I think this game should represent the fact that heavy tanks were a dead end unless you're playing MP and want to finish Barb by 1942. There's a reason why the MBT was based off of a medium tank rather than a heavy tank.
-
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.
I think this game should represent the fact that heavy tanks were a dead end unless you're playing MP and want to finish Barb by 1942. There's a reason why the MBT was based off of a medium tank rather than a heavy tank.
The game is seemingly fine with providing submarines none of their historical downsides and limitations, so why should counter-measures be treated any differently?
Ramming was an issue. It was enough of a threat to stop pretending subs could operate freely among dozens of surface ships to position themselves as they saw fit. I mean, before WW2, the Soviets lost a sub this way on mere training. During the war, Shch-305 (Щ-305) was rammed by a Finnish sub - and sunk will all crew dead. Interesting to note that Щ-305 was spotted on the surface while recharging its batteries - a business HoI4 subs have no interest in.
And so was the gunfire.
- 1
Making medium ATs with heavy guns is still the best way to get firepower later in the game after howitzer medium tanks start meeting high hardness units.
- The cost changes have completely killed the concept of self-propelled guns and tank destroyers. Their production was already more of a roleplay decision, but I really enjoyed that aspect of the game. Mounting a strong howitzer or anti-tank gun on a cheap chassis and producing them in large numbers reflected the late-war German army well and was a more interesting alternative than mass-producing the same tank (even if it was less optimal). Medium tanks also barely have any heavy guns that could be mounted on their chassis, so the whole interesting mechanic is gone
- Heavy tanks still don’t have stats that justify their massive cost. Even though medium tanks dominated WWII, heavy tanks still played an important role as breakthrough units. They should either have significantly higher stats, especially armor and breakthrough, or be cheap enough to make their production viable.
The problem of the heavies isn't the cost, it is actually alright if you compare per battalion cost, the problem is the need to research the chassis and then start producing it, the 2nd heavy chassis is available too late. The other significant issue that their only advantage is higher armor and hardness which allows to make a battalion of heavy AA with maximum armor and minimal cost in IC for the armor you gain. Which doesnt solve the problem that waiting for MBT might be a better investment. 1 year worth of reseatch into heavies for many countries is a waste and will remain such forever.
I am much more interested in fixing light tanks, they barely have a role. Light recon has limited usability in the early game, light tanks generally are a waste of resources, they become obsolete by 1938 with better medium chassis being available which is extremely early and transfering your battalions to other unit type is a nightmare. The only justification to light tank research are the amphibious tanks which though useful again has limited usability and armtracks + airsupport would just be better if research is limited
Yesterday I've noticed that motorized rocket artillery isn't included in Mobile Infantry's +10% speed increase for "Mobile Battalions & Combat Support", you have to use conventional motorized artillery if you want the speed buff for your division. This feels like an oversight, perhaps they could be added as well to benefit from the increased speed?
Still no word on performance issues? Since GoE, I cant seem to play the game past the early 40s despite having a good spec. Think it's all the new releasable nations and their units draining my comp. No idea how to get around it or if people are just accepting it
- 1
- 1
Thanks for the explanation. I don't use Recon Companies that much, so I figured it just acted the same as other support companies.
By the way, when playing as minor nations, there's always a problem of resources. Couldn't there be some kind of decision regarding steel in Damascus?
I like to play the game historical to a certain degree and unfortunately for me the whole garrison system is quite immersion breaking for me as it is now.
You end up using stupid templates that make no sense and produce super cheap light tanks only for that purpose, something nobody would have done in reality.
Reality was taking some old or disabled soldiers that were unfit for frontline service and equip them with what is leftover in out stockpile, done.
And if things get tough and they need help fighting organised partisans send in some frontline troops to deal with them.
I would suggest that „garrison“ gets a standard template thats costs a fixed amount of manpower and infantry equipment (perhaps you can reduce the amount by researching military police) and then you can use something like the raid system to plan anti-partisan raids using regular army formations (with special forces more effective) that reduce the amount of resistance in an area if they are successful?
That would be much more immersive imo
You end up using stupid templates that make no sense and produce super cheap light tanks only for that purpose, something nobody would have done in reality.
Reality was taking some old or disabled soldiers that were unfit for frontline service and equip them with what is leftover in out stockpile, done.
And if things get tough and they need help fighting organised partisans send in some frontline troops to deal with them.
I would suggest that „garrison“ gets a standard template thats costs a fixed amount of manpower and infantry equipment (perhaps you can reduce the amount by researching military police) and then you can use something like the raid system to plan anti-partisan raids using regular army formations (with special forces more effective) that reduce the amount of resistance in an area if they are successful?
That would be much more immersive imo
- 3
- 1
My middle east games are all ruined by a single thing: if I capitulate Syria and Lebanon before France falls, then they respawn as Vichy puppets, both if I am in faction with Germany or not. Very sloppy job from the developers. Sad!
- 1
- 1
Hearts of Iron 4 is a game only realistically playable with mods like state transfer tool and a healthy dash of game of pretend.
- 1
This is very good, thanks!!!
But it is still a bit too slow to turn communist. It needs 50% commie support for that. At least it should be mandatory to disband the Eisene Front after the civil war as it promotes democracy. Even with that the effect from Mackensen staying too long in power kicks in unfortunately.
EDIT: Also lines 369-375 should be disabled in the German alternate AI strategy plan file in order for a default German democracy run (not chosen to be democratic, left as default and the machine rolls democratic) to work. Otherwise it will conflict with the Kaiser strategy and left with Mackensen.
Thanks for the patching guys!
Last edited:
Thank you for fixing the multiplayer chat bug. Very appreciated.
I hope in the next update you will fix the AI bug. Thats's the bug where a country often isnt controlled by AI when you kick a player from the multiplayer lobby (in the phase when you're still hosting the game). Some trolls who are aware of this bug join lobbies and repeatedly switch nations until they're kicked. And that sometimes results in multiple countries not having AI on them.
I hope in the next update you will fix the AI bug. Thats's the bug where a country often isnt controlled by AI when you kick a player from the multiplayer lobby (in the phase when you're still hosting the game). Some trolls who are aware of this bug join lobbies and repeatedly switch nations until they're kicked. And that sometimes results in multiple countries not having AI on them.