• 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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

Johan

Studio Manager Paradox Tinto
Administrator
Paradox Staff
Moderator
15 Badges
Dec 14, 1999
19.197
80.324
  • Diplomacy
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Magicka
  • Starvoid
Hello and welcome to the second development diary for Hearts of Iron 3. It has been a busy week in the development team, with people working on historical decisions and event chains, developing the production interface, and doing work on the political and diplomatical parts of the game. Now it is wednesday again, and as the tradition goes, its a Vindaloo for lunch and then a development diary to write.

This week, I am going to talk about the production system, which is the core of the economics in HoI3. Hearts of Iron is a game focused on re-figthing WW2, where economy matters, but is not the main focus of the game. When we increase complexity in HoI3, it will primarily be at the warfare and logistics part of the game. We are keeping the IC system that was so successful in the previous incarnations of the series, where you decide what you want to produce centrally, and allocate IC on consumer goods, supplies, upgrades, reinforcement and production.

However, some aspects have changed, for what we think will create a much more realistic and balanced gameplay.

First up, we've added efficency as a concept for resource extraction, and for the output of resources per IC. This will create strategic possibilites of improving your industry in certain aspects.

However perhaps the biggest change is to gearing. Rather than having you stick on long production queues that become more efficient over time, a country has a number of practical values representing its accumulated experience in producing certain types of equipment. These decay over time, so to keep yourself up to date you need to keep continually producing equipment of this type. Now a rather interesting consequence of this rule is that let’s say you are Germany, you have focussed all out on land and air units and you have conquered Russia so now you are going to sink all your IC into building ships. You’re production will be initially be much less efficient until your economy reorients towards naval production.

Another interesting thing is that production effects technology, the more of something you produce the easier it is to research in that area. So if you want to advance technology in an area (say carriers) you are going to want to keep producing carriers to pick up the research bonus. Yes no more tech rushing, those early model carriers may not be that good but they will serve as a nice test bed for design ideas.

We're not entirely ready to show the production interface, but here is a screenshot of northwestern germany, where you can see how detailed in amount of provinces the map is becoming.
alpha_okt22.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cpack said:
I'm a little bit disappointed about the fact (as it seems) that you can still mix up air - naval - army production in % from 100-0-0 to 0-30-70 for example in short time. :(

I would prefer a splitted production for air, army and naval (shipyards) maybe with a slider, where you can allocate your needed percentage (Changing 10% could last 30days...)

Please read http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379317 it explains clearly how this is no longer an issue.
 
Samilou said:
That's true you have done a great job on Southeastern England, so maybe not "all" provinces are blandly shaped when I think of it. The thing is you will have to do that to all provinces on the map to make it a pleasant map to look at for 4-8 hours a day for 5 or so years into the future. This is still far from the beautiful provinces in older Paradoxgames, but hopefully it will get there in the end, sadly it will take a lot more work to make 10000 provinces that beautiful.

#1 - provinces are supposed to be "similarly shaped" for proper strategies, as explained in the link I gave you.

#2 - I don't see how southeastern england is a great job and northwestern germany is crap looking. After all, they are "similarly sized" provinces on both maps.
 
Cpack said:
Hmm, maybe I don't get it. I see, that there're restrictions and penalties in jumping back and forth, but as I understand it, its still possible to go extreme.

F.e if I have 500 IC for production, I can still start building army units for 500 IC and later switch to 500 IC navy (with severe penalties)

So there're no limits or rules of having 150 IC for navy, 100 IC for Air and 250 for army which I can change over time.

But I'll see in further screenies and diaries how it will look like :)

Yes you are spot on, instead of forcing people to do something we instead offer up rewards for doing something. So if you balance your IC spending you will get more efficient production and research across the board.
 
Jagdmaus said:
What are the plans regarding incorporating the weather & ground conditions (mud, snow, etc.) maps, with this new improved graphics system/engine?

the plan is that you should see it on the map.
 
Ithron said:
I haven't seen this question asked yet, so sorry if devs have to answer it again. About combat. If combat system mainly stays the same, then it will mean that because of higher number of provinces, smaller countries will be unable to have units in all the provinces at the border. Thus, country with higher number of divisions will not only have easier invasion, but will simply be able to skip border provinces that have divisions. Historically, small nations were prepared to spread divisions more to cover all the boarder. I don't have the historical numbers at the moment, but it was something around having 1 division cover 2-5x longer border, then what big countries covered with 1 division. If there is no system of "spreading", "streaching" the division, so that historical army could cover historical border, then how will this work out? At least one example, of which I hope (as there allways seem to be those who think that no small countries participated or even existed during the ww2, as if they were in holidays on Mars), that involved people should be interested in, is Winter war where both sides had very different concentration of troops.

You know we here ar Paradox Towers have been waiting and waiting for someone to read the Dev diary in it's entirerty, still no one has. :( However to spare you all and answer your question will combat be the same, this should give you a bit of a clue.

Johan said:
When we increase complexity in HoI3, it will primarily be at the warfare and logistics part of the game.
 
Myth said:
Oi, that's not quite fair. Those who read the whole thing tend not to ask silly questions but just make comments that basically say "excellent" or whatnot :p

Ok I've been found out. :)
 
Hi Johan,
I have several things to say but I will keep it very short:
1) are the resources still storable as much as the player can?
2) are the resources extracted at zero cost?
3) are the resources stored at zero cost and without any depletion?
4) have you any intention to differentiate better among resources?

The reason why I'm asking about:
sub 1) is because players may store enough resources for 100 years campaign
sub 2) is because one matter is to have resources under the ground another to extract from it
sub 3) is because usually to store resources you need deposits and so you have to build them (this costs time and money), moreover you can imagine that some resources deplete with time (e.g. you have to throw bananas into the bin or iron rust through)
sub 4) is because for example I cannot imagine a nuke bomb made without the uranium, in this way to get the control of Africa instead to be out of sense it will be strategically important

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) No