft. Attack and defense rolls would be based on total escort AA complement, opposing carrier fighters, etc. You could even add a new animation that has both fleets launching fighters towards eachother instead of the generic - all guns - fleet battle animation.

I am incredibly excited for this expansion, but until I see some definitive proof that we aren't just going to have pop-gun battles and magic torpedo teleportation every battle - I'm really concerned this expansion might even make naval combat worse!

 

[Daelyn75]

I, too, am still incredibly concerned about the way the naval combat is currently being portrayed. Yes, it appears to work for the Atlantic and North Seas if you are interested in chasing around the Germans or vice versa. However, my trepidation is only increased following this DD. He straight up says, "They broke through my first two line and THEN bum-rushed and finally sunk my carriers." This reads entirely like his surface fleet was what charged through and chased down the carriers to destroy them. It is very interesting to me that while the Japanese and Americans had mostly removed surface guns from their carriers by 1942, it was the Europeans who still were building or designing carriers with relatively heavy anti-surface complements (I.E. Graf Spee)

The battles in the Pacific quickly found both sides mostly striving to find eachother at range and launching strikes from over the horizon to sink the opposing fleet. The closest thing to an exception to this rule would be Leyte, but even then Surigao was BBvBB and Samar was due to the Japanese successfully surprising Taffy 3 after Halsey was drawn off. Essentially what the current state of MtG presents as the normal type of battle is in fact the extremely rare exception. This is concerning. It is made even more so with the whole "strike force" and "scout force" mechanic.... The devs I think have designed this expansions very well for representing the naval actions of the Atlantic and European theaters, but nothing I have seen in any of the DDs has done a thing to convince me that they have managed to capture - or are fully aware of - the realities of the Pacific, which was arguably the single most significant arena for naval combat of the second world war! Pacific fleets didn't just hang about in port until a PBY or Zero radioed in they spotted the enemy. They roved an AO and only went to port briefly for resupply, refit, and repair.

Both sides recognized the value of distance and so they largely tried to take eachother out at distance. I don't think the current mechanics - based only on what is in the game and what i've read in the DDs - of how naval combat works/is programmed in game are actually even capable of simulating this. Man the Guns seems to be quite the literal description of the short comings of the game design.

Now, i've voiced my negative fears, but here are some suggestions I think could be made to work in the current framework:

1) Fleets with carriers have massively sped up sighting mechanics and much larger ranges to do so (more scout planes, duh!)

2) On the battle screen, add a mechanic to select orders for the fleet to close the distance (yay guns!), maintain distance, or put some distance between. Based off opposing ship speeds, etc, this would mean that for the most part the carriers do the work and the screens do their work as well - just instead of torpedos launched from ships, the AA values of the respective battle lines acts in a similar fashion against aircraft. Fleets wanting to close the gap would have to face a number of rolls where they could get hit before coming in range.

3) add a carrier strike mechanic - simply give an option to launch a strike on a spotted fleet that may be well beyond gun engagement range but still within the range of the carrier aircraft. Attack and defense rolls would be based on total escort AA complement, opposing carrier fighters, etc. You could even add a new animation that has both fleets launching fighters towards eachother instead of the generic - all guns - fleet battle animation.

I am incredibly excited for this expansion, but until I see some definitive proof that we aren't just going to have pop-gun battles and magic torpedo teleportation every battle - I'm really concerned this expansion might even make naval combat worse!

I've already pointed this out a couple of pages back. I think what we just read in the AAR will be the way carrier battles are handled which is completely unrealistic. I hope Paradox reads this and at least puts in a special mechanic for carrier battles for the next DLC, because I doubt it will make it into this one.

If this is the case, then I will be quite disappointed in that they've spent so much time getting this DLC the way they wanted it, but completely failed to take into consideration the way the most important naval battles were fought. Carriers are the most important, and king of the seas, yet Paradox thinks that carrier warfare consisted of closing to gun range of the opposing carrier fleets, then sending all their ships at each other, and only then decide to launch their airplanes at the enemy fleet.

 

[Taullis]

I've already pointed this out a couple of pages back. I think what we just read in the AAR will be the way carrier battles are handled which is completely unrealistic. I hope Paradox reads this and at least puts in a special mechanic for carrier battles for the next DLC, because I doubt it will make it into this one.

I'd rather wait another few months to get it right, personally.

 

[Farquarsen]

From what I recall, the German AI is hardcoded not to attack the Maginot Line.

I last played about eight months ago as Japan, and the AI wasted upwards of 200k soldiers attacking two of my mountain forts in Italy.

Either way, question stands whether the AI will be able to manage the new resources and combat mechanics, or if we'll see a repeat of Stellaris' latest patch where the AI didn't know how to use the new mechanics and is flooded with free resources in an attempt to compensate for its incompetence.

Not sure why as Japan you had forts in Italy. I have built level 10 forts all across France and the AI does not attack until it finds a weakness. Also use Engineer II and try to get Engineer III researched. Not always successful on getting E III before Germany attacks.

I, too, am still incredibly concerned about the way the naval combat is currently being portrayed. Yes, it appears to work for the Atlantic and North Seas if you are interested in chasing around the Germans or vice versa. However, my trepidation is only increased following this DD. He straight up says, "They broke through my first two line and THEN bum-rushed and finally sunk my carriers." This reads entirely like his surface fleet was what charged through and chased down the carriers to destroy them. It is very interesting to me that while the Japanese and Americans had mostly removed surface guns from their carriers by 1942, it was the Europeans who still were building or designing carriers with relatively heavy anti-surface complements (I.E. Graf Spee)

The battles in the Pacific quickly found both sides mostly striving to find eachother at range and launching strikes from over the horizon to sink the opposing fleet. The closest thing to an exception to this rule would be Leyte, but even then Surigao was BBvBB and Samar was due to the Japanese successfully surprising Taffy 3 after Halsey was drawn off. Essentially what the current state of MtG presents as the normal type of battle is in fact the extremely rare exception. This is concerning. It is made even more so with the whole "strike force" and "scout force" mechanic.... The devs I think have designed this expansions very well for representing the naval actions of the Atlantic and European theaters, but nothing I have seen in any of the DDs has done a thing to convince me that they have managed to capture - or are fully aware of - the realities of the Pacific, which was arguably the single most significant arena for naval combat of the second world war! Pacific fleets didn't just hang about in port until a PBY or Zero radioed in they spotted the enemy. They roved an AO and only went to port briefly for resupply, refit, and repair.

Both sides recognized the value of distance and so they largely tried to take eachother out at distance. I don't think the current mechanics - based only on what is in the game and what i've read in the DDs - of how naval combat works/is programmed in game are actually even capable of simulating this. Man the Guns seems to be quite the literal description of the short comings of the game design.

Now, i've voiced my negative fears, but here are some suggestions I think could be made to work in the current framework:

1) Fleets with carriers have massively sped up sighting mechanics and much larger ranges to do so (more scout planes, duh!)

2) On the battle screen, add a mechanic to select orders for the fleet to close the distance (yay guns!), maintain distance, or put some distance between. Based off opposing ship speeds, etc, this would mean that for the most part the carriers do the work and the screens do their work as well - just instead of torpedos launched from ships, the AA values of the respective battle lines acts in a similar fashion against aircraft. Fleets wanting to close the gap would have to face a number of rolls where they could get hit before coming in range.

3) add a carrier strike mechanic - simply give an option to launch a strike on a spotted fleet that may be well beyond gun engagement range but still within the range of the carrier aircraft. Attack and defense rolls would be based on total escort AA complement, opposing carrier fighters, etc. You could even add a new animation that has both fleets launching fighters towards eachother instead of the generic - all guns - fleet battle animation.

I am incredibly excited for this expansion, but until I see some definitive proof that we aren't just going to have pop-gun battles and magic torpedo teleportation every battle - I'm really concerned this expansion might even make naval combat worse!

Totally agree as I posted about this on the day the DD was published. Hopefully the Devs will read yours, mine and @Daelyn75 posts.

 

[corundum]

alright guys, i gotta admit. i've given it a few days and this dev diary has really grown on me. i am officially retracting my previous statement. can't wait for mtg

 

[BeauNiddle]

I, too, am still incredibly concerned about the way the naval combat is currently being portrayed.

Well there is the spotting and intercepting phase as well, not just naval combat. If you use your carriers only after spotting the enemy and deploy your planes as a strike force it achieves what you want. We don't know how the intercept system works in detail - if your carrier force can be set to the equivalent of do not engage then it should try to keep out of the main battle while it's planes are constantly harassing the intercepters.

The battle mentioned in the AAR was one where his main battle force got ambushed because he FAILED his spotting. In that case then yes his carriers should be sunk.

Either way at least the new system represents battles in the Atlantic which is in improvement over the old system that didn't represent battles anywhere

 

[Walderschmidt]

As long as island hopping is implemented in a good way, I'm happy. You should have to slog through the Pacific, not just make a beeline for Japan.

Edit: I hope MtG limits the garrisons on islands. Europe Engulfed (board game) limits troop deployment in cities, on Gibraltar, and on islands like Malta, and it greatly improves gameplay.

HoI4 should have "tiers" of islands that permit a certain number of divisions/battalions.

AI could be an obstacle, though, I suppose.

Interesting idea. I think it would be more interesting if not only do some islands only permit a certain amount of battalions/divisions on them, but the frontage only allowed a certain amount of battalions/divisions to attack at once.

This would encourage a player to keep a large complement of shore bombardment ships to assist with any naval invasion, which of course means less of those ships elsewhere. God forbid submarines lurk nearby taking advantage of distracted battleships.

Also - some islands are more defensible than others. Perhaps some could be mountain/hill territory if they are not already to get a little more defensive oomph?

Or maybe, there could be a feature for troops to build permanent fortifications, given enough time, so that not only civs would have to be used to make coastal fortifications? Or if you could earmark artillery pieces made for an island to add to its ability to repel invasions and maybe reach out and touch the sea?

Now, i've voiced my negative fears, but here are some suggestions I think could be made to work in the current framework:

1) Fleets with carriers have massively sped up sighting mechanics and much larger ranges to do so (more scout planes, duh!)

2) On the battle screen, add a mechanic to select orders for the fleet to close the distance (yay guns!), maintain distance, or put some distance between. Based off opposing ship speeds, etc, this would mean that for the most part the carriers do the work and the screens do their work as well - just instead of torpedos launched from ships, the AA values of the respective battle lines acts in a similar fashion against aircraft. Fleets wanting to close the gap would have to face a number of rolls where they could get hit before coming in range.

3) add a carrier strike mechanic - simply give an option to launch a strike on a spotted fleet that may be well beyond gun engagement range but still within the range of the carrier aircraft. Attack and defense rolls would be based on total escort AA complement, opposing carrier fighters, etc. You could even add a new animation that has both fleets launching fighters towards eachother instead of the generic - all guns - fleet battle animation.

Excellent suggestions! I love the idea of slightly finer control with naval battles. I'd also like similar control with submarines. Something like this.

Sir! Enemy (convoy / scouting group / flotilla) spotted!

What would you have us do?

convoy / scouting group

a) Get in range and start shooting right away! (higher chance of detection which could affect torpedo dice rolls)

b) Try to quietly get in close range to fire surprise, aimed shots (less chance of detection, better dice rolls, but takes longer and enemy ships may outrun subs)

c) keep distance/evade because there's too many escorts/it's not worth revealing ourselves (least chance of being spotted, no engagement)

flotilla

a) Get in range and start shooting right away! (higher chance of detection which could affect torpedo dice rolls, and escorts may immediately respond)

b) Try to quietly get in close range to fire surprise, aimed shots (less chance of detection, better dice rolls, but takes longer and enemy ships may outrun subs)

c) Try to quietly get in close range to shoot priority targets (higher chance to avoid detection, higher chance fo dice roll for battleships/carriers, less % chance of success with each additional screen

d) They're distracted and shelling the coast! Now's our chance! (less chance of detection, high chance to score capital ship kills, countered by more screens and more countered if separate sub hunting mission in area)

Also would be cool if there were wolfpack settings:

aggressiveness: how risky of an attack sub makes

high = better chance of engaging ships but also increased chances of detection
low = better chance of scoring a few kills with less chance of detection, chance eny fleet outruns subs


evasive maneuvers: actions when detected by enemy destroyers/planes

immediate: if engaging a target, dice roll for sub to still get shot off before diving, dice roll for hit, and higher chance of escaping intact
shoot n scoot: takes a little longer to aim shot, better dice roll for hit, but less chance of escaping unscathed

Wald

 

[Milind]

Very glad to see that the new fuel mechanics have done something to slow down the Sino-Japanese War, but it still ended too fast! You should not be saying it dragged on to 1941 - you still beat the Chinese 4 years before the end of the war!

The war in China should last the entire game - forcing the Japanese to juggle resources between the fight in China and the fights in the Southeast Pacific.

Why should it last the entire game? Aren't we playing the game to be able to change historical events? If the Japanese had had a proper strategy and with some smart diplomacy, they could have forced China to the negotiating table. Sure, if the player makes the same mistakes and doesn't invest in the right kind of build up against China, by all means they should have to struggle, as seems the case.

 

[grandad1982]

Hopefully getting a carriers to not be sunk left right and centre by surface assets is a simple mater of increasing their disengagement chance. However that still doesn't address the issue that in the Pacific those surface assets might be hundreds of miles away from each other while the carrier air groups fight it out and attack the fleets.