Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Development Diary #14 - 28th of January 2009

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
PIT_AMERO said:
Art is there, but AA I think is under "support weapons.

I'm wondering more about the paras, mechs and the other specialized divisions.
Would they use the infantry's weapons, because now they don't have sub components for research?
Click to expand...

It would make sense, for the motorized and mechanized ones i think. Afterall, it's just an infantry division with half-tracks or trucks. It's just a hell of a lot more expensive to build trucks additionally to only uniforms and rifles and the occasional handgranade.
 
hito1 said:
I was udner the impression that the tech tree wasn't ready yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are right. We will wait and see.

As to your request to send you the pictures- sorry but don't know how. :(
It may actually be better, because when you see them after 8 hours you will appreciate them more. :D
 
Alojzy said:
You know that how? Because if game follows some baselines from HoI2, you can completly ignore espionage or diplomacy and still be perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
Going by the reactions to the 1.3 Arma patch that does not seem to be the case anymore. AI is going ballistic with intelligence missions.
The solution to the problem is not to force the player into making certain investments but to make those investments actually matter in the game. Otherwise it's just going to annoy a lot of players. I can already see the posts.
"Why won't this stupid game let me invest the way i want to invest!? i don't want useless spies! i want my panzers!!oneone!1!!!"
Something like that anyway.
 
Winter War said:
Unlimited? Does that mean we can improve cav unlimited number of times?


Why would it lower the chance of keeping my troops hidden?
Click to expand...
Because every platoon that hides in ambush has some dumbo in it that leaves it radio crackling on high volume. "Alpha company, have you seen the enemy yet??" while the panther was just about to enter the ambush street. :p

Seriously though, signal intelligence is a good source of intelligence, and radio signals is the source. More radios, more chatter, more chance for important information.
 
Registered said:
Going by the reactions to the 1.3 Arma patch that does not seem to be the case anymore. AI is going ballistic with intelligence missions.
The solution to the problem is not to force the player into making certain investments but to make those investments actually matter in the game. Otherwise it's just going to annoy a lot of players. I can already see the posts.
"Why won't this stupid game let me invest the way i want to invest!? i don't want useless spies! i want my panzers!!oneone!1!!!"
Something like that anyway.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand it's better, but...

Is the Arma 1.3 diplomacy/espionage worth 21 tech teams working simultainously then instead of usual 5? Hell, even 10 teams for that matter? :D

We are talking THIS size of possible exploit. Limits on slider positioning (or on the number of techs developed simultainously) are needed, even if techs now are "smaller" then in HoI2.
 
Winter War said:
Why would someone who doesn't have the radio tech suddenly get an intelligence advantage over me when I research it?

And using the same argument my decryption should improve, since I am suddenly able to intercept radio chatter from the enemy.
Click to expand...
Radio's don't just chat with each other unencrypted. You need someone to decrypt the messages; so your front-line troops having radios does not improve your chance of detecting, but the fact the other side uses radios does increase your chance to intercept something juicy.
 
For unlimited techs such as the cavalry, is the offset for cost and attack a regular amount, ie it increases the same amount each time so? And where would this information be found for modding? Or is that what's under the cavalry_brigade = {, that those are the not only the base stats but also the offsets for increases?
 
Myth said:
For unlimited techs such as the cavalry, is the offset for cost and attack a regular amount, ie it increases the same amount each time so? And where would this information be found for modding? Or is that what's under the cavalry_brigade = {, that those are the not only the base stats but also the offsets for increases?
Click to expand...

Those are the increases
 
Alojzy said:
Is the Arma 1.3 diplomacy/espionage worth 21 tech teams working simultainously then instead of usual 5? Hell, even 10 teams for that matter? :D
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait and see won't we?
Certainly, if you need the dip. points to initiate and maintain trading contracts (i've no idea whether or not this is so) you cannot ignore that part.

Also, if espionage affects battlefield detection (and that would make some sense) it would be... unwise not to invest in it.

Like i said, we'll have to wait and see.
 
I'm trying to understand the interface. Please tell me if I am wrong.

If I wanted to research cavalry small arms... the display shows me that my mobile_practical and mobile_theoretical are the two modifiers that would speed up the research. The bar shows my progress on the research (0). The number 3 indicates my current research level. The + sign is the button I press to initiate the research [to level 4]. The mobile_theoretical display on the far right of the list indicates that after completion of cavalry small arms level 4, my mobile_theoretical level will increase.

So continued research of cavalry techs will speed up other cav tech research via mobile_theoretical. Likewise building actual cav units will speed up cav research by increasing mobile_practical.

Since mechanized level 1 calls out both mobile_theoretical and mobile_practical, the building of cavalry units and/or research of cav techs will speed up that tech path also.

Am I correct?
 
Devout said:
I'm trying to understand the interface. Please tell me if I am wrong.

If I wanted to research cavalry small arms... the display shows me that my mobile_practical and mobile_theoretical are the two modifiers that would speed up the research. The bar shows my progress on the research (0). The number 3 indicates my current research level. The + sign is the button I press to initiate the research [to level 4]. The mobile_theoretical display on the far right of the list indicates that after completion of cavalry small arms level 4, my mobile_theoretical level will increase.

So continued research of cavalry techs will speed up other cav tech research via mobile_theoretical. Likewise building actual cav units will speed up cav research by increasing mobile_practical.

Since mechanized level 1 calls out both mobile_theoretical and mobile_practical, the building of cavalry units and/or research of cav techs will speed up that tech path also.

Am I correct?
Click to expand...

Pretty much
 
Alojzy said:
Ok, I understand it's better, but...

Is the Arma 1.3 diplomacy/espionage worth 21 tech teams working simultainously then instead of usual 5? Hell, even 10 teams for that matter? :D

We are talking THIS size of possible exploit. Limits on slider positioning (or on the number of techs developed simultainously) are needed, even if techs now are "smaller" then in HoI2.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with this? You can choose to research 21 teachs slowly or 1 tech fast (21x as fast as 21 diff techs). Furthermore, if researching 21 techs you negate espionage and have trouble organizing your army. What they did with leadership is create a "resource" that is needed to spy, research and make armies. You have to make choices, do one thing very good and give up others or do everything on avergae. i love this system, very well thought of.
 
The concept sounds slightly more like HOI1. But I don't quite understand the concept of theory and practical yet.

One thing I disliked about the research-systems of both HOI1 and HOI2 was the "back-to-square-one"-concept on all technologies.

Development of an interceptor borrowed noting from the previous development of the fighter.

I would have liked it if, when you develop a gun for your new interceptor, and next month you have to work on a new fighter, you lift the gun-development from the interceptor to the fighter without any (or many) changes. In the game, you built a solid wall between the two projects. I know that the outcome would be much the same - but it'd allow for focusing on different aspects of technology adding flavor.

Say you want to develop a new tank. Several new concepts have to be developed - but the gun is essentially a towed gun mounted in a turret. While the turret may need developing, the gun wouldn't - or if it does, then it'd be quite easy to make a towed gun from the tank-gun, making development of towed guns easier. What I'm getting at is that there's a spill-over of technology. As earlier adressed, militia weapons would not likely have to be developed because they are essentially the same as regular infantry uses - or previous (used) generations of said weapons.

If we imagine a HOI2 type interface, it'd be simulated by having one or more of the the five (six?) tech-bars on each technology entirely or partially developed.

Another example could be warships. You want to develop a new heavy cruiser, well you think innovatively about most aspects of the ship EXCEPT the guns, where you lift the ones used from the (perhaps newly developed) battlecruiser. While not being able to lift them in their entirety due to weight and space requirements, it becomes a question of developing a turret for two, rather than three guns and perhaps a new recoil-brake to compensate for the calibre. This could in HOI2 be represented by the gun-development-bar being partially finished. However, had you not developed a new Battle Cruiser, then the bar would be empty, because you'd need to develop the gun and carriage from scratch.

This was also an issue if you'd neglected to develop strategic bombers early on, yet being a pioneer in tactical bomber development. It was quite unrealistic that once you'd built a fairly advanced tactical jet-bomber, you'd begin your strategic bomber program by developing a two-engined propeller hulk with almost no payload, inferiour to your tactical bomber in every aspect. You'd most likely build an enlarged version of your tac. bomber and slap on twice as many engines. Being given "ancient" techs for free would be the most obvious solution.

But I may be rambling on about a moot point.
 
nwinther said:
The concept sounds slightly more like HOI1. But I don't quite understand the concept of theory and practical yet.

One thing I disliked about the research-systems of both HOI1 and HOI2 was the "back-to-square-one"-concept on all technologies.

Development of an interceptor borrowed noting from the previous development of the fighter.
Click to expand...

The use of theoretical and practical levels are a way to break down the barrier (reread my post above). By researching fighters (to level 4) and building those fighters, the country would get high levles of small_airplane_practical and small_airplane_theoretical. So when you wanted to make an intercepter at level 1, the research would be extra fast since it also uses the same small_airplane_practical and small_airplane_theoretical modifiers.

So while a totally seperate research path, they are actually interconnected.
 
Bladski said:
What's wrong with this? You can choose to research 21 teachs slowly or 1 tech fast (21x as fast as 21 diff techs).
Click to expand...

Huh?
Excuse me, how so? Nothing on the screenshot indicates I can spend 21 points on 1 technology development. Each "point" allows me to "open" new R&D project - minus points spent on officers, diplomacy and espionage, of course.

Bladski said:
Furthermore, if researching 21 techs you negate espionage and have trouble organizing your army. What they did with leadership is create a "resource" that is needed to spy, research and make armies. You have to make choices, do one thing very good and give up others or do everything on avergae. i love this system, very well thought of.
Click to expand...

Again, what kind of trouble can be compaed to ability to modernize your army 4 times faster then with balanced spending? Who cares about minor trouble, when I can make my army ride Tigers in 1938 (with elite officers - I don't ignore this slider), while silly AI will bother with balanced spending?

To make things clear - I'm ALL for making choices. Point is, so far in HoI series technology was way, way much more powerful then diplomacy and espionage (Arma 1.3 or not), so to make those choices meaningful, diplomacy and espionage importance have to be made much, much higher - and limits on spending adjustments will be most likely needed still.
 
nwinther said:
The concept sounds slightly more like HOI1. But I don't quite understand the concept of theory and practical yet.

One thing I disliked about the research-systems of both HOI1 and HOI2 was the "back-to-square-one"-concept on all technologies.

Development of an interceptor borrowed noting from the previous development of the fighter.

I would have liked it if, when you develop a gun for your new interceptor, and next month you have to work on a new fighter, you lift the gun-development from the interceptor to the fighter without any (or many) changes. In the game, you built a solid wall between the two projects. I know that the outcome would be much the same - but it'd allow for focusing on different aspects of technology adding flavor.

Say you want to develop a new tank. Several new concepts have to be developed - but the gun is essentially a towed gun mounted in a turret. While the turret may need developing, the gun wouldn't - or if it does, then it'd be quite easy to make a towed gun from the tank-gun, making development of towed guns easier. What I'm getting at is that there's a spill-over of technology. As earlier adressed, militia weapons would not likely have to be developed because they are essentially the same as regular infantry uses - or previous (used) generations of said weapons.

If we imagine a HOI2 type interface, it'd be simulated by having one or more of the the five (six?) tech-bars on each technology entirely or partially developed.

Another example could be warships. You want to develop a new heavy cruiser, well you think innovatively about most aspects of the ship EXCEPT the guns, where you lift the ones used from the (perhaps newly developed) battlecruiser. While not being able to lift them in their entirety due to weight and space requirements, it becomes a question of developing a turret for two, rather than three guns and perhaps a new recoil-brake to compensate for the calibre. This could in HOI2 be represented by the gun-development-bar being partially finished. However, had you not developed a new Battle Cruiser, then the bar would be empty, because you'd need to develop the gun and carriage from scratch.

This was also an issue if you'd neglected to develop strategic bombers early on, yet being a pioneer in tactical bomber development. It was quite unrealistic that once you'd built a fairly advanced tactical jet-bomber, you'd begin your strategic bomber program by developing a two-engined propeller hulk with almost no payload, inferiour to your tactical bomber in every aspect. You'd most likely build an enlarged version of your tac. bomber and slap on twice as many engines. Being given "ancient" techs for free would be the most obvious solution.

But I may be rambling on about a moot point.
Click to expand...
Your point is exactly what theoretical and practical knowledge is all about. By researching a new interceptor you gain a lot of knowledge about, for example, 20mm cannons (hefty interceptor! :p). This adds to your theoretical knowledge of, for example, "aircraft mounted machine guns". it is theoretical since it is only designed on paper (and tested in prototype). Now, you build a stack of those interceptors, and gain a lot more knowledge in the process in how to properly build and use (training missions etc.) those 20mm cannons, this adds to practical knowledge. Now, when designing a new fighter, you already have the gun itself, you just need to research how you can fit it into the new design. Theoretical and practical knowledge abstracts this into a bonus of researching a new fighter because you already have researched a new interceptor.

See it as if the technology has already been found out, but you just need to research how to apply it to a new design of something else.
 
Alojzy said:
Again, what kind of trouble can be compared to ability to modernize your army 4 times faster then with balanced spending? Who cares about minor trouble, when I can make my army ride Tigers in 1938 (with elite officers - I don't ignore this slider), while silly AI will bother with balanced spending?
Click to expand...
Do not forget the ahead of time penalty. Tigers in '38? It seems unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back