• 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.

Dev Corner | Hydrodynamics

Briefing: Hydrodynamics
Written by: @Zwirbaum


Hello everyone!

Another week is upon us which means it is the time for another dev corner. Last week Thomas talked about what we are cooking with the Factions, while I will be talking about naval and naval-related changes. Even the most beautiful placeholder art will be gone eventually like tears in the rain. So strap in, and prepare for the deluge of the information that will be coming your way. Also, keep in mind that everything discussed here is in a relatively early stage, and as such is subject to change.

It is no secret that one of the most common sentiments across the Hearts of Iron IV player base is that the Navy seems to be rather hard to understand. Some elements are almost instantaneous in the effect (Supremacy), others take a long time (building the Navy) and some elements remain relatively hidden until the actual shooting starts (Supremacy Value of the Ships, Screening in Taskforces etc.). On top of that we are also having a fairly complex system of Naval Missions - where they work best when using them together, synergistically. However missions could be explained a bit better, and sometimes what is best to achieve your goal could be somewhat counterintuitive. (Giant Strike Force of Doom, sitting idle in the port somewhat projecting supremacy across the entire oceans without ever sailing out as one example). So how are we planning to address it?

Core Concept
Similarly to how last week we talked about high-level concepts for the Factions, I will try to do the same for the Naval Systems, but before that I will also list some of our goals that were the basis for what we are working on:

  • Updating and Reshaping Naval Gameplay, making it more strategic, giving you the opportunity for the counter-play if needed; a bit more predictable, and less ‘flip-floppy’
  • Updating Naval Missions so that they become more intuitive, with a much clearer purpose and use case
  • Encourage a more active use of fleets
  • Update and Communicate better to the Player some of the intricacies of the Naval Systems
  • Increasing the Importance of the Islands Control (in the Pacific) and Naval Logistics
  • Updating Carriers and address the interactions between land-based aircraft and naval taskforces

Update to the Naval Gameplay

Naval Dominance
First of all, and the most important of the changes is that we are introducing the concept of Naval Dominance. Naval Dominance is a sort of umbrella term for a couple of things. Similar to how ships had Supremacy Value, now they have Naval Dominance Value, which will be displayed on the Ship Card.

dc_hydrodynamics_001_marked.png

Mutsu has 509 Naval Dominance Value. We are also changing the old calculation, that was based mostly on Production Cost and Manpower, to have more things affecting the calculation, like Speed and Range, so for those who want to build Fast Battleships, increased dominance value may be the reward…

Next, we will want to talk about Naval Dominance - which is our way of indicating naval control of sea zones. Each Sea Zone, depending on the terrain type, has a certain threshold of dominance points you need to have before you can claim you ‘control’ it. And if you are at war, then similarly to the older system, you are also taking into account enemies' Dominance Value and the ratios between you and them. Also the ratio needed for ‘control’ now has been adjusted to require 66% instead of 50%+1.

Having control, or as we call it now, establishing Naval Dominance in a Sea Zone, provides you with certain advantages and bonuses. For instance, as you can see in the screenshot below - potentially reducing the amount of convoys needed for Trade and Supplies by up to 25% if you have secured the entire shipping route.
There are other benefits that I will not fully reveal yet, but amongst other things, there will be something to help you secure islands and potential naval invasion targets.

dc_hydrodynamics_002.png

In this example we can see that in order to claim ‘control’ over the Deep Oceans sea zone, you would need to accumulate at least 1000 points worth of Dominance, assuming nobody would contest you.

Dominance Gain
dc_hydrodynamics_003.png

This tooltip shows the information about the current amount of dominance accumulated in this sea zone, how long it will take to establish its full value, things that impact it, like airbases located on the islands in the seazone etc.

Dominance as opposed to the previous supremacy system now takes some time to establish, but it also doesn’t simply instantly disappear when ships engage in combat, or go to repair after a battle.

Naval Mission Updates
We will also be making the following changes to Naval Missions. We will divide current missions into 2 groups; Core Missions and Auxiliary Missions.

Core Missions - (PATROL, CONVOY RAIDING, CONVOY ESCORT, STRIKE FORCE)

Those missions are your primary way to interact with naval dominance. Each mission type will interact a bit differently. As it is right now, Patrol will be serving for Building Up Dominance, Convoy Raiding reducing Enemy Dominance, Convoy Escorts will provide a ‘protected’ value, which means enemy raiding won’t be able to reduce your dominance below that value, and Strike Force serving as a ‘Synergy Tool’ - and amplifying other missions. Hopefully this will provide a clear and relatively intuitive system on how to use the Naval Missions.

Auxiliary Missions - (NAVAL EXERCISE, MINELAYING, MINESWEEPING, NAVAL INVASION SUPPORT)

Those missions do not interact directly with naval dominance, however, they do benefit from it, like for example, being able to minelay or minesweep faster and more efficiently when operating within a region where you have established control and have naval dominance.

Naval Home Bases, Range & Supply
dc_hydrodynamics_004.png

This Dutch Fleet has set the port in Batavia to be their Home Base.

We are reintroducing the Home Base system for the Fleets. Each Fleet needs to have a Home Base. Any Naval Base that you have access to (Your own, Subject or Faction Members, or if you have secured Docking Rights) can be selected as a Home Base. So the question is; what does the Home Base do?

Naval Range
One of the changes that we are doing is that the ship's range is now projected from the Home Base instead of all Naval Bases.

dc_hydrodynamics_005.png

dc_hydrodynamics_006.png

As you can see depending on where Home Base is located, the range, and access to do the Naval Missions is quite different. A fleet with Königsberg set as Home Base does not have the range to do the missions in Norwegian Sea or Western Approaches Sea Zone.

Naval Supply
Previously, naval units would always draw the supplies from the Naval Bases closest to where the taskforces were operating, now - they will be drawing the supply from their selected Home Base.

dc_hydrodynamics_007.png

This fleet has a Home Base set in Honolulu - and is operating in the Micronesian Gap. Despite the port in Johnston Atoll being closer it draws the supply from Hawaii Naval Base Supply.

State Building Limit - Islands
In Götterdämmerung we introduced terrain-based limits for province-based buildings like Forts and Coastal Forts, so that you couldn’t build the Maginot Line everywhere. In a similar spirit, we will be introducing state-based building limits for the buildings. In this case we are now focusing on putting limits on the various Island categories, so that not every single tiniest of islands can have an airbase capable of storing and launching for missions 2000 planes every day. Right now those caps are based on the Island state categories (Tiny Island, Small Island, Large Island), and upon one concept we will talk about in the future.

dc_hydrodynamics_008.png

Marcus Island can now have at most a level two airbase and level three naval base. Those limits as all the numbers, stats and values are of course subject to change. Also there is totally nothing hidden under that Hearts of Iron IV logo.

Short Comment
Initially when I started writing this section, I was going to write how I envision things mentioned so far will change the naval gameplay, and how X will impact Y, however I think I am more interested in hearing what you, my dear readers, are thinking and your opinion on what you have read today.

Naval Invasions
We are doing some touch-ups to the naval invasions as well. In the current live version of the game, there is a global naval invasion capacity set by your technologies, doctrines and other modifiers, and then depending on how many divisions you assigned to the invasion, it would take a certain amount of time to plan that naval invasion. This system unfortunately had one issue, that in order to be ‘optimal’, it encouraged to spam 1-division naval invasions, as that technically allowed you to have a massive naval invasion planned just within a few days, at the small cost of carpal tunnel syndrome.

In the new system, there will be, depending on your technologies, doctrines etc. a certain amount of naval invasions you can plan at the same time, each being able to have a certain amount of divisions, and no matter what, always taking a specific amount of time to plan.

Also, for a country that hasn’t researched even the basic Transport technology, there will still be a possibility to launch a very limited naval invasion under the new system.

Appeal to my Lizard Brain
And last but not least, I’m going to tell you about one more thing - and that is that we are adding visual representation of control over the seas, visible on default map mode, which during a conflict should represent a gradual shift of control over the zones, giving the feeling of ‘naval frontlines’. Also this can serve as a kind of warning, that when your coastline sea zones start displaying your potential enemy colours.

dc_hydrodynamics_009.png

This is the current prototype of showing on the default map mode who has naval dominance. In this case Japan has the most dominance, and nobody is effectively contesting it, thus Japanese colours are displayed on the map.


Wrapping Up
So, to wrap things up, this is just a number of things we are doing for the Naval. I have not touched upon anything Carrier related, new equipment or new tools yet, or any UX/UI updates. I will return in due time to provide you with more information on all the things that are not-dry, in the meantime - here is a teaser of a thing that we may talk about in the future, with this beautiful placeholder art done by myself.

dc_hydrodynamics_010.png

Who will guess what this is?

This is my first dev corner, so I can only hope my writing is not too stiff. In time I hope it will get better.

Anyways, thanks for reading and until next time, farewell!

/Zwirbaum





Also, we have a survey for you to fill out when/if you have time regarding Naval Gameplay. Just keep in mind that this forum thread is for your feedback about the Developer Corner. If you have feedback about this specific survey we welcome your thoughts in a separate forum post, or in the HOI Discord!

EDIT 25/06/25 - Thank you to all participants for the Player Survey, this survey is now closed!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 78Like
  • 33Love
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Agree on the Edit, you have a full doctrine as the USA with 0 effort.

We are making some changes to how the Naval XP is being generated - and we definitely want to lower the crazy XP gain from Naval Exercises, however we also want to encourage people being a bit more active with their fleets, so... (Numbers are absolutely placeholderish, do not read too much into the amounts of XP)
hm2.png
 
  • 17Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I can see the attempt to remove deathstacking by needing multiple taskforces to do multiple missions at once, but there are a few questions I have.

1. What prevents having a deathstack to do just convoy raiding to ensure naval superiority (besides fuel consumption which the US can just ignore) or just simply going between missions based on what's needed?

2. What prevents setting a deathstack on strike force from eliminating smaller task forces that are doing other missions to build/reduce naval dominance?

3. How can countries with limited fuel gain/reserves be able to compete with other navies who are able to do all the necessary missions to ensure naval dominance without maybe reducing the fuel consumption of ships.

4. If 4 carriers remain the basis of a task force, could this be applied to other ship classes as well to limit the sizes of task forces? For example, maybe 12 capitals (including a potential 4 carriers) before penalties begin accumulating to where smaller task forces can compete against them. There is also the idea of naval caps like in the TFB mod which makes admirals lead task forces basically instead of whole fleets.

Numbers or mechanics can change, but the main thing is to remove deathstacks to truly make naval more engaging and more similar to IRL.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there are any plan to rebalance the modules of the ship designer as well? Looking at Panzerschiff and CDS hull for example having a 3500 production cost, a higher cost than even a 1944 battleship hull. They are currently obscenely expensive to build or refit. Not to mention costing even more steel.
 
Last edited:
  • 9Like
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Hi, I'll give you a clear example on the current gameplay:

There is a country "A" that has set itself the goal of superiority at sea and built battleships and aircraft carriers for dominance, and there is a second country "B" that has set itself the goal of destroying the enemy fleet and has built many light cruisers and destroyers with torpedoes and, if you like, spammed them with submarines (which also currently have colossal power against surface ships). So the question is who is the true dominant force in the conflict, the one who has many large ships or the one who has many powerful ships. I don't understand naval historical battles and maybe I just said something stupid, but I wonder if it should be like this? And yes, I still don't understand whether the strike ships will be permanently at the base?
I want to clarify what I mean.

