• 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.

Developer Diary | Quality of Life Improvements

image (5).png
Greetings all,

Due to a misplaced carrier pigeon, today’s dev diary will not be on modding changes, but will instead focus on a variety of minor and QoL changes coming in the Avalanche patch accompanying By Blood Alone.

This list is by no means exhaustive: we’ll cover the more impactful changes here and still give you plenty of juicy items to discover in the patch notes.

Armor Piercing

Those of you who routinely peruse the forums may have noticed me discussing details on our change to the piercing formula, but it serves to draw attention to it here, in a more visible light.

In the Avalanche update, we’re reworking the binary nature of the piercing vs armor calculation to act in a somewhat more realistic way, as well as to make designing your divisions and equipment a little more nuanced.​
image6.png

Prior to BBA, the damage of divisions making attacks against an armored target would be reduced by 50% if their piercing stat was less than the armor value of the target. In BBA, the thresholds described above will be in play.

There have been some minor changes to piercing values on equipment, but we intend to avoid making any major changes here until we see the effect of this change on player habits. Any balance changes will of course be applied in our regular patching schedule.

Piercing also plays an important role in naval combat, and we haven’t forgotten about it here. In naval combat, the piercing vs armor mechanic affects the critical hit chance (simulating penetration hits) of individual naval guns against a target, and we’ve added the following thresholds:​
image7.png

You’ll notice we’ve added an extra threshold here. This goes some of the way towards simulating extreme overmatching, and brings a small extra potential bonus for super heavy guns (assuming you hit what you’re aiming at).

These values can of course be modded, and support the addition of new thresholds for those in need of atypical or more gradual curves.

Design Comparison

The ship, tank, and plane designers now have access to an additional tool when designing equipment:​
image4.png

This comparison window allows you to select a variant to compare against the variant you are designing. The comparison variant does not need to have the same equipment type as the one you are designing, and assists in the creation of specialized variants with a frame of reference. The stats comparison markers are displayed in context to the design you are editing:​

image9.png

Here, we’re comparing the German starting heavy tank to the Panzer II light tank.

You can select a comparison variant from among any types you own or have licensed or captured, and for owners of La Resistance from among any countries which you have matched the highest corresponding intelligence tier for.

In short, this gives you a tool with which to plan your designs in order to counter your opponents’ equipment.

War Support

In Avalanche, we’re making some significant changes to war support. Over the course of the game’s lifespan, war support has gradually plummeted in terms of relevance both due to power creep in country content (something we’re starting to take an active interest in addressing in general), and due to the ease of trading in political power thanks to war propaganda.

War support is intended to serve as an abstraction of a population’s willingness and capability to engage in the war effort, on a military and civilian level. As such, war support has one important new effect:​
image1.png

Note we have also improved the tooltip for war support and stability to include the base value plus any changes from events and focuses.

While at war, war support has a scaling negative effect on the stability of a country, simulating the dissatisfaction of the civilian population at the predicament they have been placed in. War support is now something you will need to care about during a war, and further changes have been made to accentuate this:
  • All sources of ticking war support (weekly) have been removed or changed into flat bonuses.​
  • Taking casualties during war will now contribute to a gradual ticking war support malus replacing the malus that was previously only used by abilities such as Force Attack.​
  • The war support malus from strategic bombing has rebalanced to be in line with the above.​
  • The war support malus from sunk convoys has been rebalanced to be in line with the above​

The three components described above are now the main sources of reduced war support while at war, and give you a strategic reason to pace offensives and conduct campaigns in an intelligent manner.

‘Infinite’ war propaganda decisions have now been removed. This was a trivial way to increase war support in the mid-late game, and combined with the availability of political power, resulted in very little meaningful way to reduce a target nation’s war support.

Instead of war propaganda against countries, war support decisions now target one of the three main maluses:​
image (2).png

These decisions will offset the maximum negative trend of each of the three negative components, and gradually increase it to a maximum of zero. In short, war support can no longer be arbitrarily increased outside of focuses, events, and unique decisions - it must instead be managed.

As you will note, the base, generic war propaganda decision currently remains, but may only be used to increase war support if below 50%.

This is a significant change we will continue to monitor, but we are happy with the results we’ve seen so far.

Armored Trains and Logistics Strike

Since the release of NSB, we (and many of you) felt that the Logistics Strike air mission was too strong. This is, in part, due to an oversight which did not apply state-level AA disruption effects to it - this has been fixed.

Correspondingly, a further issue with armored trains has been fixed, meaning that they will once again be vulnerable to damage from Logistics Strike, albeit at a much reduced rate compared to other varieties of train.

However, to further balance this out versus the current live version, armored trains have now learned to use their AA guns:​
image8.png

We previously decided against this approach due to the relatively minor impact that armored train AA had on the grander aviation situation in the war, however thanks to the ministrations of one of our excellent coders, we have arrived at a solution whereby armored trains will only inflict damage to planes actively attacking them on a logistics strike mission. You will be able to track this explicitly in the air region details menu:​
image5.png

AI Tank Strategy

You should now notice a somewhat more sensible use of armored divisions by the AI. The AI can now be encouraged to use tank divisions on any particular frontline, and we have added some generic situation triggers to make this happen more regularly.

Note this does not yet translate to using tanks in the same sort of pincer-encirclement that players tend to use. This is a notably non-trivial problem to solve, but is on our wishlist for future investigation.

Allied Logistics

You will now be able to open the logistics menu for subjects and faction members through the diplomacy menu. This gives you a better real-time view of your allies’ equipment situation, and helps plan a better lend-lease strategy:​
image (3).png

It goes without saying that any actions usually available through this menu (destroy equipment et al) will be locked for observing countries. While we toyed with the idea of making this available based on intel, this proved to be far too powerful a tool in the wrong hands.

 

Attachments

  • image3.png
    image3.png
    392,1 KB · Views: 0
  • image2.png
    image2.png
    524,4 KB · Views: 0
  • image (4).png
    image (4).png
    384,9 KB · Views: 0
  • 96Like
  • 58Love
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
@Arheo did I miss another dev diary or why is no one talking about war support from aces? Sure, the propaganda decisions are an easy WS source but most countries with a decent air force don't even need those due to being spammed with aces that provide +2% WS each.

At the end of a France game in '44, without specifically aiming for aces, I generated 86 of them while losing maybe a dozen (net +150% war support).
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
These decisions will offset the maximum negative trend of each of the three negative components, and gradually increase it to a maximum of zero. In short, war support can no longer be arbitrarily increased outside of focuses, events, and unique decisions - it must instead be managed.
This is an especially welcome change for me. I really didn't enjoy decision mechanics that were repeatable and which you automatically opted for if you had enough PP (the same problem remains with regard to getting off of Civilian Economy).

I do hope that this change will be well incorporated in case of countries that historically were able and did withstand really heavy manpower losses without much effect on morale (e.g. Soviet Union, Japan). I would go so far as to say that USSR and Japan should have focus- or decision-based effects that offset some of those malus effects. Pretty sure Propaganda campaings will become more important.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Is anything being done to make naval warfare more accessible? It can feel like it takes massive effort to have a good navy and then two bad naval battles makes your fleets useless.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks nuts, especially the war support rework. I didn't know how much I needed that lol

Regarding war support, perhaps tweak the mutinies/strikes events for having low stability/war support a bit? It sounds like it will be more frequent to drop below 50% war support while at war now, and the actual penalties from the events can vary greatly, depending on how many times you get unlucky with the "80% chance to succeed" option.
Perhaps change the "X% to remove the penalty" to "X days until penalty is removed", depending on which option you choose.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Could it be possible that a feature is added that if the country has lower war support and stability, they will become increasingly likely to accept conditional surrender, atleast just for the players, as to give the recently showed peace conference tools more of a use?
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Can you give examples?
Bitmode kindly maintains a list. It isn't a list of the most serious bugs, but the links all point to high-quality bug reports or threads (often going beyond symptoms to diagnose the cause) so it's a reasonable approximation.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
For extreme naval overpiercing, wouldn't that decrease the critical chance, given an overpiercing shell would go through without detonating?

The USS Johnston for example survived being hit by Yamato's big 18 inchers due to this exact fact
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
For extreme naval overpiercing, wouldn't that decrease the critical chance, given an overpiercing shell would go through without detonating?

The USS Johnston for example survived being hit by Yamato's big 18 inchers due to this exact fact
I think that, for game purposes, that would count as either a miss or a minimal hit.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Glad to see some changes in piercing! But I'm wondering, what are the reasons behind the design of the new piercing mechanics? Wouldn't it have been simpler to have it scale linearly (x% of damage, x being the piercing percentage), capped by 50% and 100%?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Note this does not yet translate to using tanks in the same sort of pincer-encirclement that players tend to use. This is a notably non-trivial problem to solve, but is on our wishlist for future investigation.

I love this game, but it's pretty crazy to me that one of the most famous aspects of WW2 isn't really in the game. HOI4 also kind of forces you to use battleplans, and these are equally unsuitable to make such pincer moves via their "Arrowhead" command.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
@Arheo when it comes to QoL improvements, I think you guys should focus on the quick wins first.
The modding community already has very elegant QoL solutions like the following resource income overview and construction speed modifiers:
1663533770628.png


-----------------------------

Another quick win:
Giving away 100% of a certain stock item via LL to another nation currently works like this: left-click on item, left-click on "once", left-click on the "all" button --> 3 clicks per item (which becomes a chore when giving away foreign equipment)
Why not simplify it: right-click on an item automatically adds 100% to a LL deal --> 1 click instead of 3.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
@Arheo when it comes to QoL improvements, I think you guys should focus on the quick wins first.
The modding community already has very elegant QoL solutions like the following resource income overview and construction speed modifiers:
View attachment 878799

-----------------------------

Another quick win:
Giving away 100% of a certain stock item via LL to another nation currently works like this: left-click on item, left-click on "once", left-click on the "all" button --> 3 clicks per item (which becomes a chore when giving away foreign equipment)
Why not simplify it: right-click on an item automatically adds 100% to a LL deal --> 1 click instead of 3.
I have no opinion about the LL change, but I love the attached image's suggestions. There should be more things like this.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Glad to see some changes in piercing! But I'm wondering, what are the reasons behind the design of the new piercing mechanics? Wouldn't it have been simpler to have it scale linearly (x% of damage, x being the piercing percentage), capped by 50% and 100%?
It is that way now (just cap is different, if I remember, between 100% and 120%?), but people here are so bad at mathematics, so they think it is binary.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It is that way now (just cap is different, if I remember, between 100% and 120%?), but people here are so bad at mathematics, so they think it is binary.
This is a new mechanic. At the current moment, the system is binary. If piercing is above armor, then the armor bonus is nullified, and vice versa

At the very least, that is what the tooltip shows.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This is a new mechanic. At the current moment, the system is binary. If piercing is above armor, then the armor bonus is nullified, and vice versa

At the very least, that is what the tooltip shows.
Aaa, ok! They wrote about that in NSB dev diaries, but it looks like they didn't implement it...
So, my bad
 
  • 1
Reactions: