• 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.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Chain of Command

Hi everyone and welcome back to regular dev diaries. This and upcoming diaries will be covering stuff happening in the 1.5 "Cornflakes" update as well as the unannounced expansion that will come out together with it. One of the main focuses of those can be summarized as "making players care more about armies, leaders and troops" (our DLCs tend to have 1-3 main focuses or missions). The first feature that touches on this, and the topic of today's dev diary is adding a military chain of command to the game.

After Hearts of Iron III, where something like organizing the soviet chain of command could take about an hour of the players time we decided that we wanted something that was a lot less effort to work with for HOI4. We basically settled on a flat level with field marshals with no restriction on commanded divisions, and generals with a limit on division count but with a different set of traits. Over time we felt that we lost a bit too much of the WW2 military flavor with this abstraction, so we started thinking about how to do it in a more interesting way.

Pasted image at 2017_09_13 02_48 PM.jpg

What we have done now for 1.5 is that field marshals are now leading an Army Group, which is a certain number of Armies (what we had before) led by Generals. There are then places in theaters as before. Theaters are like before just a geographical organizational tool for the player and don't have a commander or the like to keep them as flexible as possible. This means that we have a Theaters->Army Groups->Armies->Divisions structure now.
While the Generals still come with a soft cap for how many divisions they can efficiently command, the field marshals will now have a number of armies they can efficiently command.

I also want to make sure to point out that this is still very early on in development, so stuff is very likely to change, and some stuff aren't completely working as it should yet. So we are showing you this in progress rather than showing a completely finished feature, and as always any numbers you see are extremely subject to change ;) Also I very sneekily hid the topbar for now ;)
upload_2017-9-13_15-27-6.png


When it comes to controlling your troops the new system introduces some changes to the battle planner. You can either do a plan for each army in the army group, or have a central plan for the whole Army Group where each army has a part of the frontline assigned as its responsibility. You can also do a mix, in which case an Army will finish its plan and then fall back to executing the Army Group's plan. We are still iteration on this stuff though but I figured you all wanted to know how it would work in practice.

upload_2017-9-13_15-26-30.png


Something that does not really come across in the images is that we are working on ways to streamline the process for setting up fronts using the new army groups. This should make at least the basic cases feel smooth to set up, even with one more command level and more armies without a ton of extra clicking.

upload_2017-9-13_15-23-51.png


The sharp eyed reader will also notice that we have removed the skill level for generals. This is now replaced with separate skills of different kinds. Attack, Defense, Planning and Logistics. Attack and Defense do what you expect while Planning improves planning speed and Logistics lowers supply consumption. Field marshal stats apply together with army general stats at a reduced capacity, so you will always want to have a chain of command for best efficiency.

The chain of command feature is going to be part of the free update, although there is some cool DLC features that tie into it we will be revealing in later diaries. Also expect to read more details about the system itself like how things in combat are affected etc.

See you next week when we will be taking a look at national unity...
 
First you say do not implement corps. Then you detail an elaborate way for corps to be used. I’m confused.

Don’t worry, they are not implementing corps.
 
First you say do not implement corps. Then you detail an elaborate way for corps to be used. I’m confused.

Don’t worry, they are not implementing corps.

i just suggested the two best ways to proceed about adding corps if they ever will add.I thought i was clear .Sure you can't do both things , devs either add corps or not, but if they wanted it to be on this game ,i expained about how they could do it without make it tiring for people.
 
i edited my last answer. Also check this:

IMG_1088.JPG


This is the army corps planner i visualized.So how this would work?First you assign your army with lets say... 25 divisions, 10 of infantry, 5 motorized and 5 armored.In the field army interface where there is the general you want to assign, you can have a create corps button, when clicking this button this menu above should appear to you.

1:you can assign types of divisions(types from the army planner so in case you can have two types of infantry divisions in the same army corps) you have available in the field army, but the maximum divisions you can assign is 5 divisions.

3: as i said, you can have multiple types of divisions to assign so this is like the number 1 but with these multiple types of divisions

2:This is the number of corps you can create with those divisions assigned, but the maximum is five corps and it will take in consideration the availability of those divisions.An example: if you assign in this army 3 mot-inf and 2 armored divisions but you only have 1 armored available, it won't be possible to create this corps.Also it will not be mandatory to create an army corps, you still can use armies as you always do, this is just to make the game more realistic and fun at the same time, maybe using army corps planner you can do some extra things and have more flexibility.
 
How does this actually add fun to my game though, when I could do virtually the same thing with what they already showed in this DD and with none of the annoying micro of this pop-up system?
 
How does this actually add fun to my game though, when I could do virtually the same thing with what they already showed in this DD and with none of the annoying micro of this pop-up system?

well, you may not be interested in creating army corps but there are many people that even commented before about implementing corps like hoi3.If you dont want to create corps you dont have to its just an option for people who likes micromanagement and at same time will not lose time creating,assigning and naming corps after corps.Following your logic, then why they allowed army customization if they could just give the templates so we could use, why allowing us to name units .
 
well, you may not be interested in creating army corps but there are many people that even commented before about implementing corps like hoi3.If you dont want to create corps you dont have to its just an option for people who likes micromanagement and at same time will not lose time creating,assigning and naming corps after corps.Following your logic, then why they allowed army customization if they could just give the templates so we could use, why allowing us to name units .

To be fair, I think the people wanting an OOB like HOI3 might still be a minority. That said, modability of the system could lead to a complex OOB mod, for those who want it.
 
First one is to not implement oob into a corps level because it would bring the tiredness into this game

As long as it's not forced upon the players (or "required" to min/max bonuses from stacked generals) I don't see any problem with sub-groups (like corps or whatnot).

PDS are only adding Army-Group level currently (with Field Marshals as the only option to lead them). If we could have control-groups below army-level to subdivide armies further (but optional and without any other benefits than keeping some semblance of order in the battle-planner) I wouldn't mind.
But we don't want the micro madness of fiddling around with corps and HQs as we had in HOI3.
 
The goal IMO is to implement just ONE more layer than what we have today, and have the AI do it just as well as a human could. The problem with HOI3 wasn't the micro, it was the optional AI-control to take the micro away from you was so pathetic, it begged you to do it manually in order to win. Few people let the AI control things on their side. That's why we don't have optional AI control of various human player functions in HOI4, it would expose the AI more than it already has been. I loved that HOI3 optional AI capability - I would use it in various "dont care" theaters or various "dont care" functions, so I could focus on what I wanted to control.

I'm all for only implementing features that the AI can do well, but in general the AI is not keeping pace. However in this case, I am hoping and frankly expecting that the adding of one more layer of CoC will actually make the AI perform better. The Eastern Front is just one massive blob to the AI, this will certainly give it more focus.
 
well, you may not be interested in creating army corps but there are many people that even commented before about implementing corps like hoi3.If you dont want to create corps you dont have to its just an option for people who likes micromanagement and at same time will not lose time creating,assigning and naming corps after corps.Following your logic, then why they allowed army customization if they could just give the templates so we could use, why allowing us to name units .

My question though is why I would want them to waste precious development time making this when it is basically already in the game? I get it: the grognard in all of us is wanting to be the Rommel or Mannstein of our dreams ordering vast numbers of electrons into brilliant strategic maneuvers, but we already have this functionality in the game from what I've seen: just have a few less divisions assigned to one particular general or something. They allowed us to name units because some want to have names that make sense to them, as opposed to names (historical or not) that don't. I want things that overall add to the game, regardless of whether or not they are used by the player, and I can't see how that would actually happen.
 
Aside from the corps discussion,

I would like a more fleshed out battle planner. I want there to be a setting that allows me to designate certain divisions as reserves. These divisions should form up with the rest of the army on the battle line, either offensive or defensive, but should try to hang back 1 province.

In my mind, the AI should automatically use these divisions to exploit breakthroughs or shore up defending divisions.
 
Yeah, reserves would be very good, and is more easily done with a proper CoC. The reserves could be assigned to the AG commander while waiting, and swapped/added to the Army commander when needed. The AG reserves could be drawn from a theater wide reserve pool, which is drawn from a single strategic reserve.
 
What I want is a choice for the front lines of different armies not to overlap.

I also want a way to "paint" territory that you want your army to advance and capture. This will actually allow encirclements with the battle planner.
 
What I want is a choice for the front lines of different armies not to overlap.
That is indeed a nuisance, hopefully it'll be somewhat remedied in the new patch as they're adding another OOB layer and modifies the BP mechanics.
I also want a way to "paint" territory that you want your army to advance and capture. This will actually allow encirclements with the battle planner.
Blitz command works wonders in that regard. Also ALT key (or edit BP) lets you move the anchor-points so you can basically design which provinces you want to move through down to the smallest detail.
 
You mean spearhead? Interesting. I'll give it a try later.

Yeh spearhead works really well. Its a sight to behold watching your armor and motorized roaming freely behind the enemy lines once they've punched a hole.
 
What are the seperate skill levels capped at?

Is it level 10? If so, I don't think it is wise to give the Germans max level logistics as they historically had a lot of problems on the eastern front.

Perhaps you could tie logistics to an overall army motorization level which could be modeled by the amount of motorized you have in your stockpile.

And on that note, why are we not able to CONVERT motorized to motorized rocket artillery. (or even to primitive mechanized in that regard)

Towed artillery that uses both motorized and the respective artillery brigade (aa, at, and art)

I would consider reducing the amount of army xp required to change up templates to 1( for all brigades, heck maybe even 0) as keeping the way it is in the present creates the tedious meta of deleting all but one division to train for army xp. This could somewhat alleviate the problem of cookie cutter division designs that nations are forced to use due to limited army xp.

You could alternatively change the land doctrines to maybe alter combat width of brigades (or the entire battlefield) to encourage variability in design. Maybe removing the soft attack bonuses from SF and lowering the combat width of artillery, lowering the combat width (and production cost) of tanks and mot/mech for deep battle (move the infantry combat width reduction to the first branching tech as it creates problems if you want to switch doctrine mid war and for that matter why does the reduction not apply to special forces?). Grand battle plan could increase the amount of support battalions able to be carried in a division and give bonuses to attacking fortifications/naval invasions. Mobile warfare can remain unchanged as +60% breakthrough for tanks is HUGE.

Most of this is good and accurate - in general, speed, motorization, and logistics need to be tied together more as a way to break up the meta, and more realistically represent armies in the period. The German Army was mostly drawn by horse, while the Allies eventually had fully motorized logistics/operational mobility - and this actually gives them a greater logistic burden than the foot infantry of the Wermacht? Motorization is a spectrum, not a yes-no either-or status, and the bad representation of motorization/complete absence of motorized artillery/AT/AA contributes to the boring meta, because unless you can afford SP-Art, any mobile formations you field will be both weaker and more expensive than just spamming 7-2.
 
This has probably been mentioned before. I just dawned on me that we will be needing way more generals now that it makes sense to assign a single division to an army and de facto assign that single division to a general.
 
This has probably been mentioned before. I just dawned on me that we will be needing way more generals now that it makes sense to assign a single division to an army and de facto assign that single division to a general.
Let's hope they'll add the missing generals for the DoD nations then!
 
Question about how it is developing. The current system has a problem with divisions getting shuffled all up and down a front line. This change seems to allow for defining lanes, or clear AOs within a master plan. Do divisions stay in their lanes?

I might suggest not capping the number of divisions a general can control, but rather the width of an army group front. The eastern front could have a theater commander with 3 army groups that have limited width but can contain an unlimited number of divisions.

Also, think about having divisions attach directly to the FM, which would act as a reserve. Army groups needing support could pull divisions from the reserve, damaged units are rotated back to the reserve for recovery, and the AI could balance forces by pulling units from one AG back to the theatre reserve and then sending them where needed.

The holy grail would be unified front planning where I could assign a FM, draw the AGs with their desired division types and manuver, and then hit go. The FM then assesses and requests I attach the nessary forces to his reserve, and from there he assigns them to the AGs. If i lack it, then i try to build it, or I can flag a planned AG as Allied and then the call goes out for an expeditionary force. (Which could clean up that whole mess. The only EFs sent would be what was needed for a plan).

If things could get to that point, this game would be incredable. Plan driven AI! This the proposed update is a step in the right direction.