HoI4’s Broken Meta

[Sietrin]

The recent balance changes prove the devs don’t get the core issues with HoI4’s tank and air systems. Light tanks, already a questionable pick, got nerfed even further, and the same flawed logic applies to planes. Both systems boil down to one optimal design—medium tanks and small airframes—because battles prioritize raw stats over specialized roles. Light and heavy tanks, like medium and large airframes, are redundant, wasting resources and XP on designs that barely add value. The meta is so one-sided that historical roles are unrepresentable, and recent changes making combined arms prohibitively expensive only double down on this mess.

The issues with the air are obvious to anyone who played enough time with the designer so I mostly focus on tanks. Tanks are weapon platforms valued for hardness and raw stats (soft/hard attack, breakthrough). Medium tanks deliver this efficiently, light and heavy tanks don’t. Light tanks in the early game are worse than motorized artillery, light tanks will get replaced anyway so why waste time and IC to produce them instead of medium tanks or artillery? Heavy tanks: high cost, easily pierced armor (in mp), almost useless fort bonus. Both are not worth investing into.

There are 2 ways of addresing it: 1. Give them a useful niche worth investing. Amphibious tanks are useful because they have a distinct role, it is possible to ignore them but marines are way better with them. Excelling at a distinct role would be the easiest way to solve the problem. 2. Rework the battle system so the stats the other chassis excel at would become valuable. I am not expecting the devs to do that but at this point it was shown beyond reasoble doubt that the current system is inadequate to represent the need for the tools present in the game to be utilized.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Unfortunately I think the meta is just being realistic.

During WW2 we only really see two types of tank rather than the three hull sizes in the game. The reality is that the main tank line could just be called tanks with no prefix and would naturally run between 1930s tanks (all light tanks), wartime tanks (all mediums) and end of war tanks (modern tanks). That's the real engineering progression and hence we simply have a meta of medium tanks because we are building for the timeline of WW2. There is the other line of infantry tanks / heavy tanks which is all about maximising direct combat capability - slow and heavy - but this line ends because of the logistic limits on tanks size/weight mean that there is no longer scope for something bigger once we reach modern tank.

We have a very similar but slightly more complex issue with aircraft. If you go off looking at the best aircraft of WW2 then you will often get discussions about this or that 2 engine fighter was really good. Unfortunately that is irrelevant as the actual answer is no two engine fighter was ever anywhere near as good as two single engine fighters. This tends to extend into other aircraft, all multi-engine aircraft tended to be rather cost ineffective at what they did if the role could possibly be filled by a single engine aircraft. You can argue all you want about the relative capabilities of B17 versus Lancaster and all the other 4 engine bombers but the bottom line was always that they were really expensive and not really a cost effective weapon of war when compared with the cost to combat them.

With the industrial capacity of countries rebalanced to make the game viable the meta is that things that the allied powers built in large numbers were never going to be desirable in game unless we made the game a bit unrealistic for those weapons.

 

[quicklyrainbow]

I don't wholly disagree with your post, but it's kinda funny that it starts "the meta is just being realistic" and ends "we made the game a bit unrealistic." The meta is partly a consequence of the changes Paradox has made for the sake of balance. And, unfortunately, those changes kind of flatten reality.

Cost-effectiveness isn't always the right lens to look through, either. Yes, one B-17 trades inefficiently versus single-engine fighters. But the purpose of the strategic bombing war wasn't to trade efficiently; it was to win an industrial and training war of attrition. The Allies (the US in particular) bet that they could overwhelm the Germans with production, and they were right to make that bet. They had overwhelming air superiority on D-Day because they'd spent 1943 grinding down German fighter supplies, suppressing fighter production, killing pilots and forcing the Luftwaffe to pull squadrons back to defend the interior. It's a whole three-dimensional conflict that doesn't exist in HOI4 in any meaningful way. It's not just the air war -- HoI's optimal tactics are basically just 'do what Germany did in 1940.'

(Also, strategic bombers are impossible to produce in any meaningful number. Edsel Ford promised FDR a bomber an hour out of Willow Run. Willow Run opened in 1942. With Disp Industry V and Machine Tools IV, as the US I'd need 600 factories to produce 24 strats/day.)

On tanks, I think you're essentially right about hull size being an artificial construct. I do wish SPG or SPAA were more functional, but they're not exactly bad; it's just that there's not much reason to build things other than infantry weapons, support equipment, artillery, trucks, medium tanks, and small-airframe fighters/CAS/nav bombers.

 

[Sietrin]

(Also, strategic bombers are impossible to produce in any meaningful number. Edsel Ford promised FDR a bomber an hour out of Willow Run. Willow Run opened in 1942. With Disp Industry V and Machine Tools IV, as the US I'd need 600 factories to produce 24 strats/day.)

I didn't know that. It is actually funny that the main reason strategic destruction not being an option is the prohibitive cost of strat bombers and their relative ineffectiveness. Lack of strategic bombing as a dimension makes both small interceptors and heavy fighters pointless, interceptors dont really have targets and heavy fighters' range is almost never needed, if anything just build a range-focused small fighter and still trade better than with building heavy fighters for their range

 

[Findell_HOI]

Light tanks will always be useless no matter what. The only time they were ever useful were in places where fielding a heavier tank is impossible. In this game the only places that that made sense were in the eastern theaters with japan.

But with the recent changes to the game they have no place over there anymore.

 

[quicklyrainbow]

Light tanks are useful when any armor > no armor. Basically, early wars between low-IC/tech minors. Kaiserreich, for example, has a lot of these. Being able to field one crappy division with three light tank brigades and three infantry brigades makes a huge difference in the 1936 Chinese civil war, or in some of the grindy awful South American wars where you're otherwise trying to fight with 8W no-support militia. In the base game, though...

 

[Kanitatlan]

I don't wholly disagree with your post, but it's kinda funny that it starts "the meta is just being realistic" and ends "we made the game a bit unrealistic." The meta is partly a consequence of the changes Paradox has made for the sake of balance. And, unfortunately, those changes kind of flatten reality.

It ended with "unless" followed by the quote, not really funny once you add the negation

Yes, one B-17 trades inefficiently versus single-engine fighters. But the purpose of the strategic bombing war wasn't to trade efficiently; it was to win an industrial and training war of attrition.

This was the idea but it never worked. As of early 1944 the bomber offensives had essentially failed to achieve anything of significance except forcing the Germans to invest in large scale defences. In 1943 the cost of air defence exceeded the cost of damage done and in total was rather less than the cost of the bomber offensive.

hey had overwhelming air superiority on D-Day because they'd spent 1943 grinding down German fighter supplies, suppressing fighter production, killing pilots and forcing the Luftwaffe to pull squadrons back to defend the interior.

They didn't grind down Germany in 1943, it all basically happened in 1944 as the US bomber offensive turned into a battle for air superiority over Germany. A battle the Germans couldn't decline to fight and the fighters then destroyed German air power and finally allowed the bombers the ability to carry out effective bombing raids on a sufficient scale to have effect. The lesson of WW2 was that the pre-war concept that "the bomber will always get through" was fundamentally flawed and that strategic bombing's main value was to force aerial combat because unopposed bombing was effective.

 

[LarsStok]

I find that the 36' LT generally beats the 38' MT for my taste. After 1940 the scales tip irrevocably towards MTs which is as it should be. (Note that I prioritize speed and 38 MT is a sluggish bastard)

 

[LarsStok]

It ended with "unless" followed by the quote, not really funny once you add the negation

This was the idea but it never worked. As of early 1944 the bomber offensives had essentially failed to achieve anything of significance except forcing the Germans to invest in large scale defences. In 1943 the cost of air defence exceeded the cost of damage done and in total was rather less than the cost of the bomber offensive.

They didn't grind down Germany in 1943, it all basically happened in 1944 as the US bomber offensive turned into a battle for air superiority over Germany. A battle the Germans couldn't decline to fight and the fighters then destroyed German air power and finally allowed the bombers the ability to carry out effective bombing raids on a sufficient scale to have effect. The lesson of WW2 was that the pre-war concept that "the bomber will always get through" was fundamentally flawed and that strategic bombing's main value was to force aerial combat because unopposed bombing was effective.

Germany being forced to fight an unwinnable air war on their home turf probably helped the Soviets out as well. The Sturmovik was apparently the most produced plane design in history - I'd imagine it'd be slightly less effective if the Germans had had any fighters left in the east to contest it.

Also, Douhet would probably have reconsidered if he could foresee radar and SAM batteries...

 

[Tomnoddy]

I find that the 36' LT generally beats the 38' MT for my taste. After 1940 the scales tip irrevocably towards MTs which is as it should be. (Note that I prioritize speed and 38 MT is a sluggish bastard)

In single player Light tanks are amazing for exploitation moves. 1941 LT with 1941 Engine can hit 12kph with four fuel barrels on the back and drive to the next Supply Depot or the one after. SA and HA aren't great but I can always make some 900 SA INF/HEAVY SP-ART to create the initial opening.

You can create a light TD variant that can still pierce AI tanks even in 1944, and you can create a SP-AA variant without the fuel barrels, and as much armour as it can carry while still hitting 12kph as your "armour meme" brigade... which the AI won't be able to pierce. Their raw HA/SA is barely better than INF but the hardness and armour means they can resist a breakout attempt long enough for the INF to arrive.

In my last few games I never bothered researching mediums or heavys, beyond the inter-war ones we started with.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

heavies are meta in MP tbf, for the same reasons they were meta pre-BBA when mediums were also more cost-efficien, as when you're in clickwars stats:combat width matter way more. it's a total meme that by changing a design from "tank" to "TD" - literally changing a label, with no equipment change, makes your design like 50% stronger

 

[Kanitatlan]

In single player Light tanks are amazing for exploitation moves. 1941 LT with 1941 Engine can hit 12kph with four fuel barrels on the back and drive to the next Supply Depot or the one after. SA and HA aren't great but I can always make some 900 SA INF/HEAVY SP-ART to create the initial opening.

You can create a light TD variant that can still pierce AI tanks even in 1944, and you can create a SP-AA variant without the fuel barrels, and as much armour as it can carry while still hitting 12kph as your "armour meme" brigade... which the AI won't be able to pierce. Their raw HA/SA is barely better than INF but the hardness and armour means they can resist a breakout attempt long enough for the INF to arrive.

In my last few games I never bothered researching mediums or heavys, beyond the inter-war ones we started with.

I have significant experience as the Soviets where I end up fielding a full 24 division light tank army that is basically the same as my medium tank armies but with BT-7M instead of T34 or even T44 and I end up losing track of which type of army I'm using in a theatre and it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference. This kind of indicates that light tanks are definitely perfectly valid against the AI. What I kind of want to try is mixed formations with a mixture of high tank breakthrough division, more mixed general purpose tank divisions and light tank based "motorised" divisions for high speed exploitation. Just want to see whether mixed specialisation is useful or too much trouble.

 

[quicklyrainbow]

Germany being forced to fight an unwinnable air war on their home turf probably helped the Soviets out as well. The Sturmovik was apparently the most produced plane design in history - I'd imagine it'd be slightly less effective if the Germans had had any fighters left in the east to contest it.

Also, Douhet would probably have reconsidered if he could foresee radar and SAM batteries...

By September '44, one-third of German artillery and optics production, two-thirds of radar and signals equipment production and one-fifth of ammunition production were specifically for antiaircraft defenses, as well as two million workers and AA gun operators. Richard Overy estimates it as a denial of roughly one-half of all German battlefront weapons and equipment throughout 1944. Forcing an inferior industrial power to invest scarce resources in ways they don't want to is a net win for the superior industrial power.

 

[Tomnoddy]

By September '44, one-third of German artillery and optics production, two-thirds of radar and signals equipment production and one-fifth of ammunition production were specifically for antiaircraft defenses, as well as two million workers and AA gun operators. Richard Overy estimates it as a denial of roughly one-half of all German battlefront weapons and equipment throughout 1944. Forcing an inferior industrial power to invest scarce resources in ways they don't want to is a net win for the superior industrial power.

That was the same book that said two thirds of Axis war production was devoted to Navy and Airforce, almost all of which was set against the Allies, which needs to be borne in mind given the Soviets get credit for causing three quarters of German manpower losses?

Also it seems by far the most expensive land weapons program of the Germans was the Flak 88 - something like 3x as costly as all their AFV ? No wonder it was such an excellent gun, and seemed to be ubiquitous. They'd devoted so many MILs to making them !

By 1944 however, they were mostly back in the Reich, being used in the AA rather than AT role. Not having a long range weapon that could stop T34's may have been a problem for Army Group centre that june...

 

[Cornutus]

Unfortunately I think the meta is just being realistic.

During WW2 we only really see two types of tank rather than the three hull sizes in the game. The reality is that the main tank line could just be called tanks with no prefix and would naturally run between 1930s tanks (all light tanks), wartime tanks (all mediums) and end of war tanks (modern tanks). That's the real engineering progression and hence we simply have a meta of medium tanks because we are building for the timeline of WW2.

That's not true. For example, the US developed tanks like the M24 Chaffee, and postwar there were a number of other light tanks developed. Not to mention that the whole IFV concept crossed with tanks by quite a bit.

As I recently discovered, it seems the problem was actually with the Anti-tank guns that were produced.

1. In the early 1930s, tanks would have 10-15mm armor usually. This was sufficient to cancel all infantry weapon fire and shrapnel, which constitute 95% of firepower of a division.

The only dangerous thing would then be artillery >50mm in caliber that you'd have no more than 50 pieces per division.

So basically, build a light tank, put a trench cannon on it, and it will be immune to anything but very rare artillery.

2. In the late 1930s, you had the mass production of 25mm-37mm ATs as an answer to the light tank threat.

But that meant, now you have to have 100+ of your divisions to have 72 AT guns (7200 guns with horses at least in total) just to counter 10 enemy divisions with light tanks (about 2000 tanks). Even then, the enemy can concentrate its 10 divisions against 3-5 of yours, and break your defenses, while the rest 95 sit and watch.

That's when you started seeing tanks with armor at least partially immune to light ATs, but that required a larger size: hence the medium tank started appearing.

You add armor, cost grows, you start wanting a bigger gun: you get the M4 Sherman/Pz. IVG/T-34.

3. Here you start hitting a wall. You can build 50mm-75mm guns that can pierce mediums, but they become too heavy to move around by hand on the battlefield.

So you need tractors, or else your AT is very ineffective in combat.

Tractors add cost, so essentially you start wondering "is it better to make a tractor + medium AT" or "make an SPG/TD".

At the same time, you start realizing that no matter how good your tank's armor will be, it will get pierced by medium ATs (75mm usually) from about 1000m/1100 yards.

That's essentially why mediums dominated the European Theatre of WW2. In the Pacific and China, things were very different because there was no mass AT there.

There is the other line of infantry tanks / heavy tanks which is all about maximising direct combat capability - slow and heavy - but this line ends because of the logistic limits on tanks size/weight mean that there is no longer scope for something bigger once we reach modern tank.

Heavy tanks had the problem that while they were immune to "Regular AT", "special designation AT" like the German Flak 18 would kill it.

Essentially "Heavy/Medium/Light" should be governed by "what is your enemy protecting itself with".

If your enemy is building 37mm AT: heavily armored medium tanks all the way

(example: Italians in North Africa had light AT, but nothing heavy to counter British 60mm armored Matilda IIs)

If your enemy is building 50mm AT: probably heavy tanks are the best option

(Kursk 1943 would serve as an example)

If your enemy is overinvesting in 75mm+ AT: I would argue light tanks with max guns are the best option, as such AT is very expensive and won't be able to cover everything. While trying to protect against it, is basically a lost battle. Or cheap mediums like the M4 Sherman.

It was basically "rock, paper, scissors".

We have a very similar but slightly more complex issue with aircraft. If you go off looking at the best aircraft of WW2 then you will often get discussions about this or that 2 engine fighter was really good. Unfortunately that is irrelevant as the actual answer is no two engine fighter was ever anywhere near as good as two single engine fighters. This tends to extend into other aircraft, all multi-engine aircraft tended to be rather cost ineffective at what they did if the role could possibly be filled by a single engine aircraft.

Air war is meta oriented in HOI4, because air zones are standardized, so you need a certain range to be effective.

There was a discussion on this forum on Twin-engine fighters, and it seems their problem was their lack of maneuverability from the fact that they had two propellers.