In this screenshot we see on the left the so-called powerful fleet and on the right the dominant one. Shouldn't the dominant fleet have greater strength?
armoured-light-cruisers-are-the-definitive-sp-naval-meta-v0-6nsb1jqqge7c1.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
This system unfortunately had one issue, that in order to be ‘optimal’, it encouraged to spam 1-division naval invasions, as that technically allowed you to have a massive naval invasion planned just within a few days, at the small cost of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Finally, my fingers are saved... o_O
 
Hmmm, the change from Naval Supremacy to Dominance looks interesting, overall I think I like it and it's a positive change.

Overall I was expecting more from this Naval Focus Dev diary however and I hope you cover more about the Navy in the future. As it is right now once you've destroyed the enemy Fleet with yours you really don't have anything else to do. It would be great if your battleships could provide active bombardment of enemy airfields in the islands, or do damage to enemy Coastal forts before the naval invasions take place ( which of course can be disrupted by land-based bombers)

Looking forward to more words on Carrier interactions. As it is now Port striking from carriers really seems to do more damage and it's just better to use land-based Naval bombers to attack ports. I imagine you're introducing raid system for Port striking and I'm looking forward to it, but maybe also don't forget that carriers aren't the only things that can rate a port! It might be dangerous but if I want to send my entire fleet to go bombard another enemy Navy in their home base, I should be able to do so!

This is the Dev Corner and not the Dev Diary, so it shows a earlier look at some of the things we are developing, and not the whole set . :)
 
  • 11Like
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Is there are any plan to rebalance the modules of the ship designer as well? Looking at Panzerschiff and CDS hull having a 3500 production cost, a higher cost than even a 1944 battleship hull. They are currently obscenely expensive to build or refit. Not to mention costing even more steel.

No promises, but I do definitely want to take a look at the some of the numbers, stats and values - and it is quite high on my personal list.
 
  • 24Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Any thoughts on removing the 5 dockyard cap on building heavy ships? As many have already noted, one of the biggest obstacles to doing a "navy" build, that isn't just spamming out light ships and subs, is the immense amount of time it takes to get capital ships--which makes researching the later tech builds useless because of the time lag and by the time the war kicks off, also incredibly useless to build more of them because by the time they are ready the war will be over. If you are the Axis, you simply take Britain's navy and immediately can curb stomp either the US or Japan without too much extra work. If you are the allies, well, you already start with the huge navies and only Japan is a threat. If you are a minor, as was already pointed out, you aren't doing the navy because its ROI is so awful compared to other elements of the game.

So while I'd love to see a way to decrease production costs, I think removing the 5 cap would also help. If you have a reasonable number of dockyards just because (like Italy for instance), you might be willing to use ten of them to spam out a big ship faster.

I'll also say that carriers always are a dubious investment, to me anyway, for nearly every country because you need the two extra production lines to produce carrier fighters and bombers. So not only do you have to sink all of the tech and dockyards into building out the ships, you also need to devote some precious mils to the planes.
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be any rebalances to the naval tech tree or production output since currently, building any capital ships apart from the 36' or 40' tech is almost never worth it.

By the time you research them and start building them, capitals from the 40' tech come off the drydocks in late 43, by which time the naval game is almost always decided already...
As mentioned somewhere else, no promises, but it is something quite high on my personal todo-list.
 
  • 21Like
Reactions:
A good start on forcing players to spread out fleets, as well as neutering the sub spam strategies
However, it appears the issue remains of ships not having a purpose after opposing fleets have been destroyed. Once dominance has been acquired, those ships won't have much reason to exist
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Will naval production be affected by efficiency cap tech? As of now it is nearly impossible to get the naval production of France or Britain (to list the most egregious examples) anywhere close to their historical production levels.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Love to see some changes to navy, a lot of aspects could be a lot more accesible / less micro intensive.

Will have to see how the changes are implemented but I do hope the production and management gets some practical changes.

Production example:
  • Being able to copy a production line instead of having to create a new one.
  • New lines starting with max docks instead of 1
A big help would be be able to update a hull that's already in production without losing everything. (say add a radar or turret)

Management example:

When you look at a division you can see it's stats but when you look at a fleet you need to check every ship type to know what it's speed is. I would be great to have a Fleet overview like a division. So you know your, Speed, Range, Attack values etc.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There was a very big thread earlier this year on the issues with navy and naval production and similar, idk if you have read it at all?

Secondly, this might be controversial but I always hate how hard it is to create realistic ww2 ships in the naval screen. You seem to require to drop half the arament and the existing ships seem to have some giving the same gun on different ships to different tiers of modules. This is espeically apparent when looking at AA. Is there any plan to fix this and go with something more akin to history then a mix of multiple stuff?
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
You would need to set Hong-Kong as the new home base before sending the fleet there, if they have no range to operate out there, but switching Home Base can be done right now with CTRL-Right Click if my memory serves well, so it is a relatively painless 'operation'.
I'm afraid that that may be a bit confusing to new players. People often don't read the tooltips fully, which you can realize by people being surprised that you can order training exercises to stop automatically after reaching the unit experience cap. It's bound to result in people being confused why they cannot operate in a particular zone, even after they click the port nearby.

Perhaps we should ask first: if a player has a fleet selected and right-clicks a port, what is more likely? That they now want their fleet to operate from that specific port from now on, or for any other reason? Perhaps changing the home base should be as easy as right-clicking, and simply moving there for a different reason should require the ctrl?

Speaking of ranges, I do wonder if switching bases is an action that requires the range. Or in other words, if I want to move my destroyers from Netherlands to Indonesia or the other way and I have no bases in-between, is that still possible?
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't really know enough about naval warfare (both IRL and in-game) to really have a strong opinion on the proposed changes, or suggest more changes. That said, I do want to share my personal experience as a beginner HoI4 player. Keep in mind that I don't have MtG and I am very much a beginner:

1. Since naval production is based on dockyards and not on mils, it creates a situation where I find it hard to find a good balance between investing on dockyards and investing on mils. How many dockyards should I build as the UK? As the US? As Italy? Now, this is mostly a skill issue/lack of knowledge, but it feels weird that a mil that produces anti-air guns can't help produce ships that include... anti-air guns. I feel that having more interaction between navy and land warfare, as well as some interoperability between dockyards and mils, could improve this.

2. I have a hard time understanding the feedback from the navy once the war starts. For me, the war starts then navy-related pop-ups appear everywhere and I have a really hard time parsing what is happening. Am I winning the naval warfare? Am I losing? Should I worry about enemy ships sinking 12 convoys of mine? Where is my navy? Why aren't they engaging the enemy? I'm sure most of these have perfectly reasonable answers, but I find the UI confusing.

3. Once the war starts, I feel like a spectator. I set up my fleets (using some handy online guides), put them in the desired naval missions and... that's it. Naval combat happens, but I'm not sure what, if anything, can I do to improve my position. I don't want to micro everywhere, but having more options to change strategy, fleet composition and other aspects of the navy on the fly could be interesting, to make me feel less like a spectator and more like I'm actually contributing to the navy aspect of the game.

Once again, maybe I'm just bad at the game (in fact, I know I am), but those are my feelings towards navy warfare.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Well, I got a question about the carriers. Right now the is a strict 4 carriers barrier after which there are severe punishment. Do you think of adding technology to up that limit (in similar way to how capacity for naval invasion increase) to represent more efficient communication with time. I mean in battle of leyte gulf americans had 35 carriers of which 8 were fleet carriers and 9 more light carriers. Similarly in battle of Philippine Sea Japan had 9 fleet and light carriers.

In regards, to proposed changes on missions, home bases and naval dominance - sounds good. But, I'd like to hear more about home base. How exactly it affects the fleet? For example, could you repair ships only in the homebase? And I wonder if you will wiggle with range of ships to reduce severe affects of new distance calculation?



