Hearts of Iron IV - The Ultimate WWII Strategy Game

[thesheeep]

What don't you like about it?

Dunno if I dislike it or not, but Himmler is basically Doctor Doom. I think the troons developing this trainwreck have been watching far too much MCU.

Yeah, it's not exactly realistic.
But... who gives a fuck? It's fun.

Also, at least Hitler is not an anime girl.

 

[None]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...iary-division-commanders-unit-medals.1538205/

Developer Diary | Division Commanders & Unit Medals​

• Thread starterArheo
• Start dateYesterday at 08:00

Greetings all!

Welcome back to today’s feature dev diary on a series of interconnected subsystems being added to the game in By Blood Alone.

One of the major points in my first roadmap dev diary was that I felt quite strongly about the inclusion of further roleplay and immersive elements in Hearts of Iron. What I’ll be showing off today is intended to fulfill a small part of this bullet point.

Those of you with keen memories will recall an early teaser I posted here. Some of you guessed correctly, and in BBA, we’ve introduced a dynamic system for naming battleplans. For many major nations, battleplan names can be provided through a list of locations, resulting in a historical series of operation tags which will be applied when plans are created:

Of course, the war does not always proceed historically, and battleplan names can also be generated from several component lists for instances where a historical variant cannot be found. These name lists are fully moddable, and can be unique to countries. In some cases (ie; Soviet Union) a different naming convention can be utilized to represent the somewhat uninventive approach to naming operations that was used in reality:

Naturally, in the spirit of roleplaying, these operation names can be modified in-game, and you can replace the text with whatever operation name you desire. This will apply to any sub-orders derived from the initial drawn line:

If unset, naval landing and paradrop orders will have a unique pattern to remain unique.

This system however, goes further than a simple naming convention, and ties into another addition being made to BBA.


Division Commanders

In BBA, we’re replacing the standard method of recruiting new generals out of thin air. Instead, every division will be created with a commanding officer upon game start, or when they are trained:

These are predominantly generated from country-specific namelists, however in some cases we have set these individually for starting divisions. When a new unit is created, they will be provided a randomly generated character name and portrait. To accommodate the increased use of generic portraits for these, we’ll be adding a large quantity of additional generic portraits for owners of BBA. The work involved in creating these is not insignificant, so for now we’ve limited ourselves in adding portraits to major nations only.

You’ll be able to get an overview of all division commanders in your army within the officer corps screen:

In an effort to avoid unnecessary micromanagement, we’ve made a few important decisions. Division commanders themselves will not directly confer bonuses upon the divisions they command, however the divisions they command will now earn and log a record of important actions they may perform during the natural course of a campaign:

Important actions such as taking a capital, securing a high-value victory point, and more, constitute actions for which a unit can be awarded a medal. It is expected that over the course of a campaign, many units will qualify for receiving medals, often several - the system is not driven by scarcity, as we do not intend for players to micromanage individual actions, rather to manage the macro-level step of choosing when and what to award their units.

As mentioned above, division commanders will not explicitly confer bonuses, however the medals awarded for action will. Medals are intended to act as a pp sink for the mid-late game, as we find a lot of players tend to end up with a significant amount of this resource as decisions, advisors and focuses begin to dwindle.

Units can receive multiple medals, however the cost for each will increase as more are granted to any given unit, and the effect of stacking specific medals will decrease per instance of the same effect.

As you will note above, medals can be specific to countries, and we’ve included a series of generic medals based on alignment, as well as unique medal sets for each major country. A medal’s effects will only extend to the unit it belongs to.

A medal’s name and description will in most cases be dynamic depending on what action it was awarded for, and extreme valor while on a specific named operation can also result in receiving a medal for that action.

To further streamline the process of awarding medals, you can perform quick actions to do this through the officers entry in the corps screen:

As mentioned previously, we’re removing the old method of recruiting generals by means of reaching into the void and plucking out a fully qualified officer. This means that your army generals will now be directly linked to your field of divisional officers, and their capability directly linked to their actions in the field.

Divisional officers will store experience based on the experience gain of the unit they are commanding, as well as receiving a lump-sum when a medal is awarded. While active as a divisional officer, this experience will have no meaningful effect, however, when in need of a new army general, you can promote divisional commanders out of their divisional role and directly into their new role as a general.

Any medals awarded to the division will be retained by that division, however, the newly created general will keep a reference to their awarded medals as a means of remembering their accomplishments in the line of duty (albeit with no direct effect on their new army - although we’ve elected to support this behavior for modders should they wish):

When a divisional officer is promoted this way, the experience they have earned during the course of their field command will be applied to their experience level as a general (up to a maximum cap). Promoting someone with field experience can prove a lot more valuable than hiring another pen-pusher, after all. If they have earned at least a certain quantity (as yet undecided) of field experience, they will also begin with a personality trait corresponding to the type of division they were commanding (armor officer, infantry officer, etc).


Unit Cohesion

You will also note that my roadmap included a wish to improve the battleplanner. While this is likely to be a slow, iterative process, BBA heralds the inclusion of a new frontline parameter intended for advanced users.

The Cohesion parameter can be set on any root frontline order, and will affect how the unit controller places divisions across that frontline. The default setting of ‘Flexible Cohesion’ functions as you have grown to expect - all units will be evaluated for placement suitability and potentially relocated to fill perceived gaps in frontline cohesion.

Balanced Cohesion’ will only successfully evaluate units that are within a defined distance from the target (distances are moddable). In practice, this results in less unit shuffling along frontlines, but should still ensure that frontlines respond to changes in size and shape.

The final setting, ‘Rigid Cohesion’ is intended primarily for long defensive lines, and will only successfully evaluate unit positions that are within a very short distance from the target location. In practice this results in relocations only taking place to neighboring provinces, and can result in gaps being created in frontlines if left unattended. It is expected that this setting will be used by players who primarily rely on micromanagement of frontlines.

The AI will make use of flexible and balanced cohesion settings depending on the ratio of divisions:frontline length, but will avoid the use of rigid cohesion.

It is worth noting that units that are not placed directly on the frontline (having been left behind or recently added to an order instance) will not be subject to the same cohesion restrictions, and will make use of strategic relocation to find themselves a new place on the frontline. Additionally, the cohesion setting will be respected regardless of whether an order is being executed or not.


Modding

For those of you interested in modding, the addition of these subsystems also comes with some new tools regarding units. It is now possible to iterate over unit arrays in states and countries by condition, and apply a series of effects, including the awarding of medals, history entries, and other basic parameters such as affecting org, strength, and more. For performance reasons, units do not currently support storing or being stored as variables, though we will monitor the need for, and performance implications of doing this in future (I SEE YOU EaW).

Predefined divisions can be set up with lists of historical commanders that they will draw from when their current commander if replaced, should you wish to opt for extreme historical fidelity.

The visual display ranks of divisional commanders correspond to their gained experience, and are fully customizable, though confer no gameplay effect.

Medals themselves can be added to the medal array based on arbitrary conditions, and support a variety of modifiers, not all of which are represented in our vanilla use-cases.

Name combinations can also be split from various random lists, if you have a particular penchant for randomly generated names.

That’s all for now, tune in next week for a second look at how peace conferences are progressing!

Seems like a step in the right direction, even if I don't agree 100% with the execution. I've pretty much written off podcat as a developer by now, so anyone else was an improvement. But after seeing what Arheo was willing to do with IR, I had a feeling he wouldn't be shy in his approach to HOI4. Unfortunately HOI4 jumped the shark long ago and no amount of overhauls or reworks will get this game back to it's roots, but it could be salvaged.

 

[Agame]

Unfortunately HOI4 jumped the shark long ago and no amount of overhauls or reworks will get this game back to it's roots, but it could be salvaged.

When you design the entire game around streamlining and simplifying for MP = rotten at the core.

They have been gradually improving it by adding back features, supply etc.

But HOI3 will forever be the pinnacle of the series.

 

[Raghar]

Unfortunately HOI4 jumped the shark long ago and no amount of overhauls or reworks will get this game back to it's roots, but it could be salvaged.

When you design the entire game around streamlining and simplifying for MP = rotten at the core.

They have been gradually improving it by adding back features, supply etc.

But HOI3 will forever be the pinnacle of the series.

HoI3 is horrible mess that doesn't even allow to play minor states properly.

 

[None]

I can't say I buy the idea that HOI4 was designed around multiplayer. Post release we can see that Paradox, unfortunately, became obsessed with metrics and data driven decision making, and the amount of people who actually play multiplayer is rather low compared to those that play singleplayer.

The failures of HOI3 are what informed the design of HOI4. Notably the failure of designing competent AI. The team did put quite an effort into the task, expanding the AI scripting system and having a dedicated AI dev (Steelvolt iirc, now there is no dev in this role). But it wasn't enough, so it was decided that the limiting factor in system design was the AI. While in a sense this is true, Pdox went overboard with the approach. Much of the AI's decision making has been reduced to focus trees, which recently have had their dynamic elements removed. The removal of air as physical units, the abstraction towards air regions. The same occurred on the naval side, although to a lesser degree. Even land combat was designed with preference for the AI over the player, the battle planner is proof enough of this. I could go on if I gave it more thought, but I think I've made my point and provided enough evidence to back it up. Keep in mind that this principal is not always adhered to and is actively undermined by the inclusion of "cool-factor" systems and mechanics like the intel system, tank/airplane/naval designers, all of which can be argued to provide no real benefit over what they replaced and actively deviate from the game's primary focus.

Podcat's ambition to add further depth to the series in HOI3 failed, and because it did we got HOI4.

 

[Average Manatee]

HoI3 is horrible mess that doesn't even allow to play minor states properly.

It does, you just can't conquer the world as luxembourg like in hoi4 because minor states are supposed to be minors.

 

[Raghar]

I analyzed HoI3 and it doesn't have depth, it's just a failed attempt of a person who don't have clue about war to mash few screens he saw in books and call it a war simulation.
When you look at HoI2 they had tech teams, and even small country could accomplish something when it had some money for research.
The problem with lack of simulation of tank production was solved in HoI4 when they finally tried to simulate basic assembly lines. It was no longer million years to get an infantry division. It was mere n months to teach them how to start tank and shoot stuff.
Then paradox decided to remove completely functional naval battle system in NAVAL expansion.

And since then HoI4 development went downhill.

Frankly, it's not even blamable on AI. AI in WW2 era game is either bunch of military professionals with WW2 history and tactics background, or non functional. The whole WW2 is unbalanced crap, and game developers would do better when they would use different era.

 

[what am i doing]

I can't say I buy the idea that HOI4 was designed around multiplayer. Post release we can see that Paradox, unfortunately, became obsessed with metrics and data driven decision making, and the amount of people who actually play multiplayer is rather low compared to those that play singleplayer.

A year before HoI4 even came out Johann was quoted saying "I don't give a fuck about the AI in this issue.. Its a matter of problem for the players vs players..." when people asked him if EU4's abysmal AI could be improved, and even back then people were pointing out it was a singleplayer game and Paradox just didn't give a fuck, they wanted to cater to multiplayer exclusively. So yeah maybe lately they've started to focus on metrics and data driven decision making, which would say "you should cater to singleplayer" but at least on HoI4's release they would still have been in "fuck singleplayer" mode and the game would have been designed around multiplayer, with singleplayer considerations coming later. Which obviously wouldn't work well because if you start off with a bad foundation it'll be hard to end up with anything good.

 

[None]

I can't say I buy the idea that HOI4 was designed around multiplayer. Post release we can see that Paradox, unfortunately, became obsessed with metrics and data driven decision making, and the amount of people who actually play multiplayer is rather low compared to those that play singleplayer.

A year before HoI4 even came out Johann was quoted saying "I don't give a fuck about the AI in this issue.. Its a matter of problem for the players vs players..." when people asked him if EU4's abysmal AI could be improved, and even back then people were pointing out it was a singleplayer game and Paradox just didn't give a fuck, they wanted to cater to multiplayer exclusively. So yeah maybe lately they've started to focus on metrics and data driven decision making, which would say "you should cater to singleplayer" but at least on HoI4's release they would still have been in "fuck singleplayer" mode and the game would have been designed around multiplayer, with singleplayer considerations coming later. Which obviously wouldn't work well because if you start off with a bad foundation it'll be hard to end up with anything good.

Didn't Johan only step in halfway through development? By then the groundworks for a lot of the things I mentioned was already laid. I don't disagree with the notion that there was an attempt to push the multiplayer aspect, but I don't think it was done to the extent of something like Starcraft 2, which is at it's core a multiplayer game. AI woes have always plagued Pdox games, so focusing on multiplayer as a way to bypass the issue seems likely.

 

[Harthwain]

But HOI3 will forever be the pinnacle of the series.

That's... a bold claim, to say the least. And I say that as someone who played HoI3 for much longer than HoI4.

 

[Average Manatee]

HoI3's only problems are MP being unstable and a lack of modding capability. Unfortunately these are huge problems for the longevity of the game. HoI4 basically survives off having fucked everything up except for the fact that modding is really easy and MP (mostly) works.

 

[Malakal]

HoI3's only problems are MP being unstable and a lack of modding capability. Unfortunately these are huge problems for the longevity of the game. HoI4 basically survives off having fucked everything up except for the fact that modding is really easy and MP (mostly) works.

You forgot to mention fundamentally broken game mechanics, dumbed down industry and production, also generally being incredibly tedious to play as a major power and barely playable as a minor power.

I too love researching gun12 to replace my gun11, great immersion by the way!

HoI4 is leaps and bounds ahead on the production front, unit and division design.

 

[Harthwain]

HoI3's only problems are MP being unstable and a lack of modding capability. Unfortunately these are huge problems for the longevity of the game.

I think that's fabulously optimistic of you, if you really think these were the only problems of HoI3.

HoI4 basically survives off having fucked everything up except for the fact that modding is really easy and MP (mostly) works.

I am not buying that argument. There are a plenty of people who enjoy getting achievements and playing with different focuses in singleplayer (evenmoreso considering they can customize their experience by deciding how free the AI can be when picking its own focuses). I couldn't get the exact quote, but supposedly one of the developers working at Paradox once said the ratio between people playing in singleplayer vs multiplayer is "95:5 or higher". Which is not surprising at all, considering the nature of the game.

 

[Tyrr]

You have more fun with Paradox games when you stop treating them as challenging strategy games. Play them like a RPG. That's why CK was so successful.

 

[Harthwain]

You have more fun with Paradox games when you stop treating them as challenging strategy games. Play them like a RPG. That's why CK was so successful.

And establishing your own goals. Playing as the last Saxon count and managing to orchestrate the coup to put myself in power within a single lifetime (with the help of the "Alliance of Barons", as I liked to call it) was one of the most satisfying experiences I had in CK2.

The weirdest one was having to keep the Holy Roman Empire together as excommunicated homosexual cannibal in CK3. To my surprise killing myself off made an even bigger mess for the underaged son of said cannibal to clean up. I should've probably went full tyrant instead. It took quite some time to piece the Empire back together after that.

 

[HeroMarine]

You have more fun with Paradox games when you stop treating them as challenging strategy games. Play them like a RPG. That's why CK was so successful.

That's how I play HOI4 as well, check my LP.

 

[Average Manatee]

You forgot to mention fundamentally broken game mechanics

Far less broken than every other HoI game. Org doesn't even fucking work in hoi4 and they refuse to fix it because the whole game was balanced around the mistake. You can't fucking order planes to bomb units unless they are in combat. You can't tell planes not to bomb certain units. There's no attack delay which makes reinforce rate useless on offense. I can fill 10 pages with broken hoi4 mechanics.

dumbed down industry and production

Again, compared to what?

also generally being incredibly tedious to play as a major power and barely playable as a minor power.

git gud, on both accounts.

I too love researching gun12 to replace my gun11, great immersion by the way!

Again, a problem all hoi games share.

HoI4 is leaps and bounds ahead on the production front, unit and division design.

HoI4 production is absolutely retarded and leads to players not even using half the stuff in the game because it fucks your efficiency so badly along with other degenerate gameplay outcomes. Unit and division design are both broken and exist so that you can cheese the AI.

I am not buying that argument. There are a plenty of people who enjoy getting achievements and playing with different focuses in singleplayer (evenmoreso considering they can customize their experience by deciding how free the AI can be when picking its own focuses). I couldn't get the exact quote, but supposedly one of the developers working at Paradox once said the ratio between people playing in singleplayer vs multiplayer is "95:5 or higher". Which is not surprising at all, considering the nature of the game.

95% of those playing singleplayer are playing mods.

 

[Harthwain]

95% of those playing singleplayer are playing mods.

64% actually. 40% for Europa Universalis IV.

Source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/hearts-of-iron-4/modding-community

 

[Average Manatee]

Probably even higher now in 2022, that was 2019.

 

[Harthwain]

Probably even higher now in 2022, that was 2019.

Maybe, maybe not. The thing I really contested was the emphasis on the supposed importance of multiplayer.

 

[Malakal]

You forgot to mention fundamentally broken game mechanics

Far less broken than every other HoI game. Org doesn't even fucking work in hoi4 and they refuse to fix it because the whole game was balanced around the mistake. You can't fucking order planes to bomb units unless they are in combat. You can't tell planes not to bomb certain units. There's no attack delay which makes reinforce rate useless on offense. I can fill 10 pages with broken hoi4 mechanics.

Leadership system is the core of HoI3 system and it is broken beyond repair. Also dumb. Ye sure Im going to send my scientists to be officers woo.

dumbed down industry and production

Again, compared to what?

HoI4 of course, I liked HoI2 but its just old by now with multiple oversimplifications. HoI1 is just nostalgia bait.

also generally being incredibly tedious to play as a major power and barely playable as a minor power.

git gud, on both accounts.

Absolute failure due to leadership mechanic, not taking into account specific areas nations were good in at the time. Try giving Italy good mountain troops? Can't represent.

I too love researching gun12 to replace my gun11, great immersion by the way!

Again, a problem all hoi games share.

Literally only HoI3 has generic numbered techs, all other parts of the series had unique techs that could be further modded to be different for different nations to represent historical differences between tanks, planes and such.

HoI4 is leaps and bounds ahead on the production front, unit and division design.

HoI4 production is absolutely retarded and leads to players not even using half the stuff in the game because it fucks your efficiency so badly along with other degenerate gameplay outcomes. Unit and division design are both broken and exist so that you can cheese the AI.

And this is exactly what historical happened, Germany fucked itself up with constant tank model changes and not streamlining production, Soviet factories preferred producing older models they knew they could reach quotas with rather than risky new models and it is how industrial lines work IRL.

How is AI being inadequate anythign to do with game mechanics? AI in no Paradox game can execute a proper naval invasion and can be baited into encirclement incredibly easily, you want to cut those mechanics from the games?

What HoI4 gives you is incredible ability to make every single division unique and different not only between nations but also in your nation , you can mix the components in any way you want with some being more efficient but using some cheese strats to surprise your opponent is very much doable and often important.

 

[Average Manatee]

Leadership system is the core of HoI3 system and it is broken beyond repair. Also dumb. Ye sure Im going to send my scientists to be officers woo.

What is broken about it? It basically represents your college educated population. You can't train any 80 IQ retard to lead troops or make planes. HoI4's research slot system is a huge fucking joke and the mana system is worse.

HoI4 of course, I liked HoI2 but its just old by now with multiple oversimplifications. HoI1 is just nostalgia bait.

Hoi4 with it's retarded production efficiency that makes half the units in the game useless?

Absolute failure due to leadership mechanic, not taking into account specific areas nations were good in at the time. Try giving Italy good mountain troops? Can't represent.

Maybe you're a failure? Leadership works fine. Research the techs you want if you want them. Italy actually has Alpini which are unique mountain troops with greater stats in mountain/hills/etc.

Literally only HoI3 has generic numbered techs, all other parts of the series had unique techs that could be further modded to be different for different nations to represent historical differences between tanks, planes and such.

What unique techs are there in HoI4? None. Are you referring to mutually exclusive doctrines?

And this is exactly what historical happened, Germany fucked itself up with constant tank model changes and not streamlining production, Soviet factories preferred producing older models they knew they could reach quotas with rather than risky new models and it is how industrial lines work IRL.

How is AI being inadequate anythign to do with game mechanics? AI in no Paradox game can execute a proper naval invasion and can be baited into encirclement incredibly easily, you want to cut those mechanics from the games?

"make 90% of the options in your game trap choices" = awful game design.

This is supposed to be a strategy game. I want to prepare marines for naval invasions and river crossings, heavy armor to bust forts, mountaineers for bad terrain, light tanks and mediums to exploit gaps, strats to bomb logistics, tacs/CAS to bomb troops, and engineers/AT to hold the line against enemy tanks. Instead in HoI4 you produce just two division types (infantry and armor) and two plane types (interceptor and CAS) and play like an 80 IQ retard who just butts his head into everything with more units to win.

Meanwhile HoI3 still rewards you for focusing production, it just doesn't absolutely rape you with a 10 foot metal rod if you decide to switch rather than 100% metagame for ahead of time units.

What HoI4 gives you is incredible ability to make every single division unique and different not only between nations but also in your nation , you can mix the components in any way you want with some being more efficient but using some cheese strats to surprise your opponent is very much doable and often important.

The incredible ability to spend your time on meaningless metagame bullshit that has no place in a grand strategy game. Hell it doesn't even have a place in a normal strategy game, if this feature was in Starcraft it'd be laughed at.

 

[Malakal]

Leadership system is the core of HoI3 system and it is broken beyond repair. Also dumb. Ye sure Im going to send my scientists to be officers woo.

What is broken about it? It basically represents your college educated population. You can't train any 80 IQ retard to lead troops or make planes. HoI4's research slot system is a huge fucking joke and the mana system is worse.

Because it is also arbitrary mana points. Are you pretending? https://hoi3.paradoxwikis.com/Country_statistics here is a list, Germany has more than USA LMAO

First of all it represents nothing. Its not college or generally educated population because that would favor developed Western nations like Belgium and Netherlands rather than nations that actually fought hard in war like Romania, its simply arbitrary game balance value,

And it makes no sense at all, you can't move a scientist to be an officer, one needs university degree and another needs an officer academy. Neither is a trained spy or diplomat either. So you just prefer yellow mana rather than red mana?

HoI4 of course, I liked HoI2 but its just old by now with multiple oversimplifications. HoI1 is just nostalgia bait.

Hoi4 with it's retarded production efficiency that makes half the units in the game useless?

Any nation in the game of HoI4 can field any unit it wishes while focusing on researching it. Want Canadian tank corps with only researching tanks? No problem. How is it useless?

Absolute failure due to leadership mechanic, not taking into account specific areas nations were good in at the time. Try giving Italy good mountain troops? Can't represent.

Maybe you're a failure? Leadership works fine. Research the techs you want if you want them. Italy actually has Alpini which are unique mountain troops with greater stats in mountain/hills/etc.

I love sending 100% of my leadership to be spies and next day they are now scientists! And then officers! Amazing system, yellow mana goes BRRRR!

Literally only HoI3 has generic numbered techs, all other parts of the series had unique techs that could be further modded to be different for different nations to represent historical differences between tanks, planes and such.

What unique techs are there in HoI4? None. Are you referring to mutually exclusive doctrines?

Every tech tree is composed of several technology breakthroughs that you can modify. For example you discover a fighter and then invest xp into modifying it to suit your needs, want it to be faster? Shoot harder? Be more reliable? All doable and unique while not pre-determined.

Or you can just give nations unique fighters if you want a more historic flavor, no problem.

And this is exactly what historical happened, Germany fucked itself up with constant tank model changes and not streamlining production, Soviet factories preferred producing older models they knew they could reach quotas with rather than risky new models and it is how industrial lines work IRL.

How is AI being inadequate anythign to do with game mechanics? AI in no Paradox game can execute a proper naval invasion and can be baited into encirclement incredibly easily, you want to cut those mechanics from the games?

"make 90% of the options in your game trap choices" = awful game design.

This is supposed to be a strategy game. I want to prepare marines for naval invasions and river crossings, heavy armor to bust forts, mountaineers for bad terrain, light tanks and mediums to exploit gaps, strats to bomb logistics, tacs/CAS to bomb troops, and engineers/AT to hold the line against enemy tanks. Instead in HoI4 you produce just two division types (infantry and armor) and two plane types (interceptor and CAS) and play like an 80 IQ retard who just butts his head into everything with more units to win.

You can do whatever you want to do. You can win a SP game with one unit, but then you can win by repeatedly baiting AI to move units into encirclement so thats a moot point.

Marines, paratroopers, light, medium, heavy tank divisions, mountaineers, motorized and mechanized are all distinct formations that you can mix as you wish.

What HoI4 gives you is incredible ability to make every single division unique and different not only between nations but also in your nation , you can mix the components in any way you want with some being more efficient but using some cheese strats to surprise your opponent is very much doable and often important.

The incredible ability to spend your time on meaningless metagame bullshit that has no place in a grand strategy game. Hell it doesn't even have a place in a normal strategy game, if this feature was in Starcraft it'd be laughed at.

You mean like Germany poured a ton of resources into Grossdeutschland division? Yes very meta gamey of them.

You really advocate literal copy pasted units and only being able to field infantry-tank-whatever HoI before 4 had I forgot.

I like my marines with SPART and there is nothing you can do to stop me fielding them in HoI4...

 

[Average Manatee]

Because it is also arbitrary mana points. Are you pretending? https://hoi3.paradoxwikis.com/Country_statistics here is a list, Germany has more than USA LMAO

Check your source, USA has the most leadership in 1936 (UK controls more but a huge amount is non-core so it gets only a fraction of what it owns).

First of all it represents nothing. Its not college or generally educated population because that would favor developed Western nations like Belgium and Netherlands rather than nations that actually fought hard in war like Romania, its simply arbitrary game balance value,

What does leadership have to do with fighting hard? Belgium does in fact have more leadership in Hoi3 than Romania.

And it makes no sense at all, you can't move a scientist to be an officer, one needs university degree and another needs an officer academy. Neither is a trained spy or diplomat either. So you just prefer yellow mana rather than red mana?

You can go into higher education to be an officer, a spy, or a researcher. If this makes no sense to you then you might be retarded. It's not a perfect simulation but it's by far the best the HoI series has had.

Any nation in the game of HoI4 can field any unit it wishes while focusing on researching it. Want Canadian tank corps with only researching tanks? No problem. How is it useless?

Except the production system of hoi4 fucks you.

I love sending 100% of my leadership to be spies and next day they are now scientists! And then officers! Amazing system, yellow mana goes BRRRR!

Who gives a shit? Yes you can swap every day between 100% of one and 100% of another. Who even does that? It gives no advantage and there's no reason to do so. Wasting time to make a "realistic" limitation on something that you have no reason to do is a waste of time and is just annoying players for no benefit. Would you like it if HoI4 only allowed you to change production lines on the 4 days each year that are scheduled by the nation to review production orders?

Every tech tree is composed of several technology breakthroughs that you can modify. For example you discover a fighter and then invest xp into modifying it to suit your needs, want it to be faster? Shoot harder? Be more reliable? All doable and unique while not pre-determined.

This isn't unique techs. Also who gives a shit, it's a retarded hoi4 mana system. It's thanks to great design choices like this that we have one minor nation on each side in MP that literally does nothing except produce planes and research planes ahead of time and control all planes because otherwise the mechanics fuck your side and make you automatically lose. I want a game with good gameplay, not a game where I spend mana to push a button and headcanon that my game is somehow flavorful or more historical like a retard because I've upgraded my planes.

You can do whatever you want to do. You can win a SP game with one unit, but then you can win by repeatedly baiting AI to move units into encirclement so thats a moot point.

Marines, paratroopers, light, medium, heavy tank divisions, mountaineers, motorized and mechanized are all distinct formations that you can mix as you wish.

Except they are useless and no one uses them because the hoi4 production system rapes you.

You mean like Germany poured a ton of resources into Grossdeutschland division? Yes very meta gamey of them.

You really advocate literal copy pasted units and only being able to field infantry-tank-whatever HoI before 4 had I forgot.

I like my marines with SPART and there is nothing you can do to stop me fielding them in HoI4...

You can field marines with SPART in hoi3...

 

[Harthwain]

Except the production system of hoi4 fucks you.

This is HoI4's way of actually simulating things such as making different variants and different models that share the same chassis. Sure, if you're going to switch between models (from Panzer to Panther, for example) then the loss of efficiency is realistic as production lines have to switch to new components.

It's your job to calculate whether you want more slightly modernized tanks or less bleeding edge tanks that will outperform the older ones. You can only "get fucked" by this system if you don't understand it or want to have cake and eat it too.