• 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 - Naval Rework #1

Hello, and welcome back for the first in a series of dev diaries that will showcase the changes to the naval system beyond just building and designing new ships (aka the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Game Mode).

Today we will look at new mission types and changes to the naval interface. As we are still in development, you may see some stuff that is not strictly speaking finished (no matter how much Dan wants the hot pink coder art to go into the final build!)

As part of the rework, we have changed the Patrol as well as the Search & Destroy mission. While patrol still does mostly the same thing, Search and Destroy is gone and has been replaced with Strike Force. In the old system, the main difference between the missions was how many ships you had at the start of the battle.

Screenshot from 2018-11-21 14-58-58.png


Now that is gone, and the primary difference is that Patrol sends the ships out to, well, patrol, while Strike Force makes the ships sit in harbor until a patrol has found an enemy. This is particularly useful if you want your fuel-hungry battleships to remain in port and not use up your precious fuel until you know there is actually something out there to sink.

Finding the enemy is the main purpose of the Patrol order, so you’ll want your ships with good surface detection values to make up the bulk of your patrols - particularly destroyers and cruisers, ideally equipped with Radar and/or floatplanes. If there is an enemy in a zone you patrol, you’ll gain spotting on them, which essentially goes from “there is something out there” to “It’s the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen!” (at this point HMS Hood sorties to destroy them, in an easy and painless victory for the Royal Navy). Weather, terrain and the amount of ships committed all affect how fast you gain spotting. If you time it right, your big ships might be able to break out into the Atlantic before the enemy knows they are there. Depending on your engagement level and enemy strength, your patrol group might just decide to deal with the enemy directly, without even calling in the big guns.

image (4).png


As we mentioned before, your fleet is now made up from several task forces, each of which can have its own mission. Fleets are organized in Naval Theaters. While you can assign any number of sea zones to a fleet, a task force can only ever be in one place (with a few exceptions), so in order to cover all the zones, you should aim to have at least as many task forces as you have zones assigned. However, a single Strike Force can support several patrol task forces except that it can only support one combat at a time, so your poor little patrol force may find itself severely outgunned because your main force is off helping another patrol.

germany icons.jpg

(Art is not quite completely totally absolutely final on this one)

Every fleet can be led by an Admiral, and can only control a certain number of task forces. Since every task force usually only covers a single zone, you’ll want to make sure you have different fleets covering different parts of the globe. Particularly as a raider you will also want to cover a larger area to force the enemy to spread out more.

bottom admirals.jpg


You can customize your fleets and task forces with insignias and colors to keep track of them, much like with armies:

customize.jpg


Convoy Raiding still works much as you are used to. However, we have changed the convoy raiding impact to be a weekly tick rather than a flat modifier, so sinking convoys will bit by bit reduce war support for the country that loses them. More info on this comes in a future dev diary dedicated to raiding and subs.

Convoy escort task forces can be assigned to cover several zones and will try to defend any convoy in them. If you are too spread out and subs catch the convoys, few if any escorts will be available to defend it.

escort.jpg


Beyond that, we have added Invasion Support. A task force set to Invasion Support will defend transports in the area and remain off the beaches to provide naval gunfire support - ideal for your old battleships that just don’t cut it anymore against more modern opposition.

invasion support.jpg



In addition, mine warfare is conducted by mine laying and mine sweeping missions (although mine sweepers also provide a passive bonus to moving through minefields so you might want to add them to your other task forces as well), and naval exercises give ships experience as well as provide Naval Experience to design new ships with - at the cost of fuel.

Newly built ships are automatically added to a Reserve Fleet, which exists on the theater level. Ships in that fleet reinforce other task forces in the same theater. You can set up Task Force templates that the game will try to create from the available ships in the reserves, and will try to keep up to strength as best it can. If you don’t want to reinforce a unit because, say, it is the US Asiatic Fleet and the Japanese have just declared war, you can disable automatic reinforcements for each individual task force.

If you don’t want to micro-manage your task forces to this degree, we have added an auto-balance function that splits your existing task forces into several, trying to maintain a strike force and one or more patrol task forces.

That is all for today. Next week we will focus on a different part of the naval rework. Don’t forget to tune in for the stream at 1600 hours CET, where we continue with Mexico for another week.

Rejected Titles:


It has been 0 days since someone made fun of the HMS Hood

Reserve your fleet today

Strike Forces are very usefuel

USA naval organize start: now 100% less ragequit
 
That D-Day picture got me thinking, will we ever see Mulberry harbors?
This was answered before somewhere a while back: not in this update, but perhaps in the future (unless Paradox have changed their minds).
 
Will await the next DDs on Air and Naval warfare to see if you really have fixed DoomStacks, unnecessary very unrealistic screen ship losses, naval zones considered unreachable even though the country has unquestioned naval superiority by destroyers, light cruisers.

@podcat, if only capitals can shore bombard because of gameplay, then you should really look hard at the base algorithm. Something is not right, if reality cannot be simulated.
 
I still think convoys should cost more and use manpower, and I'd hoped a big naval revamp would have meant that was the case. I hope we hear more about this in the subs diary.
 
The British people being cut off from supplies disagree. This was a real danger during WW2.
Disagree with what? That support loss should be temporary? I'd say that if supplies are getting through, morale/war support should recover, carrying a permanent malus into 1944 because a lot of convoys were sunk in may 1941 (for example) seems really weird to me. Plus it's still weird if only convoy raiding has this effect (especially as the thing most likely to effect civilian life, food, isn't modelled in Hoi4, do the people really care that much if only three quarters of rubber imports arrive?). If you go down that road, than military reverses should also have an effect, probably bigger than losing a few convoys. Public outcry at the failure in Norway brought down Chamberlain's government, and 'would Churchill have been able to sustain the war if the BEF had been lost at Dunkirk' is one of the big 'what if' questions of the war.

You already lose war support by Force Attack/Defense and Strategic Bombing
Didn't know that. Though I'd say that's still a pretty bad mechanic, as iirc Bombing was famously ineffective at the 'crush their morale' goal (so why should Strat Bombing damage support when it doesn't seem to have irl). And why would force attack/defence damage war support, yet losing your entire army without using the red phone points has no effect?
 
if only capitals can shore bombard because of gameplay, then you should really look hard at the base algorithm. Something is not right, if reality cannot be simulated.
I'm an engineer and the last sentence triggers my PTSD from management demanding that my simulation perfectly correlates with measurements.

More seriously, I think "gameplay" means either balance, or that the shore bombardement is supposed to include naval artillery support after the landings. Destroyers supported the troops more effectively than heavy ships on D-Day, but only the heaviest guns could fire further inland. A group of German tanks was shelled while it was still 30km from the coast during the battle of Normandy.
 
Didn't know that. Though I'd say that's still a pretty bad mechanic, as iirc Bombing was famously ineffective at the 'crush their morale' goal (so why should Strat Bombing damage support when it doesn't seem to have irl). And why would force attack/defence damage war support, yet losing your entire army without using the red phone points has no effect?

You also gain a bonus in war support when your fighters protect you if I remember correctly (so that's the simulation of the Battle of Britain and why the terror bombing didnt work I guess).

For your second question, yeah, I don't know. That's not very intuitive.
 
I still think convoys should cost more and use manpower, and I'd hoped a big naval revamp would have meant that was the case. I hope we hear more about this in the subs diary.
I agree with you. In reality they were much more expensive (liberty ship a 1/3 of Fletcher class destroyer). Only the USA was able to produce merchant ships in large numbers, the others had to rely to a large portion on already existing ships. In the game the whole commerce raiding and protection is quite unimportant, because you need only small amout of ships and replacing them is cheap, only for lend & lease you need a larger number. Irl the available merchant ships were not just sitting in the stock pile, they were needed to keep the industry running and for food import. If they don't change this, the only importance of the navy is for naval invasions.
 
Looks great!

The only thing is that wordings like " the first in a series of dev diaries", "still in development" and "future dev diary" all point towards a 2019 release.
Hey we are got Holy Fury, Industries, Megacorp, Space Race, and Golden Century all before Xmas. PDX has been busy.
 
I'm a bit disappointed that convoys will work essentially as before. The current setup is just about OK for Allied convoys during wartime, but really doesn't cover either (a) the added stress on the system the convoy system caused, or (b) the Axis merchant marine's role or methodologies.

