HOI4 Dev Diary - Acclimatization and Special Forces

[Secret Master]

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.

To be perfectly honest, instead of giving MAR and MTN better stats of any kind (ORG, SA, whatever) other than terrain bonuses, I'd be happy if they had better terrain stats only, but there was additional equipment that these battalions required.

It's kind of abstracted right now as extra infantry kits (and I understand why), but I'd like to see mountain warfare gear and amphibious warfare gear required on top of infantry equipment.

Since infantry kits are basically a fungible commodity with dozens of battalion types in the game with a variety of missions (suppression, motorized, mechanized, crappy port garrisons, troops spending time touring Paris, cavalry running through the desert, anti-PARA garrison forces, and so on), the added cost of MTN and MAR is not that big of a deal. But if they required some other kind of gear that was not useful to other units, it might make a difference.

On the other hand, if you equalized their non-terrain stats with regular INF, we'd get a yet another never ending litany of "But division X was special" complaints. So, there's no winning, really.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

To be honest I had no idea that there was any type of balance issue, amount issue, template issue etc. with special forces. I'm on this forum every day and I can't recall a single post about how special forces are the reason or even part of a balance issue. I had no idea there was a SP balance issue. Did you? Did anyone?
Never read a post about it before. Like you said Meglok, if there is a balance issue with special forces, is that not the player's own doing? If in MP, write another rule? In SP stop building them?
I don't know, having never read a single disparaging thing about Special Forces I had no idea they were in such dire need of fixing.
Did someone from PDX state it was a balancing issue or is that the assumption of forumites?

You never heard of space marines, this 40 width template of marines with anti tank, anti artillery and I believe some armor?

 

[kaguravitro]

i reread the original post and i find rarely that in hot acclimation apears, hot, very hot and not "jungle climate" diferent of other 2.

the jungle climatization i think must be apply in this system becose its totaly other mobility stuff and the adaptation for battalions is very clever historicly in south east asia in ww2 and later.

 

[GermanDave]

You never heard of space marines, this 40 width template of marines with anti tank, anti artillery and I believe some armor?

It's beyond me that they fix the special forces cheese but leave the soft power cheese untouched.
Welp, even without specops my 40 width inf-art dvisions will rampage through Russia regardless.

 

[Axe99]

One of the things I hate about caps are; once they are used it becomes easier and easier to use them in the future. Remember a few months ago when PDX announced that Russia would no longer be allowed to build mechanized any longer? (Axe please tell me my memory is right on this). Another form of a cap.

I'm pretty sure that was an AI issue more broadly - there was a patch (I think it's still the case in 1.4.2) when the AI became reluctant to build MOT. It's not a cap, per se (player SOV can mec to the limit of the industry and tech), just issues getting the AI to behave.

As for caps getting easier to use over time, that just stands to reason. When you first get a cap, the band is usually stiff and starchy, but as it stretches it gets more comfortable . Although, past a certain point, it then gets loose and falls off easily. So "cap useability" is probably a function that increases then decreases over time .

This cap, for example, is past it's prime....

Axe, who would know?
If you, who play only SP did not tell anyone you were using 200 mountain divisions.... how would we know?
If you played only MP would you just not write a rule?

Why should there be a cap enforced by PDX? I use a self-imposed cap, or not. You will never know!

The same argument could be made for unlimited anything though - why not allow every nation to instantly build ten BBs, and only regulate through self-limiting?

In HoI4, the designers use certain words that might not mean what they think they mean.

As someone who's posted a few semantics-related bug reports, I think Paradox actually do a very good job here, even if they were all native speakers. I see less typos playing HoI4 than I do on local news sites written by people that are, in theory, fluent users of English. The general standard of English and editing these days isn't what it used to be, at least if my sample of naval history books from the 1940s and 1950-something compared with more recent titles is anything to go by.

The good ole USA is more than 25% of sales and 0% dev love. Equal to sales as the next three countries combined yet USA zero updates/improvements. England, Germany and now China all received updates/improvements long before the #1 game purchaser.
I'm going to be praying for a great big USA update after Corn Flakes. Fingers crossed.

It's worth keeping in mind that this is a WW2 game, and the USA didn't get into the action until the last month of 1941. I can't speak for the devs, but it may make sense to focus more on 'early' nations (China/Japan from 1937, UK/GER from 1939) than later ones. Only so much can be done at once - I have no doubt all the majors will get more love in time, hopefully it's just a matter of being patient .

 

[GermanDave]

As someone who's posted a few semantics-related bug reports, I think Paradox actually do a very good job here, even if they were all native speakers. I see less typos playing HoI4 than I do on local news sites written by people that are, in theory, fluent users of English. The general standard of English and editing these days isn't what it used to be, at least if my sample of naval history books from the 1940s and 1950-something compared with more recent titles is anything to go by.

Could you put a list of naval book recommendations in your sig? I'm currrently reading 'The Eagle against the Sun" and really enjoy it.

 

[GSP Jr]

Could you put a list of naval book recommendations in your sig? I'm currrently reading 'The Eagle against the Sun" and really enjoy it.

I thought that was an excellent book also.

 

[Gort11]

I can thoroughly recommend Shattered Sword, Dreadnought and Castles of Steel if you want some good naval history books. Shattered Sword is about the Japanese fleet at Midway, the other two are about the German and British fleets prior to and during World War 1.

 

[Axe99]

Could you put a list of naval book recommendations in your sig? I'm currrently reading 'The Eagle against the Sun" and really enjoy it.

I'm just an enthusiast (I've only read around 20-30 naval books - and none of those mentioned by Gort, although they're all on my 'list', and I''d be very surprised if you went wrong with them), and there are a lot of naval history books, and they vary a lot in terms of what they look at (and quality as well, although most of the ones I've read seem pretty decent). My reading so far has focused on a combination of "ship info" for the naval mod I'm working on (the first stage of the mod was ship stats), and "whatever I feel like reading at the time" (which is pretty random - anything from Mike Carlton's Flagship which is very readable and accessible, to the book I just finished, Friedman's Network-centric Warfare which was a bit harder going). The Warship annuals are great, but tend to be written for people already pretty familiar with things (I love them now, but I expect I'd have found them nearly unreadable a couple of years ago).

In terms of personal favourites, I really enjoyed Flagship in terms of the story of a ship and the RAN more broadly in the Pacific War - it's my favourite 'accessible' book. I'd definitely recommend 'working up' to the more technical stuff, as past a certain point a lot of authors expect readers to be familiar with a bunch of different acronyms and terms.

Probably shouldn't head too far off topic in this thread though - maybe kick off a 'naval history books' thread if you wanted to pursue further? I know there are other forum goers who've read a good deal more than me who I'm sure would have quality recommendations .

 

[Had a dad]

I'm 100% under the belief that it is the player and not PDX that should determine how many or few of something/anything there should be. The cap (if there is to be one) should be determined by the player. Or in a multi-player game by the players/rules.

umm... you will be able too if it is anything like the cap in TFH.

What would you have them do have a popup at the start of the game the requires and input %

 

[paranoidsteve]

It's beyond me that they fix the special forces cheese but leave the soft power cheese untouched.
Welp, even without specops my 40 width inf-art dvisions will rampage through Russia regardless.

I don't think you will have enough population available to cover your soviet front with 40 width inf-art divisions with the new population mechanics. Hopefully the population changes will stop the game breaking division spam.

 

[JerkyJerry]

This cap, for example, is past it's prime....

So am I my friend so am I

 

[Axe99]

So am I my friend so am I

Not half as far as I am

 

[JerkyJerry]

umm... you will be able too if it is anything like the cap in TFH.

What would you have them do have a popup at the start of the game the requires and input %

Oh no, probation is as deep in the sin bin as I'm willing to go over this topic!

 

[JerkyJerry]

The same argument could be made for unlimited anything though - why not allow every nation to instantly build ten BBs, and only regulate through self-limiting?

I've never stated that nor would I ever support it. Oh wait, yes I already did.
Why would I want the ability to place any amount of anything anytime I wanted? To ensure that whatever country I am playing I can have the most fun and challenging experience I could possibly have.

Here we go with my memory again....
I would love to recreate the tank battle of Kursk? (was it Kursk?) I think that was the largest during the war? Ever?
I absolutely want to face a maxed out Germany with all the bells and whistles so when I'm playing Russia I'm in the most awesome battle of all time

Because I want to use that tool (that was once in the console commands but no longer works) to beef up my enemies to provide me the bestest SP game ever! I want to ensure that none of my enemies runs out of supplies.
Because I hate playing 25 or 35 hours in a single campaign only to get to the shores of Sicily to discover that neither Italy nor Germany have any supplies, planes, tanks etc etc etc. really sucks
Because I'm playing against the AI
Because I don't mind losing every once in a while

So while I'm sure some people would use this tool to improve their own standing in the world. I can assure you I would only use this tool to beef up my enemies. With this tool, along with the AI, I would be granted the ability to create the most challenging experience I can have playing SP.

And finally, because I'm playing against the AI. I just want to help the AI so very very badly. If I were allowed to set in stone templates and build/place what I want when I want. I could easily come up with scenarios in which I would have a high probability of losing, yet having fun at the same time and a lot of it.

 

[Farquarsen]

those are all "Specialized divisions" the US special forces are:
USAAF PJ's / Air Commandos
USN Seals
USArmy Green Berets / Rangers
etc

Sorry, US Rangers are not special forces as defined by the US Army. The Ranger Battalions are army level assets the army commander sends behind the enemy lines to disrupt communications. They are uniformed and subject to the Geneva convention. Special Forces, Seals and Army Special Forces(commonly known as Green Berets), are country assets. They are small teams of 6 to 18 men sent to areas to influence local politics or local commanders. They may or may not be subject to the Geneva convention.

 

[Had a dad]

Sorry, US Rangers are not special forces as defined by the US Army. The Ranger Battalions are army level assets the army commander sends behind the enemy lines to disrupt communications. They are uniformed and subject to the Geneva convention. Special Forces, Seals and Army Special Forces(commonly known as Green Berets), are country assets. They are small teams of 6 to 18 men sent to areas to influence local politics or local commanders. They may or may not be subject to the Geneva convention.

read the follow up comments...

 

[RELee]

C'mon, you guys! Stop living in reality and embrace HOI gaming definitions!

 

[Cheater]

I think what PDX did with this limitation is just a thing of common sense.
See, these SF-battallions are not filled with just conscripted guys who are barely good enough for regular army service - they are filled with only the finest men, in the best physical and mental condition.
Out of thousands of conscripts, you can only find some dozens of men in these conscripts who are good enough for the SF, and this is a harsh limit to the number of special forces you can probably have, because if you conscript anyone beyond that conditinary limit, they will simply drag down the Overall performance of what should be a very fine unit and better than regular infantry.

This also reflects in the new technologies: You can either have "better" SF, which i translate into "you train these fine men even better than before, but there are still just a handful of them", or you can have "more" SF, which means you are lowering the requirements for the recruits who are conscripted, but this also means that their performance per unit does not raise up (IMO, the former should even lower the amount of SF you can have, while the latter should lower the performance, which would become a choice you really should consider).

Maybe one can argue, that "marines" or "mountaineers" are no SF at all, but back in the 1930s or 1940s, there were a bunch of doctrinal innovations, and therefore, all the things that these paras, mountaineers or marines are doing on the operational level was not that proven and still under development.
So, very competent men were needed to fill the ranks of a unit that must operate under much harder circumstances than most regular, "frumpy" infantry-divisions.
And also think about the fact, that no army nowadays has a high amount of mordern SF-Units (or they just hide it very well ), do they?

 

[Meglok]

@Secret Master I would much prefer higher costs and different equipment for airborne, marines, and mountain. Or at least doubling their support costs and boosting training time. But not to a BICE extent. And perhaps they did that, or will do that. There was a lot left unsaid in the DD about this. Podcat would have been far better off to have been either more detailed in his info or to have waited until this was more fleshed out before releasing it.

You never heard of space marines, this 40 width template of marines with anti tank, anti artillery and I believe some armor?

If you don't like space marines don't use them in your SP game. If they are an issue in your MP game ban or modify their use. Many do. But if I want to to try using 30 mountain divisions as Italy because Italy is surrounded by hills and mountains or 30 marine divisions as Japan because I have to invade a gazillion islands and I am willing to pay the equipment and training costs for them, why not let me play what if in the HOI4 sand box? Raise their training time, raise their equipment costs, just don't slap an magical cap on them.