• 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.

Dev Corner | Hydrodynamics

Briefing: Hydrodynamics
Written by: @Zwirbaum


Hello everyone!

Another week is upon us which means it is the time for another dev corner. Last week Thomas talked about what we are cooking with the Factions, while I will be talking about naval and naval-related changes. Even the most beautiful placeholder art will be gone eventually like tears in the rain. So strap in, and prepare for the deluge of the information that will be coming your way. Also, keep in mind that everything discussed here is in a relatively early stage, and as such is subject to change.

It is no secret that one of the most common sentiments across the Hearts of Iron IV player base is that the Navy seems to be rather hard to understand. Some elements are almost instantaneous in the effect (Supremacy), others take a long time (building the Navy) and some elements remain relatively hidden until the actual shooting starts (Supremacy Value of the Ships, Screening in Taskforces etc.). On top of that we are also having a fairly complex system of Naval Missions - where they work best when using them together, synergistically. However missions could be explained a bit better, and sometimes what is best to achieve your goal could be somewhat counterintuitive. (Giant Strike Force of Doom, sitting idle in the port somewhat projecting supremacy across the entire oceans without ever sailing out as one example). So how are we planning to address it?

Core Concept
Similarly to how last week we talked about high-level concepts for the Factions, I will try to do the same for the Naval Systems, but before that I will also list some of our goals that were the basis for what we are working on:

  • Updating and Reshaping Naval Gameplay, making it more strategic, giving you the opportunity for the counter-play if needed; a bit more predictable, and less ‘flip-floppy’
  • Updating Naval Missions so that they become more intuitive, with a much clearer purpose and use case
  • Encourage a more active use of fleets
  • Update and Communicate better to the Player some of the intricacies of the Naval Systems
  • Increasing the Importance of the Islands Control (in the Pacific) and Naval Logistics
  • Updating Carriers and address the interactions between land-based aircraft and naval taskforces

Update to the Naval Gameplay

Naval Dominance
First of all, and the most important of the changes is that we are introducing the concept of Naval Dominance. Naval Dominance is a sort of umbrella term for a couple of things. Similar to how ships had Supremacy Value, now they have Naval Dominance Value, which will be displayed on the Ship Card.

dc_hydrodynamics_001_marked.png

Mutsu has 509 Naval Dominance Value. We are also changing the old calculation, that was based mostly on Production Cost and Manpower, to have more things affecting the calculation, like Speed and Range, so for those who want to build Fast Battleships, increased dominance value may be the reward…

Next, we will want to talk about Naval Dominance - which is our way of indicating naval control of sea zones. Each Sea Zone, depending on the terrain type, has a certain threshold of dominance points you need to have before you can claim you ‘control’ it. And if you are at war, then similarly to the older system, you are also taking into account enemies' Dominance Value and the ratios between you and them. Also the ratio needed for ‘control’ now has been adjusted to require 66% instead of 50%+1.

Having control, or as we call it now, establishing Naval Dominance in a Sea Zone, provides you with certain advantages and bonuses. For instance, as you can see in the screenshot below - potentially reducing the amount of convoys needed for Trade and Supplies by up to 25% if you have secured the entire shipping route.
There are other benefits that I will not fully reveal yet, but amongst other things, there will be something to help you secure islands and potential naval invasion targets.

dc_hydrodynamics_002.png

In this example we can see that in order to claim ‘control’ over the Deep Oceans sea zone, you would need to accumulate at least 1000 points worth of Dominance, assuming nobody would contest you.

Dominance Gain
dc_hydrodynamics_003.png

This tooltip shows the information about the current amount of dominance accumulated in this sea zone, how long it will take to establish its full value, things that impact it, like airbases located on the islands in the seazone etc.

Dominance as opposed to the previous supremacy system now takes some time to establish, but it also doesn’t simply instantly disappear when ships engage in combat, or go to repair after a battle.

Naval Mission Updates
We will also be making the following changes to Naval Missions. We will divide current missions into 2 groups; Core Missions and Auxiliary Missions.

Core Missions - (PATROL, CONVOY RAIDING, CONVOY ESCORT, STRIKE FORCE)

Those missions are your primary way to interact with naval dominance. Each mission type will interact a bit differently. As it is right now, Patrol will be serving for Building Up Dominance, Convoy Raiding reducing Enemy Dominance, Convoy Escorts will provide a ‘protected’ value, which means enemy raiding won’t be able to reduce your dominance below that value, and Strike Force serving as a ‘Synergy Tool’ - and amplifying other missions. Hopefully this will provide a clear and relatively intuitive system on how to use the Naval Missions.

Auxiliary Missions - (NAVAL EXERCISE, MINELAYING, MINESWEEPING, NAVAL INVASION SUPPORT)

Those missions do not interact directly with naval dominance, however, they do benefit from it, like for example, being able to minelay or minesweep faster and more efficiently when operating within a region where you have established control and have naval dominance.

Naval Home Bases, Range & Supply
dc_hydrodynamics_004.png

This Dutch Fleet has set the port in Batavia to be their Home Base.

We are reintroducing the Home Base system for the Fleets. Each Fleet needs to have a Home Base. Any Naval Base that you have access to (Your own, Subject or Faction Members, or if you have secured Docking Rights) can be selected as a Home Base. So the question is; what does the Home Base do?

Naval Range
One of the changes that we are doing is that the ship's range is now projected from the Home Base instead of all Naval Bases.

dc_hydrodynamics_005.png

dc_hydrodynamics_006.png

As you can see depending on where Home Base is located, the range, and access to do the Naval Missions is quite different. A fleet with Königsberg set as Home Base does not have the range to do the missions in Norwegian Sea or Western Approaches Sea Zone.

Naval Supply
Previously, naval units would always draw the supplies from the Naval Bases closest to where the taskforces were operating, now - they will be drawing the supply from their selected Home Base.

dc_hydrodynamics_007.png

This fleet has a Home Base set in Honolulu - and is operating in the Micronesian Gap. Despite the port in Johnston Atoll being closer it draws the supply from Hawaii Naval Base Supply.

State Building Limit - Islands
In Götterdämmerung we introduced terrain-based limits for province-based buildings like Forts and Coastal Forts, so that you couldn’t build the Maginot Line everywhere. In a similar spirit, we will be introducing state-based building limits for the buildings. In this case we are now focusing on putting limits on the various Island categories, so that not every single tiniest of islands can have an airbase capable of storing and launching for missions 2000 planes every day. Right now those caps are based on the Island state categories (Tiny Island, Small Island, Large Island), and upon one concept we will talk about in the future.

dc_hydrodynamics_008.png

Marcus Island can now have at most a level two airbase and level three naval base. Those limits as all the numbers, stats and values are of course subject to change. Also there is totally nothing hidden under that Hearts of Iron IV logo.

Short Comment
Initially when I started writing this section, I was going to write how I envision things mentioned so far will change the naval gameplay, and how X will impact Y, however I think I am more interested in hearing what you, my dear readers, are thinking and your opinion on what you have read today.

Naval Invasions
We are doing some touch-ups to the naval invasions as well. In the current live version of the game, there is a global naval invasion capacity set by your technologies, doctrines and other modifiers, and then depending on how many divisions you assigned to the invasion, it would take a certain amount of time to plan that naval invasion. This system unfortunately had one issue, that in order to be ‘optimal’, it encouraged to spam 1-division naval invasions, as that technically allowed you to have a massive naval invasion planned just within a few days, at the small cost of carpal tunnel syndrome.

In the new system, there will be, depending on your technologies, doctrines etc. a certain amount of naval invasions you can plan at the same time, each being able to have a certain amount of divisions, and no matter what, always taking a specific amount of time to plan.

Also, for a country that hasn’t researched even the basic Transport technology, there will still be a possibility to launch a very limited naval invasion under the new system.

Appeal to my Lizard Brain
And last but not least, I’m going to tell you about one more thing - and that is that we are adding visual representation of control over the seas, visible on default map mode, which during a conflict should represent a gradual shift of control over the zones, giving the feeling of ‘naval frontlines’. Also this can serve as a kind of warning, that when your coastline sea zones start displaying your potential enemy colours.

dc_hydrodynamics_009.png

This is the current prototype of showing on the default map mode who has naval dominance. In this case Japan has the most dominance, and nobody is effectively contesting it, thus Japanese colours are displayed on the map.


Wrapping Up
So, to wrap things up, this is just a number of things we are doing for the Naval. I have not touched upon anything Carrier related, new equipment or new tools yet, or any UX/UI updates. I will return in due time to provide you with more information on all the things that are not-dry, in the meantime - here is a teaser of a thing that we may talk about in the future, with this beautiful placeholder art done by myself.

dc_hydrodynamics_010.png

Who will guess what this is?

This is my first dev corner, so I can only hope my writing is not too stiff. In time I hope it will get better.

Anyways, thanks for reading and until next time, farewell!

/Zwirbaum





Also, we have a survey for you to fill out when/if you have time regarding Naval Gameplay. Just keep in mind that this forum thread is for your feedback about the Developer Corner. If you have feedback about this specific survey we welcome your thoughts in a separate forum post, or in the HOI Discord!

EDIT 25/06/25 - Thank you to all participants for the Player Survey, this survey is now closed!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 79Like
  • 36Love
  • 7
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Is there any chance for a new air rework as well, or at least the return of pre BBA customizable air wing number, because it's ironic that a DLC that is supposed to give the ability to customize your air force remove this important features. I'm still disappointed of having 100 fixed number planes, and also sometime carrier deck having extra numbers that isn't like 10
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I would be interested in two new featues:
- autotrade: trading becomes very tedious when the game reaches the point where territory shifts quickly and your amount of mils also changes frequently (which changes the resources you need). You're constanly fixing your trades. It would be nice if there would be an autotrade feature in the game that automatically trades resources with another country.
- drawing trade routes with certain countries. At the moment, you have to play with blocking sea regions and hope you get the preferred trade route that way. But this doesn't always work and it affects everything else too. It would be great if there would be a straightforward mechanic/feature that would allow me to i.e. have my imports from the USSR as Japan come through Vladivostok.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I don't really see the point of naval range being tied to your home base, or home bases in general. Take the US for example. If my home base was Hawaii, I doubt you could reach Japan. Plus, if you're fighting in Europe at the same time your supply is coming from Hawaii.
The chances are it's a homebase per fleet, not for your whole navy.

Hopefully it will also work with spies so you can find out where large fleets are based and setup a coordinated strike on them to sink them, Pearl Harbor style.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I was ill the last few days, but I've enjoyed reading all of your suggestions & feedback!
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
Well this all seems interesting
1._ I would like to know if some of the devs are keeping a eye on the ship suggestion thread? There was the addition of the missing canadian destroyers during one war effort patch If memory serves right.
2._ With the addition of this influence of sea regions, will you be leveraging the embargo mechanic so that maritine powers will literally cut all sea traffic to the targeted country, by placing ships in the area? related. Not sure if maybe embargo requirements could be adjusted based on ideology or focus tree elements?
3._ Will AI lead spain split its navy in 2?. Nowdays it splits only if spain is player lead not sure if it is working as designed.
4._ Could there be an addition of more naval model ships?
5._ Could we get one admiral for each of the three baltic nations, even if locked behind a focus tree element?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will Pearl Harbour be possible to be replicated by the change?
I think yes if USA puts its home base in Hawaii.
Also hopefully we can select different homebases for different theaters.
Why would US calculate Supply from Hawaii if they are fighting Germany in Atlalantic? Shouldnt it be New York?
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I know a major fighting system rework most likely is not in the cards here. However, I'd like some thoughts from the devs on maybe repurposing some systems already in place for land battles to naval.

Currently, opening the naval UI shows your lines divided into screens and capitals, and most of the actual ship symbols are meaningless. You mainly compare the numbers at the top and hope your attack, aa or positioning stats are simply better than the opponent. There's a lot of missed potential and a current strategy gap. Black Ice, while a complex mod, makes some improvements that could be adapted to the game, and some of the comments will be original


Ship Modules: One major improvement that BICE makes is the expansion of choices to naval modules. It does increase difficulty and reduce accessibility, but being able to even select different types engines (IE taking diesel engines, while more expensive, majorly reducing visibility) or changing the range on a ship based on fuel capacity introduces more trade off and makes players take more serious design considerations while increasing investment and player immersion.

Decisive battle: While it is a doctrine, not every naval engagement should be a death wipe. day two of a war shouldn't result in fleet stack wipes. It makes the AI exploitable and the navy less valuable. Naval engagements should result in heavy damage or decisive kills and hits, with the battle affecting the future of maybe a fleet or what's available to it, but not the whole war. No direct suggestions here, more of an idea.

Battle tactics: The dream for every navy fan would be to manually position their fleet and control the battle. This isn't a possibility but we cant do this by taking the tactics system from land battles

This can start simple, doctrines affecting fleet positioning and engagement rules, cruiser or battle lines, etc. But I think battles can be split into 3 phases
Pre-Battle: Fleets are pulled into an engagement by a scout force locating an enemy task. This remains unchanged

Scouting Phase: This is determined by time of day, doctrine and fleet tech. For example, fleets with floatplanes can maintain composition (translated to positioning) by sending their planes, while fleets without them would be forced to split out destroyers or combat groups, reducing their positioning as the fleet spreads out. Maybe fleet submarines could be used to form a scout line? Terrain would have a larger impact than just ocean depth, offering island or terrain modifiers. Tech wise, each one could come with certain bonuses or debuffs (Number of floatplanes could affect detection ability, while the main fleet finding a scout force may be able to destroy it before it can report back to the main group?) Whichever side detects the other would gain initiative, allowing them to pick the engagement tactic and get a possible first strike bonus (more on that later)

Main battle: If both fleets detect each other, or maybe just stumble onto each other, initiative is moot. First strike options for carrier doctrines could mean a devastating air-based attack (maybe with bonuses if used against a carrier using carrier-search groups), with varying success, while fleets like the Japanese could launch long-lance night torpedo attacks while undetected. after first strike, ships line for battle. If the first strike was successful, enemy fleets take a penalty to positioning, continuing the built momentum through positioning. Your admirals using the correct tactics can allow them to continue to exploit enemies on the backfoot, but perhaps lacking certain techs can cause an upset.

Disengagement: The damage done to fleets will determine the fleet disengagement. If you've been defeated, first strikes and other momentum building events could influence an early retreat, and the tactics used depending on remaining ships (Fire and run, or destroyer smoke screens, etc) while victors could adhere to a safer hit-and-run doctrine, or perhaps break out in a chase, increasing damage on wounded ships, but gaining increased incoming torpedo chance?

there's lots of room to play here, but a new system such as thus offers a chance for places to be more involved in their navy's, and help escape from the true spreadsheet simulator its become.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
I was ill the last few days, but I've enjoyed reading all of your suggestions & feedback!
Wish you all the best to recover. Do you follow the Steam ones as well? Over there people are no less skeptical on what they've been shown.

We as a community can come up with many more suggestions, but other than replying to some very specific questions the devs on their end seem unresponsive these days and it's unclear whether feedback is indeed doing anyone any favor. In this thread we discuss specifically the Navy, and 18 months ago Arheo asked me what the anti-naval bias "even means", and in reply I then spent 2 weeks working almost full-time to sum it all up in a thread which I refuse to believe you as a team could have missed (but ostensibly ignored). But Iran and Iraq suggestions thread coupled with the release of GoE would be another example of similar conduct.

The very basic question I'd like to ask you personally is this: does PDX as a studio even acknowledge the Navy as the best strategic tool for economic warfare which historically won both World Wars? If yes, what then prevents you from acting accordingly starting from the foundations? (I'm cogniscent of the fact you probably want to avoid a realistic simulation, but in this case it's kinda obvious you've got to reimburse the navy with some others capabilities, isn't it?)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Why should be Patrol such a prominent mission at all, esp. for major naval forces? IRL it was not. But covering/escort missions were.

Did patrolling high sea by naval forces ever happen? Friendly coastal waters were mostly guarded by minor naval forces not even part of HOI, trawlers, speed boats, auxiliary cruisers. Sure there were some instances of patrolling quite distant coasts (like the GIUK gap by RN Northern Patrol), of patrolling contested coasts, enemy coasts or shipping lanes. But most of those "patrols" were not about guarding spaces, but friendly transport Task Forces. By close or distant cover.

Purpose-less patrolling sea zones rarely happend. And if so mostly by minor forces. Very rarely by major forces (like Royal Navy's few North Sea forays in 1939/40). Those ill defined patrols to "catch the enemy's main force" or to "clean a seazone from enemy subs" just were not very effective, but very costly . Thus, in the course of the war more and more planes were added to patrolling.

And BTW, HOI exaggerates the impact of ship-borne float planes. Those were cumbersome to recover and their hangars were a major explosion risk in naval combats. Skippers detested float planes. With the expansion of land borne naval air float planes became obsolet.

What is missing: An emergency resupply mission.
For fast light naval forces or fast merchants. Covered by major forces with escort missions. Some of the fiercest naval combats started out of emergency resupply missions: those of Guadalcanal or Malta.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
I have only one request.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make strike forces stop engaging submarines!!! At least give us an option whether they should engage subs or not.
It's such a waste of fuel, infuriating and pointless. It makes using strikeforces in SP completely pointless in any zone with convoy raiding!
 
  • 11
  • 2
Reactions:
I have to say, I like the changes so far and I look forward to seeing what else you have cooking. Lots have people have already justifiably pointed out production output and “death stacking” as two of the most important areas for improvement. These should be a priority for any naval update.

I’ll limit my suggestions specifically to role play and immersion, something the naval game lacks compared to other areas.

1) The historical starting navy OOBs and ship templates need a refresh. This thread is the 5th most popular suggestion on the forum right now and would be a great place to start. I would love to see as many of these incorporated as possible.

2) Ships already have a history log, but it would be tres cool to see captains and unit medals for ships, similar to what was done for divisions in No Step Back. Let us promote captains to admirals and staff officers.

3) On a superficial level, more ship models please! I want my nation’s fleets to look visually distinct. I want to see And right now some of the 2D art for ships is inconsistent (ie Bismarck only available as BBIII when the focus template is BBII, likewise the Littorio Class ).
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions:
We are making some changes to how the Naval XP is being generated - and we definitely want to lower the crazy XP gain from Naval Exercises, however we also want to encourage people being a bit more active with their fleets, so... (Numbers are absolutely placeholderish, do not read too much into the amounts of XP)View attachment 1321169
Good to see! The other issue I've seen is that I've never had enough XP to actually get the carrier traits for Admirals.

I don't think I've ever had an Admiral get the Carrier traits during any of my playthroughs.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Really love the planned changes here.

Just one thing. I am not sure if i want to see this in the "default map mode".

dc_hydrodynamics_009.png



Maybe better in a navy map mode? Even a new one.

I won’t mind as long as it’s subtle. In terms of QOL it’ll save me flipping between map modes all the time. What I’m unclear about is can I also see what sea zones allies and enemies control this way?
 
I just hope we will get the same amount of gun slots as we get guns on the visible boat just for RP reasons. I hate that a properly designed Yamato has only 2 guns visible even though it had 3 in RL. Adding another slot would make this go away. Similar issues also arise for other nations (Germany with the Bismark and Scharnhorst Class) France is right but wrongly placed (two forward turrets), and any other BB is also not possible. Cruiser Turrets are also over the place and would only work for LC but then you have to upgun them crazy and for HCs you often had a 5 gun layout for Japan but you cant built that either.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
5 additional comments:

1. The dominance and having fleets assigned to specific locations is a good step in the right direction, the system should also simulate the island hopping and isolation of certain bases.
2. As posted already in this thread there is really no incentive to build newer module ships rather than upgunned versions of lower tech ships. It's counterintuitive. Newer ships could benefit from more module slot than older ones and easier retrofit costs to compensate. You can put any module on a ship that was never designed for rangefinder or radar.
3. Even if you put 100 shipyards there's no way for the US to reach the ships it actually built during WW2.
4. Are you planning to add dedicated escorts carrier slots for fleet composition?
5. Will big important islands get more terrain to simulate the months long battles that took place in them?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I again bring up the need for a general fight everything naval mission. Don't force me to choose between fighting convoys or enemy fleets.


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make strike forces stop engaging submarines!!! At least give us an option whether they should engage subs or not.
It's such a waste of fuel, infuriating and pointless. It makes using strikeforces in SP completely pointless in any zone with convoy raiding!

These two are some of biggest frustrations with the naval game in Hoi4. I wish I could upvote more than just once!
 
I'm afraid that that may be a bit confusing to new players. People often don't read the tooltips fully, which you can realize by people being surprised that you can order training exercises to stop automatically after reaching the unit experience cap. It's bound to result in people being confused why they cannot operate in a particular zone, even after they click the port nearby.

Perhaps we should ask first: if a player has a fleet selected and right-clicks a port, what is more likely? That they now want their fleet to operate from that specific port from now on, or for any other reason? Perhaps changing the home base should be as easy as right-clicking, and simply moving there for a different reason should require the ctrl?

Speaking of ranges, I do wonder if switching bases is an action that requires the range. Or in other words, if I want to move my destroyers from Netherlands to Indonesia or the other way and I have no bases in-between, is that still possible?

One of the reasons why I prefer keeping CTRL-RIGHT-CLICK as switching Home Base over RIGHT-CLICK, is that player can always select just a single taskforce out of the fleet, and now by right clicking would switch the home base for the entire Fleet, instead of just sending it to repairs or move to avoid a specific thing. Things that can have a potentially more annoying effect by 'accidental' clicking IMO should require a bit more than just 'right click'. For the people that would not know about the ability CTRL-RIGHT-CLICK, there will be a selectable list of the naval bases that you can open by clicking on the Home Base button on the Fleet/Taskforce view.

On second question - you are allowed to switch naval bases even if technically they are out of range. Ships will move to that port / base, and will be able to operate in the new place after they arrive. Blocking this, would result in more often than not, requiring players to do some kind of weird rebase dance everytime they would have to move their fleets just a little bit farther than they could reach initially.
 
  • 10Like
  • 3
Reactions: