• 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:
I would really like to know how those new systems interact with Navy Intel. This is specially important if you don't have La Resistance, because you're very limited in ways to increase navy intel in the base game (if I understand the mechanics correctly, radar only really works if the enemy has fleets on missions near your coast).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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!
Yes absolutely agree. Was very disappointed that the raids system from Gotterdammerung entirely ignored Naval raids. Real life raids like Pearl Harbor, Taranto, and Mers-el-Kébir were massively influential in their respective theatres of combat and the lack of ability to do anything of the sort sticks out like a sore thumb when looking at naval combat in HoI4.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Something I really miss in the naval gameplay is the importance and impact of big drydocks. Right now a puny dock in the Shetlands can repair capital ships as easily as the big drydock in St Nazaire, which was essential to the Germans doing any large surface raiding in the Atlantic. Port/drydock size should affect to some degree where you can set your homefleets imo, to make the choice more meaningful than simply closest to enemy.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As it is right now we do not have dedicated techs planned to increase the naval base caps on islands. Their use would be a very niche, populate and add rather not needed bloat to the already massive naval tech windows. However without spoiling much, not every island will be the same...
Is niche such a bad thing? One of the most boring things in my opinion is how at game start almost all technology is tabula rasa, with zero to little indication that the countries have had decades of development in different ways before game start. Your fleet designs only start looking differently once you specc up some MIOs, and they look mostly the same for the big nations too.
Yes absolutely agree. Was very disappointed that the raids system from Gotterdammerung entirely ignored Naval raids. Real life raids like Pearl Harbor, Taranto, and Mers-el-Kébir were massively influential in their respective theatres of combat and the lack of ability to do anything of the sort sticks out like a sore thumb when looking at naval combat in HoI4.
You can do most of these with coordinated strike as an intel operation and simply doing port strike missions from your carriers manually positioned near from the port. An example of something truly missing which would fit well with the raid concept would be the St Nazaire raid, but dockyard sizes would have to matter for this.
 
Just leaving this so that i would be notified. I did not have any particular comment for this that haven't said yet by others.

So, good job, devs.
 
Will naval changes include tweaking with doctrines? Or at least capital ships screening for carriers? It’s curious that base strike doesn’t improve CAs.
 
I really hope that they cap how many ships a taskforce can have. Right know doomstacking is way too good. Also I really hope that ship will be cheaper so that you can comeback when you lose your fleet and it would enable counterplay.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
One thing I am hoping for, and it seems like they are alluding to is a finer control over Task Forces [not fleets, task forces]. Maybe a system similar to the Air and Land order systems where you can give individual orders to task forces under an admiral [like each battalion in an army under a general can be given specific orders].

This way you could have your cruisers and subs on convoy raiding [like they were used in WW2], Battleships on Naval Invasion Support, Carriers on Strike Force, and Destroyers on Convoy Escort and mine warfare, without needing to use an Admiral per ship type. You just assign the Admiral [and this the fleet] to a home base, then assign each tack force a mission to perform within that fleet's operational area. This could even give a purpose to those currently cosmetic reminder tags that can be added to ships.

BTW, you are probably aware, but those tags are currently broken. Or at least the universal/any asterisk marker is in the Task Force Designer, I have to go into the ship designer and change the tags on all ships of a size category [Battleship, Destroyer, etc] to the same tag, otherwise they will randomly juggle in and out of the task force if I just say "give me 20 destroyers of any type" I end up with zero in the task forces, and all my destroyers bouncing between the fleet and reserve. At least with Germany. Very annoying when I have to keep resetting to try to get the Kaiserein...
 
This way you could have your cruisers and subs on convoy raiding [like they were used in WW2], Battleships on Naval Invasion Support, Carriers on Strike Force, and Destroyers on Convoy Escort and mine warfare, without needing to use an Admiral per ship type. You just assign the Admiral [and this the fleet] to a home base, then assign each tack force a mission to perform within that fleet's operational area. This could even give a purpose to those currently cosmetic reminder tags that can be added to ships.
That's already how it works.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The game has battlecruisers. The window where you can differentiate large cruisers from other ships is very narrow, and wartime experience demonstrated they were a dead end. Up gun them and you get the Alaska class which are not remembered as effective warships.
Panzerschiffe are not battlecruisers nor large cruisers. They're just heavy cruisers with bigger gun batteries and extreme range. Germany was constantly dreaming up newer and improved variants but with the cancellation of Plan Z they never got laid down.

Secondly, the reason the Alaskas failed was a result of compromises limiting the design such as poor torpedo protection for such a big warship leaving them unable to operate safely alone as a cruiser coupled with only a single rudder leading to poor turning circle for evading potential torpedoes, average speed making them unable to chase down enemy cruisers, build cost making them more expensive to build than the South Dakota class battleships and finally the Japanese B-65 large cruiser they were intended as a response to never made it off the drawing board. Not to mention being too late to take part in any notable engagement in the war.

Kronshtadt, B-65, Design 1047, the O-class never were finished or even laid down for most so there's little to be said how they'd fared.
The only ship reasonably close to a large cruisers in concept that was actually built bar the Alaskas would arguably be Dunkerque in terms of specs, but doctrinally she was a battleship.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes, the interesting mechanism of the army has probably reached its limit, but I hope you will pay attention to the cost-effectiveness of ships and navy when adjusting the navy mechanism, including the resources and manpower. Don't forget the newly added coal mechanism. Please, don't let the stupid ship squeeze my coal.:eek:
 
Please make kamikaze planes stop attacking convoys. You lose 200 planes for one convoy and you dont even sink the convoy. Did Japan even purposefully kamikaze strike convoys historically? I dont think so.
 
  • 2Haha
Reactions: