Main Menu

Hearts of Iron IV

Started by Ian C, May 13, 2016, 01:07:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sandman2575

Quote from: SirAndrewD on April 18, 2018, 03:37:18 PM
It still has a horrible naval system


Have been spending some time with Waking the Tiger and am pretty unhappy to find that naval warfare is as rubbish as it has ever been. Submarine warfare is particularly terrible -- there is *still* no reason to build subs; they are worse than useless.

But agree that HOI4 is the best in the series. I love it to death, despite its shortcomings.

SirAndrewD

Quote from: sandman2575 on April 18, 2018, 04:16:28 PM
there is *still* no reason to build subs; they are worse than useless.

There's no reason to build anything other than Battleships and Carriers at all.  Less than no reason actually.  Putting resources towards anything else is a waste.

Depending on what country you play you can even do without the carriers.
"These men do not want a happy ship. They are deeply sick and try to compensate by making me feel miserable. Last week was my birthday. Nobody even said "happy birthday" to me. Someday this tape will be played and then they'll feel sorry."  - Sgt. Pinback

Huw the Poo

It's a travesty that a game based on the second world war gives you no reason to build subs.  :idiot2:

Having said that, the rest of what you guys say is pushing me toward buying.  Thanks very much.  The sale ends in six days so I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone else chimes in.

Any comment on the supposed supply issues?

SirAndrewD

Supply is still an issue for the AI, but it's also been improved. 

The biggest problem before was that the AI had the capacity to instantly grow recruitable population for manpower, and hence built obscenely huge armies.  Examples like Romania fielding 200+ divisions by 1942 were not uncommon.  This led to fronts being choked by obscene numbers of divisions all needing supply, and then compounded by the AI not investing in infrastructure to try to alleviate the problem.

It got worse when the AI tried to send the huge armies into low infrastructure areas like Russia and Africa.  It tended to lead to wholesale collapse of nations. 

Since the patch before last, that hasn't been an issue.  Manpower growth was tweaked and the AI is better about not stuffing large armies into secondary fronts. 

AI nations now can and do survive into the mid to late war without its armies collapsing into low organization pushovers.
"These men do not want a happy ship. They are deeply sick and try to compensate by making me feel miserable. Last week was my birthday. Nobody even said "happy birthday" to me. Someday this tape will be played and then they'll feel sorry."  - Sgt. Pinback

Pete Dero

Quote from: sandman2575 on April 18, 2018, 04:16:28 PM
Submarine warfare is particularly terrible -- there is *still* no reason to build subs; they are worse than useless.

You can use subs for convoy raiding when :

- only one or two subs in a fleet (more will give you a very high detection rate and will get them killed)
- patrol in the larger areas  (e.g. Western Approaches and not in the North Sea with very high traffic, causing again a higher detection rate)
- you researched the relevant naval techs

Also add a few subs to surface fleets (helps the fleet detect enemies and they work like a screen).

In one of my games I created sub fleets each with around 10 subs and the went down in no time.
Breaking them up into small units gave good results (even against surface war ships)
Also you can replace losses quickly because they are cheap to build.
Replacing a battleship can take up a few months or longer.

Yskonyn

^ From my experience with War in the Pacific the single sub situation is pretty accurate. I am no expert by any means on the subject, but I believe wolfpack tactics were used in very limited fashion and mostly only by the Germans and in very specific scenarios.

"Pilots do not get paid for what they do daily, but they get paid for what they are capable of doing.
However, if pilots would need to do daily what they are capable of doing, nobody would dare to fly anymore."

sandman2575

But ASW in HOI4 is just way, way too deadly in the early war -- like in '39 and '40, not talking '43 and '44. Totally the opposite of what you see in WitP:AE, where sinking subs with destroyers is really difficult in '41/'42 unless you catch them in the shallows (and even then no sure thing). In HOI4, subs get annihilated in '39 and (unless they've changed it -- I don't think they have) cruisers and battleships have ASW capabilities, so even a fleet of unescorted cruisers will wipe out your subs. It's is all pretty absurd.

I agree with you that the Wolfpack was a German tactic, and that Allied & Japanese subs were deployed as solo hunters. But in my latest HOI4 go around, I tried 'packs' of 4 German uboats per ocean area and they still got completely wiped out. I lost over 100 subs within the first 6-8 months of the war. (Which does raise the other issue: subs are too easy to mass produce in HOI4.)

Anyway, Pdox has some major rebalancing to do with naval combat. The frustrating thing is, this is a problem that dates back to the original game -- the fact that they still have not solved it is really frustrating. I wish they'd devote a DLC just to the naval war, rather than giving us new decision trees for Romania etc. etc.

jamus34

I mean that's going to be one of the limitations of pdox's system. You •can• produce hundreds or even thousands of subs. The question is should you?  I imagine the ASW ability on capital ships is done to reduce sub spam.

But since it's user optional production it's possible. I think a better way may be for pdox to increase the depth of he production system. Vehicle / towed factories, tank factories, small arm factories on the land side, split fighter and bomber factories for air. For sea small ship (sub / destroyer / lt cruiser), med (heavy cruiser, battlecruiser, transport convoys) and heavy for battleships / dreadnaughts / carriers.

But who knows, I'm sure that'll just add even more issues
Insert witty comment here.

Pete Dero

Quote from: sandman2575 on April 19, 2018, 07:15:15 AM
I agree with you that the Wolfpack was a German tactic, and that Allied & Japanese subs were deployed as solo hunters.

I'm reading this book : https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Em-All-Submarine-Warfare-ebook/dp/B077SGFJXP/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1524146191&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+em+all
(Sink 'Em All by Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, the U.S. Navy commander of the Pacific submarine fleet during World War 2, is the exhaustive and definitive account of submarine warfare between the US and Japanese 1942-45.)

In this book he states that he wanted to use wolfpack tactics but that he didn't have the numbers to cover the large area.

Contacts with enemy ships dropped off somewhat during July, 1942, probably due to wide changes in the routing of enemy ships. They evidently were learning just as our own convoys were learning in the Atlantic, that proceeding via the longest way around frequently made the difference between arriving at their destination or in Davy Jones's locker. The submarines available to us in Western Australia were too few in number and had to cover too many important points to permit the use of coordinated attack groups—or 'wolf packs' as the Germans called them.

The approaches to Manila, Davao, Soerabaya, Singapore, Saigon, Camranh Bay, the oil ports of Miri and Tarakan in Borneo, all had to be watched continuously, if possible. An attack group guarding each of these undoubtedly would have paid handsome dividends. Other wolf packs in Makassar Strait and off the Indo-China coast were urgently needed. There just were not enough Fleet-type submarines in the Navy to supply me and Commander Submarines Pacific—whose work was equally important —with a sufficient number to cover our areas properly. This was indeed a misfortune. At the beginning of the war, enemy antisubmarine forces were few and inexperienced, submarine attack methods were not generally known and many merchantmen were poorly armed or not armed at all. Furthermore, the enemy was storing stockpiles with strategic materials from captured territories and laying in reserves of oil and gasoline which were to cost us dear. A strong force of Fleet-type submarines in this opening period—say, 100 instead of the 39 we actually had—would have reaped a rich harvest. That undoubtedly would have shortened the war, perhaps by six months, thus saving billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.


Charles A. Lockwood. Sink 'Em All (Illustrated) (Kindle Locations 420-428). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Kindle Edition.



bobarossa

He mentions 39 subs but you have to remember that only about a third of them are on station at any one time.  The rest are in transit or refitting in port.  HOI doesn't simulate this at all.  In AGEOD's Civil War 2, they let you manage the blockade ships' supply/repair process or you could bypass it but have your ships be 1/2 as effective on blocade.  Sounds like HOI needs to make subs much more expensive to simulate that 1/3 on station metric.

Huw the Poo

Well despite this silliness with subs I've decided to buy the game.  O0

I think I'll allow myself a single DLC as well - if you guys could only recommend one DLC, which would it be?

Ian C

The problem is the current naval system is obviously not meant for subs. They should model one similar to Air Missons with an entirely separate system for subs vs. surface vessels.

Also I did read someone on the Paradox forums claimed to have got historical results by using naval groups of 1 sub each and micromanaging them.

JasonPratt

Alternately, you could make 1500 subs.

ICEBREAKER THESIS CHRONOLOGY! -- Victor Suvorov's Stalin Grand Strategy theory, in lots and lots of chronological order...
Dawn of Armageddon -- narrative AAR for Dawn of War: Soulstorm: Ultimate Apocalypse
Survive Harder! -- Two season narrative AAR, an Amazon Blood Bowl career.
PanzOrc Corpz Generals -- Fantasy Wars narrative AAR, half a combined campaign.
Khazâd du-bekâr! -- narrative dwarf AAR for LotR BfME2 RotWK campaign.
RobO Q Campaign Generator -- archived classic CMBB/CMAK tool!

Pete Dero

Quote from: Huw the Poo on April 19, 2018, 12:06:23 PM
Well despite this silliness with subs I've decided to buy the game.  O0

I think I'll allow myself a single DLC as well - if you guys could only recommend one DLC, which would it be?

https://www.wargamer.com/articles/hearts-of-iron-4-dlc-buying-guide/

THE BREAKDOWN

Best New Features:

1   Waking the Tiger
2  Together for Victory
3   Death or Dishonor

Best New Focus Trees:

1  Waking the Tiger
2  Death or Dishonor
3  Together for Victory

SirAndrewD

Yeah, without a doubt Waking the Tiger.
"These men do not want a happy ship. They are deeply sick and try to compensate by making me feel miserable. Last week was my birthday. Nobody even said "happy birthday" to me. Someday this tape will be played and then they'll feel sorry."  - Sgt. Pinback