Do you trust the battle plans ?

[Jolagachette]

Hello everyone,

So the question is in the title.

I've been playing Hearts of Iron since the 2nd installment, and I always dispatched and moved my divisions without the help of the AI.

But it looks like a big feature in HoI IV, with the battle plans, offensive line, front line, etc. To be fair, I tested this system a few times, but I wasn't really fond of it. I'm not sure if it's just a hard habit, or if there are some flaws to it.

Tl;dr : do battle plans work, and can you trust them ?

Have a good day.

[Kagemin]

Generally the best option is to use the battle plans, but constantly make adjustments where neccessary, and maybe micro it at least a bit to exploit openings.

They usually work decently, but especially when you create salients or pocket enemy divisions it has a bit of a tendency to screw up, leaving parts of the front without defense. On the other hand, if you have several armies assigned to one front the overlap can get really weird too.
With how much of a difference the planning bonus makes (and how quickly it decays if you manually move divisions), as well as the hassle it is to micro everything on your own, I'd say you still should use them though.

[Jolagachette]

Thank you for your insight.

To be fair, I didn't you had malus (or missing benefits?) when not using plans. I didn't have any problems winning my games for the moment, so... I wonder how it'll go with plans.

[76561198051514398]

The battle plans lie, sometimes they tell me I have no chance but the offense will move forward with zero resistance and sometimes it tells me the offensive will be amazingly efficient but we can't even capture a province in 2 weeks.

I just use my infantry armies for the battle plans and I micromanage my mechanized and armoured divisions.

[Kagemin]

Yeah, that comes from how it calculates things. If some divisions are still moving and therE's like a river crossing that's usually enough to turn it negative already, even if there's no resistance. Also it only takes the current position into account, so if the enemy reinforces it can turn into a real grind as well.

[FDX]

Don't ever believe Battle Plan "strenght comparison", because it's in many times false. Try to use battleplans as less as possible

[spike2071]

No. I use the frontline mechanic as a way of transferring troops before a war starts and get them roughly in position. Then I cancel it, fine tune it, and micromanage it.

I will use it when steamrolling a vastly weaker country (Germany vs Yugoslavia, for example), or mopping up a once powerful country. Using it as the Soviet Union against the Germans (or vice versa) takes all the fun out of the game. And if the AI is competent enough to win the war for me (it's not), then why am I playing?

[Dreyfus0414]

Draw the arrow to gain planning bonus. But then directly order units to attack rather than hitting the arrow next to the general.

[|H|H| Fr3ddi3]

Truth be told, no.

I will place a front line and place an attack order down, specifically to get the planning bonus. But I usually do not execute the battle plan because the AI does not read the front like a player does and it is unable to exploit weaknesses effectively if at all.

North africa, Italy are near enough the only place where i'll let the AI handle the fight, and thats because it is hard for the AI to mess up a 2 / 5 tile frontline.

[NotSoRetroJakko]

A good combination of Battle Plans and Micro Managing can lead to some good results, allowing you to assault a wider area while also consentrating on making those key encirclements. Just don't trust the new Field Marshal offensive line, that still dont work right.

[Jolagachette]

That's good to know : I thought that you either go with plans and AI orders, or no planning at all.
Had no idea you could mix them to get the bonus.

I'm in a game right now, and will be testing the mix of them.

Thanks again for your answers, btw.

[spike2071]

Just be aware that if you micromanage, you lose the planning bonus 8x faster.

[MzEvilCanadian]

I use the battle plans all the time. I micro my armoured though. I have found the spearhead to work nicely.

Also if the so can win the fight you did a lot to set that up so you didn't "do nothing" logistics of supply, having enough equipment, managing manpower, designing the divisions, choosing how many of what type of forces go in the front, ECT. The more I play Hoi (since the first one) the more they make it a logistics management game. Yes there is coat and the whole politics, but without solid logistics you're ******

[Riganthor]

battleplans are flawed but.. neeeded, they are the crutch of this game, I have seen battleplans cause a single mechanized division drive deep into enemy territory just because it could leading to Japan leaving 30 units surrounded in modern day kazakstan, so dont trust the battleplans but you will have to use it

[Segert]

Originally posted by Jolagachette:

Hello everyone,

So the question is in the title.

I've been playing Hearts of Iron since the 2nd installment, and I always dispatched and moved my divisions without the help of the AI.

But it looks like a big feature in HoI IV, with the battle plans, offensive line, front line, etc. To be fair, I tested this system a few times, but I wasn't really fond of it. I'm not sure if it's just a hard habit, or if there are some flaws to it.

Tl;dr : do battle plans work, and can you trust them ?

Have a good day.

you can say no plan survives contact with the enemy. Kinda true with this game.

[zzirSnipzz]

Remember you can set agression