HOI4 Dev Diary - Stability and War Support

[Misaka_Complex]

New Zealand supplied over 10000 aircrew to the allied war effort. How many did Siam contribute to the Axis?

I agree with you that Siam is irrelevant in history but in the game (since AI Japan can now properly go down that part of the NF tree) even Siam can be more important than New Zealand but the last time I checked Siam doesn't have its own focus tree.

Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) in 1941:

• 2 Cruisers
• 2 Escort Vessels
• 1 Survey Vessel
• 1 Minesweeping Vessel

Pretty damn sure that Siam had a way bigger navy than the NZ navy.

 

[PinkBear]

This is incredible. Best back-to-back developer diaries I’ve read. Super well thought out, intelligent, logical, smart concepts.

You guys really seem to be able to listen to the good requests, while drowning out the FUD. Plus PODCAT is just an absolute superstar.

Keep it up and I’ll include my bitching on another post!

 

[Alex_brunius]

Pretty damn sure that Siam had a way bigger navy than the NZ navy.

Siam's navy started out smaller, and the difference grew more later in the war.

NZ navy ships contributed to hunting (and sinking of) many Axis raiders, most notable the Graaf Spee, and took part in most major Pacific campaigns with several 8000 ton Leander class light cruisers ( as part of American or British taskforces ). What did Siams navy achieve with their two 2000 ton and 15knot coastal defense ships? As far as I was able to tell they didn't achieve anything at all except getting their butts kicked by a single French light cruiser from the 1920s which ended up in sinking/disabling pretty much their entire navy.

I'm sure @Axe99 could provide more info then I can on this topic & discussion but I don't think the dev diary is the right place to continue it, so maybe make a new thread if you are genuinely interested and link it?

 

[Misaka_Complex]

Siam's navy started out smaller, and the difference grew more later in the war.

Not according to the game when New Zealand doesn't even start with a single ship while Siam starts out with a destroyer. When you reach the 1940s Siam has a much bigger navy than New Zealand though you might argue that historically it was different. The main reason the "New Zealand Navy" was able to achieve anything was because it conducted its operations with the Royal Navy while the Siamese navy didn't know what they were doing. Either way New Zealand was the Allied nation which contributed the least to the war effort (unless you want to include Luxembourg) due to its small population and lacking industry, so saying that they played an important role in the power balance of the Pacific theater is a gross exaggeration though there is nothing wrong to say that historically they contributed more to the Allies than Siam contributed to the Axis. However, since this is a sandbox game and we are looking at the potential of countries in the game, Siam with a much greater population and greater industry than New Zealand should be much more potential than New Zealand in the game.

 

[NaRen13AnnexYourself]

The forums have repeatedly assured me that HoI needs absolutely no intelligence to play well.

Stealing technologies is fun and important to minors, isn't it?

 

[NaRen13AnnexYourself]

Still curious, what's going to happen to these leaders? Who will they be?
Will PRC be able to adopt ROC generals?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Siam with a much greater population and greater industry than New Zealand should be much more potential than New Zealand in the game.

They had pretty much equal GDP* and if you look at war industry potential ( Part of the Industry that is modern enough to produce weapons of actual relevance in WW2 ) or GDP per capita then we are talking about a 10:1 advantage favor New Zealand.

If you think population should be a main factor for who has the most potential I assume you also think that India or China should have more potential then Germany as well seeing how they have way more population?

*source: http://www.worldeconomics.com/Data/MadisonHistoricalGDP/Madison Historical GDP Data.efp

 

[Axe99]

I hardly see how New Zealand is relevant to the balance of power in Asia especially compared to China.... even the PRC at that time with its sticks and harsh language army was more viable than New Zealand but yet it got its own focus tree wat.... I mean come on even Bugaria was more relevant in WW2 compared to New Zealand.

Ok so how many ships and planes did New Zealand have during WW2 and how did they play a role in defeating Japan? If you said Australia I would agree but New Zealand? I agree with you that Siam is irrelevant in history but in the game (since AI Japan can now properly go down that part of the NF tree) even Siam can be more important than New Zealand but the last time I checked Siam doesn't have its own focus tree.

Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) in 1941:

• 2 Cruisers
• 2 Escort Vessels
• 1 Survey Vessel
• 1 Minesweeping Vessel

Pretty damn sure that Siam had a way bigger navy than the NZ navy.

Not according to the game when New Zealand doesn't even start with a single ship while Siam starts out with a destroyer. When you reach the 1940s Siam has a much bigger navy than New Zealand though you might argue that historically it was different. The main reason the "New Zealand Navy" was able to achieve anything was because it conducted its operations with the Royal Navy while the Siamese navy didn't know what they were doing. Either way New Zealand was the Allied nation which contributed the least to the war effort (unless you want to include Luxembourg) due to its small population and lacking industry, so saying that they played an important role in the power balance of the Pacific theater is a gross exaggeration though there is nothing wrong to say that historically they contributed more to the Allies than Siam contributed to the Axis. However, since this is a sandbox game and we are looking at the potential of countries in the game, Siam with a much greater population and greater industry than New Zealand should be much more potential than New Zealand in the game.

Sorry Misaka Complex, but you're a bit off with your data here (particularly with the NZ and Bulgaria comparison). New Zealand troops fought in the Solomon Islands, Western Desert and Italy. Bulgarian troops, on the other hand, garrisoned a few backwaters and didn't do any notable fighting. The New Zealand Air Force (and its airmen) fought in Europe and the Pacific, while Bulgaria's main claim to fame in the air war was being bombed by the Allies after it joined in. Navally, Bulgarian vessels (none of which rated on the HoI4 scale - their largest ships didn't displace 100 tons) did scrap a little with the Soviet Navy, but New Zealand's cruisers (which are in at the start of the game but are part of the RN (although paid for by NZ) which are transferred via NF during the course of the game) fought across the globe against the German (Battle of the River Plate) and Japanese navies (starting in the Solomons and finishing off the coast of Japan). New Zealand trawlers/minesweepers (too small to feature in HoI4, but still 5-10 times larger in terms of displacement than the average bulgarian naval vessel) sunk a Japanese submarine as well.

Siam is a stronger contender, but still can't match up to NZ's navy. Siam's destroyer was an ex-British R class from WW1, which displaced just under 1000 tons standard. Japan also built them two 1400 tons sloops (not in HoI4, but similar in size to a DD_1 or DD_2 in-game) and had two 'coastal defence ships' that displaced around 2400 tons standard - between them about 8600 tons of warships - compared with New Zealand's two Leander-class cruisers (about 14,500 tons of warships, and comfortably a match for the Siamese Navy - when the Siamese navy faced similar ships from the French Navy, they fared poorly).

However, at the end of the day, Siam doesn't stand a chance not because they had a smaller navy and airforce, or a more limited involvement geographically, but because they've got nothing to match the mighty Bob Semple tank .

 

[Gamer_1745]

In my continuing research I came across this:

I would seem that in 1942 New Zealand was producing 5 Bern Gun/Universal carriers a day

 

[jorishilhorst]

Stability and War Support
These are two new values shown in the topbar that replace National Unity. Stability models the people's unity and support for the current government. War Support on the other hand represent the people’s support of war and of fully committing to fighting that war. As an example Britain in 1936 would be a pretty stable nation, but with very low war support. A nation like France would be much more unstable and with equally low war support, while Japan would have high war support and also high stability (mostly due to the emperor’s influence).

Stability average is 50% and nations with higher stability than that gain bonuses to industry, political power and consumer goods. Once you drop below 50% there are penalties instead as well as lowering your surrender limit (although nothing as extreme as how NU affected things). Strong party support helps increase stability, but being in a war - no matter how well supported - is going to lower your stability. Stability also works to protect against coups against your nation as well.

I haven't found this in the dev responses, but I might have issed it: Will incurring large manpower losses cause a lowering of war support? Someone mentioned stalingrad for instance but I can also imagine losing an entire army could be considered quite a shock to people at home. Will there be temporary effects for tragedies and is there a scaled effect on manpower lost compared to total available?
From a quick google it looks like In WWI this didn't affect morale of the population at home on the winning side until a year or two after the war ended, but I can imagine on the losing side atrition might have a more immediate effect. Is there an effect after the war ended, a reluctance to get into another war even if you won, if you suffer great casualties?

It might mean for south africa, canada, any puppet state in europe after germany is defeated that when they are out of manpower they won't be keen to join to fight the russians for instance. (defensive alliance, but not an aggressive one)

 

[HaruhiFollower]

Still curious, what's going to happen to these leaders? Who will they be?
Will PRC be able to adopt ROC generals?

The interesting question is - are "Unit Leaders" generals or a generalization of the ace concept? Has anyone (modders?) seen this type of designation in the game files?

 

[agentgb]

The forums have repeatedly assured me that HoI needs absolutely no intelligence to play well.

hmmmmmm?

 

[jpapple]

Looks good, keep up the great work guys!

 

[jpapple]

Siam is a stronger contender, but still can't match up to NZ's navy

Idk, by I think the Dutch had a bigger navy. So just GTFO! Wait? We weren't talking about that? Oh, nvm..

 

[Porkman]

That depends on the level of bombing. A few weeks of Blitz might strengthen the resolve or resistance, but tell me just how many of the homeless people on the homefront in Germany or Japan in 1945 that was "supporting the war and fully committed to fighting it" using the devs own definition?

They knew the war was already lost, and that if they tried to fight in the war there was a good chance they would not survive due to the desperate situation. They knew that going to the factories to work if it could be avoided also meant a risk due to them being primary bombing targets. They knew that buying warbonds would be a meaningless thing to do and that they needed what little they had left to survive the harsh times after the war.

In China, levels of Japanese bombing was directly proportional to war support.

 

[Captured Joe]

However, at the end of the day, Siam doesn't stand a chance not because they had a smaller navy and airforce, or a more limited involvement geographically, but because they've got nothing to match the mighty Bob Semple tank .

That's not really fair though, no nation on earth quite has anything to match the Bob Semple.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

They had pretty much equal GDP* and if you look at war industry potential ( Part of the Industry that is modern enough to produce weapons of actual relevance in WW2 ) or GDP per capita then we are talking about a 10:1 advantage favor New Zealand.

Actually I was talking about industry in terms of military factories, civilian factories and building slots in the game. I brought up population because it directly relates to how much manpower you can field in the army which is a pretty big part of the game. Unfortunately as of now there is no such thing as GDP or GDP per capita in the game though yes New Zealand had a much higher GDP and GDP per capita compared to Siam.

Siam is a stronger contender, but still can't match up to NZ's navy. Siam's destroyer was an ex-British R class from WW1, which displaced just under 1000 tons standard. Japan also built them two 1400 tons sloops (not in HoI4, but similar in size to a DD_1 or DD_2 in-game) and had two 'coastal defence ships' that displaced around 2400 tons standard - between them about 8600 tons of warships - compared with New Zealand's two Leander-class cruisers (about 14,500 tons of warships, and comfortably a match for the Siamese Navy - when the Siamese navy faced similar ships from the French Navy, they fared poorly).

I get your point that historically New Zealand contributed much more to the war effort than Siam or Bulgaria, but if we look at in game terms Siam has a much better navy and air force by the 1940s when the war breaks out in the pacific compared to New Zealand. From my experience Siam usually has around 20 ships while New Zealand doesn't even have 10 not to mention that Siam can pump out much more divisions and can play a strategically important role in Asia. Therefore in terms of how New Zealand and Siam is represented in the game, I stick to my point that Siam has greater potential than New Zealand at least in hoi4.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Therefore in terms of how New Zealand and Siam is represented in the game, I stick to my point that Siam has greater potential than New Zealand at least in hoi4.

Part of the reason for this is that they use the overpowered default NF tree, while New Zealand got a custom one.

If Siam had gotten a focus tree instead we would probably have seen lots of stuff to limit their industry and manpower similar to what the British Raj got, meaning that a New Zealand with the OP default NF tree would actually have greater potential then Siam with a real Focus tree better tailored to their real situation would!

So that way your logic is a bit backwards IMO

Ofcourse it's a bit speculation, but still based on a clear pattern.

 

[Enriador]

Yes. If you have mobilization or manpower laws that your population no longer supports because the war is over, bad things will happen.

Fair! Any winner of a major war should get a NS similar to Victor of the Great War.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

Part of the reason for this is that they use the overpowered default NF tree, while New Zealand got a custom one.

If Siam had gotten a focus tree instead we would probably have seen lots of stuff to limit their industry and manpower similar to what the British Raj got, meaning that a New Zealand with the OP default NF tree would actually have greater potential then Siam with a real Focus tree better tailored to their real situation would!

So that way your logic is a bit backwards IMO.

Well if we go by the default tree for New Zealand as before TFV they would not have extra resources and manpower (unless they go fascist) provided by their NF tree as well. When they were both on the default tree Siam still had a much greater manpower pool and factories compared to New Zealand so my point stands that the in game potential of Siam is much greater than New Zealand. As for what if Siam got its own focus tree we would have to see the in game contents to be the judge of that.