HOI4 Dev Diary - Future and Cornflakes

[Alex_brunius]

the kinetic energy is not what causes the majority of the damage of a hit its purpose is to defeat the armour so the shell can explode inside.

Not really. The explosives carried in a naval armor piercing shell are called a "bursting charge" which hints that their main reason is to burst the shell and shatter it's fragments, rather then be the main contribution to damage. Fragments from the armor and shell can be spread out over a large volume inside the ship, and do vastly more damage then the explosives alone would. Iowa's/Bismarck's AP shells for example carried just 18kg of bursting charge, and the remaining ~1000kg of shell fragments which still have considerable speed after going through the armor does most of the damage.

The principle is a bit similar to modern HEAT actually, make a "small" hole on the outside, and a massive mess on the inside.

with 9 guns firing 2 rounds a minute it would take about an hour to fire all your shells while the destroyer can fire its anti ship missiles way faster and while the destroyer doesnt have the total shells of a battleship being able to do all the dmage in the first 10 min is far more beneficial than being able to keep up firing for hours (at least in naval battels)

Time never was part of the discussion about which which ship carriers the most firepower. And no is claiming a WW2 Battleship would win over a modern Missile Destroyer here so you can relax

also while no current estroyer (or equivalent) carries more than 8 anti ship missiles that to me seems more an issue of simply not needing it as they could easily carry enough if they removed some sam.

I couldn't find any examples of Anti Ship Missiles that are usable in the Vertical launch tubes that the SAMs use. The ASMs have their own separate launchers generally angled at ~45 degrees ( both Russian and western models ), and I'm pretty sure they are not compatible.

You probably would need to either make some extensive modifications to the ships, or develop new ASMs which can be launched from vertical tubes to be able to fit more ASMs ( but it's not my area of expertise ).

 

[Zaras]

Improving Peace Conferences

Perhaps it would be useful to treat the war-ending peace conferences as the conclusion to a process that takes place during the war as well.

What I mean is that, even during the war, the allies would meet (such as the Tehran Conference historically).

We currently have a system for transferring occupied territory, claims/cores, and AI preferences based on government type (etc.).

If extended occupation of an area gave that nation more say in how that territory will be handled in the peace treaty (reduced cost or something, based on troop presence/occupation length?), that could provide an incentive for players to harbor ulterior motives and prioritize certain theaters of war over others (possible betrayals...? ).

If there are periodic conferences (with or without game pauses if possible for dealing with only one or two issues at a time), this could provide for more direct goals (for bonus warscore reward etc. if/when achieved?), reduce the big warscore unloading of the final peace conference at war's end, and likewise open up time and potential uses for influencing government/increasing opinion diplomatic actions. Maybe a nation could trade warscore like a currency/influence to support one proposal or another, incentivize occupation transfers, or trade for equipment/licenses/etc. (smaller cobelligerents can form coalitions to buoy the ambitions of the great powers -- will great powers avoid calling in certain countries to war when considering this as well?).

Some gameplay precedents to consider -- for good or for ill: Flashpoint Crises mechanic in Victoria II, and the game phase flow found in the classic board game "Diplomacy".

http://www.wizards.com/global/images/ah_prod_diplomacy_pic3_en.jpg

I didn't read the whole thread, but I used the search function, and this was the only detailed suggestion on improving peace conferences, that I found.

I have a different suggestion, because I usually play the United States and by now have figured out how the beat the Nazis by early 1941. (I'm writing the guide on this at the wiki.) So I don't have to divide Europe between myself and the Soviet Union, but even with very high warscore, I can't take all the German provinces, because France or Great Britain always selects the 'change government' option for Germany. Here peace conferences are probably working as intended; it should not be possible for a democratic player to annex ALL enemy territory in a peace conference, unless he has a REALLY high warscore.

But this is not how the Allied victors dealt with fascist Germany historically. Instead they divided the country into different occupation zones, and only later there emerged two different German states, one from the western allies' occupation zones, one from Soviet Union's. In any peace conference, where there are two or more independent countries (with more than a marginal warscore) on the victorious side, it could work like this: All countries with a significant warscore simultaneously designate the provinces that they wish to occupy, based on the percentage of their war contribution. Countries with insignificant warscore (<2%?) 'donate' it to the country that they like most. All conflicts on territory that are desired as occupation zones by two or more countries are then resolved, e.g. by an auction with political power as currency.

Afterwards, puppets can be created from the occupied territory, with democracies gaining disadvantages (again, political power costs? or national unity, if this is reworked?), if they keep the territory occupied for to long. It would however be possible, that two or more democratic countries create different puppets from the territory of a single state. Didn't that almost happen historically with the Saar territory, which was occupied by France? Also there would be different kinds of puppets available to communist and democratic countries, with the puppets of communist overlords giving more benefits, to compensate the removal of the reduced warscore cost for puppeting for communist countries. This would actually make the game more historically accurate, and make peace conferences more controllable.

