Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 8 - Experience and Variants

  • 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.
I hope they build the Washington Naval Treaty into this system. Up until 1938, most of the major nations abided by the strict tonnage guidelines under the treaty, which meant each class of ship was a series of tradeoffs between speed, armor and weaponry. Those design tradeoffs affected performance in major ways, especially during the start of the war. Maybe something like a simple cap on exp. that can be used per ship until the treaty restrictions are no longer in play.

That treaty was responsible, among other things, for the Wasp being built with the shortcomings that it had. The US tried to squeeze in one more carrier under the tonnage cap and had to cut some corners to do it.
 
DD 9 needs to be here soon. Starting to suffer from respiratory problems and dizziness.
 
but what has infra repair to do with factory? Fill holes on ground with guns/tanks/airplanes/ammo?

id say IC should have hit on its production, or at least halt its capacity to transfer its goods to troops with bombed infra. Im PRETTY sure that civilians did the infra repair work while factory workers were needed in factories.

If roads get bombed, its just filling the holes up with surrounding materials. If railroad tracks get bombed, its easy and as fast to repair, and would not require too much of work/time. (1 day to work, unless bridge, which could take few days)

Mainly its purpose is stopping logistics, but to keep it stopped it demands continuous bombing, and perhaps bridges as juicy targets...


For ship XP teching, I dont see current model too good...

theres no anti air for carrier. No larger fuel tank capacity tech as well (tanks around the armor hull, working as extra armor, detonating torpedos at distance from main armor while giving extra range..)

+1

And on Landing wars need more modifier and doctirine for marines i thinkg
 
Rome 2 has no reliability, and will move slowly if at all. It will pack a punch when it does arrive, though, with all that deck space.

And to eventually get the full carrier you thought you were getting you'll have to spend your XP on lots of tiny upgrades.
 
What kind of variants of tanks can we make?

Like: 1. Thickness of amour 2. Standartisation/Easy buildable 3. Gunsize 4.Engine Power 5. Reliablity

And slopped amour as extra tech giving a + modifzier on amour?
 
If my current tank is the Panzer III and I sell it to the Italians, do I get some italian feedback aswell? (thus letting me improve it even further)
It would only be reasonable if the (lazy) italians ask for a more reliable (in terms of variant upgrades) tank.
 
Will Variants also exist with armour? Say I want to place a high-velocity gun on my 37mm light tanks (I know this is freaking stupid lol), can I make this happen?
 
What kind of variants of tanks can we make?

Like: 1. Thickness of amour 2. Standartisation/Easy buildable 3. Gunsize 4.Engine Power 5. Reliablity

And slopped amour as extra tech giving a + modifzier on amour?
There is a lot to consider with armour variants.
I am quite interested to hear what the devs are planning. I just hope they let us choose the gun velocities and sizes because that was something that seriously decided the role of the tank in a battle.
 
There is a lot to consider with armour variants.
I am quite interested to hear what the devs are planning. I just hope they let us choose the gun velocities and sizes because that was something that seriously decided the role of the tank in a battle.
Personally I would like to see a tick for high-velocity or low-velocity.
High-velocity would make the tank have a higher penetrating power while the low-velocity will increase the hard attack.

Also should I attach one machine-gun turret or three? or four?!? I mean SERIOUSLY.. There is so much customization to be done with armour.
 
Hello,

I would like to learn more about the 3 types of field experience: land, naval and air. As we know, all field experiences can be used to create new related variants by boosting some stats of appropriate units (land exp for land units, naval exp for naval units and air exp for air units).

As described in DDs, land exp can also be used to modify division designs/layouts which doesn't seems to exist for naval and air units... Does naval and air field experiences can be used to something else than creating new variants?

Best regards,
 
I think that the 4 key criteria for ships are: weaponry, engine (speed), armour & fuel capacity (range). To me reliability with regards to ships is more to do with what in HOI3 were training laws. I rationalised them as the care with which a ship was put together - thus a rushed job gets a ship faster, but its not going to operate as well as a better constructed ship.
 
The 4 criteria for a carrier is : Armor, Reliability, Engine, and Deckspace. Probably just switch out "Deckspace" with another stat like for example "Weapons" for a normal surface vessel.

Im guessing anyway :)

Sorry, in my original post I should have said "... the 4 key criteria in the game should be ..." rather than are. I think that Paradox's decision to include Reliability and presumably have the engine tech increase both speed and range is incorrect. A bigger engine gives more speed, but uses fuel at a faster rate and so should actually decrease range. The need to carry more fuel so as to operate over the longer distances in the Pacific was one of the reasons US destroyers were bigger than British destroyers. The British decision to take out half the engines of old destroyers to free up more storage space was so as to give them the range to cross the Atlantic to escort convoys.
 
I must strongly object to the fact of Estonian army having only 2 divisions, as seen on the screenshot! It is a widely known fact that from 1921 to 1940, Estonian army had 3 divisions.
 
Sorry, in my original post I should have said "... the 4 key criteria in the game should be ..." rather than are.
ahh, my fault for misunderstanding then :)

I think that Paradox's decision to include Reliability and presumably have the engine tech increase both speed and range is incorrect. A bigger engine gives more speed, but uses fuel at a faster rate and so should actually decrease range. The need to carry more fuel so as to operate over the longer distances in the Pacific was one of the reasons US destroyers were bigger than British destroyers. The British decision to take out half the engines of old destroyers to free up more storage space was so as to give them the range to cross the Atlantic to escort convoys.
yeah, i figured that since the Carrier didn't have a range stat (the planes do), the oher surface ships wont be having it either. So range will have to be calculated from the Engine stat (and possibly Reliability ?).
 
I must strongly object to the fact of Estonian army having only 2 divisions, as seen on the screenshot! It is a widely known fact that from 1921 to 1940, Estonian army had 3 divisions.
It's in an alpha state......