The planning mechanic is bad game design

[pro.gamer.69]

To keep it simple... it's silly and arbitrary how units have to be on a frontline, and also assigned to a general/FM with a battleplan, to gain planning. In MP especially it's often critical to leave certain enemy tiled unoccupied so they can't build a planning bonus on you, or so you can get planning without being on the actual front, or get planning for naval invasions. Why does the game reward this kind of behavior?

I think the easiest fix is to just give units planning while stationary, just like entrenchment. That they can get it for fronts there aren't plans for is silly but fine, it's tedious to constantly draw new plans as the algorithm messes them up anyway.

And don't get me started on the bonus decaying faster when you micro... I get it's meant to simulate improvisation messing up plans, but with the battleplanner as bad as it is you ultimately reward drawing a spearhead for each offensive action which is brainrotting. That's harder to fix, though

Do others have any ideas for solutions to this issue?

 

[Jays298]

Get rid of planning all together as it exists.

Planning needs to be a macro thing. Kind of like how you plan invasions or do research or do a focus and get a bonus.

Basically planning should be something done pre-war and something done maybe every 6 months via a decision that gives a bonus. You plan an operation. You execute it. and you get a bonus for a month.

The frontline system is ... a mess really. To do it right I need an army of infantry to hold the line and an army of tanks to do their micro attacks or maybe a spearhead.

 

[KarhuIII]

I think the easiest fix is to just give units planning while stationary, just like entrenchment. That they can get it for fronts there aren't plans for is silly but fine, it's tedious to constantly draw new plans as the algorithm messes them up anyway.

I like this idea. After all, when the unit is not moving or attacking, it is resting/entrenching, increasing its readiness to attack. When it is not on the front line it is on the reserve.
But the downside is how battleplanning xp is accumulated. It doesn't quite fit here.

 

[L-Histidine]

'Get planning while stationary anywhere' would also remove the necessity of the exploit with field marshal offensive order + striking units on garrison order in inaccessible country.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Do others have any ideas for solutions to this issue?

Replace planning with actual ammo accumulation that planning is supposed to stand for. Will work wonders with arty rework, too. Whether or not this is too much to ask for, given the development pace HoI4 has adopted and for some reason sticks to, is another question.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

But the downside is how battleplanning xp is accumulated. It doesn't quite fit here.

the optimal strat is already to put the battleplan somewhere random/inaccessible, "run" it, and control your units manually anyway-that's still be doable (though better yet, it'd be scrapped as a trait grinding requisite)

Replace planning with actual ammo accumulation that planning is supposed to stand for. Will work wonders with arty rework, too. Whether or not this is too much to ask for, given the development pace HoI4 has adopted and for some reason sticks to, is another question.

this is a good idea, though i do think that planning bonuses (especially as doctrines grant them) represent actual tactical planning more than anything else

 

[Svenkomigen]

this is a good idea, though i do think that planning bonuses (especially as doctrines grant them) represent actual tactical planning more than anything else

I'd say it represents both. Yes, upgrading your doctrine obviously represents a strictly better ability to plan your operations, but it doesn't matter how good your plan is if you don't have the ammunition, trucks, supplies, recon, and other things that actually allow an operation to not only be successfully launched but also sustained. So in reality I think the planning bonus represents both the idea of actual tactical/strategic planning, but also the stockpiling of ammunition, materiel, equipment, and supplies that will be used to keep the offensive going, even if a lot of these things are also more directly represented by other systems in the game.

On a separate note from what the system is actually meant to represent, I'd also just like to say that I actually like the planning system as it is implemented, and would much rather see that it just received some TLC to patch up the various exploits that allow you to not interact with it and make sure it's working as intended instead of redesigning it wholecloth.

 

[Emoneh]

I'd say it represents both. Yes, upgrading your doctrine obviously represents a strictly better ability to plan your operations, but it doesn't matter how good your plan is if you don't have the ammunition, trucks, supplies, recon, and other things that actually allow an operation to not only be successfully launched but also sustained. So in reality I think the planning bonus represents both the idea of actual tactical/strategic planning, but also the stockpiling of ammunition, materiel, equipment, and supplies that will be used to keep the offensive going, even if a lot of these things are also more directly represented by other systems in the game.

On a separate note from what the system is actually meant to represent, I'd also just like to say that I actually like the planning system as it is implemented, and would much rather see that it just received some TLC to patch up the various exploits that allow you to not interact with it and make sure it's working as intended instead of redesigning it wholecloth.

Actually, and this may be controversial, I think supply represents supply and planning represents planning. Actually.

 

[blahmaster6k]

What I find interesting is how there are so many disagree reactions on the idea but every comment contains some degree of agreement. What are the arguments for keeping planning bonus as-is?

I don't particularly have a stake myself but I do agree that the system as it currently exists incentivizes exploiting it and punishes micro, which I strongly disagree with.

 

[Nephandus]

What I find interesting is how there are so many disagree reactions on the idea but every comment contains some degree of agreement. What are the arguments for keeping planning bonus as-is?

I don't particularly have a stake myself but I do agree that the system as it currently exists incentivizes exploiting it and punishes micro, which I strongly disagree with.

There are ideas and theories that are worth discussing and refuting and then there are ideas and theories to which the only reaction is a dismissive wave at best since everything else would be a waste of time and breath.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Actually, and this may be controversial, I think supply represents supply and planning represents planning. Actually.

very snide and facetious of you, but there is objectively no real representation in game of "supply" in the sense used here, a mass buildup of ammo above the minimum - especially artillery rounds - before an offensive.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

There are ideas and theories that are worth discussing and refuting and then there are ideas and theories to which the only reaction is a dismissive wave at best since everything else would be a waste of time and breath.

do you think it's good game design to reward not taking a random empty province with a 75%+ boost to a division's attack? would the Germans have won El-Alamein if they'd just never moved through an empty "province" southwest of them?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And don't get me started on the bonus decaying faster when you micro... I get it's meant to simulate improvisation messing up plans, but with the battleplanner as bad as it is you ultimately reward drawing a spearhead for each offensive action which is brainrotting.

i pointed out this reality in my bug report about it years ago, shortly after the decay speed was stealth-implemented into the game. that the de facto consequence of the change was to incentivize players to repeatedly spam minimal-distance (and bugged to this day) spearhead orders. to no avail, obviously/unfortunately. that argument remains unanswered to this day.

i guess in retrospect, it was a sign of the direction of the game's ui/controls generally...the devs were willing to actively degrade the controls simply to make a still-existing interaction less convenient, and somehow conclude this was an improvement to hoi 4. this would not be the last time we saw this either. bugged movement queuing and cancel-strat-deployment-on-select are other examples of deliberately-introduced control degradation, presumably to fight "exploits", though i don't think we were given the reason why any of these made the game better.

this is the pdox game where real-time control is most emphasized. it would make sense if the controls are as seamless and input-minimized to accomplish division movement as possible. the current implementation of planning massively undermines core gameplay...you need to do tedious, counter-intuitive, input-intensive things to have competitive modifiers with other players willing to do them. while most devs try to avoid mechanics where players "optimize the fun out of the game", hoi 4 goes in the bold direction of deliberately tuning mechanics for that outcome!

 

[pro.gamer.69]

the current implementation of planning massively undermines core gameplay...you need to do tedious, counter-intuitive, input-intensive things to have competitive modifiers with other players willing to do them.

even if you're just playing SP, planning is such a massive buff, there are plenty of war scenarios a player not using planning will lose or be much slower that one using it would win

 

[KarhuIII]

Replace planning with actual ammo accumulation that planning is supposed to stand for. Will work wonders with arty rework, too. Whether or not this is too much to ask for, given the development pace HoI4 has adopted and for some reason sticks to, is another question.

It is not the same. Ammo accumulation should symmetrically boost offense and defense, while entrenchment and planning boosts depend on other variables.

 

[Killer-Cosmo]

there is objectively no real representation in game of "supply" in the sense used here, a mass buildup of ammo above the minimum

There is, it's called "Supply Grace", where a division can have more than 100% supply "stored". For most divisions the limit is 150%, however certain things impact this, such as special forces gaining massive supply grace buffs from special forces doctrine, the "Tip of the Spear" spirit of the army, and the game difficulty setting. I've seen divisions with 350% extra supply at times, meaning they can extend an offensive deeper into enemy territory, most likely up to a supply hub, and still be combat effective until that hub is operational

Edit: I forgot about the "Amphibious" and Paratroopers" general traits, which provide a whopping +240.0 hours of supply grace to marines and paratroopers respectively

Edit 2: 'Just ran a test, and having a general with either Amphibious/Paratroopers, Tip of the Spear selected, and either Expeditionary Task Forces in the marines special forces doctrine or Strategic Air Lift Corps for the Paratroopers special forces doctrine allows a marines to have 583% stored supply, and paratroopers to have 550% stored. I believe there are ways for regular divisions, especially tanks, to achieve this too but I can't test now

 

[Nephandus]

do you think it's good game design to reward not taking a random empty province with a 75%+ boost to a division's attack? would the Germans have won El-Alamein if they'd just never moved through an empty "province" southwest of them?

So how exactly did you come up with 75%+ planning bonus? The base max planning bonus is 30% plus 2% per planning skill point of the general plus 1% per planning skill level of the field marshal and 10% if the field marshal has the trait „thorough planning“.

Also the planning bonus is not completely lost if a unit is manually controlled when executing a battleplan but the bonus decay is increased from 1% per day to 3% per day.

I find your line of reasoning in light of this faulty

 

[Killer-Cosmo]

So how exactly did you come up with 75%+ planning bonus? The base max planning bonus is 30% plus 2% per planning skill point of the general plus 1% per planning skill level of the field marshal and 10% if the field marshal has the trait "thorough planning“.

They could be including doctrine; Grand Battleplan Left provides an extra 30%

Also the planning bonus is not completely lost if a unit is manually controlled when executing a battleplan but the bonus decay is increased from 1% per day to 3% per day.

If you could guarantee where a division on a small offensive order would attack (down to the exact tile) this fact would become much more useful. However since they have a tendency to choose to attack an alternate, seemingly random tile (and one that offers a greater challenge) some of the time it isn't as effective as it could be

 

[Demonthese]

do you think it's good game design to reward not taking a random empty province with a 75%+ boost to a division's attack? would the Germans have won El-Alamein if they'd just never moved through an empty "province" southwest of them?

Unironically yes to the general point. Like, friction is one of the most fundamental ideas of military operations. Even if you encounter zero resistance as soon as you leave your staging area things will go wrong. Mechanical breakdowns, someone takes a wrong turn, you can't get quite as much traffic through a route as you thought, and on and on. That is unironically how it works. While it's very non-specific planning bonus is probably one of the least abstracted mechanics in the game. Real life isn't as simple as a simple numerical multiplier of course but other than that it's basically how it works.

 

[blahmaster6k]

They could be including doctrine; Grand Battleplan Left provides an extra 30%

If you could guarantee where a division on a small offensive order would attack (down to the exact tile) this fact would become much more useful. However since they have a tendency to choose to attack an alternate, seemingly random tile (and one that offers a greater challenge) some of the time it isn't as effective as it could be

Yeah, with GBP it's not uncommon to see planning values in the 90s. Some countries also have national spirits that add planning factor as well, which scales multiplicatively with your max planning.