 

[halvorni]

Why isn't improving AI on this list???!!!!!

Oh... well, I see.

No, I think this looks very good. My pet peeve is the current lack of chain of command, where I can have literally hundreds of divisions with no hierarchy whatsoever.
Having field marshals commanding generals will surely be a good start, but I would very much like to have corps, armies and army groups back similar to how it was in HoI3, with the possibility to have special support units at the different echelons.

 

[Munin]

The five year plan

....

I m kind of dissapointed that there won't be an extra effort on the naval warfare & pacific theatre. Even the airzones got some attention in the last DLC, somehow it feels odd that naval warfare wich is a big part of the game for nations like UK & USA doesn't come into the priority list.

Since this whole game focuses mostly on Germany vs Soviet Union what it seems to need mostly is an effort on the pacific theatre, the war between USA & Japan could be way more interesting that way. I really hope that you re currently putting effort into spies, China & the minors because you have something you will do with the pacific theatre later (an expansion / big dlc).

Also an elegant solution for the xp hard caps would be nice (500 land/air/naval xp caps)

 

[Gamer_1745]

I m kind of dissapointed that there won't be an extra effort on the naval warfare & pacific theatre.

Who said there wasn't?

Just to be super clear, this is not any form of exhaustive or final list and unless we have already done it we can't promise anythings. Priorities change etc. The point of this is to give you an idea of things we would like to do. The order of things is also not in any kind of priority order, or order we would do them.

.

 

[BlueAndGrey]

My quick answer is no. Mostly because it never actually happened in real life.
1) Even on paper, no 2 countries divisions were the same in terms of manpower, weapons mix, etc.
2) Only on paper were 2 divisions from the same country the same in terms of manpower, weapons mix, etc.

I don't want nations to have the same template, I want nations like Britain to have their templates TO&E to match up to the historical divisions they are meant to represent

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

Since it was brought up and I forgot about it on my big list I too would appreciate an air supply system implemented if/when they get around to replacing the current air-war system.
Per previous conjecture this demands to have a fuel usage model to account for the actual available weight in a plane making the round trip in and out of a pocket.

While low on the priority list in my opinion, it does have an interesting set of ramifications for WWII. Capturing airfields with light troops was demonstrated to good effect in the Spanish Civil war and then utilized by the Germans quite successfully. This is predicated on having a very lightly defended territory followed by the immediate capture of a port and the establishment of shipping lanes for replenishment of heavier supplies.

So air-resupply would be a delicate balancing act allowing for some things to get in, but should not allow for heavy equipment. Basically it was good for invading Norway, but shouldn't allow operation Flying Sea Lion (which sadly exists anyways).

I would also love to see Paratroopers that airdrop have a much shorter out-of supply grace window. Rather than the 30 days or what-not units currently have they should be 5-7 days at most.

 

[Wraith11B]

I couldn't find any examples of Anti Ship Missiles that are usable in the Vertical launch tubes that the SAMs use. The ASMs have their own separate launchers generally angled at ~45 degrees ( both Russian and western models ), and I'm pretty sure they are not compatible.

Block IV Tomahawks are launched from the VLS, and the SM-2 Standard missile has a secondary anti-ship mission (don't know if they really train this or not).

 

[Alex_brunius]

Block IV Tomahawks are launched from the VLS, and the SM-2 Standard missile has a secondary anti-ship mission (don't know if they really train this or not).

From the info I could find Block IV Tomahawks don't have an anti ship role. It's possible some later versions the SM-2 Missiles after it was made vertically launch capable could do it though. Interesting.

 

[Nostromo84]

I especially like the idea of limiting the size of the army after de war, once the war is over you are left with massive armies, historically the armies would disband and the economy return to civilian production.
There should also be incentives to return to a civilian economy, currently there is no point of going "back" economic laws even after the war ends.
It could be represented with a form of unrest, and loss of productivity in the factories, that would motivate to reduce military factories and return to civilian production, until the next war.

 

[Yossarian23]

I just want to call out that I suspect "Cornflakes" refers to Tiger tanks, by way of Tony the Tiger, the well-known mascot for both Frosted Flakes and disgusting furry erotica.

 

[holoween]

Not really. The explosives carried in a naval armor piercing shell are called a "bursting charge" which hints that their main reason is to burst the shell and shatter it's fragments, rather then be the main contribution to damage. Fragments from the armor and shell can be spread out over a large volume inside the ship, and do vastly more damage then the explosives alone would. Iowa's/Bismarck's AP shells for example carried just 18kg of bursting charge, and the remaining ~1000kg of shell fragments which still have considerable speed after going through the armor does most of the damage.

The principle is a bit similar to modern HEAT actually, make a "small" hole on the outside, and a massive mess on the inside.

sigh im not sure if im simply not properly conveying what i mean or if you think im stupid. obviously after the shell penetrates the armour there is kinetic energy left and the shell does damage. however if that was what had the main impact then there wouldnt be a need for he filler. and that the fragments of the shell after it exploded are what causes the main damage and not the blast from the explosion i didnt think i needed to clarify.

also no its not in the least comparable to heat if you did want to compare it to tank rounds the ww2 german ap rounds are essentially the same.

Time never was part of the discussion about which which ship carriers the most firepower. And no is claiming a WW2 Battleship would win over a modern Missile Destroyer here so you can relax

the time it takes to deliver the stored firepower is quite important. otherwise i could claim that if i have a large stack of grenades and chuck one every few min id have more firepower than an artillery piece which is obviously ludicrous.

I couldn't find any examples of Anti Ship Missiles that are usable in the Vertical launch tubes that the SAMs use. The ASMs have their own separate launchers generally angled at ~45 degrees ( both Russian and western models ), and I'm pretty sure they are not compatible.

You probably would need to either make some extensive modifications to the ships, or develop new ASMs which can be launched from vertical tubes to be able to fit more ASMs ( but it's not my area of expertise ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM its in development. also if it was required you could modify the destroyers to have far more anti ship missiles its just that there are more aircraft around that need shooting at than ships.

 

[Thimorin]

A chain of command!
Sound good.
Hopefully a little bit more complax as only Marshal and General...

 

[seldon]

One thing, I'd love to see is a dynamic difficulty level, similar to Expert AI (actually incorporating much of the expert AI code would be a good idea.)

Essentially, what I want is to be able to have the option to increase the difficulty if I'm doing very well. Expert AI does this by giving a production andcombat bonus as the country is closer to capitulation.

What I'd like to see is more events, where the player is giving the opportunity for taking Malus in order to increase the difficulty level.

Some examples
As German, when at war with Russia. An increased Lend Lease option.
As France, when Germany is having trouble, A demoralized army options, lower the organization of all the units
As Japan, when at war with allies. the allies develop drop tanks which increase the range of fighters, CAS, and Naval air by 20%
As German, Jewish uprising which sabatagsabotageies and reduce production.

The player doesn't have to accept this options, but I think they would be more immersive than just adjusting sliders.

 

[Kozality]

From the info I could find Block IV Tomahawks don't have an anti ship role. It's possible some later versions the SM-2 Missiles after it was made vertically launch capable could do it though. Interesting.

TASM was removed from the inventory, but there's some mumbling of reintroducing it. LRASM will likely take up this role, however.

And the SM-2 does have a secondary ASM function, but it's just that, secondary.

Within the US Navy, the anti-shipping role is largely held by aircraft and submarines, the former using the SLAM-ER and JDAM. US Harpoons hasn't received an upgrade in years. ASM role in US destroyers has atrophied. But at least now it's getting some attention.

 

[Axe99]

I m kind of dissapointed that there won't be an extra effort on the naval warfare & pacific theatre. Even the airzones got some attention in the last DLC, somehow it feels odd that naval warfare wich is a big part of the game for nations like UK & USA doesn't come into the priority list.

I don't disagree that the naval side of things would benefit from a bit of love, but I don't think the devs disagree either .

• More player control over naval warfare and fleet battle behaviour
• Improved naval combat interfaces with good transparency to underlying mechanics (give it the 1.4 air treatment)
• Improve balance, feedback and mechanics for submarine warfare

 

[Jeff Green]

Modestus my friend,

I know now they tested the HoI 3 style counters with HOI IV. They just didn't work with the 3D map. The counters we love so much need a 2D map. I wonder if someone would make a 2D map for HOI IV???? I think I could get them to make/release the traditional counters for HOI IV.

Maybe it could be part of a Counters & Map DLC????

That's a DLC I'd buy. Until then my money is staying in my pocket for this game.

 

[Nagły atak spawacza]

Do we have a chance for getting more histrorical events like spliting Italy between Allies and Axis (on historical way), detachment Rommania from Axis to soviets, uprisings? Endsieg made it almost perfectly

 

[Wraith11B]

From the info I could find Block IV Tomahawks don't have an anti ship role. It's possible some later versions the SM-2 Missiles after it was made vertically launch capable could do it though. Interesting.

It's an update, but it is coming:
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/na...alizing-maritime-strike-tomahawk-missile-deal

and the Standard missile was always supposed to attack air and surface assets, hence the name "Standard". The USN got away from it because, well, not many surface actions, but it was used in Operation Preying Mantis for anti-surface operations...

"On April 18, 1988, during Operation Praying Mantis, the frigate USS Simpson fired four RIM-66 Standard missiles and the cruiser USS Wainwright fired two RIM-67 Standard missiles at Joshan, an Iranian (Combattante II) Kaman-class missile boat. The attacks destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not sink it."

Which is probably why they've gotten away from using it in surface strike packages: not necessarily enough punch to sink a ship outright.

Anyways, SAMs based aboard ships or surface-strike should be available if the timeline eventually goes through the Korean war or early Cold War.

 

[kentul01]

Wow! Hopefully, this will make HOI4 be as it should have been at launch!