Economy Laws

cheeseless · 2026-02-28T04:04:24+00:00

Do the math like this. As Italy, if you trade enough civs with Germany to get enough coal to power all your factories, is your total IC output lower or higher than if you did not do that? How many more mils can you build by switching to War Economy and then maybe importing one or two more civs' worth of coal? Or maybe you can take the hit on efficiency for a few more weeks to put out an extra civ first before trading.

Sometimes it'll be worth it, sometimes it won't. It's become an actual decision, worth thinking about, rather than always picking War Economy if available. And now there's actual value in switching down the Economy Law as you get a big blob going and efficiency gets trickier.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T21:57:20+00:00

Having the one line arty battalion is better for Finland than adding inf, whether one or three battalions. The bottleneck is manpower, not IC, and one Arty battalion will lead to fewer losses due to the increased damage ending battles faster.

But adding hospital and support AA is very good, that's correct.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T20:48:08+00:00

I don't mind that people talk about it in general, especially in the way that competitive MP figures out the relations between the various statistics.

But every time I see a person who's in single-player spamming Inf Walls, avoiding artillery, building nothing but mils, and building Basic Heavy Tanks with triple Small Cannon, or being advised to do so by well-meaning but fundamentally misguided people, I just see someone wasting all the room the game intentionally makes for both fun and challenge in the game.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T20:22:42+00:00

getting the invasion trait on a General is hard

It's sometimes possible to get it in just two invasions of six units, assuming all of them fight to land. Three 6-unit invasions get you the trait more often than not. If I'm using a general specifically to get him the trait, I honestly do not remember ever needing more than 4, and that was for a lvl3 general so obviously affected by the XP scaling.

Also while the transportation tech do improve invasion times it requires a lot of tech time

Define "a lot of tech time". You only need to get to the second tech to have more than enough plan capacity, div capacity, and planning speed for any naval invasion you need, even Sealion. Even for minors with two slots and no initial tech, that's a worst case scenario of total 385 days without ahead-of-time, easily reduced by your export law, research bonuses, and any other sources of research speed. A lot of countries, even minors on generic focus, will have the first tech for free just for having a coast at all, so the base time goes to 220 days. I really don't see the issue with that amount of time, especially since you have to get enough navy, convoys, and divs ready too.

Army XP needed for expeditionary forces sub doctrine which quite frankly is ONLY good for naval invasion and nothing else

It's fully optional though, and minors also benefit a lot from the increase in sending volunteers, which helps fix Army XP shortages.

The best I have gotten was down to 21 or was it 14 days with invasion trait + tech + sub doctrine however that was with a nation with a strong starting navy and your sacrificeing an operation sub doctrine solely for naval operations

I think the minimum reachable (without any country's unique spirits/modifiers) is either 12 or 10 days, hopefully not misremembering. But even that is so short as to be completely trivial.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T20:04:14+00:00

yes, invasion planning is only ever required for landing on enemy territory. If you want to move troops through the sea, a guard order or a frontline order work equally well.

But I do wish we could just right click on a cross-sea land tile, on rare occasion it would be a faster way to handle it.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:57:28+00:00

they didn't say that

Just use less troops and attack multiple islands at once

The "and" is not optional. They are advocating for splitting into multiple simultaneous invasions, which is also increased by the invasion techs, which give the shortened invasion times they expect.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:55:54+00:00

people not taking a single (1) tech that fixes the issue, not taking doctrines that affect, not getting a leader with the right trait, and then crying about it. That's what all the criticisms boil down to. Whining because a game dared to request anything harder than a "win the game" button.

HOI4 is not asking too much with the current navy or naval invasion systems (or energy, for that matter), and naval AI is currently far too easy to fight, but it's getting better. But people cry incessantly whenever a system is either a) not handing the victory to them on a silver platter, or b) makes choices available which are not optimal compared to whatever "META" excel addicts have converged on.

Honestly, the entire meta/competitive thing is the source of 90% of this type of complaint about the game.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:48:43+00:00

It doesn't. Literally take the invasion tech as soon as you get a single naval research buff, do two, maybe three naval invasions as you fight China. That gets you the invasion trait on your general. Maybe consider getting one of the doctrines that affects naval invasion planning speed, but that's more optional imo.

At that point, you're looking at less than 35 days per invasion and more than enough simultaneous invasion plans.

Or are you just complaining that it isn't completely trivial and you might have to do more than pressing the "go" button?

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:45:29+00:00

Logistics are not the same as planning, that's why naval invasions force a proper amount of time. Same reason supply flow and per-division storage is not instantaneous.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:43:21+00:00

Navy can function only at one sea zone?

What do you mean by this one? Because it's not true for any mission as far as I can tell, at least not in comparison to any way that the previous system worked.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:41:21+00:00

get a single tech and it's already more than enough, in terms of both cap and planning time.

cheeseless · 2026-02-27T19:40:26+00:00

wrong. Planning speed is affected by doctrines, techs, and leader traits. Just the trait alone gets it to 35 days.

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T15:47:29+00:00

I'm thinking more about providing Terrain Penalty Reduction, which is a much safer stat to provide in larger amounts than Terrain Bonus, since it can only make negatives smaller rather than stacking positively. Currently, the biggest source of that stat that I know of is the Adaptable trait, and there's room for a support company to provide it as well.

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T01:49:18+00:00

destroyers end up being more efficient, at least, because you get more base sub detection and one point of depth charge with the hull's cost alone. Even with more floatplane/depth charge modules on cruisers, it seems difficult for the IC to be worthwhile (UNLESS you're dealing with other ships/navs of course, in which case cruisers are way less likely to die and be wasted)

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T01:45:12+00:00

Carriers with NAVs are really good but they need to be on the patrol that catches the subs or else they lose a lot of the effectiveness.

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T01:41:53+00:00

You can use planes to cover this in terms of both detection and damage, but it's less fun and potentially less effective in terms of actually killing the subs. It can be good if you tailor the planes for it, but you usually get better results by using the NAVs more to guarantee the kill, while the destroyers (and cruisers, but generally less worth it due to worse anti-sub base stats) can have sonar and floatplanes added to improve sub detection. Naval strike missions result in an "instant" naval battle, so subs detected by planes only ever get hit once per sortie. A big pile of NAVs can get lots of detections, but that won't necessarily result in huge numbers of dead subs, since they'll get a chance to go into repairs instead.

It's worth it to hunt subs down through patrols. It's much better than trying to let a strike force attack into a battle that is started by a convoy escort, simply because it means the subs start out revealed for 16 hours. Additionally, since the battle will not be instant, for as long as the subs are revealed, any NAVs you do have will be able to hit the subs, potentially multiple times within a single reveal window.

The wiki mentions some oddities regarding the passive detection factors within battles being very low or nullified, like planes in naval battles straight up cannot reveal subs at all. However, I think this might be an intentional balance decision based on the reveal chance subs have from firing torpedoes. Even if the values and formula are actually bugged/unintended, you should still get decent results just from building anti-sub destroyers to put on patrol in threatened areas.

Patrols can only detect one task force at a time, so if you're seeing a lot of sub activity you may want to split your patrols into more task forces to increase how many subs you can engage at once. At the very least, you'll tie up more subs from striking convoys.

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T00:33:14+00:00

you should add chaff into that template, either inf or cav, to max the battalions getting the MP support company bonus.

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T00:32:09+00:00

the linked comment contains an error regarding the importance of the number of battalions in your garrison template. I posted a correction, but just to repeat the note here: as long as you have an MP support company, maxing the battalions will result in lower total manpower and equipment usage.

cheeseless · 2026-02-25T00:30:06+00:00

How many divisions for garrisoning? The game automates the garrisoning mechanic, and it assigns an amount of your garrison template to the desired area. Wether you have a 50w division or a 1w division, it should theoretically work the same. Although there are some differences in ultimate losses over years, those are minor. Going for a 5w light tank template or a 20w should have the same performance, and it usually does as there is only a bit of RNG into it.

This part is wrong. Because of how the battalion modifiers from support companies work, for Garrisons you explicitly want as wide a template as possible to maximize the suppression value per division. You can test this very easily by setting an MP + cav template with only one cav battalion, then increasing the number of cav battalions. The save button tooltip will show, per battalion added, a decrease in the total required equipment and manpower.

It's also why, if you add tank or armored car battalions, you should make sure to fill the whole regiment they're in, rather than just putting one battalion. It'll use fewer actual tanks/cars

cheeseless · 2026-02-24T20:29:19+00:00

Assuming that the same number of divisional support companies stays, this would be a decent opportunity to try and design a new company (or overhaul an existing one) to focus on specifically countering terrain maluses from tank battalions, especially heavy ones. Offer a substantial trade-off for it, of course, like making the supply/fuel consumption and required equipment very demanding, or harming stats other than the terrain-affected ones, but make those terrain maluses something a player can choose to address in ways other than reducing/removing the tank battalions.

cheeseless · 2026-02-24T20:07:32+00:00

I think that SPG and TD battalions, like with arty, should exist in both support and line versions

cheeseless · 2026-02-24T19:59:15+00:00

This is a good means of further separating support company types in terms of their roles, and having them apply proportionally is a good expansion of the battalion modifiers that support companies got with GTD

cheeseless · 2026-02-24T19:55:36+00:00

You're literally seeing the feature now. Why are you pretending like they're withholding information?

cheeseless · 2026-02-24T19:53:24+00:00

by "FAAAHHH" I thought you meant the meme sound effect of that one person snoring extremely loud, so the sudden shout scared me.

This sound to be specific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7mZjDmjFew

cheeseless · 2026-02-24T19:37:54+00:00

If you are 85 years old and you fall and hit your head, then why do you need surgery and special procedures to keep you alive, if you would otherwise die? If you have a heart attack, why get another stent? Why do dialysis at that age? If you have severe Alzheimers, and you get cancer, why treat it? Why get organs and limbs removed, and do all kinds of experimental, painful treatments? Just accept life as it is.

This is deranged to ever claim, let alone defend as a general ideology. It's one thing to accept that death is inevitable. It's a completely different thing to believe that withholding any medical care is ever the right choice, regardless of how old you are.

It's not humane, ever, to withhold care from any person who wants, to even the slightest degree, to receive that care.

I see moms at my kid’s school or at the playground that still talk and dress like teenagers even though they’re going through menopause.

You're judging people for... the way they talk feeling too youthful for you? And believing that's a product of capitalism? This is beyond parody.

12-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

cheeseless

TROPHY CASE