Is HoI4 moving towards an attrition based game?

[TheDungen]

But in the end -ofc- its always better to have like 20 ships instead of one . Numbers do matter, and they should matter ofc^^

Is that so? You take 20 WW2 era battleships and I take one modern missile boat and let's see how long you last (hint it's going to be very close to the time it takes for the missile baot to fire it's missiles).
Jokes aside yes within a certain era there is only so much technological superiority can do for you. But still the most advanced units in the game can probably do horrendrous ammounts of damage against the earliest ones.

 

[Praetori]

Is that so? You take 20 WW2 era battleships and I take one modern missile boat and let's see how long you last (hint it's going to be very close to the time it takes for the missile baot to fire it's missiles).
Jokes aside yes within a certain era there is only so much technological superiority can do for you. But still the most advanced units in the game can probably do horrendrous ammounts of damage against the earliest ones.

Battleships are down to calibre and a bit of luck. A single biplane or a ww1 era single coastal fort shouldn't decommission a top notch ww2 battleship/battlecruiser but yet it happened, kinda, with Bismarck and Blücher.
A later war battleship would simply outrun 20 inter-war dreadnoughts much as a carrier would outrun a battleship. In situations where running is not an option the numbers matters more than technology (up to a point). But in a Fjord even the most antiqued dreadnoughts still in service would've made mincemeat of a carrier and even the Yamato would be at a disadvantage against 20 ww1 ships.

Production-wise however I don't think that building many crappy ships compared to a fewer modern ones is going to be attrition friendly.

 

[Denkt]

Well I expect the modern battleship to be both faster and able to attack targets from further positions so theoretically a single modern battleships is invincible against lower tech battleships.

 

[Dojo704]

Battleships are down to calibre and a bit of luck. A single biplane or a ww1 era single coastal fort shouldn't decommission a top notch ww2 battleship/battlecruiser but yet it happened, kinda, with Bismarck and Blücher.
A later war battleship would simply outrun 20 inter-war dreadnoughts much as a carrier would outrun a battleship. In situations where running is not an option the numbers matters more than technology (up to a point). But in a Fjord even the most antiqued dreadnoughts still in service would've made mincemeat of a carrier and even the Yamato would be at a disadvantage against 20 ww1 ships.

I absoloutely agree.
And mr Dungen, yep, thats the point. We are only in an certain era. I mean yes u could edit the enddate but u know... so u got it right -> ofc advanced weaponry should be better. But within certain possibilities for the maximum of development.

 

[Denkt]

Im pretty sure they make late game technology far superior to early game technology as that make snowballing much harder and make late game choices far more important.

There did definitivt happen alot in naval technology during HOI4 time frame like:

• Radar
• Diesel engine warships
• Dual purpose guns
• Heavy anti air armament
• Computers

Some later technologies 1940s

• automatic loaded dual purpose guns (very good anti air fire rate compared to other dual purpose guns)
• Proximity fuse
• Advanced medium anti air autocannons (like bofors 40mm M/48, basically better accuracy, fire rate and protection (cannon encased in a turret instead of open).

 

[Centerbe]

1.6 BB/year doesn't imply that BB's are smaller or weaker or unrealistically easy to produce. It only implies that many shipyards are unrealistically able to focus all of their resources on constructing a single ship. In HoI4, nine women CAN make a baby in a single month.

the comparison is not exact.....

a baby can be done only by a single woman, 9 women cannot cooperate for "build" a babe".
In case of a ship its not true, much workers can cooperate for build a ship, as also much shipyards.
Ship can be build in several different sections and every one in different shipyard, as also today realistically every large ship is done.
I never seen a babe birth in separate sections.....

 

[Skjold89]

Regarding the ship building problem, just limit the amount of naval yards able to work on capital ships to 5 or so instead of 15. That way you can still mass produce destroyers, submarines etc without having tons of construction lines open while not being able to build a BB/CV in 8 months.