You can argue all you want about the relative capabilities of B17 versus Lancaster and all the other 4 engine bombers but the bottom line was always that they were really expensive and not really a cost effective weapon of war when compared with the cost to combat them.

With the industrial capacity of countries rebalanced to make the game viable the meta is that things that the allied powers built in large numbers were never going to be desirable in game unless we made the game a bit unrealistic for those weapons.

It wouldn't just be the allies though.

About 75% of German war effort in 1940 went towards the Luftwaffe, and mostly that would be twin-engined multirole bombers.

 

[Tomnoddy]

I have significant experience as the Soviets where I end up fielding a full 24 division light tank army that is basically the same as my medium tank armies but with BT-7M instead of T34 or even T44 and I end up losing track of which type of army I'm using in a theatre and it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference. This kind of indicates that light tanks are definitely perfectly valid against the AI. What I kind of want to try is mixed formations with a mixture of high tank breakthrough division, more mixed general purpose tank divisions and light tank based "motorised" divisions for high speed exploitation. Just want to see whether mixed specialisation is useful or too much trouble.

To be honest as Soviets I research the 1941 light tank (T60) before producing any. The BT7 is a 1936 design so no point to produce them if the war isn't starting for 5 and a half years. As for the starting stockpile of BT5, you can sell those. The T26 are a problem, no takers. Grind them down in volunteer forces and at least get some XP, or try using them as ghetto CAV / ARM fire brigades on plains tiles ? The T26 are so slow i wouldnt want to shackle motorised with them

 

[Cornutus]

That was the same book that said two thirds of Axis war production was devoted to Navy and Airforce, almost all of which was set against the Allies, which needs to be borne in mind given the Soviets get credit for causing three quarters of German manpower losses?

The Axis were more than just Germany. You'd have to add the Italians at the very least. A lot of them were deployed in North Africa.

Also you would have to consider that a pretty solid chunk of Soviet gunpowder came from the allies, as well as lot of other war material.

That being said, I believe most of Germany's light AA was on the Eastern Front. The Il-2 did play a role here.

Also it seems by far the most expensive land weapons program of the Germans was the Flak 88 - something like 3x as costly as all their AFV ? No wonder it was such an excellent gun, and seemed to be ubiquitous. They'd devoted so many MILs to making them !

Completely false.

The Flak 18, 8,8cm was roughly 50% of the cost of a Pz. II.

If you add its tractor, you get roughly 2/3 of a Pz. IV.

By 1944 however, they were mostly back in the Reich, being used in the AA rather than AT role. Not having a long range weapon that could stop T34's may have been a problem for Army Group centre that june...

50mm AT was good enough against T-34s. Typical combat range at which fire was opened against tanks in Europe was less than 800m.

Not to mention mass deployment of 75mm guns and even 88mm Pak 43s in the East.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

LT are best way to germany run achiev historical timeline, with 48 LT divisions your overrun France in before june 1940

 

[Tomnoddy]

Completely false.

The Flak 18, 8,8cm was roughly 50% of the cost of a Pz. II.

If you add its tractor, you get roughly 2/3 of a Pz. IV.

The book I'm paraphrasing is "How the War Was Won", by Philips Payson O'Brien.

I listened to it while commuting to work or riding my bike so I usually wasn't in a position to take notes.

The book wasn't arguing that the per unit cost of an 88mm was more than a tank, rather that the Reich spent more on production of this gun than it did on tanks. Given that they are cheaper than a IV, they must have made a lot more 88's than Pz IV's. This seems plausible.

When people think of a definitive piece of equipment that defines the Third Reich's approach to land war, some would cite the Tiger tank, or the Panther. The info in this book supports the idea it should be the '88.

 

[Thaldoras]

Okay. Hear me out.
How about adding a way to access modern tanks from the light tank tree? Early game it won't change much.
But as someone who has done way too many single player world conquests while doing achievements.
If I could transition from light tanks to modern tanks late game. I would actually use them occasionally.
e.g. You play a minor nation like Argentina. Light tanks in earlier wars could be fun. But later once you have gained more cores and inevitably have to conquer the war to finish your achievement run. Swapping light for modern tanks will be nice.

TLDR. Add path from light tank III to modern tank. Will make single player more fun.