• 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.

HoI 4 Dev Diary - Leaders, abilities and Traits

Hi everyone and sorry about the late diary (Swedish winter is heavy on sickness attrition!). Today we are going to talk about military leaders and how they can now grow and be tailored to your needs!

Traits and Leader Details
When we added the chain of command feature to Waking the Tiger we wanted to make sure players care more about their generals and field marshals and feel like they grow and level up. We also wanted to add more personality to leaders. To accomplish this we now have several kinds of traits. The old traits you are familiar with are now called Earnable Traits. Something you gain by doing something, like earning the “Desert Fox” trait by fighting in the desert. Then there are General Traits which are something you select yourself to assign to leaders. These will have prerequisites of different kinds. There are also Field Marshal Traits - which unsurprisingly only apply to field marshals (remember, field marshals with Waking the Tiger now lead other leaders). Finally, there are background or Personality Traits as well. As you can see in the picture below, Manstein has a background as a Brilliant Strategist, which increases his base stats.
manstein.jpg


We are still working on the personality traits, so I won't go into too much detail on them just yet. Usually they affect the leader’s base stats or make certain traits easier to gain (so someone with a background in tanks might be quicker to pick up the “Panzer Leader” trait). We also use these to model change in nations like the “Samurai Lineage” one (more on that once we cover Japan). We also have some “status” traits like “Wounded” where a leader may be left at lower capacity after an ill fated combat or “Sick”, which can be gained by trying to develop a video game in Sweden during the winter or by staying in high-attrition areas for a prolonged time.

To make managing easier we have also updated to leader selection screen so that you can sort and filter easier (type “Panzer” in the quick search field will get you all panzer related leaders for example).
leader_selector.jpg


Bonuses from traits and skill levels for your field marshals transfer down as well to your divisions, but at a reduced rate (right now you get 50% of the bonus, but no number is final) and you no longer lose your general traits when you promote to field marshal. When it comes to slots for assignable traits those are gained as your leader levels up.

“The Red Phone”
Many of you may have been wondering about the new topbar icon and it’s finally time to start talking about it today. It’s a new resource called Command Power and it symbolizes the ability of the government to go in and directly mess with the military - much like Hitler would use his red phone to bypass chain of command or prioritize things. Command power is used for promoting generals, taking certain military related decisions, managing air supply, assigning traits to generals who qualify and using command power abilities to affect divisions. There are also two more features that use them we will cover in future diaries.

These command power abilities are mostly unlocked by traits and apply to divisions under the general. They cost command power to trigger and run for a certain amount of time giving bonuses or other effects which offer up some neat new tactics.
command_powers.jpg

Here is a breakdown of the abilities:

Force Attack - Units gain attack bonuses, take no org damage while attacking, but take increased strength damage. They are also unable to retreat from attacks when this is active. As the active units take damage this will also hurt your nation’s war support.
Last Stand - Similar to Force Attack but when on defense. Use it if you must absolutely hold somewhere no matter what while attacking elsewhere. We also have some national flavor version of these for China and Japan.
Probing Attack - Divisions can launch attacks without losing entrenchment, but have a penalty to attack while doing so.
Staff Office Plan - Increases planning speed for the cases when you need to finish and launch a new plan quickly.
Siege Artillery - Combat bonus vs fortifications and also increases damage to the fortifications themselves substantially.
Glider Planes - Used in combination with paratroopers they let you drop more paras per transport and give them a boost to organization and defense towards enemy AA.
Makeshift bridges - Gives a substantial reduction to the river crossing penalty.
Extra supplies - Increases the time troops can be without supplies before suffering penalties.
Naval Assault Plan - Cuts down time needed to complete preparations for naval invasions.

Command power abilities, assignable traits and the new leader details view are part of the DLC. Most of the personality/background traits are part of the 1.5 “Cornflakes” update.

Next week we are going to, among other things, talk about how to make your troops deal with harsh weather. See you then!
 
Siege Artillery - Combat bonus vs fortifications and also increases damage to the fortifications themselves substantially.
Glider Planes - Used in combination with paratroopers they let you drop more paras per transport and give them a boost to organization and defense towards enemy AA.
Makeshift bridges - Gives a substantial reduction to the river crossing penalty.
Extra supplies - Increases the time troops can be without supplies before suffering penalties.
Naval Assault Plan - Cuts down time needed to complete preparations for naval invasions.

Not a fan of the current description of some of these, they don't sound like something a Commander in Chief would care about...

Glider plans => US Rangers, Pathfinders, German attack on fort Eben Emael in 1940...?
Makeshift bridges => Brandenburgers?
 
Why create this new command point resource? Why not merge it with land experience and just rebalance how much gets generated. This way it would be much tougher choosing what you spend it on.
 
He has commented on it. But the issue isn't just fuel.

One of the big things that podcat was very proud of two devices diaries ago was the "in transit" delay for generals.

Teleporting generals and admirals have been a problem since hoi1.

AOD saw this problem in Hoi2 so it fixed it by adding a "in transit" delay for assigning generals. If the devs had played AOD for even an hour, they would have known about this.

It's not like it conflicts with HOi4 mechanics. It was just a good idea that we had to wait for them to reinvent because they won't look back at the AOD and Dr.
In case of generals, I fully agree, the idea was non-conflicting and easy to implement.

I am just against blanket statements and wanted to clarify.
 
In case of generals, I fully agree, the idea was non-conflicting and easy to implement.

I am just against blanket statements and wanted to clarify.

The debate about fuel in HOI4 is not really related to the HOI2 successor games. What has been obvious to everyone who played AOD is that the HOI4 devs seem to have no familiarity with what the previous games did and the mechanics that they implemented.
 
@podcat Sorry for going offtopic, you mentioned yesterday on stream about AI picking and trying to go down into different paths for example if Germany is no longer fascist, which made me curious:

1. Does AI also pick different paths on historical mode if you decide to play Kaiser/democratic Germany or do they follow historical path?
2. Are any new focuses on historical mode predetermined like "Danzing for Guarantees" or are they all based on RNG if AI will accept or deny you?
 
Last edited:
I would like to deepen into the point somebody made earlier about IMPLEMENTING FREE WILL ON THE GENERAL SKILLS TREE (capitalized for clarity).

Having in mind:
  1. A completely deterministic "I tell you what kind expert you will be" feels rather odd.
  2. A randomized factor could be frustating to the player.

I therefor suggest a compromise:
  1. With the DD mechanic as base, add a non negligible chance that, when assigning a skill to a general, he chooses to go another path instead.
  2. To prevent frustation, introduce a ckII inspired event, that pops after the general decides to take initiative, with two options:
  • Accept the general's decision (small buff to the skill modifiers)
  • Enforce another choice to the general (costs more command points, medium penalty to the skill modifiers).
Overall, I believe this system would be easy to implement, add depth and refine the roleplay feeling of the mechanic.


Thoughts?

I would like to discuss the possibility of the general truly taking initiative, that is, not being reactive to the player/AI choice, but deciding upon a skill without any input (which would then trigger the event). While I like that more, I'm worried that it would be harder to implement (ie how the general decides to go for it), and could be too event intensive.
Another point I would like you guys to help me think through is what factors in to determine the said non-negligible chance that the general takes initiative (or rather have it a constant).
 
Not a fan of the current description of some of these, they don't sound like something a Commander in Chief would care about...

Glider plans => US Rangers, Pathfinders, German attack on fort Eben Emael in 1940...?
Makeshift bridges => Brandenburgers?

I feel they have the potential to be another way for the AI to suicide into enemy lines; force attack, siege artillery and Naval assault respectively. While siege artillery are most likely going to get banned in a lot of mp games if it does what it says it does then it has the potential to be really OP against the maginot line in the hands of a player.
 
Stop pandering to wehraboos and Nazis, use countries that aren't Germany for examples for a change.

To be fair, the next expansion is called Waking the Tiger and is focussed on China and Japan, and one of the key features of the new German focus tree is that it provides a viable non-National Socialist way to play Germany (which I'm a big fan of, I'm not terribly fond of playing as Hitler, but the current NF tree and game struggles a bit if you do anything else).

Axe, so we're cool with the devs not even looking at the AOD "carried supplies and fuel for ships with periodic resupply" then?

We have never seen anything but evidence that the dev team for hoi4 remains entirely ignorant of the hoi2 successor games.

Occasionally, they do think alike but the hoi4 implementation of the same idea is worse. (Case in point, the way refineries are done in hoi4 vs AOD.)

Heck, they could play AOD for two days and probably get two whole DLCs of new mechanics for Hoi4 out of it.

Sorry, I wasn't actually trying to get at that kind of thing at all. I was more arguing that we shouldn't see this as 'paying for something we already have', as changes to the lots of things (at the very least, the code and various scripted files) mean that doing something 'the same way it was done before' still takes a bit of work, so having it in the base game, even if it is on the cards design-wise at some stage, may not be practical.

On looking at past games, if I were developing a WW2 GSG then beside the fact that someone has made a ridiculously bad investment, I would play all the previous WW2 GSGs I could get my hands on (it's not as if there are that many - I'd probably play a few operational games as well) just to get a feel for how things do and don't work (and I don't say that from the context of willy-nilly copying, but more having a good range of perspective when creating original systems - standing on the shoulders of giants* and all that). But my area of expertise isn't designing games, so I wouldn't be the best person to know (and there is a risk in looking at things pat of getting captured by ideas of the past as well in ways that hamper creativity - so it's not a cut-and-dried good thing to look at the past, although I'd argue the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs).

In the context of Fulmen's comment though (and not having a go at you Fulmen, just explaining myself :)) even if Podcat and the team had spent three weeks carefully playing the back-catalogue/AoD/DH, the Making Histories, Supreme Commander 1936, Strategic Command and the 1-2 games I'll have forgotten, they would still have to spend time coding any ideas from those games into the new system, as well as design time working out how the ideas there interacted with things here (fuel/ammo in the context of ships is a good example, given the very different approach to logistics in HoI4 compared with HoIs past) - so it may well not be feasible to have them in the base game at launch, even if the intent might be to get them in later.

On AoD, I'm pretty sure Podcat posted somewhere that he would try and have a look at it at some stage (although I may just be imagining it). As per my response above, I agree it feels like a good thing to do in the context of HoI4 (and that it's probably a better thing to do now, when HoI4 has got so much momentum the chance of AoD obscuring other creative ideas is a lot less), but beyond suggesting that every single expansion for the game should have a naval focus, I'm a bit wary of telling Podcat and the team what to do with their game.

* So I'm implicitly calling AoD a giant here :D.

I see @Axe99 being cool with it, but that's just because he's cool with pretty much anything and I can't imagine him being angry :rolleyes:

:) In my (granted, limited) experience, anger is rarely the best way to solve things, except in a situation where people need to 'let off steam' and so giving them an excuse to shout a bit makes things more peaceful in the longer term. I do get a bit grumpy and short at times, but I try not to take out any grumpiness on people. I definitely don't agree that HoI4 is the best it can be right now, and that there are a few systems that could do with some love, but I also think the devs are doing a great job and the best they can (WW2 GSGs aren't easy, and a horrible, big complicated things, and very rarely does everything work out peachy for version 1.0 on horrible, big complicated things), and that's not the kind of thing that I tend to get angry about :D.
 
Really Great DD @podcat :D :D

some point I am thinking about: Why is the "travel time" for 1 General with his staff much higher than the "travel time" of the whole army? If I move an army it is much faster than the "delay" for new appointed generals to catch up with the army... makes sense gamewise I guess but not from the "Background" were a general could fly to the front in 2-3 days.. maybe a 7-14 day delay would be better, depending on how far the bulk of the troups are?

and about the stream yesterday: in your stream yesterday, Germany got Danzig from Poland - but the Polish Navy was now doing a "flying dutchman" for the next 200 years near the coast - maybe it would be an idea to transfer the ships to Germany or destroy them instead of creating "ghost fleets" without homeport

--

can't wait for a Command Structure for Admirals too :D :D :D and generals for the airforce would be REALLY REALLY REALLY great!!

--

how the AI is handeling all this new stuff is the big "Elefant in the room"
 
some point I am thinking about: Why is the "travel time" for 1 General with his staff much higher than the "travel time" of the whole army? If I move an army it is much faster than the "delay" for new appointed generals to catch up with the army... makes sense gamewise I guess but not from the "Background" were a general could fly to the front in 2-3 days.. maybe a 7-14 day delay would be better, depending on how far the bulk of the troups are?

I would guess this represents not only the time to physically travel but also the time required to take over command, move/inform staff,...
 
These command power abilities are mostly unlocked by traits and apply to divisions under the general. They cost command power to trigger and run for a certain amount of time giving bonuses or other effects which offer up some neat new tactics.
View attachment 317254
Here is a breakdown of the abilities:
(...)
I'm kind of surprised there's no ability for encircled divisions to attempt a breakthrough, leaving [most of] the armament behind and saving just their bare skins.
Operation Dynamo at Dunkirk and Cherkassy Pocket come to mind as notable examples.

German 6th army trapped in Shtalingrad should be another one, this time 'the player' lacking command power to make this kind of order, though :Р

The point is, these things were devised or approved at a much higher authority level than a lot of items you list, which are arguably of tactical scale (Probing Attack etc.).

Force Attack kind of fits technically, but doesn't entail that much of desperation and is not limited to encirclements, where severe situation alone could have doubled the efforts.
 
Last edited:
it would be interesting to add in the tree of focus an alliance with the Argentine for the development nascista or better national socialist in america, this could result in a new expansion for the south america, putting in focus that, and Brazil, and in the tree of focus from brazil project for the force aero navigator, I believe that they did it but, calmly we will see this, congratulations for the work to the whole team the HOI4 is getting perfect and more and more technical like all players wanted.
I also think it would be interesting to adopt a way to control the tools created and raw materials
similar for pics for materials arms
 

Attachments

  • 23915585_1392388824203487_7919089898085426755_n.jpg
    23915585_1392388824203487_7919089898085426755_n.jpg
    18,7 KB · Views: 70
Can I do Siege Artillery without artillery, or Makeshift bridges without engineers?
 
AOD saw this problem in Hoi2 so it fixed it by adding a "in transit" delay for assigning generals. If the devs had played AOD for even an hour, they would have known about this.

It's not like it conflicts with HOi4 mechanics. It was just a good idea that we had to wait for them to reinvent because they won't look back at the AOD and Dr.
So how well did it work in AOD? Did it work at all - that is did the AI take that delay into account and assign/reassign leaders at times when erasing of the bonus from the previous commander was not a liability? How well was the code documented? What was the test coverage like - remember that any bit of code not tested is broken. Is it even possible to refactor code from AOD to HOI4 at all?
 
some point I am thinking about: Why is the "travel time" for 1 General with his staff much higher than the "travel time" of the whole army? If I move an army it is much faster than the "delay" for new appointed generals to catch up with the army... makes sense gamewise I guess but not from the "Background" were a general could fly to the front in 2-3 days.. maybe a 7-14 day delay would be better, depending on how far the bulk of the troups are?

@podcat Agree on this point. Anything longer than about a week or at worst two weeks is too long. It only takes a few days at most to fly a transport plane from point A to point B and take command.
 
The debate about fuel in HOI4 is not really related to the HOI2 successor games. What has been obvious to everyone who played AOD is that the HOI4 devs seem to have no familiarity with what the previous games did and the mechanics that they implemented.
AOD is not a successor to HoI2.

It is a game developed on the Eurpoa engine by fans of the HoI series.
As such, while it is nice, there is no necessity for the devs to be familiar with it**.


**though I imagine some of them had to an extent.
 
@podcat Agree on this point. Anything longer than about a week or at worst two weeks is too long. It only takes a few days at most to fly a transport plane from point A to point B and take command.
It doesn't necessarily represent only travel time, but also setting up staff, command structure, getting to know troops etc. All of which can take much longer than measly 30 days.