• 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 - Acclimatization and Special Forces

Hi everyone and welcome to another dev diary where we show off stuff as we work on Waking the Tiger. Today we are going to be talking about a feature I’ve been wanting for a long time - troop acclimatization.


Acclimatization
We have long wanted to simulate the problems associated with shifting troops to new fronts with more extreme weather they are not used to. We currently have two types: Cold Acclimatization and Heat Acclimatization. It is not possible to be acclimatized to both at the same time, so if you take troops from the desert and put them down in the Russian winter, they will need to “work off” their heat acclimatization first before they start getting accustomed to the cold. When a division is sufficiently acclimatized, it will change its look, as you can see below. On the left are troops in winter with no acclimatization and on the right is what they will look when acclimatized.
Screenshot_1.jpg

And an example from Africa:
hoi4_4.jpg


For most countries, we do this by switching the uniform on the 3D model to use more appropriate textures. In some cases, like where people only had tropic uniforms with short pants and the like, we replaced their uniforms to be more winter appropriate (suggestions by the art department to simply color their knees blue were sadly rejected). The new textures come with the DLC, but the core mechanic is free as part of 1.5 Cornflakes. You can see your acclimatization status as part of the unit list and its effects:
Screenshot_2.jpg



With full acclimatization you will reduce extreme weather penalties by about half. We will also be increasing the impact of harsh weather a bit to compensate for being able to avoid it now.

There are a few things that will help you gain acclimatization also. If your commander has the Adaptable trait or Winter Expert it will speed things up. There are also technologies that influence the acclimatization speed (more on that later).
upload_2017-12-6_14-41-16.png



Special forces
Up till now, we have had a bit of a balance issue with Special Forces (Marines, Mountaineers, Paratroopers). They were, pound for pound, better than regular infantry and many people simply replaced all their infantry with mountaineers.

To make sure special forces stay special, we added a restriction based on your whole army:
Screenshot_3.jpg


To ensure that you always know how many special forces you can field, the division designer and deployment will help you keep track:

Screenshot_4.jpg


Along with this change in how Special Forces work, we wanted to make them stand out a bit more. Six new infantry technologies have been added to improve these elite troops.

Special forces are trained and equipped for conditions that ordinary soldiers aren’t expected to excel in. The first tech will give them a boost to acclimatization speed. Afterwards, the tree splits. One option is to train your special forces harder, to improve their skills and their ability to fight for longer before having to be resupplied. The other option is to expand the special forces training programs to accept more recruits. Your special forces will be more numerous, but come with more drag and not quite as high speed. In the end though, they will still be elite forces and will be able to develop training to make them even more skilled in fighting in the harshest of conditions.

Screenshot_5.jpg


See you all next week when we return to take a look at the Chinese warlords.

Also, don’t miss out on World War Wednesday today at 16:00 CET as normal. Me and Daniel will continue our fight against communism (or the British fleet… we are still arguing about that) as Germany under the rule of the Kaiser.
 
Seems like they just poured Quikrete in a corner of the vanilla sand box.

I assumed it was a quick bandaid rather than spending untold development hours trying to come up with multiple manpower pools or reworking ministers/doctrines/national spirits/whatever.

Maybe they don't want this part of the game to be quite so sandboxy, though. Here's hoping research NFs for minors get toned down, too. (Not eliminated, just toned down a bit.)
 
I

The cap on MTN, MAR, and PARA is arbitrary only in the sense that it's meant as an abstraction of a bunch of other factors that cover why every division in the war didn't have MAR, MTN, and PARA in them.

No, it i arbitrary in the sense that five percent is way too low and has no rationale basis and is certainly not based in historical armed forces.
 
Will there be a visual indicator on counters regarding acclimatization?

Dare I say, “genius!” ?

All: take note of Seattle’s suggestion.

Visual representation of data.

Now, that’s what we’re talking about!
 
@fabius @Axe99 @billcorr @JerkyJerry

I do not dispute that from a realism standpoint tacking an arbitrary cap (and a flat 5% across the board for every nation IS arbitrary) on SF forces makes some sense.

My questions are these;

Is this realism for realism's sake? Saying it is for balance doesn't track because SP games are supposed to be about Sand Box and MP games regulate balance on their own.

I can't speak for MP, but while SP is indeed quite sandbox-y, sandbox doesn't necessarily (and in my view shouldn't - but that's just my view, and not any better or worse than any other :) ) mean "anything goes". For me, a good sandbox is "players can make a range of choices within historically plausible bounds". Where people draw the line at historical plausibility varies, but I'd argue that a cap on 'special forces' (and I agree with the discussion above that the term does lead to some confusion in terms of the difference between an airborne division and SAS/Ranger formations, say) would fall into the broad spectrum of 'historically plausible bounds'. A fun sandbox (for me at least) isn't "every country has unlimited manpower and factories", but has what I'd see as sensible historically plausible boundaries within which free choice are made. Even in Grand Theft Auto, players have to respect geography, for example.

For me, I'd think the issue wouldn't be whether there was a cap or not (as I think some kind of cap makes sense - 200 mountain divisions being used as INF would seem a tad implausible, in terms of availability of quality manpower) - but rather how large the cap was, and how the cap was implemented. For example, it may make sense for a country like Switzerland or Italy to have a national spirit giving it a larger cap for special forces (given all its mountains), within the context of the existing mechanics (it could even potentially make sense for some countries to have national spirit maluses on special forces, although I'm not saying that's a good idea or one I'd mod in, just throwing ideas around).
 
Maybe they don't want this part of the game to be quite so sandboxy, though. Here's hoping research NFs for minors get toned down, too. (Not eliminated, just toned down a bit.)
or maybe it's that they are doing it so the game doesn't become unplayable because having an AI that could counter the spam would slow to a crawl with all the checks needed. People complain the AI is crap, and when they do things that will allow them to make a better AI the complain the changes are crap... I mean I'm making an assumption, but the logic behind it is sound, and if I'm right, it's one of those times where damned if you do, damned if you don't and can't win.
 
I do not disagree there should be a cap, I suppose. I just feel 5 percent is too low. There are other ways to stop cheese, eg making 20 width maximum, capping number of artillery, at as line units.

and that falls under realistic division composition that I so desperately want included one day

What about an organization and recovery rate penalty based on width instead of a hard cap like Gefallener_Held is suggesting? This could simulate the difficulty of controlling larger formations just like reality (what with almost all nations downsizing their armored formations as the war progressed). It could be balanced to encourage a sweet spot around the 15 to 25 width mark just like reality. The only difficulty I can think of is how to make it obvious that thats whats happening when you design large divisions.
 
not a bad idea... I think it has some merit, though I feel it might not be enough as I've seen low org way overpowered div just blitz through...
 
There should be advantages and disadvantages to mixing different width divisions together, without forcing the cookie-cutter approach that currently exists.

I am very skeptical about this battalion-sized limit on elite troops and the like, though.
 
We really do need brigade-level units represented better.
 
those are all "Specialized divisions" the US special forces are:
USAAF PJ's / Air Commandos
USN Seals
USArmy Green Berets / Rangers
etc

Yeah, I included the Raiders, the Commandos, and the Rangers.

The rest that you listed are in fact special ops units.

Only the Green Berets are technically "special forces", that term is a specific title for them. The Rangers and the rest are all SOCOM, or Special Operations.
 
Ah, semantics. My most favorist and the most famousist part of gaming.
:D
 
Special Operations.
semantics, they are all special operation forces...
Yeah, I included the Raiders, the Commandos, and the Rangers.

The rest that you listed are in fact special ops units.
and all you listed of those three were spec ops not special forces, I just used slang nomenclature for the description of my list, instead of pointing out for example that the USAF Air Commandos were born of the 1st SOG where SOG stands for Special Operation Group...

Those first three you listed (Raiders / Commandos / Rangers) are not like the rest as they are all battalion level units and not divisional and should not be listed as equivalent.

Though... the Raiders did join all the battalions to eventually became parts of the 4th and 5th Marine Division, and were the same as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd... which the implication is they were no more special than the rest, just broken up into smaller units for specific type missions... oh wait, that was the actual case... and yes I know they got their rubber boat training earlier, but that is about the extent of the differentiation.
 
This DLC/patch just gets better by the week, can't wait to play it. Love it.

Podcat please give us a option to turn off acclimatization (with out affecting ironman mode), I love the idea but the stick is getting ever bigger for the AI too beat it's self with.
 
This DLC/patch just gets better by the week, can't wait to play it. Love it.

Podcat please give us a option to turn off acclimatization (with out affecting ironman mode), I love the idea but the stick is getting ever bigger for the AI too beat it's self with.

You are assuming that no improvement has been made on the AI all this time.
 
Ah, semantics. My most favorist and the most famousist part of gaming.
:D

I sometimes wonder why no-one has released "Semantics Simulator" yet - it's got to be a huge, untapped market :D.
 

Might want to note that Marine Raiders, Army Rangers, and UK Commandos never deployed as divisions in ww2. Raiders and Rangers were at most regimental sized but mostly fought as battalions. UK Commandos were mostly company sized units but did form 4 Assault Brigades for D-Day.

US Airborne were elite units that only took the upper levels of candidates. US Marines accepted volunteers and were not too choosy during ww2. Not sure about 10th Mtn. All three received specialized training and ToE for their mission but they probably wouldnt be considered Special Forces.