This shouldn't work if the enemy have even minimal divisions defending each port. PARA drop with very little ORG.
Of course, the AI doesn't always protect ports...
What changes are expected in the next big patch?
- Thread starter Stug_Life
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This shouldn't work if the enemy have even minimal divisions defending each port. PARA drop with very little ORG.
Of course, the AI doesn't always protect ports...
The player doesn't either. Especially if they committed a lot to the defence if France and lost a lot of troops as a result.
I will say what I think will be in the game. I can guess by deduction. For the next big patch coming in December, I am guessing flesh out of rebellion features and some naval work, continuing air war work and some love given to the Majors.
----
My reasons:
One of the devs mentioned something about China and Spain originally being scheduled for Death or Dishonor, but did not make it in due to the decision to put extra resources on improving the core game itself. Someone else I heard mentioned that Axis was focus for 1.4 (DoD), then Asia would be a focus in the next one (1.5). I can't find sources now since it was from months ago unfortunately. I think it's likely there should be one more patch like 1.4.2 with fixes and stuff, but the next major DLC (1.5) will hit in December. It's supposed to be as big as the TfV, and DoD put together.
-Given China and Spain are the nations grinding through civil discord at the beginning of the game and both had fighting factions during the build up to the World War, these two countries are tied at the hip in this game... feature wise at least. It's possible they get pushed back to 1.6, BUT... with an Asia focus, you have to touch the China situation, and given China and Spain go together from a feature standpoint, I doubt they would break the two countries up.
1. China and Spain = rebellion features.
-Asia focus also means naval rework is likely (plus with Army and Air having been worked on, Naval is the last major combat theater to get any love),
2. Asia focus = Naval war gets some love
-They appear to be eyeing more air war tweaks, they say they are still working on it, so that should get some feature work too.
3. More air war stuff
-If naval war is truly getting a rework, this means the majors have to be given love. The majors are the nations with the navies. (They might not get to subs, since that might require another supply and equipment balance pass. They only have so many resources to put on this game.)
4. naval war rework = majors might get some work too
-Given China and Spain are the nations grinding through civil discord at the beginning of the game and both had fighting factions during the build up to the World War, these two countries are tied at the hip in this game... feature wise at least. It's possible they get pushed back to 1.6, BUT... with an Asia focus, you have to touch the China situation, and given China and Spain go together from a feature standpoint, I doubt they would break the two countries up.
1. China and Spain = rebellion features.
-Asia focus also means naval rework is likely (plus with Army and Air having been worked on, Naval is the last major combat theater to get any love),
2. Asia focus = Naval war gets some love
-They appear to be eyeing more air war tweaks, they say they are still working on it, so that should get some feature work too.
3. More air war stuff
-If naval war is truly getting a rework, this means the majors have to be given love. The majors are the nations with the navies. (They might not get to subs, since that might require another supply and equipment balance pass. They only have so many resources to put on this game.)
4. naval war rework = majors might get some work too
I agree with this. Having naval battles that you dont notice or interact with is a major weakness in the game. Im hoping that a major naval overhaul will be part of the next dlc.
Not sure what is being worked on but Naval Combat/Naval Bombers seem like they need alot of work.
I want a fix to peace treaties more than anything. It's so demotivating to fight a drawn-out war only to have hideous, nonsensical land distribution and Hitler still in power. Maybe it's just because I'm a beginner and more into Kaiserreich than vanilla, but that seems like the single-most broken feature of the game.
I was indeed talking about single player. The AI rarely leaves ports completely undefended, but it doesn't react while the paratroopers are gaining organisation after the landing. Or after the port is captured, for that matters.
Speaking as an almost exclusive multi-player and host I believe that the single most important change needs to be made to overseas supply lanes which at the moment are static and are often taking illogical and excessive detours which needlessly expose the convoys to being destroyed by convoy interdiction. Point in case, Axis trade often goes via the English channel or the Black Sea while there would be much shorter and safer routes available. At this point in time, Axis nations have to complete turn off all overseas trade at the beginning of the war if they don't want to find themselves at 0 convoys within months in a competitive multiplayer game. That urgently needs to be addressed.
-Armin
-Armin
What convoy route could possibly be safe for Germany though? Wasn't Germany nearly completely blockaded irl? Same goes for Italy outside the Mediterranean.
I agree there are some bugs in there though, such as Soviet/Japanese trade going through European ports instead of Vladivostok.
Last edited:
I think a possible fix would be to a.) allow routes to be disabled b.) provide alternative routes which can then prioritised. A bit like a modern SatNav. Said choices could be reflect in potentially a.) more transports required for a particular route or b.) less goods imported or c.) less supply for troops.
Shouldn't be too hard to code and create a UI for while trying to keep it simple yet intuitive.
Anyway, I don't want to discuss it ad nauseam. Improving on the routing situation is on the top of my list of proposed improvements. Your mileage may vary.
-Armin
Possibly none. But why were my USA trades to south Africa bring routed through the Mediterranean and down the east coast of Africa instead of directly across the Atlantic?
I agree that convoy routes are problematic, but that's not the example I would have used. If the Axis powers find their routes under attack when trading overseas, that makes sense.
All Soviet convoys going through Murmansk? That's a bit odd.
Indeed, from what I've been able to understand, in MP, if Axis control Morroco, they can bomb the poop out of Allied convoys, making LL and naval invasions almost impossible.
Even if trade would just always take the shortest route it would be better than what we have now. Really, why doesn't it?
Top needed fix is still peace conferences and stopping the AI to suicide all their men against an defending enemy, then we got the loopsided naval battles, AI choosing policies and advisors ineffectively, suicidal submarines, unsufficient effects of winter, and possibly a lot more.
Top needed fix is still peace conferences and stopping the AI to suicide all their men against an defending enemy, then we got the loopsided naval battles, AI choosing policies and advisors ineffectively, suicidal submarines, unsufficient effects of winter, and possibly a lot more.
Always remember the dev team just got bigger, but adding men to a late project makes it later.
The latter has been ruled out by the devs, since it doesn't fit the game they want to make. If you want that, play mods.
The former, no. I would rather keep the buff, since I don't want microhell. There is a thread around here which makes excellent suggestions for the further development of battleplans, but that won't come for 1.8
There are the "perennials", of course (they'll never be finished...):
- AI (on all fronts)
- (unit) Balance
- A curb on naval doomstacking and improved sub warfare
- Re-do for the major focus trees with descending importance: Japan, France, Germany, Italy, UK, US, USSR. This would mean integrating the new DLCs and including AH-scenarios
- Tree for China/CCP
- More UI work
- General internal balance pass, creating some sort of internal ELO rating for the countries (basically a formula which results in 1 if the country is at standard strength, allowing for some to have higher or lower, creating difficulty). This should mitigate changes being out of whack and also provide a goal for modders to strive towards when avoiding the "mod FTs are OP". Also @Wiz, please improve the internal toolchain and brag about it on the forums to make us sleep easier!
This please absolutely this. I enjoy HOI4 right until the war ends and the 'payoff' is due. Forging a post-war order in HOI4 is self-inflicted harm without a console. For starters, you can't even implement the actual WW2 post-war borders, such as the Oder-Neisse line. Any attempt to redistribute land results in every democratic nation become vulture hawks and cannibalising random territory with no claim or cause. There's no concept of greater 'regions' (Libya, Morroco, Manchuria, etc) so the various states just break up these regions into chaos. Right after the war, if you have any remaining conflicts to resolve you're in for trouble, as Democratic Italy may declare war on Britain, or Democratic Germany may enact its Fascist Spirit within the Allies faction.
Other than fixing peace conferences, I'm really keen for a China expansion. A proper NF tree for China will go a long way towards balancing the Japan-China conflict.
Last edited:
Well I have observed the same phenomenon play out in a number of games, so I have tag switched and as you say they (Soviets) have no equipment and arent able to train new divisions about 1 year into the war. But I swear they have about 12 million casualties by then in some games. Sure I can produce save games to prove it but this should be well known by now.
Also their division templates that the a.i use are really bad, even though they are given plenty of new ones.
What version are you playing? because there is a huge difference between 1.4 and 1.4.1 and above.
Sure, the AI can lose 12 million in a year (which isn't the same as 30 million a year), but since the AI's divisions are fighting with low equipment levels, it's divisions are losing manpower at a prodigious rate.
It's sending manpower into combat without rifles or mortars that results in those losses.