HOI4 - Development Diary - October 12th 2016

[Lifthrasil]

In the official Paradox video I saw Battle-plans were definitely showed off before release, including how to set up multi staged ones like both a push south to Krim, and a second stage north, as well as amphibious landing + breakout

I think it's you that needs to back and re-read + re-watch things!

That is exactly the point! They showed how to SET UP a plan. But they never showed it in motion. *Despite* many people demanding to see it on the live streams. They never did it, but the implication was that they would work. And they don't work *as expected/implied.

I am certainly not going to buy pre-order from PDX ever again. I thought IF any mistakes turn up, that they would at least fix them soon afterwards for free.
As it stands now it is how @Matabarna said: since all the games don't work like advertised at the beginning, why not wait a year until all the patches are out and until you can see what you *really* get for your money?

*Edit for clarification

 

[Alex_brunius]

They never did it, but the implication was that they would work. And they don't.

I am certainly not going to buy pre-order from PDX ever again. I thought IF any mistakes turn up, that they would at least fix them soon afterwards for free.

Have anyone actually reported proper bug reports about it not working?

I have mostly seen alot of complaining about it on the forums, but no proper bug reports with before and after savegames, screenshots, explaining what you as a player expects to happen and what happens instead?

I actually haven't seen anyone complaining about the battle planner been able to point to a really good bug report that details exactly what the issues are, other then "Broken" "Don't work". The issue is further complicated by the fact that the Battleplanner is a complex feature that few players fully have understood how it works which makes it harder to sort out the "I don't know how to use it" bugs/complaints from the proper reports (if any such exists).

If Paradox don't get any reports of bugs it's unreasonable to expect them to fix the issues since they just see bugs in other areas and think the battle planner is working mostly fine.

 

[Matabarna]

In the official Paradox video I saw Battle-plans were definitely showed off before release, including how to set up multi staged ones like both a push south to Krim, and a second stage north, as well as amphibious landing + breakout

I think it's you that needs to back and re-read + re-watch things!

View attachment 217518

More gameplay videos surrounding the resolution of Battle-plans was also available from Streamers with the preview build at least a week before release.


How to do encirclements and armored spearheads with Battleplans have also been displayed on the wiki here:
http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Armored_Spearheads

Okay, now look at the screenshot in the dev diary I mentioned. Now look at the video. Are you actually saying that the two plans are comparable? You know, with one of them having offensives that cross over, and being planned in multiple stages from the beginning, the other one having 4 straight lines?
The execution they showed was also recorded as sped up and zoomed out as possible, not showing the important details (divisions getting stuck encricling empty provinces, strategically redeploying right next to the front lines, which was a huge issue at launch, and such). By the way, we've all seen how battle plans of that magnitude work out, and it's not like that, so I think it's safe to say the build they used was vastly different.

Have anyone actually reported proper bug reports about it not working?

I have mostly seen alot of complaining about it on the forums, but no proper bug reports with before and after savegames, screenshots, explaining what you as a player expects to happen and what happens instead?

I actually haven't seen anyone complaining about the battle planner been able to point to a really good bug report that details exactly what the issues are, other then "Broken" "Don't work". The issue is further complicated by the fact that the Battleplanner is a complex feature that few players fully have understood how it works which makes it harder to sort out the "I don't know how to use it" bugs/complaints from the proper reports (if any such exists).

If Paradox don't get any reports of bugs it's unreasonable to expect them to fix the issues since they just see bugs in other areas and think the battle planner is working mostly fine.

Yeah, one can simply not expect game developers to make a functioning product by themselves. Next time I get a game that has no .exe file, I'll just file a report and tell them how to make it in the process. We're not the ones that have to make "really good bug reports", they have a QA team for that. Paradox isn't a lemonade stand run by a schoolgirl, they're a publisher and developer selling 40 dollar products. Also, if a system is as broken and as dysfunctional as the battle planner, I don't think you can point out one bug.

 

[Matabarna]

That they really thought they were going to get it working better than it actually ended up working, you mean?

Yes, and sadly, I paid for a game, not a hope. Paradox has testers and has been showing off parts of the game for a while now, I imagine they knew how it would function on release (and if they didn't someone needs to be fired). Did they rectify the mistakes made in the dev diaries? Did they make one video or post before launch to say "okay, scratch everything we said, this is how it will actually work"? Nope, they just released it with the broken promises still being up on the forum for everyone to read.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yeah, one can simply not expect game developers to make a functioning product by themselves. Next time I get a game that has no .exe file, I'll just file a report and tell them how to make it in the process. We're not the ones that have to make "really good bug reports", they have a QA team for that. Paradox isn't a lemonade stand run by a schoolgirl, they're a publisher and developer selling 40 dollar products. Also, if a system is as broken and as dysfunctional as the battle planner, I don't think you can point out one bug.

