• 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:
  • 79Like
  • 34Love
  • 7
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
Came here to second the sentiment. The problem especially with the Panzerschiff is that the tech doesn't evolve, there is no Panzerschiff 2, 3, or 4 hull, so the original concept the Germans had (which was to have a lighter/faster hull with higher firepower, but lower armor) never goes anywhere. Already the 1936 cruiser hull offers better benefits at a lower price.

I'd also like to use this opportunity to mention something with regards to range, since that now plays a bigger role. We currently can outfit modern carriers and battleships and subs with nuclear engines. That's great and I love it.

But you can't really benefit from their range, since the destroyers and cruisers are still limited, as they cannot have nuclear reactors. Now, nuclear destroyers would be up for debate, but the first surface ships of the US Navy to go into service with a nuclear engine? That was a heavy (missile) cruiser (1961), followed by the nuclear carrier (1961), shortly followed by a light cruiser (1962). The first nuclear surface ship overall, the icebreaker Lenin (1957), was civilian, but the displacement is that of a heavy cruiser.

I don't expect a new modern cruiser hull or anything, or missile modules (although both would be very nice), but at least allowing the 1944 cruiser hull to be fitted with nuclear reactors would not only be somewhat historical, it would also play into the entire gameplay loop of tech evolution solving problems (of which range is now a major one).
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Awesome, awesome, awesome! This is exciting, Paradox! These naval changes are very much welcomed! To say that I am hyped is an understatement. Well done!

By the way, thank you for the naval survey and for asking for feedback from the community. Big KUDOS!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
These didn't fit to the survey but... I beg of you:

Allow me to update ships directly in the building queue without opening 10+ new construction lines, manually setting every MIO, and then putting all existing lines to finish their curent ones and end. Overall, please improve the building experience for fleets. Hell, make it "refit" the already built one if possible - since we're making wishlists.

Fix the refit windows to work directly based on hull type, not variations from that specific model (as it seems to do now?)

Build reverse of construction efficiency; upkeep of the fleets so bigger your fleet, less new ships you pump out to take care of the old ones. Make fleet composition matter - not just doomstacking.

Allow me to mass apply saved strike force composition to everything under an admiral, rather than go through every single one one by one

FIX THE DAMN AUTOREINFORCE ANY TYPE NOT SPLITTING REINFORCMENTS! It's the bane of my life when I have to play with autodesign/"legacy" designs. I actually try to start without a navy for this reason. (Edit me: yes I know it can be fixed by going through every class of a ship and setting the icons, so you don't use "any" type of reinforcment - but again, WAY too many clicks)

TL;DR reduce the clicks in the maintenance and build-up of a fleet.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Hi, thanks for the update and some nice touches. Couple of suggestions that I'd like to get your/the communities thoughts on:

-Automation of ships: I mainly dont bother with navy unless im death stacking for a naval assault. These changes may make me think twice but it will likely always be the land game I'm interested in. Would there be any possibility to just let the AI work your navy if you build the ships? In later games would also help alot with micro!

-Naval invasions: Obviously you have some grand plan for these going forwards but for me these are the bane of the game (especially when countries like india/china with huge coasts). Annoyingly the AI can micro these to a huge degree which is sometimes impossible to react to without pausing continually. Id like to see at least an option to pause the game automatically if troops land? On the flip side, maybe a failed invasion lowers war support to stop continual spams by AI? (If D day was a disaster, public opinion would have certainly been swayed/see Gallipoli).

-Naval defences: you may already be working on such changes but for me, these are redundant in the game (I very very rarely use them but may just be me). It would be good if there were more benefits like they could be defensive without any divisions present? Even just slowing the enemy down while you rush troops back. If they took up manpower, it could also help with late game lag by lowering divisions overall?

Happy to be shot down on any of the above as ramblings of a mad man!
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Please!!
Let's have a better view on enemy navy position and fleet/layout composition.
Enemy division are easy too spot, enemy Navy is always a mistery.
MAKE THEM VISIBLE!

