• 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...
 
Seems pretty cool. Would be nice though for UI cleanliness to maybe do something about having a bunch of generals (if you have lots of armies) splattered across the bottom of the screen. Maybe have theaters that you can place them in and open and close to help minimize the clutter.

For example:

- Pacific (+)
- MacArthur
- Wainwright
- Sims

- Europe (+)
- Eisenhower
- Patton
- Bradley

- North Africa (-)
- North America (-)
 
I LOVE the look of these army organization improvements! It seems to be a happy middle ground between the super complex command chain in Hoi3 and in Vanilla Hoi4!
I do miss being able to deploy units smaller than a division as was possible in Hoi3 though. This was especially helpful for areas that you didn't need a whole division to cover still needed a troop presence.
Not sure what are you talking about, you can easily deploy anything between one battalion and whole corps as a single unit, just create a suitable template and train/change template. HOI3 is much less capable in this regard, with smallest unit being a predefined brigade with no way of customizing it.
 
Can we have a way to easily reorganize armies and theaters? It kind of bugs me when the generals are not in the same order in the bottom and in the theaters. So the only way to correct it is to delete an army and recreate it to put it in the front, but it can get a bit tedious if you have multiple armies. Same with theaters except that new ones are added to the bottom.

Can't a drag and drop feature be added?
 
Seems pretty cool. Would be nice though for UI cleanliness to maybe do something about having a bunch of generals (if you have lots of armies) splattered across the bottom of the screen. Maybe have theaters that you can place them in and open and close to help minimize the clutter.

For example:

- Pacific (+)
- MacArthur
- Wainwright
- Sims

- Europe (+)
- Eisenhower
- Patton
- Bradley

- North Africa (-)
- North America (-)

They pretty much said we'd have exactly that. Right?
 
It kind of bugs me when the generals are not in the same order in the bottom and in the theaters. So the only way to correct it is to delete an army and recreate it to put it in the front, but it can get a bit tedious if you have multiple armies. Same with theaters except that new ones are added to the bottom.
Almost as bad as having a frontline go haywire due to either cutting off units or advancing along another (neutral) war participant.
 
they have to be field marshals to do it. independent armies still work, but generally you will want to have a full chain for the bonuses
What about minor countries, that only have one or two generals right now? Would I be incentivized to get a field marshal as, say, Belgium?
It could also be a nice motivation for minors to put their army as expeditionary force under an allied FM if they can't get one themselves.
 
Seems pretty cool. Would be nice though for UI cleanliness to maybe do something about having a bunch of generals (if you have lots of armies) splattered across the bottom of the screen. Maybe have theaters that you can place them in and open and close to help minimize the clutter.

For example:

- Pacific (+)
- MacArthur
- Wainwright
- Sims

- Europe (+)
- Eisenhower
- Patton
- Bradley

- North Africa (-)
- North America (-)

We already have theaters that do just that - just select the army and right-click on a new theather on the right edge of the screen. Only the generals from the currently active screen will be shown on the bottom.
 
This is a good first step.

Now we have a Chain of Command with two links. As a few others have posted would would be nice to have the Theater commanded by a Field Marshal. I would also like to see corps. I do like that skill levels are split into different areas.
 
I know you guys have put a lot of work into the battle planner, but it just does not work for the things I try to do. I have given up on it and just take the penalty for not planning. I think it could be a viable tool if you put more functionality into it, or if there was a mode where the player could take more control of executing the plan. Here are some specific things that cause me problems:
1 I set the divisions where I want them to dig in, then when I create a front the AI starts moving them around instead of digging in
2 I want to encircle and destroy the enemy, so I want a large line to hold position, and in some places pin the enemy, then in specific key places my armor units force a breach and encircle, then reinforcement infantry follow armor into the breach to hold the encirclement. Trying to use the battle planner to accomplish this is nearly impossible.
3 Getting the AI to close an encirclement or to move a line forward without opening breaches in the line is difficult.

What I am asking is to either make the battle planner a more functional tool where you can create more complex plans, or to make it more optional. With this dev diary it looks like you are making it more integral to the game without fixing the deficiencies.

I know it sounds like I am being a Debbie Downer today, but as is, I find the battle planner a very frustrating aspect of the game.

You can easily achieve what you want by simply having one army with infantry pinning enemy front line and with another tank army make encirclements using spearhead order.
 
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.
I'd say this is the most important bit. I am sure that some of the other aspects will also be beneficial, but just diversifying the generals so that they are defined by 4 numbers instead of one is a big thing to adding some flavor back into the system.

There are two main aspects to expanding the chain of command. One is improved flavor and the other is enhanced function. I am confident we will see good progress on the first. I also see some hints that we will also see some positives on the second.

IMO, the biggest thing that made the HOI3 system controversial was that while it was great for immersion or flavor, it was a significant negative impact if you looked at enhancing functionality. The second aspect was a big enough negative to turn many players off to the system completely. It was a chore that made playing mechanically harder instead of easier.
 
Nice !!! Im so excited ! Any chances we get more tech/gear/items/soldiers type in the future ? im rly found of Desert and Jungle Support troops that we see in some mods!
Honestly, not sure at all about more terrain specialized light infantry. It is kind of too complicated.

But expansion of at least tank trees would be a really good move, because now they are awful.
 
500 Divisions was just an example; a ballpark figure. A player can easily get more than that, especially if they're playing Germany or Soviets and I've played many Multiplayer games where even Italy was rocking with 300+, Japan with 400+ and one Soviet player had a ~1000 units.

But to address my own example and your calculations, even 21 Generals is a huge difference from how a lot of people play, which is to have most of their units under an FM.

I'm not advocating for a Hoi3 system, I quite like this new simpler style, but Hoi2 had commanders who could control a different amount of units, without a hierarchy system to go along with it.

So I suggest we have FMs that do exactly what this diary describes. But Generals are split into 2 types, where the higher controls e.g. 48 units. (Lieutenant General controls 24, General controls 48)

This is to compensate for the fact that previously an FM that could control an unlimited number of units.
Alternately they could either expand the purpose of the logistics skill or introduce an administrative skill. Have it so generals with a rating of one still get to command 24 units. Add another 6 units for each additional level of the skill.

I think having a variable number of units for a general would be less awkward than introducing several additional generals, which is what would happen if nothing changes in the system. I also do not think we need to have a variable command cap that is simply based on the old rank system from future versions and where you could simply promote whenever you wanted to do so.

One thing I like about needing to use more generals instead of just dumping a very large force onto a field marshal is that this will force you to get a job to some of your less talented generals. I would actually like to see this taken a step further and have more negative traits added. Unless I am mistaken the only negative trait currently in the game is Old Guard.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion this combines the strenght of HoI3 (realism) with the strenght of HoI4 (accessibility and streamlined user friendly systems).
And I can't wait till next week, NU finally becoming more than a number which nobody really itnerested in? Maybe tackle the inflation of political power.
A sidenote please limit the possibilities with which we can spread our ideology its ridicolous at the moment.
 
They've said generals/field marshals can gain skill.
Edit: Although I would like to here how they gain logistics and planning skill.
We know nothing of how the skill gain will work, but here is one possibility. It has the advantage of being a simple solution which is usually a good thing.

They could keep the experience generation system for generals very similar to what it currently is. When a general has gained enough experience, let the player choose where the additional point goes. The tricky bit would be doing this while retaining the practice of having each skill point cost more experience than the previous one. I suppose it would work if the cost was based on the sum of all of a commander's skills instead of costs based on individual skills.

I don't really agree with the simplistic notion that attacking only improves your attack skill (same for defense). A general with lots of battle experience will be better at both attack and defense even if his nation has spent the last couple of years on the strategic offense or defense.
 
Cheers for the DD Podcat :D. The first of what I'm sure will be a number of great things coming to HoI4 later this year or early next (hopefully - no pressure :)). Having a range of skills for leaders tops is tops, and the extra tier for BP control also very good (keeps the 'one big plan' for some, makes the smaller plans work better for others). As others have mentioned, creeping frontlines probably needs attention or this could be a bit messy, but if attention to this means solving the creeping frontlines, then that would make me a very happy camper indeed :).

Some random thoughts, in case helpful, as always, ignore if not (it's far easier to come up with untested ideas than to implement them and make them work!) :).
  • On the UI, it looks like the theatre display detail is (or intended to be in the future) ‘collapsible’? Would definitely be good if so, to help manage what's displayed on the right-hand sidebar. That said, it could maybe be helpful to have a battles winning/losing for the separate armies, and be able to ‘pin’ two theatres open at once (a bit like how regions can be ‘pinned’) - that way, it'd be possible to keep a high-level track of developments at the army group level across two theatres.
  • Is there any way to define the OOB set-up in a unit file (or elsewhere, but the unit file feels like the best place) at the start of the game? While it's far (faaaarrrr) easier than HoI3, there's still a bit of fiddling around to do at the start of each game. Have predetermined OOBs at game start is one less 'barrier' a player is faced with at game start (it could also add interesting immersion if you add a PP cost for adding/removing generals - but now I'm probably going and overcomplicating things again :oops:).
  • Am sure this’ll be front-and-centre in thinking, but as @Kadanz mentioned be sure to give Steelvolt and co. the time they need to get the AI up to speed with these new features (and if this isn't possible, maybe give the AI some bonuses to compensate?)
  • As a couple of others have mentioned, cross-national army groups would be all sorts of cool. Appreciate they may be all sorts of painful to make work though.
  • A long, long time ago, there was a big thread talking about OOBs that mentioned corps (or in this case, army) assets. Something like attached armoured, anti-tank, artillery, engineering or what-have-you brigades. Being able to add a couple of anti-tank brigades to a primarily infantry formation, to give them some more anti-tank backbone when they needed it would be cool and historically plausible. Attached assets need not be 'on map', but could rather be automatically allocated to battles (although an attached engineering brigade might provide a dig-in and movement/attrition bonus instead?) that are underway within that army (so if there are two battles going on, and two attached AT brigades, both get one - if there's only one, then only one battle gets the AT brigade). Just mentioning in case useful, as ever ignore if not.
 
Only four skills traits, does that mean no environment traits and such things?
(Maybe they are incorporated in those four traits)
I think you are misunderstanding. There is no reason why the old traits will not mostly or even all be kept as they are currently. He said nothing about removing those. What is changing is that instead of one single number to represent a general's skill there will be four numbers.

They are adding detail. I don't see where anything has to be taken away unless it directly clashes with the new two tier system. Even if that were the case, it is even more likely that the new system will encourage the addition of a few new traits for your commanders to acquire.
 
This is a great step in the right direction. We're finally getting an OOB, but I would really love to have another link added to it. Some people have already suggested Corps, which I would agree too. This would add a lot of depth, while not making it to ridiculous like HOI3 where EVERY division needed a commander....