The developers never claimed their tool was designed for encirclements, in fact they claimed the opposite in the dev diary, that it was a tool mainly for larger scale broader advances, and that you are expected to yourself micromanage the encirclements. So it seems the main issue here for you ( and many others ) is to realize your trying to use a fairly functioning tool to do something it was never designed to do, and complaining that it's broken.

You don't go try to saw planks in half using a shovel and return it as defect or complain it's broken, you use a saw instead which is actually designed for the job!!! We are getting the saw in the expansion (Blitz), and the reason paradox say it's not for free is because it's doing something totally different and is used differently.




That being said there still are some valid issues with it, that makes it less useful for very narrow, or extremely broad normal plans, even when used as intended according to the dev diary.

I read through this entire thread + some more complaints, and in all of it I only found one single case of someone highlighting an actual bug in the battleplanner, which I reproduced and sent in to the developers. I also found another bug with unnecessary parallel movements for very wide fronts, specifically when advancing against little or no opposition, that I registered.

Both of these bugs have been registered by Paradox I have pretty high hopes that at least one of these bugs will be fixed for 1.3 and implemented for everyone for free via the normal battleplans given how much attention the issue has gotten.

 

[Secret Master]

Have anyone actually reported proper bug reports about it not working?

I have mostly seen alot of complaining about it on the forums, but no proper bug reports with before and after savegames, screenshots, explaining what you as a player expects to happen and what happens instead?

Because it's not buggy. It does exactly what it is meant to do when used properly, with one exception: the AI shifts units around far too much. But that's already been reported on, and it's a deeper issue than just the battleplanner. (And the work around is to assign smaller fronts with generals and not create huge fronts with field marshals, which is fine since I think generals are better than field marshals right now anyway.)

There was a small issue with the AI not understanding how to kill pockets off that were closed, but that was already more or less fixed in recent patches.

The other complaints boil down to "I don't know how to use it well" or "I want to press one button and the battleplanner does the rest" or "I don't understand what the interface is telling me." Could the interface be better? Yes. I was confused about the arrows and stuff when I first started playing. But that's not the same thing as saying it's bugged or doesn't work well.

I will admit that Paradox did not explain how to use the battleplanner well; that's okay, because I did it for them on the wiki. Which brings up another point...

The developers never claimed their tool was designed for encirclements, in fact they claimed the opposite in the dev diary, that it was a tool mainly for larger scale broader advances, and that you are expected to yourself micromanage the encirclements. So it seems the main issue here for you ( and many others ) is to realize your trying to use a fairly functioning tool to do something it was never designed to do, and complaining that it's broken.

Actually, Alex, it can do that just fine.

Or do you think that wiping 900,000 Soviet troops in under two months just using the battleplanner is not good enough?

Sure, it's the AI, but look at Rommel's panzer army run that encirclement. The Soviets think they got 45 divisions out of that pocket, but thanks to properly constituted panzer divisions and good leaders, the battleplanner cleans up those divisions that escaped the initial pocket closure by overrunning them. What else could you want?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Because it's not buggy. It does exactly what it is meant to do when used properly

There are some bugs with redeployments, and it can be pretty frustrating, non intuitive (moving units around against your will in really silly orders), as well as being a bit messy to look at.

So yes, it can be used properly, but it's GUI is far from optimal to make it easy to do so...

Actually, Alex, it can do that just fine.

Or do you think that wiping 900,000 Soviet troops in under two months just using the battleplanner is not good enough?

I was referring more to the smaller micro encirclements people want to do with them. These the battleplanner will often screw up ( because it is not designed to do it ). You can still pull them off though but is pretty tricky

 

[Krask]

Another one to throw into the sea of "I'l get the DLC as part of my pre-purchase, but the Blitz feature should have been free regardless."

One of the reasons that I haven't played HOI4 much is the fact that the battleplan system that was advertised as different to HOI3, is infact exactly the same.

In HOI3 i'd set my infantry to AI control and off they'd push WW1 style whilst I micro'd my tanks/motorized/special forces, I see no real improvement in HOI4 other than not having to worry about the AI screwing up HQ range...

As I said I've already paid for the DLC, but if I hadn't, I'd be incredibly pissed at how such a basic advertised feature is blocked behind a paywall.

 

[Matabarna]

The developers never claimed their tool was designed for encirclements, in fact they claimed the opposite in the dev diary, that it was a tool mainly for larger scale broader advances, and that you are expected to yourself micromanage the encirclements. So it seems the main issue here for you ( and many others ) is to realize your trying to use a fairly functioning tool to do something it was never designed to do, and complaining that it's broken.

That statement is blatantly false. The developer diary itself states that "The battle plan system in HOI4 lets you draw plans on the map which are followed by assigned divisions, but at any point you can go in and reassign things or issue manual overrides. The player's role is then basically to draw up high level plans and to watch for opportunities and situations to take advantage of (such as small encirclements, or prioritizing fighting a certain enemy, or cutting off someone's retreat)." They did not say the battle planner was not designed for encirclements, they said it was not designed for smaller encirclements concerning only a few provinces that occur naturally with every offensive. "High level plans" however do include large-scale encirclements, which the system is also incapable of performing without a great deal of micromanagement of the plan (and if you're going to micromanage a plan like the one shown in that wiki article, you may as well be giving direct orders), and for the planning of which the blitz feature is being introduced. I'm not complaining about the system not being able to detect every crack in an enemy's defensive line, that's my job. I'm complaining about it not being able to execute any other type of plan than WW1-style full frontal attacks. Podcat said he PREFERRED to set up a large infantry frontline then micromanage all panzers, not that it was the only way to prevent the AI from totally mismanaging your units, or to actually perform any sort of maneuver aside from "go straight forward until you reach the Urals".
Also, I'm not even talking about just the blitz feature. Multi-stage offensives like the one shown in that picture just don't work, with the frontlines getting all jumbled up and the AI reassigning units without any consideration for the strength of the enemies.
As a sidenote, taking away the tools of micromanagement available in HOI3 (taking out the command structure-system which helped you keep track of what division is doing what and replacing it with a disorganized list and the AI constantly shuffling your divisions for no reason if you decide to use the battle planner), then selling the mechanic that replaces those tools is maybe not the best idea.

 

[Alex_brunius]

If so why does the dev diary words say the same things I do?

Dev Diary:
"The players role is then basically to draw up high level plans"
"This works fine if what you want to do is push along a broad front"

Me:
"A tool mainly for larger scale broader advances"

Where is the difference?

then selling the mechanic that replaces those tools is maybe not the best idea.

How does what they are selling replace what we have? It's pretty much the opposite to it, both intended function and use.

We have a tool
"to draw up high level plans" ( The devs own words ).
A flexible tool that adjusts to the front and situation

The tool being sold
"Perfect for drawing pincer movements and encirclements"
An inflexible tool that don't adjust to the situation and only take what is marked.

 

[Matabarna]

If so why does the dev diary words say the same things I do but in other words? :S

"at any point you can go in and reassign things or issue manual overrides"
"The players role is then basically to draw up high level plans"
"Watch for opportunities.... such as small encirclements"

The keyword being small encriclements. The battle planner can't be used to plan large encirclements. The Blitz feature is being introduced to plan large encirclements. Yeah, you're saying the same thing as the dev diary, it's just different from what you said before ("The developers never claimed their tool was designed for encirclements...") and completely missing my point. The Blitz feature is being introduced so that players can plan large-scale Blitzkrieg maneuvers (or as Podcat put it in this dev diary, "bigger stuff"), and at no point did Paradox say that that feature is missing from the vanilla battle planner. Actually they said that you can "...draw up high level plans..." with the battle planner, they didn't say high level frontal infantry attacks. They said you have to micromanage smaller breakthroughs and encirclements, and that micromanaging the full panzer force was just a personal preference on Podcat's part. They didn't say you literally have to micromanage every single panzer division, or the AI will just use them like infantry. They said that the battle planner can handle large-scale offensives, and that includes large-scale encirclements (cutting off Western Poland, for example), and yet they're introducing a paid feature that does just that, because the base system is incapable of it.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The keyword being small encriclements. The battle planner can't be used to plan large encirclements.

So you didn't even read the wiki guide which shows you exactly how to set up this and pull this off? And claim that I am a liar when I have done this multiple times myself ( as have many others ).

Will you get better results on full manual? Yeah ofcourse, you will always outperform the AI (regardless of area), but when you know how to use the current Battleplaner it works just fine to pull of devastating large scale encirclements.

They didn't say you literally have to micromanage every single panzer division, or the AI will just use them like infantry.

Nor did they say that the AI would make any difference between infantry and tanks...

This is just you projecting your wishes for what it could do, not something Paradox ever claimed it would be near able to doing!

And when it comes to frontal assaults (which you say is the only thing it does) it just so happens that tanks are way better then infantry at this, so maybe using tanks like they use infantry is actually better in this case...


They didn't promise a Battleplanner with aggressiveness settings before release so you could make groups for tanks that attack more and for infantry that attack less either, but that is what you have. When are you going to start to either learn how to use what you have or report a proper bug / issue with it instead of just doing general complaining that everything about it is "bad"?

 

[Matabarna]

So you didn't even read the wiki guide which shows you exactly how to set up this and pull this off? And claim that I am a liar when I have done this multiple times myself ( as have many others ).

Will you get better results on full manual? Yeah ofcourse, you will always outperform the AI (regardless of area), but when you know how to use the current Battleplaner it works just fine to pull of devastating large scale encirclements.

I read the wiki-page. I see you missed my prior point about having to readjust assigned provinces every hour not being any better than full manual control. A plan you have to modify every 5 minutes to prevent your units from going haywire is not really a plan, is it?

Also, I see you modified your original post before I posted my answer, my apologies about not waiting a couple of minutes before I started typing, let me reply to that as well.
"The players role is then basically to draw up high level plans"
"This works fine if what you want to do is push along a broad front"
First off, those two quotes don't mean the same thing. The second one specifies that battle plans are for frontal pushes and nothing else. The first one doesn't. However, that second quote is from this exact dev diary. Not the one about battle-plans, which I'm referring to, the one that was available pre-launch. You're essentially saying "Yeah, they didn't break any promises they made before launch! I mean look at this thing they said months after launch!"

"How does what they are selling replace what we have? It's pretty much the opposite to it, both intended function and use."
I assume you misunderstood me. I said that they took out the chain of command-feature present in HOI3, which made micromanaging units easier by organising them into corps based on divison types, and they're making the replacement (the Blitz system) part of a paid DLC.

 

[Alex_brunius]

A picture says more then a thousand words.

So I have prepared a few pictures for you. A battleplan that take me 2-3min to make from the 1939 starting scenario.

Before, 12-18 Polish divisions inside the area assigned to be cut off or attacked:

After ~11 days later on max speed full hands off, ZERO micromanagement and ZERO adjusting. 15 Polish divisions have been successfully cut off:

All you need to do now is active the other plans to clear out the pocket basically (and the 6 bonus UK divisions that are about to land):

During all this the only buttons I pushed at all was "activate battleplan" and launch time at speed 5/pause.

( Yes I use some mods to make the battle lines look more clear, and no they have zero impact on how the battleplans actually play out or work ).


And a quote:
"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist leans how to sail"

 

[Matabarna]

Dude, could you please include an "I'm done typing" sign when you're finished with editing your post, so I know when I can respond without looking like a butthole that ignores half your points?
Anyways.

Nor did they say that the AI would make any difference between infantry and tanks...

This is just you projecting your wishes for what it could do, not something Paradox ever claimed it would be near able to doing!

And when it comes to frontal assaults (which you say is the only thing it does) it just so happens that tanks are way better then infantry at this, so maybe using tanks like they use infantry is actually better in this case...


They didn't promise a Battleplanner with aggressiveness settings before release so you could make groups for tanks that attack more and for infantry that attack less either, but that is what you have. When are you going to start to either learn how to use what you have or report a proper bug / issue with it instead of just doing general complaining that everything about it is "bad"?

Yeah, they didn't say the AI would distinguish between tanks and infantry. Call of Duty also doesn't tell you that machine guns shoot faster than sniper rifles.
However, again, they did imply it. The dev diary I'm referring to said that it was a personal preference to micromanage all panzers, implying the AI would know how to use them without it. "And when it comes to frontal assaults (which you say is the only thing it does) it just so happens that tanks are way better then infantry at this, so maybe using tanks like they use infantry is actually better in this case..." Well, first off, no. The AI doesn't even take terrain into consideration as much as it should, and is eager to deploy tanks to attack entrenched divisions in mountains where they underperform, while leaving your mass infantry in the middle of the plains. Secondly, yes, they're better at it. You know what they're even better at? Large scale encirclements. You know when you don't want panzers pushing general attacks instead of those? When going up against a power that vastly outnumbers you, and that will eventually grind you up unless you encircle and destroy its forces. Kind of like a Germany vs. USSR situation. The situation they showed in the dev diary.
"They didn't promise a Battleplanner with aggressiveness settings before release so you could make groups for tanks that attack more and for infantry that attack less either, but that is what you have. When are you going to start to either learn how to use what you have or report a proper bug / issue with it instead of just doing general complaining that everything about it is "bad"?" Yeah, they only promised a battle-planner capable of executing large scale operations in a World War 2 setting. As we know, such a thing would never involve tank divisions, and it's a stupid projection to think that it would. One, I'm expecting the AI to recognize that marshes may not be the best terrain for tanks, and plains not the best terrain for infantry. Two, I'm expecting the AI to be actually able to carry out large operations, not just frontal infantry attacks, as it was promised. Three, I'll be starting to "learn how to use what" I have, when I get what I was promised. If someone sells me a car, they take my money, then give me a pickaxe saying that I can use it to mine all elements of a car which I could later build if I also buy their wrench, I'm going to complain. I'm not filing bug reports, because these are not bugs. These are flaws in the system.

A picture says more then a thousand words.

So I have prepared two pictures for you. A battleplan that take me 2-3min to make from the 1939 starting scenario.

Before, 12-18 Polish divisions inside the area assigned to be cut off or attacked:

After ~11 days later on max speed full hands off, ZERO micromanagement and ZERO adjusting. 16 Polish divisions have been successfully cut off (100% success):

( Yes I use some mods to make the battle lines look more clear, and no they have zero impact on how the battleplans actually play out or work ).

Okay, now please do the same thing against a faction with an army that can withstand your initial assault for more than 3 hours, and with an operation deeper than 3 provinces. You know, where the AI starts automatically broadening assigned provinces when it feels like it, where the enemy gets away if panzer advances are not executed as quickly as possible, etc., and where making a battle plan doesn't actually take longer than micromanaging the operation. It also kind of shows off how stupid the AI is in the game, ordering units into a clear pocket, but that's another matter.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Three, I'll be starting to "learn how to use what" I have, when I get what I was promised.

Don't you mean when you get what you personally felt that

they did "imply"

Your basically expecting that car you bought to also be able to fly, because that's what a car can do in a movie, and it was not explicitly stated that it would not fly anywhere...

 

[Matabarna]

Don't you mean when you get what you personally felt that



Your basically expecting that car you bought to also be able to fly, because that's what a car can do in a movie, and it was not explicitly stated that it would not fly anywhere...

So if I'm promised an AI capable of large-scale operations, and get an AI not capable of large-scale operations, it's just my feelings?

Yes, if a developer says that the AI can manage your units, and it's a personal preference to manage panzers, it's unreasonable to expect an AI that can manage panzers. I'm expecting that the car has wheels.

 

[Devastator325]

Im saying this as a person who bought the version of Hoi4 that comes with the first 2 DLC's. The Blitz command looks to be a very essential tool for battleplan micromanagement, and something that everyone really should have access to. It will allow for more authentic and thought out plans that just couldn't be done before without microing every unit individually for that attack, and thats why Id consider it a quality of life fix and not a feature.

 

[Gamengervi]

Im saying this as a person who bought the version of Hoi4 that comes with the first 2 DLC's. The Blitz command looks to be a very essential tool for battleplan micromanagement, and something that everyone really should have access to. It will allow for more authentic and thought out plans that just couldn't be done before without microing every unit individually for that attack, and thats why Id consider it a quality of life fix and not a feature.

You may or may not know this, but just in case you don't, we'll be getting the first three DLC now.

 

[Alex_brunius]

So if I'm promised an AI capable of large-scale operations, and get an AI not capable of large-scale operations, it's just my feelings?

Not feelings perhaps, but your failure to understand how the battleplanner works and what it's intended to do. As I (and others) have shown with detailed screenshots and plans The battleplanner even can be used for encirclements, so easier broad large-scale operations is not an issue at all for it. Yet you still persist and claim it can't be used neither for large scale operations nor encirclements, and you still can't point out actual bugs with it instead just claiming lose things like "all of it is bad", "there are so many bugs you don't know where to start", or expects it to do things it was clearly never designed to do nor anyone reasonably could expect it to ( like know exactly which units should be used in exactly what terrain/situation and be able to plan ahead into complex massive offensives around this without any manual input needed at all ).

It's a broad tool, as I ( and PDX in their dev diaries ) have tried to explain for you. If you refuse to listen that it is your issue, not mine.

And if you complain that the AI opponent is so bad overall, the Battleplanner also allows you to ( if you want ) fight it on more even terms.


I do admit that it's a tool which GUI and clarity could be improved, that there are a few issues with very large or very narrow fronts, and that is finicky and tricky to understand how to use. But once you look at the overall picture it does pretty much do what it says on the box.

It also allows for way more complex operations then HoI3, so it's a good improvement. Anyone that contests this I hereby challenge to getting the AI in HoI3 to do encirclements like what I did linked above and what's done in the wiki guide, with zero manual input other then assigning units to AI control and setting AI targets. Have fun!