HOI4 Dev Diary - Man the Guns and PdxCon

[Khevenhuller]

That sounds like a total overhaul of the Naval Doctrines to fit with the new mechanic.

I doubt it. I fear we will be saddled with the 'war movie' doctrines and structures we currently have. The same as land and air doctrines in fact.

K

 

[kaguravitro]

where the new dev diary? they said "fuel" and 2 weeks of punishment @u@

 

[Alex_brunius]

where the new dev diary? they said "fuel" and 2 weeks of punishment @u@

Answered at the bottom of this dev diary:

As have been mentioned elsewhere this doesn't mean we are ready to start up regular diaries yet. You guys are not really fans of filler stuff, so we are going to have to wait a little longer for diaries to start up regularly again. I will let you know as soon as we feel ready to start showing things off proper.

 

[kaguravitro]

Answered at the bottom of this dev diary:

not enought to me...

 

[Mannstien]

I would assume that will be fixed in the course of the naval combat rework.

2019 or 2020?

 

[kaguravitro]

2018/2019 a minimun hope

 

[Khevenhuller]

2019 or 2020?

People could die by then. Not that i am volunteering, mind...

K

 

[Axe99]

I was thinking of Savo Island (09/08/42). For Guadalcanal (13/11/42) there is a lovely bit in Edward's book 'Salvo' where he writes: 'As usual, the American ships were using their TBS with complete abandon. Consequently, when Helena's radar picked up VADM Abe's squadron thundering down The Slot towards them, the Japanese were already aware of their approach'. Radar certainly did not save poor Atlanta, she was plastered by Hiei and Kirishima while Callaghan dithered over what to do. Again, to quote Edwards: 'The American ships were in complete disarray and being attacked by the Japanese from all sides. Callaghan's commanders, still hopelessly inadequate in the art of night fighting, used their primitive radar sets rather than their eyes, screamed into their radios and fired on everything in sight, including their own ships, The chaos was unbelievable.' For example, San Francisco opened up on the already crippled Atlanta, and while she was doing so got a full broadside from Kirishima which killed Callaghan outright. Portland had her stern blown off by a Long lance torpedo and started to circle helplessly, all her steering gear destroyed. The destroyers Barton, Cushing, Monssen and Laffey all fell victim to Japanese gunnery or torpedoes whilst the light cruiser Juneau was badly knocked about.

Savo Island was all sorts of a mess (was it Chicago that just sailed away, "that's enough for me thanks"?) - I have a vague (so could well be wrong) recollection that the US picket destroyers did pick up the Japanese on their radar briefly, but misinterpreted the signal. I definitely agree that early on the US weren't good at all at using radar for night fighting but as @Alex_brunius mentioned, I was under the impression this was down to training and doctrine, possibly as well as less emphasis on tactical plotting initially (again, going from super-sketchy memory, but in 1942 CICs were still pretty new, and not installed in that many ships, and a plotting room that could process the information provided by radar was an important element of being able to estimate with any degree of accuracy which signal was which ship). So everything you say above is correct, but my impression (which is limited) is that the US issues weren't due to island scatter as much as inexperience/lack of appropriate equipment and training. I could be wrong though, need to read more about these particular actions .

 

[billcorr]

Feedback theme: provide information to the customer

Would be nice to know if my swordfish are actually hitting any ships while doing a port strike

add all the needed info to tooltips and windows

Can we get more transparency with the patch into how naval combat actually resolves? As someone who loves min-maxing, I've found naval combat frustratingly opaque when I'm trying to figure out how various naval compositions will actually play out in combat.

Yes.

Constantly improving methods to impart information to the customer would level-up the quality of Hearts of Iron IV.

<Ding!>

Addendum:

• The development team already does program the game to provide information to the gamer. Kudos!
• The idea is to to establish a continuous improvement program specifically focused on "how can HoI4 be improved to provide information to the customer?"

 

[Khevenhuller]

Savo Island was all sorts of a mess (was it Chicago that just sailed away, "that's enough for me thanks"?) - I have a vague (so could well be wrong) recollection that the US picket destroyers did pick up the Japanese on their radar briefly, but misinterpreted the signal. I definitely agree that early on the US weren't good at all at using radar for night fighting but as @Alex_brunius mentioned, I was under the impression this was down to training and doctrine, possibly as well as less emphasis on tactical plotting initially (again, going from super-sketchy memory, but in 1942 CICs were still pretty new, and not installed in that many ships, and a plotting room that could process the information provided by radar was an important element of being able to estimate with any degree of accuracy which signal was which ship). So everything you say above is correct, but my impression (which is limited) is that the US issues weren't due to island scatter as much as inexperience/lack of appropriate equipment and training. I could be wrong though, need to read more about these particular actions .

There are four battles around Savo, the one where Chicago sailed away was the first one that took place on 08-09/08/1942. This was the one where Crutchley sailed off in Australia without telling anyone and the Captain of Chicago (Bode) later shot himself as he had simply gone to pieces during the battle. The whole thing, from the allied point of view, was a total shambles from start to finish and radar scatter played a critical role. Added to which Bode, in Chicago, actually turned his radar off in case it gave away his position.

I am not sure that time was so much the issue, given how well Washington did only a few months later against Kirishima. I am more inclined to believe it was down to training and how rigorous the gunnery team were in making sure that the men knew their kit and how to get the best out of it. You can have as much time as you like, but if you do bugger all with it it's worthless.

K

 

[Axe99]

This was the one where Crutchley sailed off in Australia without telling anyone

He didn't tell the other groups, but he did leave Bode in charge, so he didn't not tell anyone (but I do think he should have told the other groups!), and he didn't come back when he should have. Definitely agree it was a bit of a shambles. I'll take your word for it that radar scatter was a factor, it's definitely plausible .

 

[Khevenhuller]

He didn't tell the other groups, but he did leave Bode in charge, so he didn't not tell anyone (but I do think he should have told the other groups!), and he didn't come back when he should have. Definitely agree it was a bit of a shambles. I'll take your word for it that radar scatter was a factor, it's definitely plausible .

I guess there are numerous things they could do but I thing some aspects of the way the game is set up preclude some key ones. An obvious one is allied fleets under a single Admiral. But I do not think that things like this are possible as the game was probably not designed with that sort of integration in mind. I think this may be down to a focus on the Eastern Front as a basic structure and then trying to shoehorn everything else into that structure irrespective of whether it fits or not. It certainly seems bizarre that Commonwealth ships from Australia and New Zealand cannot be fully integrated into RN fleets which makes things like River Plate impossible.

But you can generally divide into 'technical' and 'everything else'. So, various radars, various torpedo tech, various ASW tech and so on against things like night fighting techniques, carrier sortie generation and so on. Now, whether it is going to be a 'tech breakthrough and overnight everyone gets radar' for example, or you have to stagger through refit is another matter.

Being able to train ships using exercises and general 'working up' would be a fairly straightforward thing at least. Personally I would also like to see the ability to transfer warships in both peacetime and wartime to allies; like the Amphions to Australia (speaking of which, it would be nice not to have the ships duplicated), Royal Sovereign to the USSR (Archangelsk) and Uganda to the Canadians etc

Let's face it, there is so much to fix even before you get to the weird combat methodology which is a catastrophe all of its own...

K

 

[GSP Jr]

Since MtG deals partly with the good 'ol USA, I would love to see the Command structure get 'Americanized'.
By that I mean adding Corps level, and allowing any General to command an Army of Corps, not Divisions.
After all, Army Groups in the US Army were not Marshals, just 3 or 4 Star ranks.

Having Corps defined and given orders may also help with unit shuffling......

 

[Khevenhuller]

Since MtG deals partly with the good 'ol USA, I would love to see the Command structure get 'Americanized'.
By that I mean adding Corps level, and allowing any General to command an Army of Corps, not Divisions.
After all, Army Groups in the US Army were not Marshals, just 3 or 4 Star ranks.

Having Corps defined and given orders may also help with unit shuffling......

That is hardly 'Americanized' as lots of countries had Corps as an intervening step between division level and army. I think the issue with any accurate command structure is what does every intervening level do or add to gameplay that counterbalances the obvious complication?

K

 

[puppet on a string]

i for one do not want to see any additional OOB levels for land forces... please do not go on the slippery slope back to hoi3!

i would like to see a total revamp of naval combat, however, so we can have fleets as part of stations/operational groups (basically using the general/field marshal system), capital ships being withdrawn from service for modernization/upgrades, a new and functional/fun way of abstracting u-boats and convoy attacking/defending (should ideally be its own interface section), and of course we should be able to assign a flagship

 

[billcorr]

Echelon

Echelon of command.

Is the more appropriate term "echelon of command" instead of "order of battle"?

Outside of HoI4, "Order of battle" is the list of units involved in a battle or operation. It also denotes the units available to a nation at a certain time.

When discussing military hierarchies, the term "echelon", "echelon of command", or "Army structure" may be more appropriate.

What do you think?

 

[GSP Jr]

Echelon

Echelon of command.

Is the more appropriate term "echelon of command" instead of "order of battle"?

Outside of HoI4, "Order of battle" is the list of units involved in a battle or operation. It also denotes the units available to a nation at a certain time.

When discussing military hierarchies, the term "echelon", "echelon of command", or "Army structure" may be more appropriate.

What do you think?

I think you are correct, Bill.
Personally, I think allowing a level X general to be commanded by any level X+1 general should be possible, Field Marshal or not. Doesn't mean you have to.
Besides, an army with 24 divisions I don't believe was used by any combatant in the WW II era. Probably not since Napoleon introduced his Corps System.
As far as enhancing game play, not having to watch for unit shuffling because a Corps of 3 or 4 divisions has a lot less frontage would be a big plus to me.

 

[Captured Joe]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/06/15/paradoxs-grand-strategy-dlc-round-up/

Man the Guns is due out in 2019.[/qoute]

 

[destructionpony]

"Man the Guns is due out in 2019."

we sadly cant really manage another patch before MTG comes out.

So we're stuck with this bug fest now?
My guess is that next DLC will, again, break more things than it fixes.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I think you are correct, Bill.
Personally, I think allowing a level X general to be commanded by any level X+1 general should be possible, Field Marshal or not. Doesn't mean you have to.
Besides, an army with 24 divisions I don't believe was used by any combatant in the WW II era. Probably not since Napoleon introduced his Corps System.
As far as enhancing game play, not having to watch for unit shuffling because a Corps of 3 or 4 divisions has a lot less frontage would be a big plus to me.

Even if they were not called Corps they was generally an intervening step, whether it be the Poles in 1939 with their 'Operational Groups', or 'Western Desert Force' pre-8th Army, but most armies fielded some form of corps structure. I mean, if you could have a Corps which held 'Corps Troops' that would be fun (the heavy artillery, an infantry tank brigade, signal intercept units and so on). I rarely do the meatgrinder of the eastern Front, but if it would eliminate all this shuffling people get agonised about that cannot be bad.

But it has to be balanced against micromanagement. Not sure if command appointments should not be automated unless the player deliberately intervenes, as opposed to now where there is no leader unless the player intervenes. That in itself could be linked to the political sphere and make it a bit more of a cost to interfere in your own General staff's way of doing things? Inveterate 'interferers' like Hitler and Churchill could be very good at putting people's backs up whereas if your boss was Roosevelt or Mussolini then you could possibly be more relaxed...

Anyhow, having something similar for naval affairs would be nice (1st Cruiser Squadron reports to Home Fleet and so on...) and in the air too (11 Group reports to Fighter Command...) But Command Heirarchies can collapse under their own weight unless they are automated to a certain extent. Maybe an expended role for who you choose as your branch Chief of Staff would be a useful mechanic here?

K