Is HoI4 moving towards an attrition based game?

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Well as the name of the thread states I have a feeling that this is what is happening in all aspects of the game. Air war (outproducing in number of planes instead of careful positioning and intercepting of planes along attack routes), Naval war ( shortening of build times for ships, removing that decisive battle feeling from the game) and finally a land war ( if you have enough equip and manpower you are on the roll, which is okish ). Please tell me I am wrong because I am reaaaaaaally looking forward to this game but .... somehow not so much anymore?

 

[kalauer]

I guess on land, encirlement still is a major point, if you intend to do so. Regarding air, it is more abstracted since there is no control of individual wings and larger zones, so you might be right there. But as far as I'm concerned, air combat was always mostly about having more/better planes than the enemy. I never experienced this "careful positioning" you mentioned there.

How long does a battleship take in the current build? Maybe this time will be increased in balancing?

 

[bkuepers]

Like its predecessors in HOI4 there are still plenty of variables you can control and manipulate. For example in the air war.

Ace Pilots
Radar
Different Wing Types
Variants
Air Doctrine
Land Based AA
Division Based AA
did I miss any?

While having the ability to produce more planes will help you to win and should most of the time, there are other ways to help turn the tide of the air war to give you an advantage.

 

[Dojo704]

I think it´s a matter of stats. If your lvl "whatsoever" tank of the one country has the same stats as the same "whatsoever" lvl tank from another country, then u are probably right. Just imagine that american tanks have the same stats as germans. Then they would be the same quality and it is just a matter of how much u can produce of the same thing -shurely a point for the US then. But if your planes and tanks of different nations have realistic -but maybe a little balanced- stats , then it could be more like quality vs quantity and strategical and tactical decicions are necessary.
But in the end -ofc- its always better to have like 20 ships instead of one . Numbers do matter, and they should matter ofc^^

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Well in HoI3 I used more air wings to intercept bombers in depth if you know what I mean, also I used various directions to bomb enemy so they had to either spread their fighters, or get bombed by portion of bombers with impunity. Regarding the navy I think the build they are using in WWW its something like 1,6 BB a year.

 

[qer]

Well as the name of the thread states I have a feeling that this is what is happening in all aspects of the game. Air war (outproducing in number of planes instead of careful positioning and intercepting of planes along attack routes), Naval war ( shortening of build times for ships, removing that decisive battle feeling from the game) and finally a land war ( if you have enough equip and manpower you are on the roll, which is okish ). Please tell me I am wrong because I am reaaaaaaally looking forward to this game but .... somehow not so much anymore?

so ww2? Most of the theaters of war where decided by who could out more resources than the opponent. Of course battle still matter, but if you had a production advantage , losses aren't so devastating

 

[kalauer]

Regarding the navy I think the build they are using in WWW its something like 1,6 BB a year.

But that was on low efficiency, right? Just picked a random wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helgoland-class_battleship
Stating that these ships roughly took a year each. Is this far off? Seems to me these figures may be archieveable with the current WWW-version. [edit: misread 1.6 BB per year as 1.6 years per BB.]

Your point is that this is too fast?

edit: just realised the difference between "launch" and "commissioning". Given that, the ships took like 3 years and I get your point.

 

[seattle]

Well as the name of the thread states I have a feeling that this is what is happening in all aspects of the game. Air war (outproducing in number of planes instead of careful positioning and intercepting of planes along attack routes), Naval war ( shortening of build times for ships, removing that decisive battle feeling from the game) and finally a land war ( if you have enough equip and manpower you are on the roll, which is okish ). Please tell me I am wrong because I am reaaaaaaally looking forward to this game but .... somehow not so much anymore?

Air warfare is a war of attrition. Nothing else has it ever been, no different in WW2. This is the most welcome change as it eliminates unnecessary micromanagement.

In naval warfare you can now (more than ever) customize your battle fleets. With the new combat screen the decisive battle feeling will only increase. Don't get your point.

Land warfare: HoI3's a.i. was only capable of pushing along the entire frontline. The very definition of attritional war. Whoever ran out of manpower first would lose. In HoI4 you have more provinces than in HoI2, enabling even more tactical manouvres like pincer movements and full-fledged encirclements. Don't get this point either.

 

[kalauer]

Air warfare is a war of attrition. Nothing else has it ever been, no different in WW2. This is the most welcome change as it eliminates unnecessary micromanagement.

In naval warfare you can now (more than ever) customize your battle fleets. With the new combat screen the decisive battle feeling will only increase. Don't get your point.

Land warfare: HoI3's a.i. was only capable of pushing along the entire frontline. The very definition of attritional war. Whoever ran out of manpower first would lose. In HoI4 you have more provinces than in HoI2, enabling even more tactical manouvres like pincer movements and full-fledged encirclements. Don't get this point either.

agree on air and land but for naval:

When it is possible to lose your entiore navy in 1939 and have it rebuild in 1942, the battles can not be THAT decisive. Seems to me more like EU4 where you occasionally sacrifice your entire fleet to cross that one street and then just build it again. But as stated, I guess this is also to be balanced?

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Air warfare is a war of attrition. Nothing else has it ever been, no different in WW2. This is the most welcome change as it eliminates unnecessary micromanagement.

In naval warfare you can now (more than ever) customize your battle fleets. With the new combat screen the decisive battle feeling will only increase. Don't get your point.

Land warfare: HoI3's a.i. was only capable of pushing along the entire frontline. The very definition of attritional war. Whoever ran out of manpower first would lose. In HoI4 you have more provinces than in HoI2, enabling even more tactical manouvres like pincer movements and full-fledged encirclements. Don't get this point either.

What I am getting at is that if they take away for example interception of aircraft on the way to its destination from the game then you do not need long range fighters for early interception. Gradual interception was what was used all the time.

Also I get that WW2 was most about mass production capacity but I would not like the HoI4 to become C&C Generals of grand strategy games.... just order stuff then select it and send it vaguelly in the direction of the enemy with attack move order....

 

[Praetori]

Well as the name of the thread states I have a feeling that this is what is happening in all aspects of the game. Air war (outproducing in number of planes instead of careful positioning and intercepting of planes along attack routes), Naval war ( shortening of build times for ships, removing that decisive battle feeling from the game) and finally a land war ( if you have enough equip and manpower you are on the roll, which is okish ). Please tell me I am wrong because I am reaaaaaaally looking forward to this game but .... somehow not so much anymore?

WW2 basically had the underlying attributes of a war of attrition but on a completely different scale than previous wars. There's still the time vs exploit factor where strategic or operational victories can offset the timescale where attrition really starts to hurt but WW2 turned into a geostrategic game of attrition by the end of 1942 and the Axis were from then on on the losing side.

The Allies and Soviets could simply have taken a slower approach and it would probably still have ended the same way but attrition works both ways and the damage done to Western and Soviet society would've been bigger as their armed forces would've needed to be even bigger to defeat the Axis had they been given the time. They chose to make sacrifices in lives and resources to complete the war earlier, with less if's and but's, than attrition could've done which was the "safe" although cold way to act.

 

[Vidkjaer]

There is also the variant system. Choose which unit you want to boost stat in and how to use them will make a big difference - so it is not like every tankmodel, plane or ship has the same stats.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

When it is possible to lose your entiore navy in 1939 and have it rebuild in 1942, the battles can not be THAT decisive.

As far as I understand, the problem is not that naval production overall is too fast, but that you can concentrate production such that the delay between starting a capital ship line and getting the first ship is too short. So if you lose three battleships in 1939, you can get one back in 1940, 1941 and 1942, rather than getting finishing 3 in 1942.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

agree on air and land but for naval:

When it is possible to lose your entiore navy in 1939 and have it rebuild in 1942, the battles can not be THAT decisive. Seems to me more like EU4 where you occasionally sacrifice your entire fleet to cross that one street and then just build it again. But as stated, I guess this is also to be balanced?

I do agree but it also needs to hamper your plans to a certain degree. Don't know about you guys but I seldomly reload when something does not go my way, cause otherwise everything would have no concequence ( bugs and crashes reload ofc ).

 

[kalauer]

Don't know about you guys but I seldomly reload when something does not go my way, cause otherwise everything would have no concequence ( bugs and crashes reload ofc ).

In HoI yes. In EU4... get some 0 rolls against the enemies 9 and neither god-general, a careful battle plan nor mountainrivers can save you. And that is the point at which I am reloading. Always trying to include minor bad luck in my battle plans. But there are boundaries.

 

[Praetori]

In HoI yes. In EU4... get some 0 rolls against the enemies 9 and neither god-general, a careful battle plan nor mountainrivers can save you. And that is the point at which I am reloading. Always trying to include minor bad luck in my battle plans. But there are boundaries.

Ever heard of Poltava?

It's one of the charms of PDS titles, playing what you're being dealt and adapting is the biggest challenge. Especially when things looks amazing and then turn south due to sudden thaw and muddy weather in the middle of your grand winter offensive.
In EUIV when you get the bad rolls it's usually a smart idea to NOT keep that megastack fighting a hopeless battle but instead retreat. It's as much about cutting your losses when the unexpected happens as it is preparing for victory when things go well.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

In HoI yes. In EU4... get some 0 rolls against the enemies 9 and neither god-general, a careful battle plan nor mountainrivers can save you. And that is the point at which I am reloading. Always trying to include minor bad luck in my battle plans. But there are boundaries.

Try playing Battle for Wesnoth but I get your point ofc

 

[kalauer]

Ever heard of Poltava?

It's one of the charms of PDS titles, playing what you're being dealt and adapting is the biggest challenge. Especially when things looks amazing and then turn south due to sudden thaw and muddy weather in the middle of your grand winter offensive.
In EUIV when you get the bad rolls it's usually a smart idea to NOT keep that megastack fighting a hopeless battle but instead retreat. It's as much about cutting your losses when the unexpected happens as it is preparing for victory when things go well.

Poltava? Nope.

So yeah, when I see that a battle is lost, I do retreat of course to prevent manpower drain (unless there are reasons...). But when I have the favorable position and army setup, I do not, despite bad rolls. And why should I if the battle still looks good in principle. I give you that even with best setup, the first blow from a 0/9 can compromise your position so far you have to retreat but that is not what I am talking about. My point was a constant supply of bad rolls over a long period of time in an important battle, basically evening out or even flipping the odds. That is something I usually don't take (unless I deliberately set out to do so from the very beginning)..
But that is highly dependent on preferences.

 

[Skjold89]

Building 1.6 BB every year? it must be some sort of gigantic RC toy or something.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Building 1.6 BB every year? it must be some sort of gigantic RC toy or something.

In one of the WWW you can see the naval production details of both players and I think it was Scharnhorst class that was being built by 15 dockyards at the pace of 1.67 a year. It is kind of ridiculous.