From here on question / propositions not related to this dev corner:

First, is borders: I believe border between Nigeria (british colony) and Cameron (French colony) is incorrect now in th south part. Also, I think it would be nice to have Weihaiwei as a separate province similar to Hong Kong or Quindao, especially considering british were leasing island there for naval base till 1940.

Second is research slots: Currently, New Zealand can get 6 slots, but UK only 5! It's clearly wrong. I believe that majors deserve a chance to have 6 slots. I mean if Italy can have 6 research slots than any major (UK, Japan, France, USSR) can. I believe you can put limitations or requirements, but still 6 slots are desirable.



Now the bugs:

When Japan changes ideology, it's puppets don't have integrated puppet level available (annexed -> puppet -> colony -> dominion -> independent).

In my practice I've seen ai controlled countries buying resources from annexed countries as if they still would have control of provinces with resource. They spend fabrics, but not convoys.
 

Attachments

  • Cameroon_boundary_changes.png
    Cameroon_boundary_changes.png
    169,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@Zwirbaum Please add some sort of fleet composition designer. A bit like the one 'save option' existing, but with proper UI and the hability to actually preview how a specific sets of ships will perform together in X environnement. A way of saying 'I need 3 more DD here, and one SS here, in order to cover theses naval zones to perform x task - which can be multiple if selected. And it add it to the ship building queue'.

Also.. supply ships ? :p pretty please
 
  • 7Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It is amazing to see you rework navy, especially the naval superiority and map mode changes are great!

I however, did not see the main problem I have with navy addressed in the diary, and I feel it needs to be addressed. The research investment.

In order to start making good destroyers, you need to research sonar techs, depth charge techs, naval guns, anti-air and torpedoes. This is a massive research investment that needs to be addressed, as in most cases, you will be fighting a land war along with your naval war, and more resources need to be allocated there, and in your industry. My suggestion is simple. And it is not adding an extra research slot for navy, as I personally would consider it an admission of defeat. The last statement is intended as a joke.

Consolidate the absolutely essential naval research in naval research, and put all the other stuff in researches you would do anyways. Keep the ship research at a similar pace and decrease the research time for naval equipment technologies.
  • Consolidate the Torpedo techs in naval, and remove them from the air branch.
  • Merge the depth charge upgrades into the destroyer techs, the naval gun upgrades into Anti-Air and Artillery tech, the Sonar into Electronics and/or Radio tech
  • Decrease the research time for the 1922 ship techs by half. Keep the others as is.
Now, if I want to make a 1936 destroyer, I need to have Radio 1 for the sonar, Improved IW artillery for the naval guns, Towed Anti-Air for the AA, that I would get either way, and the torpedo and destroyer techs, that I got specifically for the destroyer. If my country starts with the 1936 Destroyer, and 1922 torpedo, that's even better.

What is left on the naval support tech are:
  • The Damage Control and... Ship Damage(?) techs
  • The Naval Armor techs
  • The Torpedo techs (that now include the upgraded airplane torpedo launchers)
  • The Minelaying techs (earlier in time as well, Germany had plane based minelaying by 1939)
  • The Retreat Speed tech
  • The Naval Invasion techs
This achieves a massive reduction in technology needed to make good ships, without allowing people to do crazy tech rushes, as you still need tech from multiple branches and not a single ship tech.

Naval Experience from training will be reduced as well. This is not a bad change, however I would like to suggest to make it so that if you train your entire fleet, you still gain 0.15-0.2 experience daily. The only countries that start with a big navy and can indefinitely train it are the USA and the Soviets, for most other countries, the fuel needed is too much to support for a long time. Think Japan, the UK, France and Italy. They need to get something for their investment.

That's all, thank you a lot for reworking navy, keep the good work.
 
  • 7Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Not sure how I feel about the Naval invasion change. It makes sense in a way but I am going to miss the opportunity invade with 40 divisions withing 7 days
 
  • 2
Reactions: