Hearts of Iron IV - The Ultimate WWII Strategy Game

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Hey, when a Finnish company is going to design award winning and successful grand strategy WW2 games, you can have proper Continuation War events. Until then, submit to your Swedish overlords.

Never going to happen. All Finnish devs are either sucking the easy teat of iShit market of candy crush and angry bird clones, or autistic basement dwellers creating neverending madness projects like Unreal World.

Or getting all high-and-mighty like Remedy.

 

[Chef_Hathaway]

In all seriousness tho, probably the thing Winter War events need the most is that if the Soviet Union does not suffer enough casualties and need a minimum number of time to cause surrender, all Great Officer Purge penalties become permanent.

Giving the Soviets a severe org and morale penalty due to the purge and the political officer system would be a good start to properly portraying the Winter War, but they never do that, it's just a bunch of 'Old Guard' generals dying.

 

[Space Satan]

HoI2 had this awful mechanic that emposed handicaps on certain countries, like 0.3 on SU or 0.5 on Germany or else. They were scripted and streamlined you into preset chains of events. Entire BEL system in HoI3 was an attempt to get away from multiplier system. Both failed so I hope now they will figure a decent solution to this.

 

[Destroid]

Hmm, I hope this doesn't mean that certain nations are automatically gimped by historical necessity. It would be kind of shitty if the US couldn't produce heavy tanks until 1945. And Panzer IV - 1941, wut?. Panzer III and IV were developed and produced pretty much concurrently, in 1939.

Like the idea, just hope that things don't suffer for poor implementation. I look forward to steamrolling Germany as France with my superior Char B1 heavy tanks. Oh who am I kidding, France will once again get nerfed to 1/10th of their historical strength

In previous HoI games all those dates mean is if you research them earlier you get a tech penalty. So putting the pz4 tech later than it historically occurred simply means that historically Germany heavily invested to get better tanks faster.

EDIT: Although thinking about it more and responding to the other thread makes me think they are basically regarding the Panzer 4 F onwards (which appeared in 41) as the Panzer 4 that matters.

 

[Raghar]

I don't care if they make the tech tree look like WoT as long as they continue to refine this VASTLY superior production system. I have the biggest WW2-boner ever right now.

Expect 8 core minimum CPU requirements and the whole program running as a hog. While I did stuff like that in Java and made it fast. I also created stuff thats 5x faster than what ANYONE could produce.

HoI2 had this awful mechanic that emposed handicaps on certain countries, like 0.3 on SU or 0.5 on Germany or else. They were scripted and streamlined you into preset chains of events. Entire BEL system in HoI3 was an attempt to get away from multiplier system. Both failed so I hope now they will figure a decent solution to this.

What BEL system?

Actually what were the real world reasons? When they would like to remove these artificial handicaps, they'd need to at least create something similar to real world reasons.

 

[anus_pounder]

I don't care if they make the tech tree look like WoT as long as they continue to refine this VASTLY superior production system. I have the biggest WW2-boner ever right now.

Expect 8 core minimum CPU requirements and the whole program running as a hog. While I did stuff like that in Java and made it fast. I also created stuff thats 5x faster than what ANYONE could produce.

HoI2 had this awful mechanic that emposed handicaps on certain countries, like 0.3 on SU or 0.5 on Germany or else. They were scripted and streamlined you into preset chains of events. Entire BEL system in HoI3 was an attempt to get away from multiplier system. Both failed so I hope now they will figure a decent solution to this.

What BEL system?

Actually what were the real world reasons? When they would like to remove these artificial handicaps, they'd need to at least create something similar to real world reasons.

In order to simulate the ineffectiveness of Soviet defenses before the war with Germany, the Soviet Union has significant defensive penalties for its military that cannot be adjusted in-game by the player. The GDE (Ground Defense Efficiency) score is essentially a percentage of the effectiveness of your units on defense. Thus, a GDE of 0.2 means 20% effective, or put another way, fighting at an 80% penalty when on the defense. The normal value of GDE for other nations is 0.8: due to all the advantages defenders have in the game, GDE never rises above 0.8.

• The Soviet Union starts with 0.2 GDE.
• It increases by 0.1 in May 1940 and later years for a total of +0.4.
• When anyone DOWs you get all these future increases plus an additional 0.1 are received.
• When Finns offer you peace through the event you get +0.1 (note this is the event not any other offer of peace).
• Grand total gets you back to 0.8.
• AI gets +0.6 at the start instead of the above events EXCEPT that they still get the Winter War event allowing the AI to get 0.9 GDE.

Timeline of GDE values:

• Prior to Dec 12th, 1939, your GDE should be 0.2
• From Dec 12th, 1939 to May 1st, 1940, it should be 0.3
• From May 2nd, 1940 to May 1st, 1941, it should be 0.4
• From May 2nd, 1941 to May 1st, 1942, it should be 0.5
• From May 2nd, 1942 to May 1st, 1943, it should be 0.6
• From May 2nd, 1943 to May 1st, 1944, it should be 0.7
• From May 2nd, 1944 on, it should be 0.8

Being attacked by a major power (eg: Germany) will automatically boost your GDE up to 0.7 (after a random delay of a few weeks to as much as several months)... but ONLY if they attack you, not vice versa; and the last boost (from 0.7 to 0.8 GDE) only happens in 1944, regardless. Note that all of this applies ONLY to a Human-controlled Russia... an AI-controlled Russia has a GDE of 0.8 right from January 1936 on.

There is a different event chain in Doomsday and Armageddon. One important difference is that the Finnish Winter War has no effect on the GDE. The Winter War is fought at 0.4 GDE. Then there are two GDE gearing up events in January 1940 and June 1940, raising GDE to 0.5 and then 0.6 GDE. In June ´41 the GDE gets the last but one raise to 0.7 GDE. The last raise to 0.8 GDE depends on whether the Soviet Union is human or AI controlled. The AI gets maximum GDE when they lost 10% of their provinces in the "Great Patriotic War" event. A human controlled Soviet Union gets the same event when it is under attack (!), lost 5% of its territory and lost one major western city OR by June ´42 at the latest.

Not sure if this is what Satan is talking about.

 

[Space Satan]

Yeah. Mess of a mechanic. Buggy as hell, but main poroblem - it streamlined you into strict chains of events. Reducing your options to simply selecting several builds like T34 rush. Vs AI it often lead to crappy parties - you amass shitload of tanks after rushing Med. tank research and then German AI never declared war because there's a condition on Soviet landforce that make Germany reconsider and choose easier target. And then you are sitting with huge modern army and low GDE, watching entire world waging wars with everyone but you.

 

[Raghar]

Yeah. Mess of a mechanic. Buggy as hell, but main poroblem - it streamlined you into strict chains of events. Reducing your options to simply selecting several builds like T34 rush. Vs AI it often lead to crappy parties - you amass shitload of tanks after rushing Med. tank research and then German AI never declared war because there's a condition on Soviet landforce that make Germany reconsider and choose easier target. And then you are sitting with huge modern army and low GDE, watching entire world waging wars with everyone but you.

Couldn't you attack some country like Iran, to get a warm water port, and piss of other countries to force them to declare war on you?

 

[sser]

Had Germany invaded on May 15th like they had planned, they more than likely would have been sitting in Moscow and the Gorky rail stations by winter. An automatic boost in "ground efficiency" does not really cover the fragmented and discombobulated nature of Russia's fighting effectiveness. The systematic errors were not just in a lack of strong tactical leadership, but also technological holes in Russia's military. Their technology - and its proper integration - was all over the field: tanks communicating with flags. Very little close air support. Operational communication unable to handle swift changes. There are examples of Russian counter-attacks literally disappearing into the front. Whole armor battalions being sent west never to be seen again. If the Germans ran into a problem they couldn't squash - say a KV-I sitting in a field - then they just went around it. Most of the officers purged out of the military were back in the armed forces in 1941. Russia had the equipment, technology, and numbers to have an effective fighting force. It just wasn't organized yet - for that they just needed time, something the Germans sought to take away from them.

Giving someone an automatic boost in ground efficiency for being attacked sounds like an easily cheesed mechanic and really doesn't feel like a proper simulacrum of how Russia developed its military by fire.

 

[Chef_Hathaway]

Just goes to show just how shitty of an ally Italy was to Germany. If they hadn't had to postpone Barbarossa to squash the Yugos and the Greeks, and prop up their defenses in North Africa, the Soviet Union would have been totally screwed.

 

[sser]

Just goes to show just how shitty of an ally Italy was to Germany. If they hadn't had to postpone Barbarossa to squash the Yugos and the Greeks, and prop up their defenses in North Africa, the Soviet Union would have been totally screwed.

Oh absolutely. I'm more or less convinced that Italy's incompetence was a major contributor to swinging the war in the Allies favor. They bumbled into every operation like a bunch of clowns and then turned around and sapped Germany's strength to make up for it. The effect of the Balkans campaign was more than just timing. Even if Germany postponed Barbarossa anyway, they still lost a great deal of logistical support in the geographic goatfuck that are the Grecian mountains and isles, nevermind Hitler being convinced to essentially give up on mobile paratroopers. When facing the enormity of Russia, Germany did not have troops to spare, but there they were, in North Africa, in Greece, and eventually in Italy itself.

 

[Average Manatee]

Plenty of things could have gone either way and completely changed the war. Japan could have not attacked the US. Hitler could have started Barbarossa as a war of liberating people from communism rather than a war of slav genocide. France could have attacked Germany in force a week after the war started and be eating baguettes in Berlin within a month or two.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Japan had to attack the USA, or give up the dream of becoming a great power. They needed the resources of Malaysia and Dutch East-Indies, and knew that USA would intervene, so they needed to take out USA's ability to project power in western Pacific by taking out the Pacific Fleet.

Hitler couldn't have done Barbarossa as a campaign of liberation, as one of the cornerstones of his Nazi ideology was the genocide of Slavs, and of acquiring living space in East. He was a firm disciple of the "blood and soil"-ideology.

France couldn't have attacked Germany in September '39 and march to Berlin. Their mobilization was still in progress, and they had no offensive plans, and even worse, their high command was all too content to just sit behind the Maginot-wall, while holding mobile formations ready to spring into Belgium, in response to the expected repeat of the Schlieffien-plan.

Italy, however, could have done a lot of things differently. There was no need for Italy to attack Greece, and it wasn't an elemental part of Mussolini's Fascist ideology, though eventually he would have clashed with Greece due to his long-term goal of re-establishing the Roman Empire. However, in 1941, he should have concentrated on North-Africa and Middle-East. If he, or his generals and admirals, would have taken the long-term view, closing the Suez Canal and pushing the British out of Egypt and Palestine would have meant an easier Greek-campaign in '42 or '43.

And let's not over-exaggerate the German contribution to North-Africa. Afrika Korps initially was only 3 divisions strong, and had two Luftwaffe geschwaders. That amount would not have mattered at all in the Soviet Union, where millions of men (and women) clashed on both sides. That number jumps to about 6 if we include the occupation forces in Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete. Sure, Germany eventually had to move more troops in to this southern theatre, as the Allied and partisans grew stronger - but by then, Barbarossa was already lost.

So yes, the biggest and easiest and most logical "what if"-scenario for WW2 is if Italy would have remained neutral. They attacked France when it was too late, their Balkan war delayed the opening of Barbarossa by a month, and they allowed the Allies to create a second front in the Mediterranean, that eventually ended up sucking quite a lot of German troops and resources.

 

[anus_pounder]

Did the italians have any noteworthy leaders? Italian high command seems to have been universally terribad.

EDIT: What about their equipment? Italian planes and ships seem to be well regarded according to a quick round of google-fu.

EDIT2: We need a WW1/2 topic or such and such.

 

[sser]

From what I understand, Italian armed forces were plagued with poor leadership because there was no real meritocracy at work. Aristocratic men and Mussolini buddies pretty much filled the ranks. The shittiest of men tended to flock to these roles and the military was filled up with guys just looking for a check. Italy is not a very homogenous country, either. North and South Italy are culturally fairly apart (even today), and back then there was hardly any union at all about Italy's national goals, much less Mussolini's ambitions. Industrially they were behind the curve and Italy isn't exactly a resource-rich stretch of land, either. Italy worked best when it was overwhelming people with numbers, but beyond that it seems like the Italian military imploded every time it faced genuinely tough resistance. This is pretty indicative of poor leadership qualities, IMO, and probably even poorer standards of living when Italians think it better to just surrender than keep on fighting. Having faith in your operations is a big deal, and the Italians had none. I don't know much of anything about their equipment but I've also seen things that were more or less neutral or positive about them. I've read that if Italy would've waited a year or two to start their offensives they would have done a lot better, but I dunno if I can buy that. I don't think you can fundamentally change the core of a military in a short time - and the core of Italy was what was rotten; and no amount of time would ever change the fact that Italy was way, way out of its league in industry and manpower vs. just about everyone in the conflict.

The idea of Italy closing the Suez and flushing the British out of Palestine is an interesting idea, but improbable. King Abdullah I of Transjordan had a very formidable army by the rather wicked title of the Arab Legion, trained and officered by the British. And the British, to be frank, probably would have lost their marbles if that was the direction Italy headed. That would have grossly altered history, though. King Abdullah I had aspirations for Greater Syria - something that would have included all of Palestine - and he probably would have gotten it with all the fighting in the region and Britain's aide/rewards. The Syrians probably would have tried to get involved and they would have imploded as they were consistently doing. With Egypt all tied up and Axis forces spread all throughout the area, this would have given King Abdullah I - who was hated by all these neighbors - free rein to finally get what he wanted. The Israeli state as we know it today would probably be underneath the Jordanian kingdom and all those people would probably be getting along a lot better than they are now.

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

The idea of Italy closing the Suez and flushing the British out of Palestine is an interesting idea, but improbable. King Abdullah I of Transjordan had a very formidable army by the rather wicked title of the Arab Legion, trained and officered by the British. And the British, to be frank, probably would have lost their marbles if that was the direction Italy headed. .

The Italians were far from being competent, but I don't think they could have lost against that. Having British, American, French or German trained troops was pretty standard back then. But a modernised industrial European nation will win against a more or less backward small piece of desert, even with some British instruction.

During World War II, the Arab Legion took part in the British war effort against pro-Axis forces in theMediterranean and Middle East Theatre. By then the force had grown to 1,600 men.

Formidable? very ?

 

[not an artichoke]

They wouldn't have stopped the Italians on their own, but they were very good. The Legion was the only conventional Arab force to outfight the Israelis with any consistency in 1948.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Italy focused on tankettes and light tanks for far too long, and Italian designers came up with a decent tank build only in late '42, by which time it was too late. But some of their planes were pretty good, like Fiat G.50, and there wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with their ships. The worst weakness Italy had was her officer corps, as already pointed out. The German reports from liaison officers and DAK are a scathing read.

 

[oscar]

Italian ships were of excellent design though crucially lacked radar. Most of the balls of the Italian armed forces seem to have been in the navy as well, where human torpedoes (the Italians were the first to train and utilise frogmen) were used to great effect against the British.

My big hope is non worthless minors. Weird seeing Australian, Canadian, NZ, Finnish, Dutch, Swiss, Swedish etc divisions ass backwards in technology and doctrine compared to Great Powers due to the system not differentiating between small/medium but advanced Western nations and places like Afghanistan or Tibet.

The obvious solution would be to base research off tech team quality rather than IC or leadership. This means we can finally distinguish between small but up-to-date nations and small and backwards nations.

 

[GarfunkeL]

No, I disagree. The bigger problem is that there is no method of accurately simulating sales of military equipment. Well, now that there are both product licenses and Lend-Lease, it alleviates the problem a little. It's not like the minors were keeping abreast with the big boys in every field. Germany sent radars, AT-weapons, tanks, and planes to Finland and Hungary, and in smaller numbers to Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. All Commonwealth countries used a mix of British and American equipment.

 

[Chef_Hathaway]

Exactly, which why the new system of production could be very interesting for lend-lease, as it shouldn't take as much IC to train men rather than building the equipment from scratch.

Italy focused on tankettes and light tanks for far too long, and Italian designers came up with a decent tank build only in late '42, by which time it was too late. But some of their planes were pretty good, like Fiat G.50, and there wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with their ships. The worst weakness Italy had was her officer corps, as already pointed out. The German reports from liaison officers and DAK are a scathing read.

The thing about the Italian tanks is that they were outdated but also produced in very small numbers compared to pretty much every other power in WW2. The Italians had a very poor production model as most of their larger equipment was hand assembled rather than produced on assembly lines.

Same for their planes, though their planes stayed pretty competitive until about late '42/ early '43. They actually built a plane that was superior in performance to the later model 109s but didn't have the capacity or the resources to build them.

 

[sser]

They wouldn't have stopped the Italians on their own, but they were very good. The Legion was the only conventional Arab force to outfight the Israelis with any consistency in 1948.

Yeah they definitely wouldn't have stopped them on their own - but an Italian invasion would have brought a great deal more of British resources into the region, which is what I was operating on, a hypothetical. I know way too much about King Abdullah I and Transjordan during this time period so I could go on forever about what if this and what if that.

What I do wonder is how HoI4 is going to handle the mechanization of armed forces in regions like the Middle-East/North Africa. I've read that the American arrival in the theater wasn't a game change just because of the increased number of forces, but because the Americans brought a completely endless supply of motors to jet men around the desert - and in that theater, mobility was king. This was also something the Italians lacked... always with the Italians...

 

[Cassidy]

Hitler couldn't have done Barbarossa as a campaign of liberation, as one of the cornerstones of his Nazi ideology was the genocide of Slavs, and of acquiring living space in East. He was a firm disciple of the "blood and soil"-ideology.

That would be possible if there was an ahistorical option to have the Kaiserreich restored instead of Nazi Germany in a 1930 or 1933 game start.

 

[anus_pounder]

Off topic, but all this talk about Italy has got me thinking...

Any good HoI Italy LPs out there? 2 or 3, I'll take either.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

Look up Carnage Al Dente by CptEasy on the hoi3 aar forum in paradoxforums, best italian multiplayer HOI3 aar I seen.

Also, the main problem with the italians in their african campaign (along with the horrible officer corp) was their lack of equipment and supplies. There are numerous reports of italian soldiers starving, lacking fuel for transport (or transport altogether) and even critical ammo shortages. Italian soldiers who served under german officers performed well, some would say astronomically better than they did under their own countrymen, whom they didn't trust.

But by the time the allies had begun advancing up calabria all the fight had gone out of them and the entirety of them saw themselves as victims rather than combatants.

Tech tree mechanics look great though, can't wait to mod in all the extra prototype shit and equip romanian armored divisions with Pz IVs.