• 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...
 
Is this part of the Field Marshall Upgrade?
If you mean the Chain of Command feature: No, it's gonna be part of a free update.
If you mean the mentioned DLC which would expand on this (and maybe other) feature(s): Yes, like the TfV and DoD DLCs before it.
 
There is a supply system, it's just not the logistics that you're actually thinking of. Maintaining supply lines is key (through infrastructure and convoys) but it doesn't stand out as much as the system in, say, HoI3. I'll be one of the first to admit I'd want an actual logistics system (beans, bullets, bandaids and POL), but we do have a supply system of sorts.

You are right, I was suffering from a case of hyperbole there. But as you say, it could certainly be worked out a bit more, currently all you need to do is make sure you have enough convoys (and they're not constantly being sunk, unless you can outproduce that, as sinking has no effect, unless you run out of convoys), and some clicking on railway icons. But that would also be much more calculations, so it'd much earlier when the game grinds to a crawl.

What do you mean with POL though? I work in shipping and all I can make of it is port of loading...

EDIT: Corrected adverbs
 
It won't as there's no supply system. Unless they're adding one, this is only the first dev diary about the next expansion cycle, so who knows.

What's broken about Australia? Have yet to play it.
Basically doesn't take into account many historical WW2 events for Australia. EG the PM of the time, Publics opinion of the war and things like the Kokoda track
 
Hello! I have some ideas to share with you. First of all I liked the chain of command system. But to me, there are some deficients you should fix. First of all, the present promotion system is very bad. I think taking a random general and promoting him and making marshal with a click without seeing any war is illogical. To me, for the promotion, a system like "colony-satellite-dominion" bars should be developed and promotion should according to the ability of the general, its success, its contribution to the war it is in. We can not promote our generals which are much more capable than the some marshals in the game. More precisely, we have to renounce all of his perks and some skills to promote him marshal. In my opinion this is a factor that is both contrary to the logic and reduces the enjoyment from the game.

For example, something like;
- I give an example, every perks 7% and every skills 4% can be promotion scores.
- Suppose we have a general which is has 8 perks and 10 skills, and according to this account general total would be 96% again. However, in order to become a marshal, the general must be able to take part in the war and contribute to the battle. We can determine this by looking at the how much damage that the army under the command of the general gives to the enemy. A second factor may be adding the general's progress on the enemy lands and capturing the enemy states. For every captured states may be 1% factor for promotion score for example. If a capitulation or surrender happens through an army which is under a general's command can gain him a serious promotion bonus.
- In a scenario, 100k soldiers under the command of a general and suppose enemy army has 250k. After the battle general loses 50k soldiers in battle, the enemy loses 150k soldiers and at last country is capitulated.. In this case, according to damage/loss ratio general would get 6% promotion score and a 10% bonus promotion score for the capitulation bonus. It can be more funny by this way.
- It can also be dismissal from the general in the same way. If the promotion score goes below 1, this time the commander must be dismissed.

Another issue is about air fleets. As far as I know, the term of fleet commander at that time had not yet developed enough. For this reason, the air fleets, for example the 2000 airplane limit, can be able to emerge from the marshal and empirical experience of the air fleets must also be able to earn air capabilities other than their ability to land marshals. Airplanes under command must be able to influence directly into battle plans. The land combat plan and the air combat plan must be separate. At present, air support has little effect to battles. In this way, air battles can play a more prominent role in combat.

I hope you like my ideas and apply them.
 
I will request the same things requested when HOI4 development started:

Actualized production on the map (everything in production traces to an actual factory on the map and first appears at that location).

Actualize railroad line and show them on the map and give them the same critical roles they played in WWII.

Cain of command at least as complex as HOI3 if not better (division commanders please).

Actual realistic supply system. Real resource stockpiling and associated infrastructure and costs needed to store it (warehouses, tankage farms, spoilage, etc). Also, allow supply dumps and trucking convoys from rail-heads. Actualize supply routes onto chosen user-settable paths on the map, and allow your lines to cross into allied territories in a historical kind of way.

A much more refined map with many more areas, or even better - an actual realistic area-less globe like Google Earth depicts the world with elements plotted based on latitude and longitude that is historically accurate. If you must still use your Clausewitz engine then make different areas all the same size hexes to normalize movement and judging distances (preferably 20-25km/hex) and add some pentagram 5-sided "hexes" as needed to create a geodesic ruff approximation of an actual sphere and avoid high latitude distortions.
 
I will request the same things requested when HOI4 development started:

Actualized production on the map (everything in production traces to an actual factory on the map and first appears at that location).

Actualize railroad line and show them on the map and give them the same critical roles they played in WWII.

Actual realistic supply system. Real resource stockpiling and associated infrastructure and costs needed to store it (warehouses, tankage farms, spoilage, etc). Also, allow supply dumps and trucking convoys from rail-heads. Actualize supply routes onto chosen user-settable paths on the map, and allow your lines to cross into allied territories in a historical kind of way.

These things you recommend would be ridiculously computation-intensive for the majority of player rigs. Further, there's absolutely no need to trace every single train, rifle, tank, or engine part through a procurement system. This is grand strategy, I don't need Pentagon Procurement Simulator. Nor am I interested in Logistics Command Simulator. While those two realms are important, they are not necessary (and honestly, likely all sorts of micro-management hell) to the enjoyment of a game.

Cain of command at least as complex as HOI3 if not better (division commanders please).

I'm in the middle of running an AAR game in HoI3, and can say that I don't want this, nor does the majority of the board. It's a waste of processor power.

A much more refined map with many more areas, or even better - an actual realistic area-less globe like Google Earth depicts the world with elements plotted based on latitude and longitude that is historically accurate. If you must still use your Clausewitz engine then make different areas all the same size hexes to normalize movement and judging distances (preferably 20-25km/hex) and add some pentagram 5-sided "hexes" as needed to create a geodesic ruff approximation of an actual sphere and avoid high latitude distortions.

I would not mind a better and informative map. That said, as mentioned above, I don't really want to burn my money on trying to procure a computer that would be capable of running that graphics-intensive of a game. I feel like the oceans could use some refinement (I'd prefer a coastal area before hitting actual open ocean for the naval game) but there's just a level of detail that I don't think the game needs.
 
Is Chain of Command ready to rock now - the original DD mentioned it was not quite ready for prime time.
Have/will there be additional Generals added, as I think (at least for USA) there will be a shortage and I hate the generic ones spawned that are not historical at all.
Also for the USA, Army Group commanders were not really Marshals at all, they (Bradley, Devers) were Lieutenant Generals and only became 4 or 5 star well after being Group commanders.
 
I dunno how else to post or contact anyone about this. but PLEASE put an are you sure option on the peace conference done button. You have no idea how often I'm clicking on something when a peace conference appears and I loose out.
 
I dunno how else to post or contact anyone about this. but PLEASE put an are you sure option on the peace conference done button. You have no idea how often I'm clicking on something when a peace conference appears and I loose out.
Register your game, so you can view the HOI4 bugs and suggestions forums. Post your issue there, not on a completely unrelated thread.
 
Dear Paradoxian People.
This is an interesting diary, but one thing you have to put in mind:After seeing many comments here i came to a conclusion that is a good idea to implement OOB on this game but you have to make it simple. This was one of the reasons that kept hearts of iron 3 very tiring, even because you had to put about 200-300 divisions into several corps, including naming them.I suggest two things:First one is to not implement oob into a corps level because it would bring the tiredness into this game, my second suggestion is that if in case you really want to add corps on this game to increase the level of realism, you can implement a mechanic that when an army is assigned you could have an option to create army corps inside of it.Example: you create a field army with 25 divisions like you always do in the game, but there is a button to create an army corps, after that, a menu called army corps planner will appear, there you have an option on how many and what types of divisions(from army planner) you want to assign into a corps .The max divisions in an army corps would be 5 and the max corps in a field army would be also 5 as well but only if all corps have 5 divisions.Another thing that concerns me now would be the naming of those corps, maybe you could have a corps and even army namelist as well so the player wont waste its time naming those units.
 
Last edited: