HOI4 Ironclad 1.6.2 BETA patch [checksum: 6f7d]

[PigletCNC]

You realise it's cheaper to make one based off your INF template anyway?

How so? Doesn't motorized normally starts at 9 brigades in the template? That's 45 points, right? nd if it's only at 6, that's 30 points, but the infantry has only equipment things, so that's only 20 points, so it would be a net plus of 10 points to start with a motorized...

Though yes yes I know, you can just make one gooed template with all the equipment etc. and then duplicate and change out the inf. with mot. but then again not everyone sees that so I get where people are coming from with their desire for motorized...

Oh well in the end it's up to the devs of course and I can see why people are frustrated with not having one template at the start for mot. but I also see why america is already OP and with only the 1 div. training thing you are not really lacking the xp anyways, even less so now with the marine template.

 

[Aeon221]

Not a bug. It was previously mentioned by devs in other post mtg posts that although the US for example used trucks, they did not have an org chart (or any units using said org chart) in reality; in other words, no motorized infantry. Although they have the equipment necessary to develop them, the work was never done in real life to form such units.

That's asinine and also entirely untrue.

First off, here's the untruth :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#World_War_II

The 4th Division was reactivated on 1 June 1940 at Fort Benning, Georgia, under the command of Major General Walter Prosser. Commencing in August the formation was reorganized as a motorized division and assigned (along with the 2nd Armored Division) to I Armored Corps, being officially given its motorized title in parenthesized style and then formally as the 4th Motorized Division effective 11 July 1941.

The US Army had at least five divisions officially marked as motorized. This is one of them.

Here's Niehorster's TOE for US Motorized Divisions 1940. Note that this is pulled from the US Army's official org.

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/40_org/div-mot/div-mot.html

And here's why it is asinine.

All US infantry divisions were equipped with substantial transport capability equivalent to motorized divisions in other armies. Here's an example of a troop transport company OOB, a unit that would regularly have been part of the divisional HQ.

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/misc/qm_truck.html

You can see where they fit into the Infantry Division's HQ here :

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/div-inf/div-inf_special-qm.html

These transport units were in addition to substantial organic transport capacity at all levels of the Infantry Division. Each Regiment and Battalion had a substantial motor pool available, and even individual companies had trucks and cars available. Movement by US Infantry Divisions was generally by road in trucks because they had the vehicular assets to do it and the substantial logistical tail to support it. Often it wasn't possible to move the entire division in a single lift, but one or two regiments and their supporting assets could and often were moved that way by pooling trucks.

So a strong argument could be made that the base infantry template for the US should be motorized. If not that, at the least a motorized template should be available and equipped to the standards of the base infantry.

 

[Fulmen]

How so?

Duplicating from a finished template with full support battalions already saves you 50 XP, then another 20-30 from ART/AT/AA, assuming it's a 40 width. Even if you're playing inefficiently, perhaps intentionally roleplaying, and use smaller divisions, you're always going to save on the non-MAR slots you'll use in your MAR template anyway.

 

[Shadow86]

That's asinine and also entirely untrue.

First off, here's the untruth :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#World_War_II

The US Army had at least five divisions officially marked as motorized. This is one of them.

Here's Niehorster's TOE for US Motorized Divisions 1940. Note that this is pulled from the US Army's official org.

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/40_org/div-mot/div-mot.html

And here's why it is asinine.

All US infantry divisions were equipped with substantial transport capability equivalent to motorized divisions in other armies. Here's an example of a troop transport company OOB, a unit that would regularly have been part of the divisional HQ.

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/misc/qm_truck.html

You can see where they fit into the Infantry Division's HQ here :

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/div-inf/div-inf_special-qm.html

These transport units were in addition to substantial organic transport capacity at all levels of the Infantry Division. Each Regiment and Battalion had a substantial motor pool available, and even individual companies had trucks and cars available. Movement by US Infantry Divisions was generally by road in trucks because they had the vehicular assets to do it and the substantial logistical tail to support it. Often it wasn't possible to move the entire division in a single lift, but one or two regiments and their supporting assets could and often were moved that way by pooling trucks.

So a strong argument could be made that the base infantry template for the US should be motorized. If not that, at the least a motorized template should be available and equipped to the standards of the base infantry.

The thing is you're quoting 1940 and 1944 OOBs while arguing for a template to exist in 1936 and/or 1939.

The earliest US motorized division I can find is the 6th Infantry Division, reactivated on 12 October 1939 at Fort Lewis, Washington State. But it doesn't seem like it was motorized per se in the beginning.

According to this article and this bit as well, the motorization lasted from 1942 to 1943 as far as the 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 90th Infantry Divisions are concerned. While it may have persisted beyond the redesignation of the units in some cases, I think it's fairly clear it was mainly a wartime thing, beyond the default start dates.

 

[Dan1109]

Its amazing all of the non-naval hub-ub going on. So, might as well chime in...

This issue with the US should be looked at from a different vantage point. The template issue is a small factor. Maybe the US should be forced to go into North Africa and try to defend SE Asia with crappy templates. However, I think to compensate, USA needs to be able to earn LOTS of combat experience - perhaps more land XP for lend leasing (once at war though), this might help the USA get the proper amount of Army XP - they shouldn't be able to afford a full MOT, ARM, MAR, INF division templates (including all of those juicy support companies) by war start - this has to be earned the hard way.

However, other points about "trucks" and "motorization" which haven't been touched upon.

US Motorization was a GIGANTIC advantage. In no place in HOI do we see this affect a) supply and reinforcement throughput increases (I suppose you can say logistics company, but human players of any country often use logistics companies, and can somehow afford the fuel) b) increased efficiency from movement.

Regarding movement, its almost like the USA (or anyone else who can afford the oil) needs a "transport" support company, to be assigned a different type of truck, one that has neutral stats, its very cheap IC wise (these trucks will participate in battle due to game mechanics and get destroyed, but hardly ever participated in real battles), but requires A HUGE amount of fuel representing the large amount of trucks needed to move a division. It would give the division a modest speed boost. This is a bit "moddy" though - just thinking out loud.

Another idea, DRASTICALLY increase the fuel cost of logistics companies. One of the allies' largest advantages, logistics, is fairly neutralized because everyone can run logistics companies with little fuel cost if they want.

Or perhaps trucks in general should become cheaper IC wise, and use MUCH more fuel - 4 Trucks = 1 Light Tank, or 6 Trucks = 1 Medium Tank, 9 Trucks = 1 Heavy Tank is a bit ridiculous. The USA built 100k tanks during WW2, but over 2M trucks! By today's comparisons, Oshkosh MTV (today's Duce-and-a-half) costs $250k. M1 Abrams, $9M.

There should be a supply transfer efficiency modifier, per division, which logistics companies can use. And the axis should not be able to afford logistics companies like the allies should be able to do.

 

[GSP Jr]

Playing USA, if you take the Grant Statehood to Puerto Rico decision, should the State be removed from the release foreign territory option?

 

[Vohen]

Its amazing all of the non-naval hub-ub going on. So, might as well chime in...

This issue with the US should be looked at from a different vantage point. The template issue is a small factor. Maybe the US should be forced to go into North Africa and try to defend SE Asia with crappy templates. However, I think to compensate, USA needs to be able to earn LOTS of combat experience - perhaps more land XP for lend leasing (once at war though), this might help the USA get the proper amount of Army XP - they shouldn't be able to afford a full MOT, ARM, MAR, INF division templates (including all of those juicy support companies) by war start - this has to be earned the hard way.

However, other points about "trucks" and "motorization" which haven't been touched upon.

US Motorization was a GIGANTIC advantage. In no place in HOI do we see this affect a) supply and reinforcement throughput increases (I suppose you can say logistics company, but human players of any country often use logistics companies, and can somehow afford the fuel) b) increased efficiency from movement.

Regarding movement, its almost like the USA (or anyone else who can afford the oil) needs a "transport" support company, to be assigned a different type of truck, one that has neutral stats, its very cheap IC wise (these trucks will participate in battle due to game mechanics and get destroyed, but hardly ever participated in real battles), but requires A HUGE amount of fuel representing the large amount of trucks needed to move a division. It would give the division a modest speed boost. This is a bit "moddy" though - just thinking out loud.

Another idea, DRASTICALLY increase the fuel cost of logistics companies. One of the allies' largest advantages, logistics, is fairly neutralized because everyone can run logistics companies with little fuel cost if they want.

Or perhaps trucks in general should become cheaper IC wise, and use MUCH more fuel - 4 Trucks = 1 Light Tank, or 6 Trucks = 1 Medium Tank, 9 Trucks = 1 Heavy Tank is a bit ridiculous. The USA built 100k tanks during WW2, but over 2M trucks! By today's comparisons, Oshkosh MTV (today's Duce-and-a-half) costs $250k. M1 Abrams, $9M.

There should be a supply transfer efficiency modifier, per division, which logistics companies can use. And the axis should not be able to afford logistics companies like the allies should be able to do.

This is a reflection on how trucks don't affect supply in a direct way.
I very much hope that an eventual supply rework addresses that.
'motorized' divisions have nothing to do with the supply side, the allied motorization if their armies aren't and shouldn't be reflected by motorized divisions.

Then, there's the issue of the logistics companies, I'll never understand the design choice of not only it not increasing fuel consumption, but REDUCING it instead.
Logistics were exactly the motorization of the army that the allies achieved and Germany made a conscious decision not to precisely to save fuel.
Now, with oil removed from truck production and fuel reduction from logistics, motorizing your supply lines becomes a completely moot strategic decision, or rather, has a completely opposite effect from what it should have.
As is, Germany is the one to have the most use for logistics, as it gives them a much greater advantage than to the allies, something very much divorced from the effect it should have.
This is really the only design decision I strongly disagree with in 1.6 (which is also a testament on how much I like this patch), but I have faith that it is going to be addressed at some point.
And sadly, this isn't something that can even be rectified by mods, as altering those values would throw the AI off balance.

 

[Pied-Noir]

@Andy Gainey

Will the Anniversary Pack DLC (currently broken) and portrait paths be fixed in 1.62?

 

[CameraGenie]

In my current China game, Germany broke through the Maginot Line.

They probably shouldn't be able to do that.

 

[Martel732]

Hey guys! I'm running this beta version now. This is my first time posting in a long time.

The good:

1) I'm still loving all the naval fixes. UK is so much fun now! Except for some of the bad.

2) Germany is more under control now. Whatever you did, it seems to have worked pretty well.

3) China AI held off Japan for a long time one game.

4) USSR AI held off Germany well twice now.

5) Germany AI brutally effective.

The bad:

1) US AI is god awful. Playing as UK, I kept expecting big things, but they never came. AI can't island hop well, and does not send help to Europe where it does any good. Makes terrible invasion choices in Europe.

2) UK AI is god awful. Tried a China game. UK lost everything to the Axis very quickly. Before, I attributed it to bad naval engine. Now, it's clear UK AI doesn't understand how to dominate Med effectively. Played as Sweden, UK let Germany walk right in to Norway and kill me.

3) China AI did well once, but five other times, died like slime to Japan. I don't get this. China only needs infantry weapon production to hold up Japan for a LONG time with rudimentary skills. AI doesn't garrison ports, giving Japan easy access.

4) USSR AI is okay, but still seems to lose way too easily to Germany. Maybe that's because Germany AI is so GOOD. I don't know.

Overall:

Massive mechanical improvements with man the guns and now 1.6.2. Allied AI needs a lot of work overall. From playing board games like World in Flames, I can say UK is the tightest balancing act. But the USSR and US having low effectiveness is catastrophic to overall experience. Game already underestimates US production compared to Germany and Axis overall, which would be easier to swallow without terrible AI. In a game like World in Flames, US is the HAMMER and truly sets a hard timer on the Axis, and it doesn't feel like US entering changes this game nearly enough. Also, USSR never seems to cause enough casualties on German units. Maybe too many German buffs? Dunno.

 

[Dan1109]

Hey guys! I'm running this beta version now. This is my first time posting in a long time.

The good:

1) I'm still loving all the naval fixes. UK is so much fun now! Except for some of the bad.

2) Germany is more under control now. Whatever you did, it seems to have worked pretty well.

3) China AI held off Japan for a long time one game.

4) USSR AI held off Germany well twice now.

5) Germany AI brutally effective.

The bad:

1) US AI is god awful. Playing as UK, I kept expecting big things, but they never came. AI can't island hop well, and does not send help to Europe where it does any good. Makes terrible invasion choices in Europe.

2) UK AI is god awful. Tried a China game. UK lost everything to the Axis very quickly. Before, I attributed it to bad naval engine. Now, it's clear UK AI doesn't understand how to dominate Med effectively. Played as Sweden, UK let Germany walk right in to Norway and kill me.

3) China AI did well once, but five other times, died like slime to Japan. I don't get this. China only needs infantry weapon production to hold up Japan for a LONG time with rudimentary skills. AI doesn't garrison ports, giving Japan easy access.

4) USSR AI is okay, but still seems to lose way too easily to Germany. Maybe that's because Germany AI is so GOOD. I don't know.

Overall:

Massive mechanical improvements with man the guns and now 1.6.2. Allied AI needs a lot of work overall. From playing board games like World in Flames, I can say UK is the tightest balancing act. But the USSR and US having low effectiveness is catastrophic to overall experience. Game already underestimates US production compared to Germany and Axis overall, which would be easier to swallow without terrible AI. In a game like World in Flames, US is the HAMMER and truly sets a hard timer on the Axis, and it doesn't feel like US entering changes this game nearly enough. Also, USSR never seems to cause enough casualties on German units. Maybe too many German buffs? Dunno.

To add to the BAD in 1.6.2: Naval AI will still assign missions to sea regions where the AI itself has marked BLOCKED. Yes, Impressed the GER AI will blocked off the English Channel (ok, not really impressed, hard coded - AI needs memory retention to realize its getting massacred in certain regions, and just block them off, deeming them unwinnable) - BUT, even though Channel is blocked, GER AI continues to Raid the English Channel.

Looking at AIVIEW of the sea region, it appears that the blocked sea region is NOT affecting the Raid Mission score. The English Channel is GER's highest priority raiding mission area (Intel is letting AI know there are convoys there, LOTS of convoys), but it doesn't realize that its been blocked off.

Yet another bug, someone please open up. Mine never get replied to. I'm done with it. (I'm sure they know about it, QA would be criminally negligent if they didn't see this - but I don't even get replies to bugs saying they are aware of the issue)

 

[Rafled]

Playing in 1.6.2 as UK, lost all my convoys (during peacetime.) Not certain where 600+ convoys disappeared to; I refused France entry to the Allies, lend leased them equipment (which should use their convoys), did NOT send them convoys, and otherwise only used convoys to move supplies/goods.

 

[Rafled]

Good to finally see Ark Royal being built from the game start as she was supposed to be!

However the Town class are still missing.
Newcastle, Southampton - laid down 1934
Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham - laid down 1935

This is a pretty significant class of light cruiser to be missing from the 1936 start.

Similarly the H class destroyers: Hardy, Hasty, Havock, Hereward, Hero, Hostile, Hotspur, Hunter, Hyperion - all laid down 1935.

If you're looking for ways to help the UK with ASW, they really should be building these from the start as well.

That's fourteen ships if I count them correctly including the Ark Royal.... how many shipyards does UK have in the 1936 start (They'd need one each to be in process)?

 

[Foxador]

Not sure if this has been reported but if you take the british "a change in course" focus as your first one it does nothing. It gives -10% to democracy but then gives it back as "changes in other factions". You need at least 10% support in a faction to even get +0.1 support in it and it goes up higher the more you get, but the most you'll get is +0.4 which is pretty horrible.

Before it used to scatter your support at the start but now it does nothing

 

[Bratyn]

Not sure if this has been reported but if you take the british "a change in course" focus as your first one it does nothing. It gives -10% to democracy but then gives it back as "changes in other factions". You need at least 10% support in a faction to even get +0.1 support in it and it goes up higher the more you get, but the most you'll get is +0.4 which is pretty horrible.

Before it used to scatter your support at the start but now it does nothing

We are aware of this issue. This was the reason for the initial implementation as "+0.05 to all other factions", also because it was quite an extensive problem with how the underlying code works and our programmers had more important things to fix. It's become apparent that that implementation doesn't work well either, though, and so we're reverting to this one. The content design side of the fix made it in in time for the Beta, but the code fix didn't.

 

[Bratyn]

Why on earth did the Chamberlain event need changing anyway?

My guess is they changed it for singleplayer, so AI ENG would do the speech events sooner, allowing a player USA to help AI ENG faster. Not at all the correct way to solve AI issues IMO.

The event could not fire until France had completely surrendered, which is neither historical nor optimal (remember that he historically stepped down before the invasion of the Low Countries, and long before Norway surrendered). I presume the event fired early for you, Fulmen, because France lost some land in North Africa, or around the Alps, and therefore accrued surrender progress. I'm adding another stipulation that Poland must have surrendered, and slightly increasing the surrender progress required.

 

[Ethereld]

I presume the event fired early for you, Fulmen, because France lost some land in North Africa, or around the Alps, and therefore accrued surrender progress. I'm adding another stipulation that Poland must have surrendered, and slightly increasing the surrender progress required.

It is not directly related to Chamberlain, but Italy joining the Axis and starting a land war in Africa in 1939 is WAD?

On one hand it makes life easier for Germany as the AI can capitulate France before 1940, but in the other hand it does cripple Italy since they have to face both the Royal Navy and the French Mediterranean Fleet.

In 1.5.4 this was no problem as you could spam BB, BC and other ships to replace the losses but after 1.6 the loss of a single BB is a great damage against Italy. Also after 1.6.2 France seems to defend better it's border so the Italians losses a lot of men on the Alps.

 

[Archangel85]

That's asinine and also entirely untrue.

First off, here's the untruth :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#World_War_II



The US Army had at least five divisions officially marked as motorized. This is one of them.

Here's Niehorster's TOE for US Motorized Divisions 1940. Note that this is pulled from the US Army's official org.

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/40_org/div-mot/div-mot.html

And here's why it is asinine.

All US infantry divisions were equipped with substantial transport capability equivalent to motorized divisions in other armies. Here's an example of a troop transport company OOB, a unit that would regularly have been part of the divisional HQ.

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/misc/qm_truck.html

You can see where they fit into the Infantry Division's HQ here :

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/div-inf/div-inf_special-qm.html

These transport units were in addition to substantial organic transport capacity at all levels of the Infantry Division. Each Regiment and Battalion had a substantial motor pool available, and even individual companies had trucks and cars available. Movement by US Infantry Divisions was generally by road in trucks because they had the vehicular assets to do it and the substantial logistical tail to support it. Often it wasn't possible to move the entire division in a single lift, but one or two regiments and their supporting assets could and often were moved that way by pooling trucks.

So a strong argument could be made that the base infantry template for the US should be motorized. If not that, at the least a motorized template should be available and equipped to the standards of the base infantry.

I don't see how any of this supports the argument that the US should be able to build motorized divisions in 1936. If someone finds hard evidence that the US operated fully motorized divisons in 1936, I am eager to hear it. Until then, they will have to motorize their infantry the hard way. They originally started out without motorized researched in vanilla. Given the size of the US automotive industry, that seemed equally silly, so it was changed.

 

[Sn3ipen]

There is a bug that crashes the game if you pin regions and then reorganizes them by drag and drop. Don't know if it's related but i am running the game on Manjaro Gnome Linux.

 

[Taghmon]

Can I continue a running 1.6.1 game with 1.6.2 Beta?
Saw the balancing fixes and must have them! But I play slow and would like to continue my current game.
So any experience if it breaks savegames?

EDIT!

Should be savegame compatible with all prior versions of 1.6

Sorry, found this at the end of a realy long first message. Seems I'm good to go.