I put up a suggestion in the Suggestions forum today that, I think, gives a fairly simple way to start this. Basically, allow convoy routes to be set to either Individual Shipping (with good efficiency, high visibility and intercepts catching one merchant ship alone), Convoy Operation (low efficiency, low visibility and intercepts encountering the full convoy, with escorts nearer at hand) or Blockade Running (low efficiency, low visibility and intercepts encountering single ships but with any assigned escorts getting to them faster). Also nice would be the capability to assign 'convoy' units to task forces to extend range - done both by Axis raiders and by Pacific task forces on island hopping operations.
 
Last edited:
I really hope that you also sort out the convoy raiding mechanics so that convoy raiding actually becomes a viable naval strategy. I saw that you mentioned "engagement level" so I really hope that we can use that on our convoy raiding submarines aswell. For example, I would like to be able to tell my submarines to attack convoys as long as there's no escort in sight, and to disengage as soon as they see one. Also, I really hope that you've fixed the detection part of naval warfare, currently a single destroyer is able to find every single submarine that is approaching a convoy, making it impossible to actually raid anything without a full-out naval battle.

An important note here is that convoys shouldn't be able to "call" an escort, because they shouldn't even know that a submarine has spotted them. Suddenly they're just hit by a torpedo. It should be the destroyer(s) that spot the submarines, and depending on how many destroyers that partrol the area, it will be more or less difficult to actually protect convoys from getting sunk. Submarines should not be forced to fight destroyers just in order to be able to sink a convoy.

Also, I think it's great that you make the war support affected by convoy raiding. I just want to remind you to actually make the effect useful. For example, currently in the game, strategic bombing can give you a maximum of -30% war support, and that requires you to bomb basically everything they have. In comparison, those -30% is easily compensated by either defensive war or world tension. Since the surrender limit is only lowered when the war support drops below 50%, it makes strategic bombing for the purpose of easier capitulation completely pointless.
 
Cool new stuff for the naval game.

Im curious where all of you who are deriding the convoy war have your info?

From what I read in the diary, there is an entire diary upcoming regarding changes to convoys/raiding/subs. I dont disagree merchant shipping losses need to feel more impactful--but how do we know there are not changes in store?

That said, as much as I like the looks of what they have done for surface warfare, if they dont make merchant shipping losses MUCH more important than they are now (Subs vis a vie convoy raiding is nearly useless currently, but was a big part of Naval strategy from all maritime powers in the war), ill consider MTG somewhat of a failure.

The entire need for controlling the seas (and thus be willing to fight surface battles) is to get your goods and personnel from continent to continent. If merchant raiding is insignificant, why invest in a navy to counter that play, if commerce raiding counters itself due to how ineffective it is?
 
@Archangel85 - you mentioned sending out ships on patrol to look for enemy navies; will aircraft achieve the same result?
 
I'm so happy to see all the improvements to the naval game :)
 
You already lose war support by Force Attack/Defense and Strategic Bombing

Nope, you're wrong. Not in the way you seem to thing.

All those things only provide a flat, temporary reduction to war support. It's not a ticking, weekly decrease in war support like the dev diary is talking about. IIRC the war support loss from force attack and defense caps out at -5%, and then after an incredibly brief period of time goes away. The war support loss from strategic bombing also is a flat percentage that caps out at a fairly low number, and disappears entirely a brief time after the bombing stops.
 
How does this changes will affect Sub warfare ?

I don't think this change will change submarine warfare substantially, as you could just form a strike group full of subs without a capital ship to lead them. There was a dev diary on marine terrain indicating that shallower seas, such as the English Channel will give increased sub visibility. Outside these changes, so far the only other points I can see would change sub warfare would be doctrine rebalances, which usually come with major updates. There may be more un-annonced changes or some points I missed but I think this covers most of what I can think of.
 
Nope, you're wrong. Not in the way you seem to thing.

All those things only provide a flat, temporary reduction to war support. It's not a ticking, weekly decrease in war support like the dev diary is talking about. IIRC the war support loss from force attack and defense caps out at -5%, and then after an incredibly brief period of time goes away. The war support loss from strategic bombing also is a flat percentage that caps out at a fairly low number, and disappears entirely a brief time after the bombing stops.

Yes. There is this difference. Thank you