 

[agentgb]

Hmmm it's a pity there isn't a salvage/equipment/supply capture mechanic in game, i guess such a mechanic would allow for snowballing. I'm sure in hoi3 it was quite possible to capture stockpiles of resources and supplies.

 

[Praetori]

Well I expect the modern battleship to be both faster and able to attack targets from further positions so theoretically a single modern battleships is invincible against lower tech battleships.

Regarding battleships not much changed in any fundamental way after the late ww1 dreadnoughts came into being. The biggest change was oil becoming predominant instead of coal increasing range and boilers providing higher pressure (meaning more efficient turbines, more hp's and more speed) and torpedo bulkheads improved and enlarged after the lessons learned from ww1.
The treaties on naval buildup basically prevented any further major changes to the battleship as a weapon of war. They got a bit bigger with thicker armor and increased main calibre somewhat but that was basically it.

Sure there were technical improvements in large and small but from the point of view of a Grand Strategy game the differences were minimal.
The difference between a WW1 class such as the Colorado-class with 8x406mm guns, 343mm belt armor and 89mm deck armor and a high tier WW2 battleship class such as Bismarck with 8x380mm guns, 320mm belt armor and 120mm deck armor is basically speed and range (from the perspective of relevance for Grand Strategy games).

 

[Denkt]

Hmmm there's a pity there isn't a salvage/equipment/supply capture mechanic in game, i guess such a mechanic would allow for snowballing. I'm sure in hoi3 it was quite possible to capture stockpiles of resources and supplies.

There is a capture mechanic which have been shown in the World War Wednesday streams.

 

[agentgb]

There is a capture mechanic which have been shown in the World War Wednesday streams.

oh!!! sweet! obviously missed that.

 

[Centerbe]

Regarding the ship building problem, just limit the amount of naval yards able to work on capital ships to 5 or so instead of 15. That way you can still mass produce destroyers, submarines etc without having tons of construction lines open while not being able to build a BB/CV in 8 months.

the numbers of shipyards showed in the interface its only an abstraction... are not singular shipyards.
The interface show production line with 15 shipyards but much countries havent in total 15 shipyards.
It represents only an abstracted amount of shipyards, employees, and resources assigned to this ship contruction.
If you prefer u can figure are only 5 the shipyards assigned.

 

[agentgb]

the numbers of shipyards showed in the interface its only an abstraction... are not singular shipyards.
The interface show production line with 15 shipyards but much countries havent in total 15 shipyards.
It represents only an abstracted amount of shipyards, employees, and resources assigned to this ship contruction.

didn't germany have such problems when it came to choosing between taking manpower for the frontline or keeping the manpower/skilled workers in the factories? I mean that was the reason why alot of women went to work in the factories in the US & GB. Men were all of fighting. I think you picked up on somthing there!

 

[Centerbe]

didn't germany have such problems when it came to choosing between taking manpower for the frontline or keeping the manpower/skilled workers in the factories? I mean that was the reason why alot of women went to work in the factories in the US & GB. Men were all of fighting.

not only germany, every country have the same problem....

 

[Denkt]

Regarding battleships not much changed in any fundamental way after the late ww1 dreadnoughts came into being.

The developers don't care about if this is realistic (no ship design was changed fudamentally in any way but the technologies I listed above was as important as the change to deadnoughts). Like they don't care about if you can build a battleship in half a year is unrealistic.

What they care about is making a good strategy game.

 

[agentgb]

not only germany, every country have the same problem....

yeah, i guess i'm getting at the whole victoria 2 mechanic when it came to population. Mobilizing the factory workers & farmers in times of desperation, or generally putting alot into military spending and have a good sol pop. I suppose that is somewhat represented by the laws in hoi4 i guess. In prepartion for barbarossa, the germans took alot of factory workers, telling them that they would only be needed for 4 months. In hoi3 laws on factories only affected $ income or consumer goods.

