Shame on you, Paradox. Paid features? This will become a copy of EU:IV, if you don't have DLCs, the game is absolutely incomplete
- 57
- 22
- 1
HOI4 - Development Diary - October 12th 2016
- Thread starter podcat
- Start date
-
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.
Does this just count the number of divisions needed to put one in each spot (spot = province or state?) as you said or does it also take in consideration how many it needs to actually fulfil the task efficently? I'm especially thinking about the supress rebels task here. Of course that would depend on the suppresion value of the divisions, but maybe this can be taken into consideration (e.g. using the average suppresion value of all already assigned units as or just some fixed suppresion value)?
Looking forward to the next dev diary, especially the canadian and australian focus trees
The number is meant to represent, as accurately as possible, the bare minimum units to get the job done. As you state, the tricker case is with supression, which we have some ideas for how to approach
- 9
- 2
Sorry, I imagine it's a bit disheartening for you to be getting responses like mine as opposed to excitement about the improved gameplay and AI behaviour. As a field marshal owner I don't even have a dog in the fight but it still rubs me the wrong way. Is there any chance the regular battleplanner will be made more sane with how it handles the expansion of the front lines as the front moves forward (or backward)?
Will the garrison command division count be able to factor in the amount of suppression required for selected territories? Sometimes particularly rebellious places require more than one division.
EDIT: Emu'd re the suppression question. Also quoted wrong post.
- 10
Looking forward to the new features. Great job as always.
@podcat and team...
I want to thank you for your work. I know you all do not seem to hear it much as complaints are more numerous than compliments. Your work is appreciated as always (even by many of the complainers). I thank you again for creating a game that will do its best to drain away that 1/3 of my life that remains after work and sleep. Oh and my girlfriend hates you guys.
@SteelVolt or @podcat
For the garrison command...
What happens when you apply more units than the garrison suggests? Will it space them out evenly? Will they clump up as they do now? Will the be prioritized across VPs, Ports, areas near ports, etc?
Also, any word as to whether we will be seeing a better Defensive front option? Fall back line just is not a viable option as the front doesn't change like the offensive front, and the units do not try and optimally protect the line.
@podcat and team...
I want to thank you for your work. I know you all do not seem to hear it much as complaints are more numerous than compliments. Your work is appreciated as always (even by many of the complainers). I thank you again for creating a game that will do its best to drain away that 1/3 of my life that remains after work and sleep. Oh and my girlfriend hates you guys.
@SteelVolt or @podcat
For the garrison command...
What happens when you apply more units than the garrison suggests? Will it space them out evenly? Will they clump up as they do now? Will the be prioritized across VPs, Ports, areas near ports, etc?
Also, any word as to whether we will be seeing a better Defensive front option? Fall back line just is not a viable option as the front doesn't change like the offensive front, and the units do not try and optimally protect the line.
- 34
- 15
- 2
Question: What exactly is the difference between the Blitz command and simply selecting a number of divisions at the front and manually telling them to b-line a specific province? Wouldnt that basicly end up with the same result? Just curious.
- 12
- 3
So if DLC should not add new features, what should it add?
- 25
- 1
Have you tried to play without Art of War and common sense? Without DLCs the game completely lacks of depth
- 23
- 14
I would like to add my voice to the complaints about Blitz being a paid feature. That isn't like an "advanced" thing, it's a pretty basic feature that should have been in the base game. I will get the two first expansions for free, so I'm not complaining because this is a feature I won't get, I honestly feel this should be a free feature. The garrison improvement is great, but Blitz is really needed for the base game.
- 93
- 1
- 1
Man, this battleplans changes are very basic and needed, they should be free
- 72
- 1
- 1
Before they were released, did you complain about lack of features?
- 22
- 9
- 2
I wouldn't quite compare this to EUIV. To me this seems more like a paid fix to something that is fairly broken, a replacement for the poorly implemented system of having multiple 'front lines'(either within an army or for different armies) along the same front.
- 36
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
So what you are saying is EUIV had good DLC that added depth to the game.
Saying it completely lacks depth without those DLC: is a hyperbole. Base EU IV is in noway as deep as with DLC, but saying it lacked any form of depth? No sorry that is wrong.
I even play from time to time without any DLC enabled just to see how much the base game has improved since release. Boy did it improve.
- 13
They are not needed, they are wanted. By that logic all new content should be free, because there will always be people that claim that a feature is needed.
In this particular case, you can easily create pockets by just ordering your troops directly without the help of the battleplanner, so the blitz command is no more than a tool to reduce micromanaging. The (improved) garrison command is way harder to replicate without using the battleplanner, and that feature will be free, so I don't know what the issue is.
- 47
- 17
I kind of understand that Paradox/Podcat is between a rock and a hard place here. They made a game so moddable that can't reliably expect to sell flavour dlcs (artwork, music, events, NF's, models, etc), because most people aren't interested paying for a dlc when they get similar stuff off the workshop for free. The only alternative is adding things modders can't, i.e. mechanics. This particular one still seems like a bridge too far though.
- 24
- 3
Sorry for bein vague. Yes, the intention is to try to take troop supression value vs resistance generation into account.
- 9
They can and should still make these DLCs, though. Just because a modder can do something is not an argument for Paradox not doing it. That way lazily-made and broken games lie.
All Paradox games get cosmetic artwork/model and music DLC, and HoI IV should be no different. We know that the first expansion will focus on the Commonwealth and Allied co-operation, so it stands to reason we'll be seeing some new focus trees -- at least for AST and CAN.
- 14
Just make a four width line and send the tanks forward manually without activating the pla. If the tanks don't get through then they were too weak anyways. Now make a line with motorized and you are done.
- 2
Except this is a WW2 game and this is a fundamental thing that was meant to be in the battleplan system from release. Instead we got WW1 simulator: the game that just happened to be set in the 30s and 40s.
people creating pockets with manual control was EXACTLY what paradox stated was their mission to avoid, they said they wanted to remove the micro and make it more about making decisions at the strategic level, not microing every battle. So you can't say "hah, this feature was already in, and now you expect it to be free? you must want ALL new content to be free don't you???"
shocking, just wait for the next paid expansion where they make people pay for the new feature "PAID: AI wont send its troops to Africa" and there will be a gaggle of people going "wow great feature paradox, looking forward to playing the expansion!"
- 86
- 8
- 2