• 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.

HoI 4 Dev Diary - Leaders, abilities and Traits

Hi everyone and sorry about the late diary (Swedish winter is heavy on sickness attrition!). Today we are going to talk about military leaders and how they can now grow and be tailored to your needs!

Traits and Leader Details
When we added the chain of command feature to Waking the Tiger we wanted to make sure players care more about their generals and field marshals and feel like they grow and level up. We also wanted to add more personality to leaders. To accomplish this we now have several kinds of traits. The old traits you are familiar with are now called Earnable Traits. Something you gain by doing something, like earning the “Desert Fox” trait by fighting in the desert. Then there are General Traits which are something you select yourself to assign to leaders. These will have prerequisites of different kinds. There are also Field Marshal Traits - which unsurprisingly only apply to field marshals (remember, field marshals with Waking the Tiger now lead other leaders). Finally, there are background or Personality Traits as well. As you can see in the picture below, Manstein has a background as a Brilliant Strategist, which increases his base stats.
manstein.jpg


We are still working on the personality traits, so I won't go into too much detail on them just yet. Usually they affect the leader’s base stats or make certain traits easier to gain (so someone with a background in tanks might be quicker to pick up the “Panzer Leader” trait). We also use these to model change in nations like the “Samurai Lineage” one (more on that once we cover Japan). We also have some “status” traits like “Wounded” where a leader may be left at lower capacity after an ill fated combat or “Sick”, which can be gained by trying to develop a video game in Sweden during the winter or by staying in high-attrition areas for a prolonged time.

To make managing easier we have also updated to leader selection screen so that you can sort and filter easier (type “Panzer” in the quick search field will get you all panzer related leaders for example).
leader_selector.jpg


Bonuses from traits and skill levels for your field marshals transfer down as well to your divisions, but at a reduced rate (right now you get 50% of the bonus, but no number is final) and you no longer lose your general traits when you promote to field marshal. When it comes to slots for assignable traits those are gained as your leader levels up.

“The Red Phone”
Many of you may have been wondering about the new topbar icon and it’s finally time to start talking about it today. It’s a new resource called Command Power and it symbolizes the ability of the government to go in and directly mess with the military - much like Hitler would use his red phone to bypass chain of command or prioritize things. Command power is used for promoting generals, taking certain military related decisions, managing air supply, assigning traits to generals who qualify and using command power abilities to affect divisions. There are also two more features that use them we will cover in future diaries.

These command power abilities are mostly unlocked by traits and apply to divisions under the general. They cost command power to trigger and run for a certain amount of time giving bonuses or other effects which offer up some neat new tactics.
command_powers.jpg

Here is a breakdown of the abilities:

Force Attack - Units gain attack bonuses, take no org damage while attacking, but take increased strength damage. They are also unable to retreat from attacks when this is active. As the active units take damage this will also hurt your nation’s war support.
Last Stand - Similar to Force Attack but when on defense. Use it if you must absolutely hold somewhere no matter what while attacking elsewhere. We also have some national flavor version of these for China and Japan.
Probing Attack - Divisions can launch attacks without losing entrenchment, but have a penalty to attack while doing so.
Staff Office Plan - Increases planning speed for the cases when you need to finish and launch a new plan quickly.
Siege Artillery - Combat bonus vs fortifications and also increases damage to the fortifications themselves substantially.
Glider Planes - Used in combination with paratroopers they let you drop more paras per transport and give them a boost to organization and defense towards enemy AA.
Makeshift bridges - Gives a substantial reduction to the river crossing penalty.
Extra supplies - Increases the time troops can be without supplies before suffering penalties.
Naval Assault Plan - Cuts down time needed to complete preparations for naval invasions.

Command power abilities, assignable traits and the new leader details view are part of the DLC. Most of the personality/background traits are part of the 1.5 “Cornflakes” update.

Next week we are going to, among other things, talk about how to make your troops deal with harsh weather. See you then!
 
Siege Artillery - Combat bonus vs fortifications and also increases damage to the fortifications themselves substantially.

Thank you very much for the dev diary. Very interesting read and I look forward to the changes ;)

While reading the part that I left in the quote above, it got me thinking about strategic play with artillery. If I'm not mistaken, the only way of using artillery in the game right now is to combine it with other units and attack (by movement) another sector. It would be very interesting if we could have pure artillery divisions that doesn't move into the sector they attack, instead they only bombard it from 1-2 sectors away. Obviusly these kind of divisions would need to be protected by "ordinary" divisions. So for instance, on a front line where you have little interest to push, you can just order your artillery division(s) to bombard enemies in specific sector(s). The same could apply to CAS, where you'd order them to continuously attack units in a sector even though you havn't ordered any ground units to attack that sector.

Is that something that Paradox be interested in adding to the game? :)
 
Thank you very much for the dev diary. Very interesting read and I look forward to the changes ;)

While reading the part that I left in the quote above, it got me thinking about strategic play with artillery. If I'm not mistaken, the only way of using artillery in the game right now is to combine it with other units and attack (by movement) another sector. It would be very interesting if we could have pure artillery divisions that doesn't move into the sector they attack, instead they only bombard it from 1-2 sectors away. Obviusly these kind of divisions would need to be protected by "ordinary" divisions. So for instance, on a front line where you have little interest to push, you can just order your artillery division(s) to bombard enemies in specific sector(s). The same could apply to CAS, where you'd order them to continuously attack units in a sector even though you havn't ordered any ground units to attack that sector.

Is that something that Paradox be interested in adding to the game? :)

We definitely need something like this for the WWI expansion and/or Vicky 3

Put it in the suggestion forum
 
@podcat Have you considered eliminating the need for spending XP for Army TOE changes? Once you have researched the new item, tank, logistics company etc, you should be able to add it to the TOE without further penalty. XP should be spent on modifying tanks or artillery similar to naval xp and air xp.

I disagree. Integration of new weapons into the TO&E was a huge issue for all armies before the war. The US relied heavily on the Louisiana maneuvers as a testing opportunity for how to integrate the new units and equipment. The US Army also suffered from limited experience prior to Normandy which led to several bad doctrinal decisions such as prioritizing towed AT versus SPAT and fast light SPAT versus heavier SPAT and over effective tanks. The Marines changed their TO&E based on experience from Guadalcanal and Tarawa.

France's utilization of tanks was seriously hampered by their TO&E and some argue (I believe this is from House's "Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century" or from Jarymowycz's "Tank Tactics") that the Brits never really had an effective TO&E for their armored formations.

Note - having said this, I do often play with a mod to eliminate the need for XP to make changes as mucking about with TO&E is one of my favorite things in the world. (TOAW was a massive time sink for many years :)

Hmmm....what about an org penalty for any TO&E changes not paid for with army experience to reflect that it's not been "field tested"?
 
While reading the part that I left in the quote above, it got me thinking about strategic play with artillery. If I'm not mistaken, the only way of using artillery in the game right now is to combine it with other units and attack (by movement) another sector. It would be very interesting if we could have pure artillery divisions that doesn't move into the sector they attack, instead they only bombard it from 1-2 sectors away. Obviusly these kind of divisions would need to be protected by "ordinary" divisions. So for instance, on a front line where you have little interest to push, you can just order your artillery division(s) to bombard enemies in specific sector(s). The same could apply to CAS, where you'd order them to continuously attack units in a sector even though you havn't ordered any ground units to attack that sector.

I would think this would conflict with the scale of the game. You are talking about the heavier artillery pieces, that were generally there for counter battery fire.
 
I disagree. Integration of new weapons into the TO&E was a huge issue for all armies before the war. The US relied heavily on the Louisiana maneuvers as a testing opportunity for how to integrate the new units and equipment. The US Army also suffered from limited experience prior to Normandy which led to several bad doctrinal decisions such as prioritizing towed AT versus SPAT and fast light SPAT versus heavier SPAT and over effective tanks. The Marines changed their TO&E based on experience from Guadalcanal and Tarawa.

France's utilization of tanks was seriously hampered by their TO&E and some argue (I believe this is from House's "Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century" or from Jarymowycz's "Tank Tactics") that the Brits never really had an effective TO&E for their armored formations.

Note - having said this, I do often play with a mod to eliminate the need for XP to make changes as mucking about with TO&E is one of my favorite things in the world. (TOAW was a massive time sink for many years :)

Hmmm....what about an org penalty for any TO&E changes not paid for with army experience to reflect that it's not been "field tested"?

It sounds like your arguments are not really a disagreement. The Louisiana maneuvers is exactly why TOE changes should not cost experience points. You cannot try out a TOE and get experience from it until you do establish the TOE you wish to test. Louisiana eliminated the horse and mule from the Army's TOE for cavalry and infantry. The other thing to remember is both Chaffee and Van Voorhis paid close attention to the changes in the German Armor TOE and made those changes before Louisana. There wasn't a sharing agreement between the US and Germany, just very astute Armor officers. And you are correct, it takes real battlefield experience to get the right TOE. Again, my point is TOE should not cost experience points. I feel the research time for a particular weapon system includes the necessary testing to figure out how it should fit in the TOE. Are you sure you want to stick to Normandy as the deciding factor for TOEs? I would think you meant Operation Torch.
 
It sounds like your arguments are not really a disagreement. The Louisiana maneuvers is exactly why TOE changes should not cost experience points. You cannot try out a TOE and get experience from it until you do establish the TOE you wish to test. Louisiana eliminated the horse and mule from the Army's TOE for cavalry and infantry. The other thing to remember is both Chaffee and Van Voorhis paid close attention to the changes in the German Armor TOE and made those changes before Louisana. There wasn't a sharing agreement between the US and Germany, just very astute Armor officers. And you are correct, it takes real battlefield experience to get the right TOE. Again, my point is TOE should not cost experience points. I feel the research time for a particular weapon system includes the necessary testing to figure out how it should fit in the TOE. Are you sure you want to stick to Normandy as the deciding factor for TOEs? I would think you meant Operation Torch.

Random thought - what if TOEs could be tried 'for free', but it took experience in the field fighting with them to build up proficiency with them, and the size of the difference between previous and new TOEs in form dictated the amount of 'proficiency loss' for a new TOE (so setting up a 1944 TOE in 1936 would result in really bad proficiency - you could even have some kind of increasing gap the larger the gap was, to make large jumps not a great idea, and then reductions in the size of the gap if similar TOEs were in use by enemies or allies?) Note - I'm talking off the top of my head here, I'm not really on top of the various TOE changes that took place, the idea just popped into my head.
 
... The Louisiana maneuvers is exactly why TOE changes should not cost experience points. You cannot try out a TOE and get experience from it until you do establish the TOE you wish to test. ... And you are correct, it takes real battlefield experience to get the right TOE. Again, my point is TOE should not cost experience points. I feel the research time for a particular weapon system includes the necessary testing to figure out how it should fit in the TOE. ...

Excellent points. But how something works in real life, sometimes has to be abstracted in a game (notice, not a "simulation").

I suspect the designers are trying to reflect a "design for effect" instead of a representation of how it works. Without experience for division changes, how else to stop players from having divisions based on players hindsight? They want players to be able to design their own divisions, but at a cost. If not experience, what should the cost be?
 
Random thought - what if TOEs could be tried 'for free', but it took experience in the field fighting with them to build up proficiency with them, and the size of the difference between previous and new TOEs in form dictated the amount of 'proficiency loss' for a new TOE (so setting up a 1944 TOE in 1936 would result in really bad proficiency - you could even have some kind of increasing gap the larger the gap was, to make large jumps not a great idea, and then reductions in the size of the gap if similar TOEs were in use by enemies or allies?) Note - I'm talking off the top of my head here, I'm not really on top of the various TOE changes that took place, the idea just popped into my head.

I think that adds too much complication for very little gain.

I think to&e changes should be based on what you've learned or circumstantial changes. The former coming from combat, the latter probably best from events or achieved focuses.
 
It sounds like your arguments are not really a disagreement. The Louisiana maneuvers is exactly why TOE changes should not cost experience points. You cannot try out a TOE and get experience from it until you do establish the TOE you wish to test. Louisiana eliminated the horse and mule from the Army's TOE for cavalry and infantry. The other thing to remember is both Chaffee and Van Voorhis paid close attention to the changes in the German Armor TOE and made those changes before Louisana. There wasn't a sharing agreement between the US and Germany, just very astute Armor officers. And you are correct, it takes real battlefield experience to get the right TOE. Again, my point is TOE should not cost experience points. I feel the research time for a particular weapon system includes the necessary testing to figure out how it should fit in the TOE. Are you sure you want to stick to Normandy as the deciding factor for TOEs? I would think you meant Operation Torch.

Yeah, it's certainly not a very good disagreement :)

I like your point about testing changes during maneuvers which is sort of the opposite of how it works in game now where you have to exercise in order to get xp for changes.

Torch sort of hindered more than it helped in some respects. The decision to use the towed 57mm came directly from Torch and British experience in North Africa. One of the problems with McNair was he saw what he wanted to see and then kept referring back to Tunisia as proof. Normandy is where the US Army changed back to SPAT and began to ignore McNair's obsession with pooling resources at the corps level and just permanently attached formations to divisions. But I also believe Torch is where the armor division was changed to the "lighter" organization. So yeah, I would say that the final army TO&Es owe more to the Normandy experience than the Tunisia experience.

I also like your point about observant officers. Maybe that could be a trait for the cabinet level military positions.

(Gawd I love these forums for the discussions. Very thought provoking! Thanks!)
 
Random thought - what if TOEs could be tried 'for free', but it took experience in the field fighting with them to build up proficiency with them, and the size of the difference between previous and new TOEs in form dictated the amount of 'proficiency loss' for a new TOE (so setting up a 1944 TOE in 1936 would result in really bad proficiency - you could even have some kind of increasing gap the larger the gap was, to make large jumps not a great idea, and then reductions in the size of the gap if similar TOEs were in use by enemies or allies?) Note - I'm talking off the top of my head here, I'm not really on top of the various TOE changes that took place, the idea just popped into my head.

I like this idea a lot. And maybe a reformer or theorist trait could modify this positively and a old guard trait could modify negatively. That could set up some nice decision making if a popular, politically powerful general is old guard you would have to decide if you need the political support or if army modernization is more important.