HOI4 Dev Diary - Combat and Stats changes

[blahmaster6k]

since it is true for @blahmaster6k (or at least strongly implied that it's true)

I don't particularly care what the base combat width is. Whether it's 80 (which incentivizes the 20/40w meta) or some other number doesn't matter to me. I just am not sure if I like the idea of different widths per terrain when said different widths don't have a GCF greater than 1. Personally, I think different terrain widths with a GCF of at least 15 would be fine.

I have fun in the current system, and I'm sure I would have just as much fun with any other arbitrary number. It's not the 20/40 meta that I like, it's the fact that the combat system is balanced well enough in my opinion, and there's no need to fix what isn't broken. I understand some people disagree with that, most vocally the people who prioritize historical accuracy at all costs over gameplay, but that's just my opinion.

EDIT: Another thing to add is that I'm perfectly willing to give any changes a fair try. We don't really have enough information yet to know how the combat system will pan out in an actual game, so all we have to go on is math and theorycrafting. It's possible that the new system will be perfectly fine and there won't be anything to complain about. It's also possible that it will end up completely horrible and no one will like it, not even the people advocating for it now. We just don't know enough yet.

 

[blahmaster6k]

how are people "respectfully disagreeing" with a subjective statement lmao
like if you say "some people like 'x'" and you are one of those people, then that's not a statement someone can disagree with

I very deliberately didn't say "all people like X" for this reason. There will always be some people who like something, and others who dislike that same thing. Paradox is in the unfortunate position of having to please everyone as best they can, when the community is heavily divided on a lot of preferred game design decisions.

I will add that "Some people like X" is an objective statement of fact, as long as at least one person does indeed like X. "X is fine" is a subjective statement, because it's a statement of opinion.

I also think that a lot of the time "respectfully disagree" is used as an "i think you're stupid and I don't like you, I just can't word it any more harshly or I will be banned" button.

You were saying that requiring unfun gameplay to play optimally was unreasonable.

Which, sure, I can go with that (up to a point; in some cases the unfun gameplay thus required is so incredibly baroque that you can't actually do it in multiplayer).

However, for some people, building 20w/40w divisions (the current optimum) is unfun gameplay because of the way fun works for them.

I don't care myself, but I can think of at least two good reasons why other people would quite reasonably find it unfun in a wargame about WW2.

This is a fair point. Again, I get where others are coming from, I just don't know if I agree myself.

 

[mursolini]

I mean, the Expert AI mod does/did just this. It simply made the AI use Meta templates and build up strategies. The actual day-to-day management of divisions isn't touched, but they will all either be 40W infantry, 40W tanks, or Space Marines. I could never get into it because I avoid multiplayer and min/maxing, which the mod tries to emulate at the expense of everything else. I completely agree with you on the direction of the game.

Even with Expert AI, average player will wipe the floor with AI. It just makes advantage less, from ~30:1 to :10:1, or 5-7:1for bad players, in casualties.

Now, if do something like Expert AIs + buff your future opponents with sliders and set yourself to veteran, then you might have to use min-max, tech rushing, meta division composition and maybe struggle.

 

[Mikhail Kalashnikov]

For some people, 20w/40w being the meta is fun.

It's completely subjective. I can make the same argument as you.

Realism still matters. Nobody uses 20w IRL

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Realism still matters. Nobody uses 20w IRL

nobody uses a different template for forest/hill/mountain/plains/urban terrain IRL either...

 

[sekelsenmat]

nobody uses a different template for forest/hill/mountain/plains/urban terrain IRL either...

If they decrease the over-width penalty to 1x then it will no longer be necessary to fit perfectly the CW, will it? Maybe they will do that.

 

[blahmaster6k]

If they decrease the over-width penalty to 1x then it will no longer be necessary to fit perfectly the CW, will it? Maybe they will do that.

if you have a 1% over width penalty it wouldn't fix the issue.
if you are 25% over the combat width, and the over width penalty is 25% as a result:
1 * 1.25 * 0.75 = 0.9375

You're still taking a noticeable penalty that you want to avoid in that situation.

 

[sekelsenmat]

if you have a 1% over width penalty it wouldn't fix the issue.
if you are 25% over the combat width, and the over width penalty is 25% as a result:
1 * 1.25 * 0.75 = 0.9375

You're still taking a noticeable penalty that you want to avoid in that situation.

That's impossible, see:

https://imgur.com/lvqBDH9

At 80w the cut off is 93w, at 120w the cutoff is 139w and after that 20w above the original. Obviously the algorithm is that the maximum width is the minimum between (original + 20) and the width which guarantees over-width <= 16.5% (maximum penalty of 33% right now)

So if you decrease to 1x, the maximum over-width will be 16.5%, so:

1.165*0.835=0.97277

So I think this proves it would fix the issue?

 

[blahmaster6k]

That's impossible, see:

https://imgur.com/lvqBDH9

At 80w the cut off is 93w, at 120w the cutoff is 139w and after that 20w above the original. Obviously the algorithm is that the maximum width is the minimum between (original + 20) and the width which guarantees over-width <= 16.5% (maximum penalty of 33% right now)

So if you decrease to 1x, the maximum over-width will be 16.5%, so:

1.165*0.835=0.97277

So I think this proves it would fix the issue?

Partially. I hadn't considered that part of the calculations when I made up my hypothetical numbers, so you're right when you say that that would be the maximum (theoretical) penalty. However, that's still a penalty however small. And that's ignoring the fact that it's not just a waste of combat stats, but a waste of IC. That extra division that joins a combat is effectively only contributing a small percentage of its stats to the battle but still costs its full IC complement. Over a playthrough this will lead to huge amounts of effectively wasted division/hours.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

If they decrease the over-width penalty to 1x then it will no longer be necessary to fit perfectly the CW, will it? Maybe they will do that.

It never was necessary to perfectly fit it. It's necessary to perfectly fit it to play optimally.
Even if they make it so the combat width is guaranteed to be filled so long as you have enough combat width in your divisions to fill it (i.e if you have two 40 width units in a 41 width combat, both will join) then any percentage of your division which is over combat width will be "wasted." You will have put ICs into a division which will be having no impact on the game.
And since that likely won't be the case, not having the perfect combat width will also lead to lots of issues with units being unable to reinforce into battles - think 40w and the river crossing combat phase, but worse and more further in favor of the attacker. For example - you're defending a plains tile with 30s, and get pushed back into a mountain in a two-front battle. Your opponent can have chosen to make 34-widths or something similar, and will only be wasting 2 combat width. Meanwhile, you're capped out at 3 divisions in the battle, meaning you'll be at a 10-width disadvantage.

 

[blahmaster6k]

It never was necessary to perfectly fit it. It's necessary to perfectly fit it to play optimally.
Even if they make it so the combat width is guaranteed to be filled so long as you have enough combat width in your divisions to fill it (i.e if you have two 40 width units in a 41 width combat, both will join) then any percentage of your division which is over combat width will be "wasted." You will have put ICs into a division which will be having no impact on the game.
And since that likely won't be the case, not having the perfect combat width will also lead to lots of issues with units being unable to reinforce into battles - think 40w and the river crossing combat phase, but worse and more further in favor of the attacker. For example - you're defending a plains tile with 30s, and get pushed back into a mountain in a two-front battle. Your opponent can have chosen to make 34-widths or something similar, and will only be wasting 2 combat width. Meanwhile, you're capped out at 3 divisions in the battle, meaning you'll be at a 10-width disadvantage.

Considering Stellaris used to have a very popular mod for automatic pop resettlement, perhaps HoI4 will see high demand for a mod called "automatic template conversion" lol.

Or, they could just scrap the new different combat widths design decision. I'm leaning more and more towards feeling that it's a bad idea as showcased so far.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Considering Stellaris used to have a very popular mod for automatic pop resettlement, perhaps HoI4 will see high demand for a mod called "automatic template conversion" lol.

Does anyone remember how long it takes to re-equip a division after switching the template?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Does anyone remember how long it takes to re-equip a division after switching the template?

None, if you're shrinking the division. Very little, if all you're doing is adding a single infantry battalion.

I believe it comes back 10% of the division's full manpower requirement at a time, every two weeks. But I'm not 100% sure on this. Equipment reinforcement is practically instant.
The only time you would encounter significant reinforcement time is if you're turning a 2w spam division into a 40w division, or converting tanks into infantry. The first scenario is irrelevant for combat since you do it far behind the lines, the second is impractical as you almost never would do that.

If all you do is add an inf battalion, your division will be at 90% strength for a week or two. I'd rather take a 10% penalty on some infantry which mostly exist to org wall anyway than waste 90% of a whole division's IC cost.

 

[Znail]

That's impossible, see:

https://imgur.com/lvqBDH9

At 80w the cut off is 93w, at 120w the cutoff is 139w and after that 20w above the original. Obviously the algorithm is that the maximum width is the minimum between (original + 20) and the width which guarantees over-width <= 16.5% (maximum penalty of 33% right now)

So if you decrease to 1x, the maximum over-width will be 16.5%, so:

1.165*0.835=0.97277

So I think this proves it would fix the issue?

Interesting, so at around 0.86% penalty so will it even out the benifits. But perhaps 1% is close enough not to matter or even make going over the new meta. It wont be that difficult to optimise your combat width for the 2-3 terrain types you are most likely to encounter or to make another template for other areas. The only negative thing I can see with the current suggested system is that it requires some math by the players.

 

[Balesir]

Min-maxing something like research leads to noticeable good results - you get the tank you want years ahead of time compared to not researching ahead of time. Min-maxing leads to a benefit for yourself, and it feels good to obtain that benefit.

If researching ahead is generally optimal, then that's a flaw with both historical accuracy and gameplay. Researching ahead can only generally (ie. by everybody) be done at the expense of other technologies that are "within time". For the research ahead to be optimal, either the thing it is optimal to tech rush must be overpowered in the game or the technologies being eschewed for it are suboptimal/a waste of game coding/a trap option. Tech rushing for certain, limited circumstances is fine, but if it's generally optimal to rush specific techs then that's an issue with both the historical modelling (assuming the correct year has been assigned to each tech) and with the gameplay (having trap options and redundant game elements is never good).

 

[Nikolai II]

• #524

A way to rationalize it in your mind would be to think of the artillery you field as more than just the actual guns themselves, but also representing the huge array of ammunition limbers, range finding, forward observation, signals equipment, all the things you need to keep a modern gun line working. The gun is visual symbolism to represent all of that. It'd be a very busy 2d weapon sprite indeed, otherwise.
===============================================================================


Seriously? Am I understanding this wrong? Of course the Artillery unit has equipment besides the guns. But you represent that by support equipment, trucks, etc.

Change the Artillery unit
twelve (12) guns
combat width one (1)
ORG to 36
Divide the combat values by a third (1/3).
Leave the 50 trucks as is in the motorized version.
Leave the supply consumption numbers as is.

That will not fix the problem with the Artillery unit, but at least it is correctly identified as a battalion.
ORG change is based on a current 9/1 becoming a 9/3, same average ORG.

Don't agree with this. "The firepower is also about what you would expect to see from a battalion."
But that is a separate issue deserving its own thread.

I like this one very much, but you don't have to divide the combat values. Combat values = the sum of all guns, so if you third the guns you get a third of the combat factor.

But dividing guns and combat width with a third (and org effects) would make artillery exactly the same as now, only slightly more expensive for the division designer.
But also a lot nicer in the division designer, and prettier sheets (each regiment can have an art batt), match up better with AA/AT guns (who already are width 1) and make adding artillery to your beginning templates more granular.

 

[Kenzelek]

And here's where the rubber meets the road. People with the obsession that says everything must be completely optimal on every playthrough and every battle, are the ones who are hating this combat width change. Well, war isn't/wasn't like that. Generals didn't get to pick the optimal setup every time. Why should you be able to in HOI4 automatically?

YMMV.

I have a handful of hours in this game. I had my fun with memes, I had my fun with abusing bad AI. Now I want a fair and square, challenging game. Am I a expection? On this forum? Yea, probably.

 

[Kenzelek]

If researching ahead is generally optimal, then that's a flaw with both historical accuracy and gameplay. Researching ahead can only generally (ie. by everybody) be done at the expense of other technologies that are "within time". For the research ahead to be optimal, either the thing it is optimal to tech rush must be overpowered in the game or the technologies being eschewed for it are suboptimal/a waste of game coding/a trap option. Tech rushing for certain, limited circumstances is fine, but if it's generally optimal to rush specific techs then that's an issue with both the historical modelling (assuming the correct year has been assigned to each tech) and with the gameplay (having trap options and redundant game elements is never good).

When a game is about numbers, that's what u get. U research stuff to get higher base stats, better modifiers. Research is about proritizing what modifiers do u think are more important. Are u going to spend time researching 1936 extra +5% defense, when war is gonna start in 1939? Sure u can. But u can also hard research tanks or air. Like what tech am I going to lose on? Tech that's useless for me, because I decide to proritize stuff that's IMPORTANT. This is a game and it's a strategy game. Builds and optimal macro are core of gameplay, and so is decision making.

It really seems like people on this forum just want to limit people's creativity while encouraging memes. It's fine to get armor 20 tank, but god forbid someone from rushing tech. Lol.

 

[George Parr]

nobody uses a different template for forest/hill/mountain/plains/urban terrain IRL either...

And nobody is forced to do that in the game either. You somehow thinking that the changes will lead to that only means that you might try and play that way. That doesn't somehow mean that the majority of players will think the same way.

I have no idea why anyone would even think that players in general could be bothered to try and create optimal divisions for every situation and terrain, when such a thing would neither work with the battle planner nor be something you could pull off when moving all your units on your own. There is an enemy after all, and you will never have a situation in which you could always be set up perfectly outside of maybe the very first attack in an offensive.

Battles where different, and opponents were often limited to what they could bring into the field by the circumstances of that particular battle. There is no logic in thinking there must always be a perfect fit, or that people would need to build units specifically for every terrain. There were plenty of battles where one side would have loved to bring in all their firepower, as they had the numerical advantage, but were forced to fight on the enemy's terms, because that's the only thing the terrain allowed. The US-Army didn't somehow develop new divisional templates just because the Hürtgen-forest was not something they could handle the way they liked to.

The most sensible approach would be to develop a divisional setup that generally works the best. That doesn't mean that it will always be the best. Instead it might not be the best in any individual scenario, but it will be the best fit when you look at the average encounters and terrains you will have. Just like they did in real life.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

But dividing guns and combat width with a third (and org effects) would make artillery exactly the same as now, only slightly more expensive for the division designer.

That was the point. So cost should be changed as well. And as you stated, it fits much nicer into the Division Designer.

The German "historical" template is currently a 27w, 9/3. Making it a 30w is pretty simple, just add 2x AT bn's and 1x AA bn. Hence 9/3/2(AT)/1(AA).

So my suggested change was intended to keep the artillery unit the same and compatible with the new release, just changing the gun counts.