Spoiler

Economic Law
Full Civilian Economy: Peacetime Consumer Demand -10% IC -50% Money +15% Resources -50%

Basic Mobilisation: Peacetime Consumer Demand -5% IC -25% Money +5% Resources -25%

Full Mobilisation: Money -10%

War Economy: Wartime Consumer Demand -2% IC +25% Money -25% Resources 10%

Total Economic Mobilisation: Wartime Consumer Demand -5% IC +50% Money -50% Resources 25%

-----------

Conscription Law
Volunteer Army: reserves penalty 75% manpower -50% peacetime manpower rotation 10% officer recruitment -50%

One Year Draft: reserves penalty 66% manpower -25% peacetime manpower rotation 5% officer recruitment -25%

Two Year Draft: reserves penalty 50% peacetime manpower rotation 3%

Three Year Draft: reserves penalty 25% manpower +25% peacetime manpower rotation 2% officer recruitment +25%

Service by Requirement reserves penalty 10% manpower +100% peacetime manpower rotation 1% officer recruitment +50%

--------

Industrial Policy Law
Consumer Product Orientation: Peacetime Consumer Goods Demand -10% Industrial Efficiency -5% Dissent -2

Mixed Industry: Wartime Consumer Goods Demand -5% Peacetime Consumer Goods Demand -5% Supply Throughput +5%

Heavy Industry Emphasis: Industrial Efficiency +5% Peacetime Consumer Goods Demand +10% Supply Throughput +10%

Soviet union used alot of women in there armies, so should have a pretty huge potential for manpower. I guess im getting at that certain laws should affect your potential for manpower production, if you want your factories fully manned and working at full potential, it would mean less men on the front, although women would take over the jobs, for the sake of balance between nations like US & Japan, some form of penalty for having 15 shipyards should be considered.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Do not get me wrong here please, I am not against the economic part of producing equipment, but currently according to WWW videos it really looks like C&C generals when it comes to ordering units around. Be it air, land or sea you just select and attack move the enemy.... maybe it is because there were not equal forces meeting atm in the video but it is a bit disturbing nevertheless...

 

[safe-keeper]

Strategy is about outproducing your opponents, at least in prolonged conflicts like World War II. There are still encirclements, clever plans, superior designs and whatnot, but for the Germans it came down to simple numbers in the end. Which isn't neccessarily a good thing in strategy games, because then you have to work around the problem of how the biggest player wins more often than not, but... yeah. It is hoew reality works.

the comparison is not exact.....

a baby can be done only by a single woman, 9 women cannot cooperate for "build" a babe".

/me starts to picture what it would be like if nine women could each gestate parts of a fetus, give birth in one month, and then have the nine partial fetii assembled to a single baby. Anyways.

 

[Centerbe]

The developers don't care about if this is realistic (no ship design was changed fudamentally in any way but the technologies I listed above was as important as the change to deadnoughts). Like they don't care about if you can build a battleship in half a year is unrealistic.

What they care about is making a good strategy game.

There is a distinction about what is historic and what is realistic.
If something is unhistorical dosent mean necessarily its unrealistic.
Human's factor did the difference.... as the player teoretically in the game should do the same.

 

[Praetori]

The developers don't care about if this is realistic (no ship design was changed fudamentally in any way but the technologies I listed above was as important as the change to deadnoughts). Like they don't care about if you can build a battleship in half a year is unrealistic.

What they care about is making a good strategy game.

Well there's a helluva big difference between the air tenders of ww1 and the fleet carriers of ww2 and the same can be said of some destroyer-classes and subs as well.
The difference between a Colorado and a Bismarck is almost down to experience spent on ticks on the Variants in comparison.
Radar, rangefinding, shells and other technological changes, even increased bore and and elevation of the main guns were brought up to speed on a number of major surface combatants prior to or during WW2 without building completely new ships. The differences in battleships or other heavy surface combatants weren't all that great as to justify special care.

The higher reliability base of a "modern" battleship will make Bismarck less susceptible to critical hits compared to an older one like HMS Hood. The higher speed of the Bismarck compared to a Colorado will make a world of difference on the strategically noticeable scale. And so forth.
All in all I'm pretty happy with what we've been shown so far (with the exception of fuel but that's discussion not suitable here).