• 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.

Developer Diary | Small Features #2

Greetings all,

We’re still well in the middle of Swedish vacation time, but our regular schedule is not entirely interrupted: today’s diary covers a few of the smaller features being added in AAT.


Special Forces Doctrines

For a while now we’ve wanted to give countries a way of specializing their special forces. Numerous militaries relied heavily on these elite troops, and some branches of what HOI4 terms ‘special forces’ really found their identity during and around the second world war.

I believe we’ve reached a good saturation point for equipment designers, and I wanted to tackle special forces in a manner that better befits strategic capability over detailed stat modification. The prolonged global conflict our game portrays led to significant doctrinal development when it comes to how militaries employed elite forces, and this seemed like a good place to start.

In AAT, a fourth doctrine page has been added:

image20.png


While any country can continue to make use of the Mountaineers, Marines and Paratroopers they are familiar with simply by researching the tech, doing so will unlock the ability to choose the corresponding special forces branch specialism.

These doctrines will also cost experience, however unlike the other military doctrines each branch here will use the corresponding experience type: Army XP for mountaineers, Naval XP for Marines, and Air XP for paratroopers.

The number of branch specialisms you can pick is limited however: initially to 1. Some nations earn the early ability to unlock a second (and final) branch specialism in their focus trees, but all nations that reach major status (this condition may be relaxed) will eventually earn the right to pick their second branch during the progress of the war.

Why not all 3? The [Insert Country Here] military used all three of these!

Well, partly for balance reasons, and partly because these specialisms don’t represent the ability to use paras, mountaineers or marines, but the adoption of their capabilities as part of a military’s core doctrinal philosophy.

We also wanted these doctrine choices to do more than give you stat bonuses - although of course these will be present. We wanted the choices you make here to a) change how you consider designing your divisions, and b) potentially change how you actively use your special forces on a strategic level.

Mountaineers

image19.png


Initially, elevating the mountaineers will grant you a mountaineer supply usage reduction (decimal bug noted!), and some general special forces combat bonuses. Importantly, you’ll also unlock the Rangers support company: a more combat oriented alternative to mounted recon, with higher organization, bonuses in adverse terrain types, and which can be further specialized by the mountaineers branch specialism in the following two doctrines:

image18.png

image13.png

Here you are making the choice to train your elite ranger companies in rough+hot or rough+winter terrain. I’ve added a Snow adjuster here (usable by mods, of course - although for performance reasons this does not extend to one adjuster per weather type I’m afraid) which means you can guarantee improved combat performance in your preferred terrain/weather type, and the support company now also exerts a division-wide buff to cold/hot acclimatization.

While I won’t go through each doctrine individually, we’re making use of the new battalion modifiers to adjust how you are incentivized to build divisions:

image11.png

Mountain artillery gives you a good reason to use artillery support in your mountaineer divisions, at the cost of a mutually exclusive choice with the following option:

image4.png

Balance subject to change, of course.

The final choice (and a choice which exists in each of the branch specialisms) is to decide between adopting your mountaineers as the core of your elite armed forces, or integrating them more widely:

image9.png

The new modifier ‘[Type] Special Forces Cap Contribution’ is a dynamic modifier that reduces the cap consumption of that special forces type, when counted against your cap. So, you’ll be able to support significantly more mountaineers, but not more paratroopers or marines.

image14.png

Here you’ll get bonuses that are more applicable to a wider array of circumstances. If you plan on unlocking and utilizing a second branch of special forces, this option might be more your cup of tea.

Marines

image23.png

The initial investment for the Marines branch will net you some similar small bonuses to special forces efficacy, a slight increase in naval invasion capacity (which can be acquired quite early), and you’ll unlock the Pioneers support company.

Pioneers are used here to represent marine-trained sappers and combat engineers, and will be an alternative to standard military engineers. They have increased offensive capability in notably hostile environments, and can be further specialized as shore parties or jungle climate specialists:

image3.png

image5.png

The second mutually exclusive choice in the Marines tree is as below. If you want to go all-in on highly elite, more self-sufficient marines, you can go down the Marine Commando route. Marine commandos are a new line battalion that have the ability to perform quick hit & run naval invasions with an equally quick getaway plan - they no longer need to be at a port in order to exfiltrate. All battalions in a division must have this ability in order for it to function.

image17.png

Further down the tree you can capitalize on the hit & run playstyle:

image16.png

The alternative path will take you down a combined arms path, integrating more closely with other branches of your military:

image6.png

image12.png


Paratroopers

image22.png

Elevating the paras will grant you tougher air transports, generally improved special forces, and the ability to field a small amount more paras.

image7.png

The first choice you will have to make is which paradrop effect you want to adopt. Aimed at disruption, the recon and sabotage doctrine will damage enemy constructions after a successful landing.

image8.png

Combat insertion is intended to augment well-planned general advances. If utilized carefully, this approach can put a hole in even the best fortified enemy frontline - however, the risk is high.

image10.png

It had to be done.


The mutually exclusive branches for paratroopers once again distinguish between a focus on paratrooper combat and support ability, or a wider combined-arms benefit:

image21.png

Make use of signals companies to coordinate a hasty defense after a drop.

image1.png

At the cost of increased training time, ensure that only the toughest recruits find their way to the paras.

Or choose to integrate the paras more traditionally into your armed forces:

image2.png

image15.png

2023-08-01_13-38.png
2023-08-01_13-41.png
2023-08-01_13-58.png

2023-08-01_13-59.png
2023-08-01_13-59_1.png

2023-08-01_13-59_2.png
2023-08-01_14-00.png
2023-08-01_14-00_1.png
2023-08-01_14-00_2.png
2023-08-01_14-01.png
2023-08-01_14-01_1.png
2023-08-01_14-01_2.png
2023-08-01_14-02.png
2023-08-01_14-02_1.png
2023-08-01_14-02_2.png
2023-08-01_14-03.png
2023-08-01_14-03_1.png
2023-08-01_14-03_2.png

That’s all I have to show this time - as always, feedback on the details is encouraged; constructive criticism welcomed.

/Arheo
 
  • 61Like
  • 46Love
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Overall this looks excellent, but I am very concerned about the exp cost of these, particularly the marine tree. Exp is difficult to come by in the prewar period, and there are now so many things calling for its usage: doctrines, division design, tank design, ship design, aircraft design, high command etc. Naval exp is particularly hard to come by if you aren't at war and don't have the luxury of a large navy and fuel supplies to do constant exercises with. I think a rebalance is in order, either of exp costs across the board or rate of exp gain.
Oddly enough, training and developing tactics for contested amphibious landings are particularly hard to come by in the interwar period.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Overall this looks excellent, but I am very concerned about the exp cost of these, particularly the marine tree. Exp is difficult to come by in the prewar period, and there are now so many things calling for its usage: doctrines, division design, tank design, ship design, aircraft design, high command etc. Naval exp is particularly hard to come by if you aren't at war and don't have the luxury of a large navy and fuel supplies to do constant exercises with. I think a rebalance is in order, either of exp costs across the board or rate of exp gain.
I agree about a rebalance for naval XP, though ironically I think it's much easier gathered while at peace than while at war. Training generates a lot of it, while performing missions during wartime gives none - but you probably don't want to leave your convoys unprotected and your coast open for invasions just so you can exercise your navy. Large-scale naval battles are usually limited to only a handful throughout the entire war until one side's navy has been wiped out, so they are a finite source. Unlike land and air combat, a large part of naval gameplay is cat and mouse games and showing presence, none of which grants any XP.
 
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
I think limiting the branch specializations to 1, even with the ability to gain a second one later on, is a mistake. Special forces already have a limiter through their cap, meaning these doctrines are only going to effect a few divisions at best. This limiting factor already encourages in most cases players to recruit all their special forces of one type: in my case marines if I intend to naval invade, mountaineers in all other cases. If on top of this I’m limited to only further specialize one of my special forces even more, then I’m absolutely never going to mix special forces and utilize more than one type. This also means I don’t see a scenario where I ever choose airborne, because they’re automatically a final choice anyway and I’m not going to waste a slot on them when I could have it for marines or mountaineers.

I think you’re preemptively trying to balance a system which likely does not need balancing. Allowing players to spread out their points across all three branches of special forces is not going to “cheese the system,” because special forces are already limited in number. Instead you’re just further encouraging players to stick to one type of special force and never diversify (which is already what the current system does to some extent but at least it doesn’t actively punish us for diversifying like it will now). If you open up all three trees it would allow for this to become a late game xp sink (which is sorely needed) and encourage people use more types of special forces rather than less.
Yeah, I really don't get what makes people so excited for this doctrine tab. At 100 XP each and affecting only a tiny portion of the army, those modifiers look really weak. What would be the "balance concern" if someone did dump 1800 XP into that tree?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
A few questions :

1) Will AI be able to use those Raiding Commandos ?
Sort of. The AI’s ability to perceive a high depth of risk is limited though (I shall preempt the inevitable by saying: this is a general challenge, not something unique to HOI), so it is likely to be a poor investment for them. In short, If they’re recruited, they’ll be used - but they are not recruited yet.

2) About Breakthough vs Defense for Mountaineers : sadly, I don't believe it will be a real choice. If AAT doesn't change the game engine on this, currently Defense affect **both** breakthough and defense, while breakthrough affect only...breakthrough. So 10% flat defense will be way better than a 15% breakthrough modifier via artillery...

Fair point, but balance subject to change still.

3) Will paradrop mechanic change ? Like a rebalance, or updated defines ? Because there won't be any incentive to build large Airborne divisions, and I fear the 2 Width (10 Width in Mp with rules) meta will remain, because of how bad paradropping divisions are with all their debuffs

‘Meta’ changes. And honestly, I don’t much consider it when designing - that ends up in a self reinforcing loop. MP will always have its own rules, and that’s ok.

4) Will the Shore bombardment bonus remain capped at 25%, or will those 15% bonuses bring the limit to 40 ? Indeed, it's pretty easy to achieve 25%, and there is no need to look after such bonuses once your fleet is sufficient for achieving the 25% cap.

not a bad idea. It’s the former currently, though.

Does this mean the AI will attempt to diversify their special forces and attempt to use paratroopers?

You may see more paratroopers around, but they will not create drop orders. Note that having ‘line’ paras is also a valid path here.

This comes up a lot, so I’ll just say that it’s highly unlikely we ever do this. It’s a high investment task with the propensity to become unmanageable for non-veterans.

Just wondering how will focuses that spawn elite units (e.g. Force Z, Maori Battalion) be affected by this change will they grant special boosts for tech or still just deploy a infantry unit that has elite training?

Some focuses have been changed to grant appropriate bonuses, but those granting units will remain as they are.

Also last thing Paras are infamously hard to get working due to a lot of issues ranging from lack of clear information being dispensed by the game and some persistent bugs. Was any work put into trying to improve the system and make it easier to use and more consistent in its results?

Yes.

Airborne light armour, is that going to be a support company addition? Or a full on battalion? Like could I make a division of nothing but airborne light tanks?

Support company

Why not just unlock and give the ability to Marines with Naval Commandos instead of making an entirely different unit? And do stat modifiers for regular Marines also apply for Marine Commandos?

Marine modifiers mostly(?) apply. Divisions have to be built quite specifically to make use of this, I didn’t want to create a need to change all your old marine templates to make use of the feature, and narratively it doesn’t make much sense anyway. This is special training for a special purpose.

When we train special troops will we get military experience or will paratroopers give air experience and marines will give sea experience?

No change here. I’m not overly fond of xp training and generation but changing this now would upset balance in several directions.

Will the old special forces techs remain in place too?

Only if you don’t own the expansion. The regular branch techs will persist though.

So will the AI be able to utilize these new features? Or will they fall short of using it all in a truly challenging sense against the player?

Most of that is subjective. They’ll benefit from using them, and part of designing in a sustainable way is to create new gameplay or narrative from existing habits. Most of these abilities were designed with that in mind. The AI benefits disproportionately from some techs like invasion capacity due to its ability to plan in breadth better than a human.

The exception is paradrops, still - see the answer above.Unless you're in terrain that's super useful for mountaineers, I can see the by far most used option in this is the one that allows mariners to withdraw.
This dev diary seems to think it will be used for "hit and run" tactics.

It might, but the most useful thing is that you'll be able to do naval invasions where you can pull out the valuable troops if they don't capture a port

Which is also fine imo.

Could the Marine Comandos also enable the exfil feature for amtracs? It would make a lot of sense for amtracs to be able to drive onto shore from the water and also back into the water from the shore

Unlikely, but we’ll see. It’s simple enough to change.

Will there be bonuses for amphibious mechanized battalions in marines branch?

Currently yes, but dlc ownership combinations make this awkward. We’ll see.
 
  • 20
  • 8Like
Reactions:
@Arheo Hello, will you add decent auto-template for divisions and tech design? Just like the one in Stellaris. The current state of hoi4 designer is the reason why i stopped playing the game, its so uncomfortable for me as a casual player.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
@Arheo Hello, will you add decent auto-template for divisions and tech design? Just like the one in Stellaris. The current state of hoi4 designer is the reason why i stopped playing the game, its so uncomfortable for me as a casual player.
I suggest you take a look at the small features #1 Dev diary here
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
I agree about a rebalance for naval XP, though ironically I think it's much easier gathered while at peace than while at war. Training generates a lot of it, while performing missions during wartime gives none - but you probably don't want to leave your convoys unprotected and your coast open for invasions just so you can exercise your navy. Large-scale naval battles are usually limited to only a handful throughout the entire war until one side's navy has been wiped out, so they are a finite source. Unlike land and air combat, a large part of naval gameplay is cat and mouse games and showing presence, none of which grants any XP.
It's not like sinking convoys, Patrolling coasts, spotting enemies, sinking submarines, laying minefields, and clearing enemy minefields would yield any kind of result in the effectiveness of a doctrine. but still, you can have a Battle between 8 carriers 7 battleships 12 cruisers, and 50 destroyers and dumb all xp into submarine doctrines.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
One question

Does (some) countries start the game with some of these allready reseached, just like we can have doctrines in some countries, like Germany having mobile warfare doctrine…?
For example british could start with demolite/destroy industry/infastructure commandos, Japanese starting with Jungle specialist, Finland starting with ski/winter specialist and so on.




I really like this feature allready! It makes / can make each country special units feel different. Really nice indeed. The roleplayer inside me celebrate these changes!



Someone did suggest above that the special unit limit should be based on manpower… No, that. Just think China with only special mountain units… and so on. In realily special units soldiers were regruited among normal soldiers who allready did have basic training and so proven to be suitable to more demanding task! IMHO.
So most likely limited based on fielded units like before, baybe modifield by how well trained your troops in general are, and maybe some country spesific fonus based on countrys training system! (Aka national bonus / malus to special forse limit)
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Importantly, you’ll also unlock the Rangers support company: a more combat oriented alternative to mounted recon, with higher organization, bonuses in adverse terrain types, and which can be further specialized by the mountaineers branch specialism in the following two doctrines:

Pioneers are used here to represent marine-trained sappers and combat engineers, and will be an alternative to standard military engineers. They have increased offensive capability in notably hostile environments, and can be further specialized as shore parties or jungle climate specialists:
Are there division-level downsides to either of these, like less reconnaissance or organization than regular recon and engineering companies?

The new modifier ‘[Type] Special Forces Cap Contribution’ is a dynamic modifier that reduces the cap consumption of that special forces type, when counted against your cap. So, you’ll be able to support significantly more mountaineers, but not more paratroopers or marines.
Has the base special forces cap been lowered alongside these changes? If not, it seems like this modifier will result in an over-proliferation of special forces units.

Further down the tree you can capitalize on the hit & run playstyle:
Can the effectiveness of the hit and run abilities be tied to state victory points (and possibly resistance)?
  • The sabotage abilities' effectiveness might be scaled linearly from 100% effectiveness at one special forces battalion per victory point in the state
    • Ratio would be between paratrooper battalions and some fraction of local enemy battalions for the disorganization ability
  • Resistance from cores belonging to fellow faction members could be added to the number of special forces battalions in the above calculation
    • Represents OSS, SOE, and Soviet coordination with various resistance movements in sabotage campaigns


Marine modifiers mostly(?) apply. Divisions have to be built quite specifically to make use of this, I didn’t want to create a need to change all your old marine templates to make use of the feature, and narratively it doesn’t make much sense anyway. This is special training for a special purpose.
But don't you create a need to change old marine templates this way? I'm confused.

Unless marine commando battalions are worse in some way than regular marine battalions, wouldn't the expected behavior of players who unlock them be to replace marine battalions in existing templates with marine commando battalions? Even if marine commandos are situationally worse than marines, unless unlocking that particular doctrine grants a free marine commando division, players will still have to create a new marine commando division template to use the hit and run ability.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Awesome! Can we use Brandenburgers to excuse destroy state buildings tasks as paratroopers do? Which means AI don't have to excuse para tasks to get such benefits, as AI is told to never para
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Wouldn't it be better to ditch the whole Mountaineer name and switch it to more generic Ranger (and change the bonuses a bit into more generic rough terrain bonuses)? Would also make the updates more distinct when actually choose to specialize them into Mountain combat.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
Wouldn't it be better to ditch the whole Mountaineer name and switch it to more generic Ranger (and change the bonuses a bit into more generic rough terrain bonuses)? Would also make the updates more distinct when actually choose to specialize them into Mountain combat.
Eeeh... Ranger doesn't mean anything in many countries, besides UK/US and recently Canada/Ireland... Also, it seems ranger terrain is more varied, or focused on forest rather than mountains.
Mountaineers has a longer tradition I believe, especially in Europe. So maybe only for localized content?
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Wouldn't it be better to ditch the whole Mountaineer name and switch it to more generic Ranger (and change the bonuses a bit into more generic rough terrain bonuses)? Would also make the updates more distinct when actually choose to specialize them into Mountain combat.
Or split the Mountaineer into a forest focused tree and a mountain focused tree
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Some question. I play most time Manchukuo. And i most go over the sea when i will get all the provinces. Thats why i need Marines, Marines and Marines. I have no air superiority and before end 39 no plaines. Mountainer can be a alternate but my way leads over the coast. The problem is i have no docks and no ships. But i have a strategy to handle this. Now you change the system and i will look will it for me helpfull.

The new modifier ‘[Type] Special Forces Cap Contribution’ is a dynamic modifier that reduces the cap consumption of that special forces type, when counted against your cap. So, you’ll be able to support significantly more mountaineers, but not more paratroopers or marines.

I see. You will that i play in Asia mountaineers not marines. :) China, Philipines and Indonesia can be the hell.

The initial investment for the Marines branch will net you some similar small bonuses to special forces efficacy, a slight increase in naval invasion capacity (which can be acquired quite early), and you’ll unlock the Pioneers support company.

Good. So i need no more tip of the spear. Lets calculate. Manachu starts with 2 stability and -10 war support. Tip of the spear costs 100 + 35 mil xp. Need more as 2 years. Then Falkenhausen first. With the new doctrine i has a alternate. But wait a minute. I have no ships and dockyards. When i am good i have my first T1 destroyer early 38 and 4 T1 or T2 38/ 39. But in this moment not 100 navy xp. The CP for the marine comander need a long time then my stability and war support is thorugh the war -20 and -30. The capture train gives temporary malus too and is not helpfull for the nation the has the fastet highspeed train and where the train are the backbone for economy and war.

Will there be now 2 different pioneer companys? That with the specialism of pioneers sounds good. Can i have a mudd or rain bonus?

The second mutually exclusive choice in the Marines tree is as below. If you want to go all-in on highly elite, more self-sufficient marines, you can go down the Marine Commando route. Marine commandos are a new line battalion that have the ability to perform quick hit & run naval invasions with an equally quick getaway plan - they no longer need to be at a port in order to exfiltrate. All battalions in a division must have this ability in order for it to function.

That sound good for me and the ai. In combination with the floating harbours that can be a good choise. But i believe that the ai can only handle the run. Most time they never run. For ai hit it looks more suicidal. Most time ai mix different units in one army too. One unit landing there. The other at the other end... Spongebobrambos everythere.

Further down the tree you can capitalize on the hit & run playstyle:

I dont know is this a bonus or a malus with strategic building?

The alternative path will take you down a combined arms path, integrating more closely with other branches of your military:

Air superiority? As manchukuo i have no plaines. But it can be now with firelight LL double. But i think its more europe thing. The range, airfields, the suply and the weather are a problem in china too. Special capacity sounds good. Naval invasions plaining i will see. Ar the one hand i have my marine general and spys. For what i need more? At the other hand for the enemy can be it the hell when i switch the target with spybonus. Shorebomberdement goes over the limit or bring it me faster to the bomberdementlimit - i see you have not think on it.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions: