But wouldn't it make sense that mountaineers can defend better in mountains.
Also, you can't just replace inf with mountaineers because of the 5% limit.
Why we shouldn't be happy about Hard Caps for Special Forces
- Thread starter StackOverflow
- 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.
But wouldn't it make sense that mountaineers can defend better in mountains.
Also, you can't just replace inf with mountaineers because of the 5% limit.
In my opinion a hard carp makes sense, but it should be varied for different countries and through Marines, Paras and Mountaneers. Swizerland should be allowed 100% mountaneers, but should keep a 5% cap on marines and para. Germany should be the base country with 5% allowed on all branches, while US should be allowed 10% marines etc.
It's really simple.
1. Balance. No good having space marine divisions being the norm
2. Immersion with reality of how things are.
3. Having real gaming choices to make
2.
And for those who think visually, not everybody would make a good marine.
1. Balance. No good having space marine divisions being the norm
2. Immersion with reality of how things are.
3. Having real gaming choices to make
2.
Heraclitus
And for those who think visually, not everybody would make a good marine.
I continue to believe the special forces nerf, while it might have been OK for immersion, is bad for gameplay. Special forces simply aren't worth the research any more. The time and production you could spend on them is better spent elsewhere.
If I need to invade Great Britain, here's my order of priorities:
If I need to invade Great Britain, here's my order of priorities:
- Fighters for air superiority
- Battleships for naval superiority
- CAS for support
- Regular inf + telephone mana so CAS has enough time to secure a port
- Tanks for post landing
- Carriers for naval supremacy
- Air doctrines for air supremacy
- Logistics support companies
- Shore tanks + telephone mana to assist CAS in securing a port
....
25. Naval doctrines
26. Marines for slightly less penalties while supporting CAS to secure a port
I'd rather spend my research on almost anything rather than marines or other special forces. They don't justify their cost now.25. Naval doctrines
26. Marines for slightly less penalties while supporting CAS to secure a port
I think that is more an indication that other areas are overpowered (ie CAS, air in general) than Marines not justifying there cost.
I don't get why dev time was spent adding these hard caps and yet basic AI problems like suicide attacks and garrisoning were not addressed.
The "resource" used to do AI is not the same "resource" used to do the hard caps.
I agree air is pretty powerful now, but if airplanes were completely removed from the game my fallback still wouldn't be marines. Instead, I'd drive tanks onshore to the provinces next to the port, then attack the port with telephone mana for infinite org.
Works vs the AI, but not against a player that have divisions guarding the key provinces next to a port as well.
Vs. the AI is how most people play HoI4. If a feature isn't worthwhile against the AI, there's a balancing problem.
Yes, but that balancing problem is solved by improving the AI, not changing the game ruining multiplayer.
I am also curious where do you land your tanks when your invading Malta, Iwo Jima or Midway?
I do agree with some points though that the full research cost of Marines / Special forces might not be justified given how limited in numbers they are now.
the problem with research cost applies elsewhere aswell.
since you have a hard limit on the ammount of research anything that isnt vital is ignored. add to that the fact that researching ahead of time is extremely beneficial and you basicaly focus on doctrine, air and armour. everything else just doesnt realy justify the research time.
Would be pretty cool if researching techs "behind time" would become faster ( like reversed ahead of time penalty ). That way picking up less valuable techs later on could still be worth it if you get 3-4 for the price of one.
You could use this argument against ANY balancing issues that are different between SP and MP. At that point you're arguing that balancing should only be done with MP in consideration, and anything else can be dismissed with "improve the AI instead".
I agree the AI could use work, but there are limits on processor speed and developer time. It's a better policy to balance SP around how the AI currently stands, and make further changes later on when/if the AI improves.
Previously, special forces were a consideration (although they weren't nearly as much of a no-brainer as some people think). With the changes in 1.5, they're not worth it at all.
Most one province islands get skipped.
The ones I can't skip get invaded with a direct assault of inf + telephone mana + CAS. No marines necessary.
Why use inf + telephone mana + CAS? You don't need it if you have Marines and Shore Bombardment!
The argument can be turned around any way since you can easily beat the AI basically using any strategy or unit in the game. You don't really need any specific unit to beat the AI, only cavalry or heavy tanks work too, and you can do world conquest with minors starting out 10 times weaker then the AI nation.
That's why multiplayer ( player vs player ) or hands off ( ai vs ai ) is more relevant for balancing then player vs ai is.
Shore bombardment is a given if you have naval superiority. I didn't mention it explicitly, but yeah it's always worthwhile if you have boats.
Marines on the other hand aren't worth it compared to CAS/inf/tanks because they're not nearly as effective as their alternatives in other parts of the war. Dumping hundreds of days into CAS research or air doctrines pays off both for naval invasions and for the fight beyond the shore. Dumping hundreds of days into research for special forces overly specializes you into something that is over quickly, and isn't incredibly difficult in the first place.
You can say this about any Paradox game but I'm not sure how it applies. There are very challenging nations in HoI4 just like there are challenging nations in EU4.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. It sounds like you're saying "The game is easy in some places, therefore SP balance isn't important" but I don't understand how that logic follows.
That's the point I am trying to make here!
NOTHING is incredibly difficult in the first place in single-player, so you need nothing, and can win using any unit you like. In the 1.4.2 patch I can win using 100% Marines when playing as Soviet ( that need to do no contested Amphibious landings at all ) for example if I felt like it.
Singleplayer balance is an illusion because without real competition it's realy hard to draw any balance conclusions.
Marines become important once you need to do contested landings vs a competent opponent.
Also please do tell me something that you feel is incredibly difficult without a specific unit in singleplayer. I honestly can't think of anything.
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with the assertion that there's little difficulty to be found in HoI4 SP. In MP the difficulty comes from fighting competent opponents on relatively equal terms. In SP the difficult ycomes from overcoming incredible odds against an AI that is initially much stronger.
For example, I just finished a Communist China run. It took me 3 attempts because I found it incredibly difficult to go up against the Japanese with only 2 mil factories in 1937. I couldn't expand fast enough to take over for the Nationalists before Chiang Kai Shek suicided his entire army into the Japanese lines and made the situation unsalvageable. In the end, I only won by compromising my morals and having Stalin fight the Japanese for me.
My problem with the special forces nerf isn't that I can no longer use them in my entire army per se, it's that the devs took a feature that was previously worthwhile in some situations and nerfed into strategic irrelevance.
Last edited:
Agreed. Research could do with some tweaks. There is no ahead of time on doctrines, so Russia, everybody, can have their late war doctrine buffs early.
Also, I think it's too easy in some cases to get ahead of time on key stuff while at the same time research being too tight to research most of the things each major would have historically.
I could see research cost of special forces being less
Oh yes this would help. Didn't it work that way with Hoi3