R5: I was going for the "Ain't Like That Now" achievement, and about a month after Germany declared war on me, they suddenly exploded into a civil war. Has anyone else seen this happen?

Há três anos, u/lillelur escreveu um script para otimização da largura de combate, e u/Emzatin corrigiu alguns erros nele. Encontrei essa postagem recentemente, comparei os números com a versão atual e me empolguei um pouco: extraí os arquivos de terreno e unidades e construí um modelo de dados completo com base neles.

Primeira coisa a dizer: os números de largura naquela postagem antiga ainda são válidos. As larguras de combate do terreno (50/60/70/80 + 25/30/35/40 por direção de ataque) e as constantes de sobreposição/empilhamento permanecem inalteradas na versão 1.19. Não há nada para recalcular.

O que eu adicionei foi a parte que o script original não conseguia fazer — dividir as coisas por terreno e por tipo de unidade. Algumas coisas que surgiram:

A rule that applies to everything in the views: separate FACT from INDEX

• Fact = raw number extracted from the game (width, attrition, unit modifier). Those numbers point to a reality — that's why it's called a fact: "This costs 5 horses; if I buy it, I'll spend 5 horses!"
• Index = a calculation I built on top of that (Effective Score, Logistics Index). Where it's an index, it's marked as such — it's a model, not the game's absolute truth. "Right now it costs 5 horses, but two weeks ago it cost 3 — that's 20% inflation per week!"

Effective Score and Logistics Index are decision indexes (a model), not facts nor exact game measurements.

• A largura ideal depende muito do terreno. Montanha/pântano: 25 se encaixa perfeitamente (divide 50/75/100/125). Floresta/selva: 15 ou 30. Planícies/colinas/deserto: 14 ou 18. Urbano: 20.

• O tipo de unidade quase não altera o ideal geral do mapa, porque o mapa é dominado por terreno aberto — mas muda muito se sua unidade estiver presa em um tipo de terreno.

• Armadura pesada é pior do que as pessoas pensam em terreno fechado: -0,6 de ataque na selva, -0,5 em área urbana. Montanhistas recebem +0,35 em montanhas, fuzileiros navais +0,3 em pântanos.

• The Effectiveness Score is the one that can answer the most questions. The idea was to marry Effective Width + the unit's action modifier per terrain into a single number. It answers "with the width fixed, who do I send there?". Keep in mind it's an INDEX, not an exact value: 100 = neutral terrain + perfect fit; above that the unit performs well there, below it's losing power.
• This chart gets really heavy when I use it — it pulls in a lot of variables and ended up gigantic. In the image there I filtered it down to armor divisions only, and filtered it to show the effectiveness of an ATTACK action. I can filter it by up to 3 action types: Attack, Defense and Movement.

• A logística é a parte que ninguém presta atenção. Pântanos e selvas destroem seus caminhões de suprimentos (desgaste de caminhões de 4.0 e 3.0). O terreno urbano é o único que realmente ajuda o fluxo de suprimentos.

Cada número pode ser rastreado até um arquivo e linha do jogo. Não estou tentando entregar uma meta para ninguém — a questão é justamente o oposto: aqui estão os números, construa o que quiser com eles.

O documento completo com todas as tabelas e a metodologia está aqui: [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3766564371&insideModal=0]

Ficarei feliz em saber se errei em algo — se uma discussão revelar algo que eu tenha perdido, gostaria muito de contribuir com mais opiniões.

Sou brasileiro, então peço desculpas por qualquer tradução incorreta ou estranha.

On the recent post by the user u/Doug2825, running their script showed that the concentrated industry is about 11.8% better (in terms of industrial capacity). However, I realised that this doesn't take into account the main purpose of Dispersed Industry, the bonuses on factory bombing vulnerability and production efficiency retention (which they'd actually flagged as untested themselves). Without taking these into account, it'd be weird to say Dispersed would be better, as otherwise there's a clear bonus on factory output.

I added those bonuses, as well as:

1. alternating between production lines (30% of the production changes each year),
2. factory bombing (starting after 4 years and by 10%),
3. extra construction (cost of 10800 each 180 days).

After these, we see that the Dispersed Industry is slightly better by 3.4%.

This of course shouldn't concern anybody, as this is a game and it's the best to simply do whatever you want. And the results are almost identical. We're here only to have a nice time!

Feel free to suggest here (or commit on GitHub) any of your suggestions. I could definitely have done some mistakes here. And as a disclaimer, I used some Claude help for reorganising the code.

Original Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/s/0te4eLoFh6
Source Code (My GitHub Repository): https://github.com/boraboyacioglu-itu/hoi4_industry/

One of my favorite things to do in this game is to form the European Union and its accompanying democratic larp. However, to this day, I do not think I have ever formed a whole EU in Vanilla without using the console. Why? Because of Luxembourg.

There are three ways to form Europe in Hearts of Iron: clicking the "Realize European Unity" decision, cheesing the decision, and going down one of the EU focus trees.

The decision "Realize European Unity" is locked behind controlling France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg. Anybody who has tried will know that it is exceedingly difficult to click the button. Before Gotterdammerung, you had a few options. First, pray as France or the Benelux that the other countries would get puppeted or annexed by Germany/Italy so that you could annex the required states. Second, cheese the game by being fascist or communist and then flip democratic, breaking the larp. Both of these are imperfect for the map game larper.

After Gotterdammerung, Germany finally got a Democratic path with content for European unification. This made puppeting and eventually annexing democratic countries as a democracy in Europe better and more larp-friendly. You bring countries under your control by inviting them into Mitteleuropa and then pressing the decisions. The east is invitable by focus, while France, Holland, and Belgium will typically join by world tension or being declared on (assuming the Allies are not an option). After you get them, you can easily annex them by decision.

The problem? LUXEMBOURG. No focus, no decision, and no overseas colonies for Japan to declare on to kick it's ass into Mitteleuropa. So, even if you integrated every other country in Europe, Luxembourg will never join you nor will it generate world tension for a justification, making it impossible to form Europe legitimately. Of course, you could always do a day 1 justification on Luxembourg to "solve" this, but this is suboptimal for larp. It is just so disappointing to get to the late game and realize that there is no realistic way to form Europe simply because the devs seemingly overlooked the fact that Luxembourg exists.

Except, the devs didn't overlook this. The Belgian and Austrian European President paths function as a solution to the problem of Realize European Unity by making the EU a dedicated faction and mechanic for these minors. As we all know, though, these paths are a hot mess. Firstly, there is a more than good chance that you'll have horrible borders because of the RNG of subjugation acceptance. Secondly, your country becoming the European President is cool before you realize that this is just what your country is called now.

The bottom line is that forming the EU is basically one of the only fun paths for a democratic country in Europe short of just stomping Germany in the first few months of the war, but actually forming it REQUIRES you to cheese the game.

The worst part is that there is a simple fix for this. JUST ADD A DECISION TO INVITE LUXEMBOURG TO THE FACTION! Hell, Luxembourg was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel Community, which is namedropped in the decision to form Europe. Paradox could push a 3kb update that adds, what, 4 lines of code? I beg you, John Paradox, just let me larp.

Why should I need to invade France, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Liberia, and Italy to form Mittelafrika on (a somewhat) historical game? The second photo is a more realistic proposal from me. (The darker gray could be incorporated into Mittelafrika via decisions like how you can expand General Government) I think you should only need a sea-to-sea colony to form it. What do you think? Am I crazy or is it Paradox?

Playing as the US
Came down through Denmark and took Berlin but now the front has kind of stabilised and I expect the war will drag out for another couple of years at least (playing against 3x buffed Germany and Italy )
Long before I took his capital big H grabbed Moscow and renamed Berlin to Germania like an idiot. Can I change it back myself by a decision or something? Not the most important thing in the world but I’d like to flip him the proverbial bird by flipping his capital back to its normal name.

Cheers

their both my puppets and are automatically in my alliance when i created it yet i dont get the achievement even after letting it run for a bit

I think I don’t understand this game at all. I understand building up infrastructure and maintaining weapon production, I know that wide division templates is the meta, I know I need manpower for reinforcement, yet for the first time when I get a game with all of that…

I’m Poland with the intention of fighting the USSR), I start the war in February 1940 and… get ran over like they’re a train? I have easily over 50 divisions, lead by competent generals under a field marshal, unambitious offensive lines, I’m specialized in soft attack, I’ve made a 4x4 infantry template with all the bells and whistles (field hospitals, recon, radio company, max infantry guns) and yet… they ran over me!

Please help me identify a problem, I haven’t been able to wage a singular successful war in the war game, and I’m frankly losing my mind as I do research to find out why.

Hi, I'm wondering what people do as Soviet Union to stop Germany in a game where France fell with minimum losses? German meta these days revolves around 36W inf and rushing guns plus regimental guns (mountaineers if exploits involved) and support companies for modifiers. This results in divs that regularly pump 500-600 soft atk under green air in SU. I havent seen a game where soviet holds this succesfully for more than a year. Any tips or is Soviet just cooked in current meta? My best attempts yield 7 milion troops but the divisions are significantly weaker due to debuffs, pushing only 200-250 soft and its not enough to stop the axis from reinforce meming entire front

So, my friend and I played for fun... he as China (Manchukuo) and India (me), and these are the borders in the 1944...

Oh, that's free twilight struggle mod on workshop

Source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3761851518

I am out numbered damn soviets just declared war on me lol japan came to help 🫣

I already have La Resistance, Man The Guns and the ones that are included in the base game. Which ones should I buy? I'm asking because I've heard that the latest DLCs are kinda lame.

So I just defeated the allies like a month and a half after attacking Poland (cheesed sea lion by doing it immediately) and once the peace conference hit all the focuses before auturky achieved bypassed. Did I miss out on all the bonuses that these focuses give now or does bypassing them also give the benefit? Should I have tried to get them done before I defeated the allies?

I started playing a month ago. Holy hell what a learning curve this game has. A lot of naval guides and strats to take England seem to be outdated due to patching and updates. I followed Bittersteels guide and it’s treated me well except for the navy. England wipes me out no matter what I do….which is why I love this game. Running into the same problems Napoleon and Hitler had.

What is your Strat to cross and invade England? Can I run an all Submarine Strat to get enough naval dominance? Should I avoid the channel all together?

Also, I built improved fighters and have 25 factories cranking these bad boys out. But when I go to add a new air wing it just shows out of date fighters in the queue. Are these fighters just slowly replacing my old fighters in existing air wings, and if so can I stop that from happening? I’m trying to get more fighter wings to spread them out more evenly.

I feel like I generally understand focus trees, pp, econ. I can generally build an army of a decent size. I do all this prep to defend and feel really good about it and then watch my lines crumble hard and fast with no seeming way to recover because wants even one unit gets pushed it seems all the other units start moving around and losing entrenchment bonuses and also never actually move to where they are needed. They seem to bunch up on the flanks where there is less supply amd they get easily pinched off and encircled.

Have been playing as mostly France and Soviets after coming back after last playing heavily in like 2021.

One major thing I dont understand is how to get my troops to do the thing I want them to do. Like I can line them up behind a river using fallback line. But once there I dont want them to mindlessly try and get back to that line even if they get pushed. Nor do I want them to just stay put never adapting. But if I switch order to front line then all hell breaks loose.

I remember something about field marshalls which might help but don't fully understand how that works.

Also, after resisting doing anything with division designer for a long time in my most recent game I created a 9 inf 1 arty infantry template with aa, eng, and arty support which i read somewhere was good cor the Soviets but they got melted loke butter same as always. I think I may have built too many units? Because I went quickly from a surplus of like 30k inf equipment to minus 30k pretty damn quick once the war started. Or maybe I dont fully understand what the info in the production screen means.

Back in 2021 I used to be able to win or at least hold my own most games. Maybe supply is a problem too? Some areas never get it no matter how many rails I build. Most of my play time was just build up infrastructure to keep supply moving.

Help someone who understands the basics and was pretty competent 5 years ago take the next few steps to be competent again.

Recently a dev corner came out talking about the current state of the consumer goods system, Ive had this idea for a while but I thought now would be a good time to share it so here goes.

I would rework, stability, war support, and consumer goods all at once, as they all have to do with civil management and the populous. Stability would have a much greater effect on gameplay. At low stability, Puppets and could break free and areas with high resistance could rebel, and at zero a country could enter civil war. To counteract this, Consumer goods would give a compounding weekly stability bonus, which would be lost when the amount of consumer goods is manually changed (kind of like how production efficiency works). Higher stability would also give better bonuses, increasing civ and mil production. War Support also ties into this, Having high war support would give a stability buff when your country goes to/justifies war, which would allow the amount of consumer goods to be decreased. High war support would also give a troop org buff and decrease the world tension and time needed to justify war. While low war support would decrease org. Low war support would also negatively impact stability when the playing is justifying/at war, forcing the player to divert civilian factories to consumer goods to keep the people satiated. Of course all of this requires a more in depth war of managing war support and stability, which could be achieved by perhaps bringing the propaganda poster system from no step back to more countries. (majors could have unique poster designs while minors would have generic ones based on ideology) but also through a new tab, the civil management tab. players could appoint secretaries/ministers kind of like advisors, but these ministers would be temporary only acting for 1-2 years before new ministers would need to be appointed (ministers would no longer be available after a term however new ones would appear) they would give temporary effects to manage war support and stability. this also solves the fact that PP becomes kind of becomes useless sometimes in the later stage of the game. The player could also manage rationing, rationing would be a war to trade war support and stability for resources, helping nations with less resources. Another thing in this tab would a better way to manage the balance between consumer goods and normal civilian factories, allowing players to more easily and finely control the amount of consumer goods. I Think this a good idea to incentive players to not instantly go on Total Mobilization and also adds a certain amount of depth and realism to the game. but idk so if you have criticism please leave a comment!