HOI4 Sub-Developer-Diary - Combat targeting iteration

[Arheo]

Hi all,

While this topic is not the dev diary for today, it's something a lot of you have posted about in the last few weeks.

As with all features and changes we show off during development, things should not be considered final until they hit the floor. There has been a lot of speculation over changes to the width 'meta', particularly as regards smaller divisions potentially being vastly stronger than equally composed larger ones. To an extent this has always been the case due to averaged organization (stack up 20 2w divs against 1 40w div in equal circumstances, and see what happens). This said, the targeting changes mentioned recently had the effect of exacerbating the situation somewhat.

As such, I've made some further changes to targeting:

• Divisions now have an engagement width equal to twice (controllable by define, for modders) their own width.
• In combats with multiple divisional participants, each will build an array of targets up to and including their engagement width. (ie; a width 20 div might target two width 10s and one width 20)
• Targets will be effectively scrambled - smaller width divisions will continue to attack more or less random targets; larger divisions will retain a larger targeting pool that allows them to have more potential attempts to find a best target.
• They will deal attacks to each of these targets with a damage factor equivalent to 1 - ( Define( 0.35 ) + ( CountryMod.Coordination * DivisionMod.Initative ) )
• Division initiative, as you know, comes from signal companies - something we feel often underperform.
• Coordination is a new stat, that can be found in a few places including radio and radar techs, doctrines (Grand Battleplan), and the new Military Spirits.
• After this, the division with the lowest organization* in the target list will be targeted, receiving the remaining factor of damage.

*The logic for 'best target' is something we're still considering, but lowest organization currently has results most consistent with current player expectations. There is room for being cleverer here as we iterate.

Tl;dr: divisions will now split their damage between unequally between the 'best' target, and other available targets. How much damage is split is something you have multiple levels of control over as a player.

/Arheo

 

[Corpse Fool]

Thank you for taking the time to comment on some of the concerns raised by the community. This does answer some of the questions we've had, but I feel like it raises even more than it answers.

 

[Gort11]

Sometimes I wonder if you'd be better off just having battalions add a flat amount of organisation to the division rather than averaging it out. So a 40-width division would have twice the organisation of a 20-width division (assuming the same composition) rather than the same amount as it is right now.

 

[Arheo]

Sometimes I wonder if you'd be better off just having battalions add a flat amount of organisation to the division rather than averaging it out. So a 40-width division would have twice the organisation of a 20-width division (assuming the same composition) rather than the same amount as it is right now.

I've looked variously at this and other similar solutions involving org. In all cases, it requires a comprehensive rebalance of a lot of the fundamentals. I realise it sounds good in theory, but once you take it out of the confines of a theoretical scenario, it falls down on a macro scale.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Sounds good.

Just want to say that I'm really looking forward to the combat width rework - 40 width divisions being incredibly powerful versus two 20 width divisions is something that has always irked me in hoi4, so it's great to see it being addressed.

Thank you, and I hope the devs remember that it is always the vocal minority who are loudest about proposed changes "ruining the multiplayer balance". Even if the new system is slightly in favour of small divisions due to organisation, it's still a hell of a lot closer to balanced than it is now. People seem to also be ignoring the other tradeoff of smaller divisions - that you need more generals to oversee them and therefore receive less experienced commander benefits.

 

[Corpse Fool]

"ruining the multiplayer balance"

Who was saying that?

 

[Kompetan]

Can a deorged divisions inflict org malus to others divisions in the same battle like in total war where when a unit breaks it affects other units and if you break enough units even the fresh units rout. This can stop the 2 width spam as having them would only cause to demorale your main units

 

[mursolini]

I don`t get it.

A division attacks all divisions within engagement range with it`s full attack, but at a reduced damage?

What about defense and breakthrough used to deflect attack, are they consumed at reduced rate as well?

How will this address 10 or less width spam?

 

[Arheo]

A division attacks all divisions within engagement range with it`s full attack, but at a reduced damage?

What about defense and breakthrough used to deflect attack, are they consumed at reduced rate as well

How will this address 10 or less width spam?

1. I'm not sure I understand the question. Broadly speaking, yes? But with the last bulletpoint in that list being the one you may have missed.

2. There are no changes to defense or breakthrough.

3. Under the previous iteration, larger divisions would split their damage equally over all targets - if those targets made up 20 divisions, the larger div would have to chew through 20 divisions worth of org at the same rate. Here, you'll knock divisions out of combat one by one, albeit at a slightly different rate to vanilla, based on coordination.

 

[Com]

So a division will have a list of potential targets, with a wider range if the div is wider. Attacks are split essentially off of coordination and initiative with higher levels allowing an enemy div to be singled out more. Optimal targets are low org divs, not lower comparative width divs.

I'm not clear on what engagement width is doing or what real fraction of a attacks can be expected to apply to the target (with the rest of the attacks presumably spread out along the other targets in the arry)

 

[el nora]

to clarify, this would mean that divisions with more initiative, and nations with more coordination, will be better at focusing their fire on individual divisions?

and should tank radios not add initiative? i saw only a def and brk modifier in today's dev diary.

 

[cdub8d]

I am still confused at what problem this is trying to solved with targeting? This is adding a fair bit of complexity to combat which is already pretty complex. But I don't know how this is supposed to be better than what we have now?

 

[mursolini]

1. I'm not sure I understand the question. Broadly speaking, yes? But with the last bulletpoint in that list being the one you may have missed.

2. There are no changes to defense or breakthrough.

40 width division has 80 engagement width, attacks 80 width worth of 10 width divisions, all 8 of them, dealing division attack*(1-0.35+coordination) of damage to each division, and then SA*0.35 to division with smallest org.
Each of those division uses it`s defense or breakthrough to not receive *4 effective damage?

3. Under the previous iteration, larger divisions would split their damage equally over all targets - if those targets made up 20 divisions, the larger div would have to chew through 20 divisions worth of org at the same rate. Here, you'll knock divisions out of combat one by one, albeit at a slightly different rate to vanilla, based on coordination.

That you will focus damage somewhat, I understand. What I don`t understand, is how do attacks of a single division get split.

 

[sbadkins4]

It is very good to see that this is being carefully considered.
Has there been any progress in finding ways to get frontline AI to use tanks differently than infantry, or be able to react to enemy tanks/general breakthroughs more effectively?

 

[Corpse Fool]

In combats with multiple divisional participants, each will build an array of targets up to and including their engagement width. (ie; a width 20 div might target two width 10s and one width 20)

By 'array', do you mean creating a 'set' of combinations of enemy formations that can fit into the engagement width? If we had a 20w that has 40ew as part of a larger battle, and it had a total to pick from of a 40w, 2x20w, 4x10w, 3x15w, and 1x30w. Would we be assembling 'sets' that add up to 40w total, such as 1x40, 2x20, 4x10, (1x20+2x10)(and its permutations), 1x30+1x10, 2x15+1x10, etc.

Would the 20w then be selecting one of those 'sets' from the 'array' with some weighting based on what the set contains (lowest total org in the set?), as selecting its 'best target'? Does it split its attacks, or is there no attack splitting anymore and we just get a damage modifier to get each target from the attacks?

 

[Arheo]

I'm not clear on what engagement width is doing or what real fraction of a attacks can be expected to apply to the target (with the rest of the attacks presumably spread out along the other targets in the arry)

Engagement width is not a stat you're really presented with in-game. It defines the maximum combined width of targeted frontage that one division can 'shoot' at, if you will. Since all targets in a combat are shuffled before being chosen, it basically goes to increase the effectiveness of larger arrays when working out what the best target is. Lots and lots of smaller divisions will be less effective at focusing their fire in combats involving several targets.

to clarify, this would mean that divisions with more initiative, and nations with more coordination, will be better at focusing their fire on individual divisions?

and should tank radios not add initiative? i saw only a def and brk modifier in today's dev diary.

Sort of, yes. The wider a division's combat width, the more likely it will be for it to include the 'best' target in its engagement width. The more coordination it has, the more preferentially damage will be split between primary target and auxiliary targets.

Initiative is a fairly tightly controlled & balanced stat right now, and I probably won't add it to tanks immediately. Possibly in the long run.

40 width division has 80 engagement width, attacks 80 width worth of 10 width divisions, all 8 of them, dealing division attack*(1-0.35+coordination) of damage to each division, and then SA*0.35 to division with smallest org.
Each of those division uses it`s defense or breakthrough to not receive *4 effective damage?

That you will focus damage somewhat, I understand. What I don`t understand, is how do attacks of a single division get split.

I'll try and break this down a bit.

We have a single division of width 40. It has an engagement width of 80 (2x width), and an (arbitrary) attacks value of 100 (from equipment etc).

Let's imagine it performs an attack-maneuver in a combat where there are twelve width 10 targets. When selecting targets, the list of twelve is shuffled randomly, and we iterate through adding divisions to our target list by weight. We end up with eight of those twelve divisions in our target list.

Then we work out damage split. Let's imagine that the division doing the shooting has a total coordination value of 15%. We add that 15% to the defined minimum value of 35%. This gives us a total of 50% of our attacks value which is set aside for step 2, and 50% of our attacks value which we want to distribute across the list of targets.

We throw 50 / 8 attacks at each of the targets in our list. These are resolved like any other attack would be.

After that (yes, you'll note we do include the best target in the distributed attacks as well, for simplicity's sake when dealing with target lists of size 1), we determine which the 'best' target amongst those 8 divisions is, and we deal the remaining 50% of attacks to that.

I hope this helps.

Has there been any progress in finding ways to get frontline AI to use tanks differently than infantry, or be able to react to enemy tanks/general breakthroughs more effectively?

Not something we're really covering here, but it depends what you mean. We've been looking at defining higher concentrations of armor and using armor for more sensible jobs (ie, active armor frontlines), but not specifically for performing encirclements and micro-maneuvers. It's extraordinarily difficult to do this in a way that isn't outright dangerous/stupid/inefficient for the AI compared to a human. Not ruling it out forever, of course.

By 'array', do you mean creating a 'set' of combinations of enemy formations that can fit into the engagement width? If we had a 20w that has 40ew as part of a larger battle, and it had a total to pick from of a 40w, 2x20w, 4x10w, 3x15w, and 1x30w. Would we be assembling 'sets' that add up to 40w total, such as 1x40, 2x20, 4x10, (1x20+2x10)(and its permutations), 1x30+1x10, 2x15+1x10, etc.

Would the 20w then be selecting one of those 'sets' from the 'array' with some weighting based on what the set contains (lowest total org in the set?), as selecting its 'best target'? Does it split its attacks, or is there no attack splitting anymore and we just get a damage modifier to get each target from the attacks?

I think the breakdown above answers the question, let me know if you want clarification on something.

 

[Max130704]

Divisions should have more support slots, only 5 means you're forced to use shitty divisions and can't capitalize on superior indsutry and production.
Also I have a question, will smaller units such as independent tank/artillery brigades be usable now that divisions spread damage? Irl a huge amount of troops weren't in divisions but in these smaller combat support units that were attached to divisions/corps/armies

 

[Duke_Dave]

I feel like this adds a lot of new calculations to the game and will slow down the game in the later stages.

 

[Arheo]

I feel like this adds a lot of new calculations to the game and will slow down the game in the later stages.

Ok

To be clear: combat targeting calculation is an absolutely miniscule part of what gets processed every tick. Targeting happened before; it happens now - there have been some slight changes to how it happens - this specific change will not noticeably affect your performance.

 

[Com]

What causes a division's target array to refresh or change? Does it reset per hour or on defeat/reinforcement of divs in combat?