HOI4 Dev Diary - Acclimatization and Special Forces

[bERt0r]

Mountaineers and Marines are not even that great, normal infantry is just fine. What we do need a limit on or rather what I'd prefer some stat and modifier fixes is artillery. The 1 Art per 10 width rule is universal in all rulesets but it's sad that we have to have such a rule. The optimal template should not be as much artillery as possible and some inf to give it some org. Same goes for space marines. In earlier HOIs there was the "combined arms" modifier that actually encouraged using tanks with softer troops. Thanks to the crude way armor and piercing are implemented, putting tanks in infantry divisions became the op cookie cutter template. It has been like this since release and now they come up with this? I'm getting more pissed about this the more im talking. The armor mechanic has been criticised on the forums again and again and again.

 

[fabius]

You ignore Navy as Germany because it doesnt matter if your Uboat force destroys 1 or 1000 UK Convoys. It doesnt matter if you invest early on in your Navy because it takes a ludicrously short amount of time to build one. Also historically, by comparison to the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht the Kreigsmarine was the redheaded step child.

Even Germany, USA, USSR, UK should be limited in their potential. No country should be able to have the best airforce, army and navy (unless they are the last man standing).

As Germany I ignore Uboats, and don't do too much Strat because I'd rather fight full strength UK divs not those gimped even more than the lack of equip from suicides.

But would be nice to have some navy techs up to date to play a navy game too.

Agree though, no country should be able to have the best of everything; but I still lean towards the tech is a little too tight for majors right now.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

You base that assumption on what evidence exactly?
If that was the case there would already be a rule limiting numbers of SF in most rulesets.

Your missing the distinction I've been trying to make between the "historical" and the "balanced" MP communities.

Your statement about a rule limiting SF in most rulesets, implies the "balanced" MP community. They would be the one's who see the SF limit as being unnecessary or too low. And for the problems they see in the game and how they addressed it, they are seriously worried that they won't be able to field enough SF units within those constraints.

On the other hand, the "historical" MP community, understand the reasoning behind the SF limit and can embrace it, because it gives a more historical relation between SF units and normal units. They are the one's I'm referring to when I say "they" would welcome the limit.

 

[LiberiusX]

Damn I hate when I miss the fireworks...

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Yes, it's an idea I like too

 

[GermanDave]

This DLC/Update for the game is shaping up to be way more than I allowed myself to expect. The new event and infiltration mechanic really is a testament to the creativity of the devs and their commitment to salvaging HoI IV.

Please Podcat and devs, TAKE YOUR SWEET TIME! I'd rather play the DLC+Cornflakes version in 2018 than a rushed buggy version before Christmas. One love.

 

[Meglok]

Reckon how this SF cap works out will be all about how the game is re-balanced to take it into account. Podcat did say balance is still being tweaked so we will have to wait and see what if any combat mechanics are changed, whether SF forces get better bonuses, and exactly what the SF tech tree does.

The good news is that this cap is almost certainly going to be set in the defines so it will be moddable for those single players who dislike it. The subset of the MP community that dislike it after release and hot fixes will have to either all mod or deal with it. That is just the reality of HOI4, the game is not built to cater to MP.

 

[GermanDave]

...That is just the reality of HOI4, the game is not built to cater to MP.

THIS. I hate that I can't attack from the territory of an uninvolved ally because of 'muh multiplayer'. As if Adolf and the fascist posse would have given a shit.

 

[Robosoldier1]

Allowing the allies to lend lease China is just a recipe for disaster as the Soviets are already supplementing that early support to delay the Japanese player which often times is quite substantial and varied depending on the community ruleset. Having the allies dump additional resources would already extend a war of attrition which the Japanese player would be unable to pull out of. Especially now considering the restricted number of special forces that could be fielded so that slow push would sooner or later bog down due to simply the mass that China encompasses. I get Japan should face the risk of getting stuck in China however in the grand scheme Japan already makes a relatively small splash within the pacific before the US gets involved. This can be attributed to individual skill but also deals with the type of warfare and the backfooted position Japan faces in areas such as fleet size. Since the US can spit out a larger and often times a higher quality navy relatively easily. At the same time Japan has to contend with quite the number of defensible positions that the allies can build up and make as costly as possible for even the best Japanese player mainly because the allies know they will be gunning for those places sooner or later.

Say what you want about the one army training exploit. it is the most viable method of fielding the divisions you need to meet the challenges several human players pose while not expending precious equipment needed throughout the key operations of the war. At the same time both sides can apply it so its a universal benefit at which no one side is inherently getting screwed compared to the other.

 

[desiriel]

May I humbly suggest that Italy, for example, should have a higher number of Mountaineer Infantry (Divisioni Alpini) which, incidentally, are the oldest mountain military corps in service and were the bulwark of its military machine in both World Wars ? This limit could severely handicap Italy's few strong points.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I understand the need to curtail abuses, exploits and lack of balance, but I am not sure I like this idea of capping special forces. As others have pointed out, countries that consist largely of mountains are going to have a larger number of mountaineers. And if this cap is armed at battalions and not divisions, then Germany for example will be hard pressed to even field 10 mountaineers, which is a barebones minimum.

At the very least, countries like Italy and Greece should have a national trait that greatly increases this cap, at least for mountaineers.

Perhaps a better way to curtail abuses and exploits is to limit width at twenty.

I really do hope Paradox reads and takes into account some of this feedback. If there is a cap, the suggested cap is way too low, and again there needs to be exceptions or vastly higher limits for certain countries.

 

[Had a dad]

May I humbly suggest that Italy, for example, should have a higher number of Mountaineer Infantry (Divisioni Alpini) which, incidentally, are the oldest mountain military corps in service and were the bulwark of its military machine in both World Wars ? This limit could severely handicap Italy's few strong points.

they had 6 alpine divisions 9 mountan, 12 motorized, 25 coastal, 53 standard inf div 6 armored, how exactly do you think this will hurt Italy in a historic sense?

 

[billcorr]

putting tanks in infantry divisions became the op cookie cutter template.

Ah ha!

HoI4 demonstrates that the French were right to place their armor amongst their infantry on the eve of WW2.

Infantry support tanks for the win!

(all in good fun )

 

[SentosKarum]

So the days my 2x24 Super Marine division generals for atlantic and pacific island hopping are over. At least until I balloon my regular army.

Personally I'd have made the allowable special forces limited dependend on how big the manpower pool is but that would bone smaller nations.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

they had 6 alpine divisions 9 mountan, 12 motorized, 25 coastal, 53 standard inf div 6 armored, how exactly do you think this will hurt Italy in a historic sense?

That is much higher than the five percent rule, no?

 

[RELee]

Ah ha!

HoI4 demonstrates that the French were right to place their armor amongst their infantry on the eve of WW2.

Infantry support tanks for the win!

(all in good fun )

Guderian thought it was a great idea for France.

 

[Farquarsen]

they had 6 alpine divisions 9 mountan, 12 motorized, 25 coastal, 53 standard inf div 6 armored, how exactly do you think this will hurt Italy in a historic sense?

15 mountain / 111 = 13.5 %. Another example where the cap is too low.

 

[Packard 50]

The other option is to expand the special forces training programs to accept more recruits. Your special forces will be more numerous, but come with more drag and not quite as high speed.

I think we should wait to see the effect of the tech tree increase before drawing any conclusions. An increase to 10% SF battalions wouldn't be unreasonable (and make for an interesting choice).

 

[billcorr]

Rulesets vary in regards to the amount of artillery per width. In one sampling, 5 out of 8 (87.5%) rulesets did not stipulate how much artillery was allowed per width.

The 1 Art per 10 width rule is universal in all rulesets but it's sad that we have to have such a rule.

1. Road to War ruleset: no house rule regarding number of artillery per width.
2. The Great Game ruleset (now, that's a ruleset!) : no house rule regarding number of artillery per width.
3. The Great War ruleset: 1 Artillery per 8 Combat width
4. ‘No Civ Players Allowed' ruleset: no house rule regarding number of artillery per width.
5. You shall not CAS ruleset: no house rule regarding number of artillery per width.
6. Kaiserreich ruleset: 3 a. Only 1 ART/AT/AA or tank of any kind per 10 Combat Width(support battalions not included)
7. Weltkrieg ruleset: "You can put as many artilleries into your divisions as you want, but remember they gonna be easy target for CAS ]:- "
8. Anarchy ruleset: No game-breaking division formats:

• Line artillery is limited to 1 per 10 combat width
• Towed anti-tank is limited to 1,5 per 10 combat width, rounded down (so 1 per 10, 3 per 20, etc)
• No mixing towed anti tank and line artillery
• No mixing special forces and infantry.
• No tanks heavier than lights with foot soldiers or cavalry

Special thanks to Froozen who organized many rulesets on one page. Well done, Fr00zen!
https://discordapp.com/channels/193966828362399744/336156550458638349

A fallow thread designed to serve as a repository for comparing rule sets is found here.

 

[Had a dad]

That is much higher than the five percent rule, no?

The only difference between line infantry divisions and mountain infantry divisions was that the latter's artillery was carried by pack mules instead of the standard horse-drawn carriages.

so that would be a support type unit, not a specialized inf reg

Alpine div had 2 inf reg vs stadard inf having 3 inf reg

all total for the costal, reg inf mountain and mot that is 272 normal regiments, and 12 mountain... guess what 5% of 272 is?