As it should be the navy game is more of a fear game (fear of the enemy navy and fear of loosing my navy). It favours cautions. Make the enemy navy more visible (maybe link them to spy operation / naval dominance or whatever) or make multiple possible location marked with "?". But I would be way more engaged if I know an enemy doom stack is there! (and like wise) after all in WWII they mostly knew what fleet was and where navy was located...
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Good morning everyone,
As always, I’d like to start by thanking the developers for the information they’ve been sharing with us recently. I’d also like to express a personal opinion on the matter of the visual representation of "control" over sea zones.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the idea and I believe it’s essential to have a graphical representation of what’s happening at sea, as it gives the player an additional reason to engage with that aspect of the game. However, I feel that coloring the sea zone entirely in the player’s color doesn’t fully reflect the reality of naval warfare.

In my opinion — and I emphasize that this is just a personal viewpoint — it might be more appropriate to color the sea using an occupation stripe system, like in EU4 or HoI3, for example. My reasoning is primarily aesthetic: I think this approach better highlights the difference between land territories under direct control and sea zones that are merely within one’s sphere of influence.

It also, in my view, better conveys the inherently unstable nature of maritime control — after all, no one can realistically “own” the sea.

Again, this is just my take on it, but I’d love to hear what others think.

Thanks so much for your attention! :)
 
Another issue I'd like to bring up is in regards to carriers. Whilst the arbitrary penalty going above 4 is already mentioned I'd like to mention the fact that there's only 1 single generally available MIO that affects carriers (SOV has one special unique to them) which is strange since pre AAT there were at least a handful that did affect them.

At least some general traits like speed, hp, armor, anti-air and visibility could be expanded to also affect carrier hulls on many MIOs IMO to actually encourage using them more.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing I want to see from Naval Warfare is more ways for smaller nations to compete locally in their home waters. A big problem with naval warfare as it is now is that it’s mainly oriented around big powers which start with massive navies. Nations with giant navies like Britain, the US, or Japan hardly have to compete with any nation achieving naval dominance other than with each other. To some extent this makes sense, these are the dominant naval powers of their day and they should get something for that. Domination of the high seas is completely reasonable for them. But this largely disincentivizes smaller nations from making from building more reasonably sized coastal navies because these will just get destroyed the second they face off against one of the Empires. But it’s one thing for the Empires to dominate the high seas vs just competing locally in the fringes of the Caribbean or the Baltic. Coastal waters should be more difficult for bigger fleets to operate in and dominate, but this is just not reflected well in hoi4.

Historically there were many nations in the world which did compete regionally in the naval sphere with more coastal based fleets. Most of the Scandinavian countries maintained coastal fleets, and it was more luck than anything else that the Germans managed to pull off Operation Weserubung without a hitch. South American nations participated in a naval arms race to dominate the costal waters of each other and South America more generally. Hoi4 does introduce some basic coastal fleet options with coastal ships and coastal fleet companies, but these are honestly of limited use due to the fact that most nations do not automatically have these available and there’s very little incentive to build these ships over their long range counterparts even if small and short range is your goal. I hope for some sort of rebalancing of this, making coastal fleets cheaper and maybe introducing some cheaper light ships like patrol boats to limit the need to build massive battle fleets just to protect your coast. I’m not expecting a country like Mexico or Romania to become a naval power, but it should at least be able to build something to hold its own in the Gulf of Mexico and the Black Sea.

How I’d actually achieve this is a little bit up in the air, but I do think there’s a few things which can be addressed. Adding some cheaper light ships like patrol boats to be an alternative for coastal fleets building whole naval destroyers and cruisers, adding some more advanced coastal vessel hulls for nations with the tech so that even if you are limited in range and speed your not stuck building in some outdated hull in 1944. Lowering the cost of these somewhat so nations with few dockyards can build a somewhat decent coastal fleet in a reasonable time. Also lowering the XP cost for designing a coastal ship since most small navy countries do not have enough XP to actually design their fleet in the first place. Making the coastal fleet company more widely available (this I think would be the easiest to implement, since it already exists, it just isn’t available to most countries meaning countries which would actually find it useful tend to not have it available and thus not used). Finally, rebalancing land based naval aircraft which are a little bit op right now and the biggest killer of a coastal fleet. Maybe even a whole coastal fleet doctrine would be worth it, since even trade indirection is not that useful if I’m for example Greece and I don’t intend to go very far from my shores.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
As others have said, to make the navy more intuitive there should be more visual icons on the map. For example, right now if you want to find the enemy's main fleet, you have to hover over every naval base that has ships stationed in it until you find the one with the most ships listed. And if that fleet moves you would have no way of knowing unless you hover over the naval base again. Some indicator that tells you approximately how many ships are in a port without needing to hover over it is all that is really needed. I also think it would be cool if scout planes could provide "sightings" of enemy ships. I imagine it being a little popup on the sea like the ones you get after a naval battle, this way naval movements don't always come as a complete surprise.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Please!!
Let's have a better view on enemy navy position and fleet/layout composition.
Enemy division are easy too spot, enemy Navy is always a mistery.
MAKE THEM VISIBLE!

As it should be the navy game is more of a fear game (fear of the enemy navy and fear of loosing my navy). It favours cautions. Make the enemy navy more visible (maybe link them to spy operation / naval dominance or whatever) or make multiple possible location marked with "?". But I would be way more engaged if I know an enemy doom stack is there! (and like wise) after all in WWII they mostly knew what fleet was and where navy was located...
Naval intel does do that. With enough, you can see information on fleets that are operating in an area, with a scaling factor based upon the level of naval intel. The game already has this.

Information about where each fleet was and what was in it, was absolutely not known at all times. The Battle off Samar, a late war battle where the US had RADAR still had a Japanese fleet ambush an American force.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
How I’d actually achieve this is a little bit up in the air, but I do think there’s a few things which can be addressed. Adding some cheaper light ships like patrol boats to be an alternative for coastal fleets building whole naval destroyers and cruisers, adding some more advanced coastal vessel hulls for nations with the tech so that even if you are limited in range and speed your not stuck building in some outdated hull in 1944. Lowering the cost of these somewhat so nations with few dockyards can build a somewhat decent coastal fleet in a reasonable time. Also lowering the XP cost for designing a coastal ship since most small navy countries do not have enough XP to actually design their fleet in the first place. Making the coastal fleet company more widely available (this I think would be the easiest to implement, since it already exists, it just isn’t available to most countries meaning countries which would actually find it useful tend to not have it available and thus not used). Finally, rebalancing land based naval aircraft which are a little bit op right now and the biggest killer of a coastal fleet. Maybe even a whole coastal fleet doctrine would be worth it, since even trade indirection is not that useful if I’m for example Greece and I don’t intend to go very far from my shores.


It would be easy enough to delete the coastal defense ship tech and just unlock them with the basic cruiser tech. You could do the same with the base destroyer tech and add a patrol boat hull. No reason to make it hard to build them.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
my main problem (although I don't know, maybe it is realistic this way?)
changing any little module like adding combat computer to a ship that previously did not have one, takes way more time (60 days with 5 shipyards) than if I already had put it while starting ship constructions. Missing at least one tech or forgetting thing like stable gunnery platforms to designer, will need another 60 days refit. So that it is optimal to first get all needed techs before trying to have any operating navy

that's why super heavy battleship is awesome, it comes with best possible kinetic battery and armor. I can start with almost empty hull that only has thruster, armor, main armament, and leave M/S slots for later. I wish it was possible with other ships classes too, but I don't know how far from realism it would be.. oh and what about ability to put nuclear reactor on super heavy battleship instead of waiting for modern battleship, which is so late in game?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Strong quality of life would be if you can assign landbased aircrafts to task forces the same way you can assign them to armies. So the aircrafts try to follow the task force from see zone zo see zone leveraging nearby airports.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
The number and quality of suggestions in this thread and Anti-Naval Bias thread is just phenomenal.

I hope Paradox is writing down every suggestion in a design draft for the Devs to refine, prioritise, balance and incorporate into the game.

The idea of Dev Corners rather than Dev Diaries is to incorporate user feedback early so it can make a meaningful improvement to the mechanics. While a suggestion does not entail a promise that it will make it into the game, having a two-way dialogue about these ideas will markedly improve the quality of the DLC on launch day.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions: