HOI4 Dev Diary - Man the Guns and PdxCon

[Dr. Quaz]

Will the Gameplay Rules be like how it is implemented in CK2?

And on further note I am kinda shocked that there will be literally *zero* bug fixing until the next expansion releases considering how broken the game can be, especially in Asia which was the focus of the last expansion. Devs at Paradox need to plan their roadmap release dates better so this doesn't happen again.

 

[Dalapoism]

''The myth itself is something based on reality where polish cavalry performed a successful charge early on in the war vs German infantry at the battle of Krojanty. Something the German propaganda machine tried to falsely portray as the poles being unprepared for meeting modern German armor (there were no tanks there). The myth apparently lived on a long time, notably taught in schools and promoted in soviet propaganda… that said, in Hearts of Iron IV at pdxcon the polish hussars did ride out and win!''

The Myth was started when an Italian journalist Indro Montanelli wrote a article about ''Polish bravery charging German tanks with Sabres and Lances'' which is something the Germans would use to promote their Propaganda not Soviets. The Soviets may have taught this Myth after the war in their Schools, but so did the Americans and British to an equal or worst extent, I remember in my elementry school back in the 90's that American school books promoted this Myth as a Fact.

 

[Daelyn75]

''The myth itself is something based on reality where polish cavalry performed a successful charge early on in the war vs German infantry at the battle of Krojanty. Something the German propaganda machine tried to falsely portray as the poles being unprepared for meeting modern German armor (there were no tanks there). The myth apparently lived on a long time, notably taught in schools and promoted in soviet propaganda… that said, in Hearts of Iron IV at pdxcon the polish hussars did ride out and win!''

The Myth was started when an Italian journalist Indro Montanelli wrote a article about ''Polish bravery charging German tanks with Sabres and Lances'' which is something the Germans would use to promote their Propaganda not Soviets. The Soviets may have taught this Myth after the war in their Schools, but so did the Americans and British to an equal or worst extent, I remember in my elementry school back in the 90's that American school books promoted this Myth as a Fact.

I only remember reading about it in books that said it never happened but was used as propaganda. I guess I came late to this.

 

[Rafled]

Will the Gameplay Rules be like how it is implemented in CK2?

And on further note I am kinda shocked that there will be literally *zero* bug fixing until the next expansion releases considering how broken the game can be, especially in Asia which was the focus of the last expansion. Devs at Paradox need to plan their roadmap release dates better so this doesn't happen again.

There was a dev comment stating there could/would be one more bugfix patch, in this thread.

We are aware and I would currently expect that we have time scheduled for patch work before 1.6, yes. The China Warlord issue at least is on top of my priority list. I won't promise that it will be fixed, because experience has shown me that such a claim will come and bite me in the behind.

 

[Angelis]

There was a dev comment stating there could/would be one more bugfix patch, in this thread.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Sadly no, we did one more patch than normal after tiger and we sadly cant really manage another patch before MTG comes out.

 

[Daelyn75]

I wouldn't bet on it.

Which comment came first? Archangel85 made his comment just the other day. Considering the number of complaints about podcat's comment near the beginning of this thread, it seems to me that it has gotten through to them.

 

[Tankovy]

One of the things that sprung to my mind due to the naval rehaul is the instant embarkment of huge armies at ports. The game should take division/army size into account when you send them through sea from port to port, the same way you can't insta-invade by planning a naval invasion.

 

[Tavior]

One of the things that sprung to my mind due to the naval rehaul is the instant embarkment of huge armies at ports. The game should take division/army size into account when you send them through sea from port to port, the same way you can't insta-invade by planning a naval invasion.

425k troops were mustered for D-Day + throw in lot of airplanes and naval crews in support of the invasion itself. They didn't even freaking use an existing port and instead created four port on the spot.

Eventually those 4 artifact port, known as project mulberry, manage to land 2.5 million troops. Nevermind the tonnage for other thing like food, ammo, and fuel, etc....

Now you complain about a medium size instant-invade? OK...

 

[Khevenhuller]

425k troops were mustered for D-Day + throw in lot of airplanes and naval crews in support of the invasion itself. They didn't even freaking use an existing port and instead created four port on the spot.

Eventually those 4 artifact port, known as project mulberry, manage to land 2.5 million troops. Nevermind the tonnage for other thing like food, ammo, and fuel, etc....

Now you complain about a medium size instant-invade? OK...

Although factually correct, you are reading history backwards. To get to that stage took a lot of experience and trial and error. Planning for D-Day started in 1942, if that 's a specific operational claim. Meanwhile, look at the British intervention in Norway where they packed their transports with what they most needed at the bottom. Again, it is something that you should get better and better at with experience.

K

 

[Tavior]

I am aware that there were early experiments with invading and that is somewhat reflected in an abstract way in tech for expanding your invasion fleet size.

 

[Tankovy]

First, I am not complaning, just merely reflecting on one aspect of the game. Now, I was just stating that embarking thousands of fighting men and their respective equipment into ships takes a bit longer than the time it takes in game.

 

[Landsturmamrika]

Does anyone think this DLC will enable you to reroute convoys? It would be nice to when playing as the Soviets to not have to send trading convoys through the Baltic Sea when at war with the Axis and instead just send shipping through the White Sea to the UK or something. On a similar note, it would be great if we could chose when playing as Germany to have convoys route around the British Isles through the North Sea to Brazil or Portugal instead of them navigating by default through the Channel.

 

[aramsey3]

How about Fleet Templates?
How about some of the warnings if you build a bad fleet composition? Like too many carriers, etc. Not enough screens with recommendations, etc.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Any reworking of Naval Affairs needs to be outcome-focussed. We have plenty of examples of WW2 naval combat to have a fair idea of how this should look and what the potential outcomes should be. We also know that the inability to re-route convoys is just stupid, and the sea/land/air interface is ridiculous.

I hope that PDX do look at this with a results-led rather than a process-led method. There are so many broken aspects to the naval game that it would be tiresome to recall them all, never mind list them all. And we are how many years since release?

I will get back to playing this game once they complete this effort and see.

K

 

[Khevenhuller]

First, I am not complaning, just merely reflecting on one aspect of the game. Now, I was just stating that embarking thousands of fighting men and their respective equipment into ships takes a bit longer than the time it takes in game.

Ha, well, something that would make life interesting is the limits imposed by moons and tides on the timings of invasions and the enormous influence of the weather. But these would limit player agency and present players with difficult choices, something I am told will reduce sales and make the game too difficult.

K

 

[Angelis]

Any reworking of Naval Affairs needs to be outcome-focussed. We have plenty of examples of WW2 naval combat to have a fair idea of how this should look and what the potential outcomes should be. We also know that the inability to re-route convoys is just stupid, and the sea/land/air interface is ridiculous.

I hope that PDX do look at this with a results-led rather than a process-led method. There are so many broken aspects to the naval game that it would be tiresome to recall them all, never mind list them all. And we are how many years since release?

I will get back to playing this game once they complete this effort and see.

K

This!
Totally agree in every point.
Thx for this post! Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Kazansky22]

I just really hope there is a way to make SAGs actually useful.

 

[llib]

So... the planned features list looks quite impressive, and very much looking forward to it. If it gets too ambitious and some of the things don't make the cut, OK, but please don't move them completely to distant future... I'm not sure whether mentioned changes to naval combat refer to more meaningful overall naval system (not just massive battles of superstacks early in war), or actual combat mechanics... Or not even sure how should that more meaningful overall naval system behave (but it isn't mu job to, so... :-D )

 

[puppet on a string]

a really simple fix they could do would be drastically reduce the number of divisions that are allowed to invade at any one time; this can be done by tweaking some numbers in the 3 transport techs

the current numbers are 10/40/100... the default/minimum is 10 divisions, when during overlord (which would be the 1944 tech, 100 divisions) fewer than 10 divisions landed, and it was a herculean effort to provide support and logistics for even those

@podcat

 

[llib]

This!
Totally agree in every point.
Thx for this post! Couldn't have said it better.

What I'm worried about though, is... the system where best strategy is to create one doomstack is clearly not very nice or historical.
However given how rest of the combat (air/land) goes, I'm wondering how would better system look like... fleet size historically wasn't really presenting any issues that would make sense to translate to stacking maluses(even the existing CV cap is not historical), so that approach would be nonsense. I guess what could be meaningful to do, is to make battles last far shorter (concept of ammo would help there). It would also be desirable to change the system so that it makes less sense to concentrate fleets in one spot, but the difficulty here is, how to make that happen without micromanaging becoming hell and at the same time, not getting a system where things feel out of player's control.