As usual nice update. I look forward to the DLC. Don't sweat the angst that some are simply unwilling to let go of. The combat log (though I don't get all bent without the info) is needed and looked forward to. Send out a GREAT JOB to the team!
HOI4 Dev Diary - New Zealand & Combat Log
- 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.
As usual nice update. I look forward to the DLC. Don't sweat the angst that some are simply unwilling to let go of. The combat log (though I don't get all bent without the info) is needed and looked forward to. Send out a GREAT JOB to the team!
Mate, 'straya has a bigger and better Focus Tree than the Kiwis. Does anyone want to see a match up between the Bob Semple and the Sentinal?
//EDITED here as well - BjornB
Last edited by a moderator:
- 2
In WWII New Zealand only had two divisions engaged in fighting one in Greece/Africa/Italy and one in the pacific. These were kept at full strength in heavy fighting from the beginning to the end of the war. Conscription was at the age of 18 but deployment overseas was at 21. Two divisions should be what NZ could field with a low manpower law. In 1943 with troops aged 18-21, troops not yet needed as replacements and the home guard we had the equivalent of 3 divisions to defend our homeland. 5 divisions should be what NZ could feild by scraping the barrel.
The only real difference between the equipment standard of the NZ Division in Africa and the British Divisions is that the NZ Division was more heavily motorised.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 1
Hi
Nice to see that you plan to add those kind of features.
Step by step you restore confidence.
Totoally agree that manpower loss should be taken into account for peace conference.
I agree, but there has to be checks in place so it can't be easily manipulated by the player.
- 1
- 1
Wow! New Zealand gets it's own national focus.
Right, then.
"LP" probably refers to "Local Pattern"
For example, in response to critical shortages of equipment and UK industry being fully occupied with their own build-up, NZ built about 1000 universal carriers during WW2, until the entry of US industry into the war made local production inefficient and superfluous by comparison. The most produced local variant was officially designated the "Carrier, Universal, Machine Gun, Local Pattern, No. 2".
Some local variants were called the "NZ Pattern", such as the locally-produced version of the wheeled carrier. However, using "LP" is a perfectly plausible designation for hypothetical locally-produced vehicles.
Last edited:
- 1
This is a fair comment.
However, the Dev Diary refers to a "number" of social reforms. The Social Security Act was one of the first.
The most potent measures, industrially-speaking, were the civilian manpower controls that were sequentially introduced from 10 January 1942, culminating in the notorious Manpower Act of 1944. New Zealand in essence introduced industrial conscription. The government successfully banned strike action, and could order any worker to move from one employer to the next, if they deemed the work "essential". They did try a more free market alternative of reducing the differences in wages that distorted industrial priorities, and letting market forces sort it out, but met very strong union resistance and went for a more centralized option that was easier to implement.
How was the NZ government able to take such strong action? I would state that it is hard to overstate the political influence the Social Security Act of 1938 and other measures gave them. It established the first social security system in the western world, and later universal free hospital care. The burden of manpower controls was not felt equally, but the government was able to implement a degree of industrial control during wartime greater than the UK or Australia achieved in practice.
Last edited:
- 1
First of all, it warms my heart to see my home country so closely examined and included in-game. Nice.
Personally, I would argue that with the technology level at the time, the Onekaka iron mines, which were planned to be used if required, were probably a more cost-effective local source of iron than iron sands, during WW2. However, I do seem to be in a minority, and the west coast iron sands have the "cool" factor. They were also subsequently exploited post-war. Historically we obtained our iron by trading agricultural produce for American and Australian metal, but I appreciate that the in-game mechanics may not readily replicate this, and that local production is more "fun". I agree with the resource decisions you so far appear to have made for game purposes.
Last edited:
- 1
I wish they did this but I understand why they don't.
It is a bit bothersome to me to see some countries with all their states but other with only a few states.
They could divide them and add a historical manpower to each state, but I understand it would take a lot of time to research and gameplay-wise it would make it more annoying to capture smaller countries.
It's almost certainly a 'Not'.
The AI cant even set up a static battle front properly. If you give it 20 divisions along 10 provinces you'll get 1 div in 9 prov. and 11 div in one seemingly random prov. The moment the battle front changes at all - all hell breaks loose and divisions start marching randomly in all different directions - only very occasionally towards the enemy. Because PDS (knee-jerk without thinking it through) basically turned off strat redeployment of troops along the front this farce now happens at 1/10th the pace that it used to and also inflicts massive attrition on the moving units.
I can only imagine someone has gotten a boolean round the wrong way when it comes to rivers because the AI seems to favour attacking across them.
The only time the AI can march in a cohesive line is when it's 100-odd divisions into an area with low supply so they can all die horribly.
Use of strat. redeployment by the AI is now reserved for it's trademark nerf-wrecking ball manouver where 100% of a nations troops suddenly abandon all it's (active) fronts to rush to the other side of the world and confront some small threat. It's a nerf-ball because when it gets there it does no damage before suddenly swinging back to it's original positions.
I could go on. The only tid bits to appear on the forum in regards to AI focus more on specific fringe case weird behavior. I don't care if my troops sometime do dumb naval re-deployments - the basics/foundations of the combat AI are broken.
You are welcome to hold out hope that this patch will fix it - but you will be disappointed.
The current AI is not an AI at all (fails on the 'I').
There is no reason part or all of the AI can't be scripted. There are potential performance advantages to having it in the binaries but a well written script will still be better and run faster than a poorly written/designed compiled application.
- 6
- 1
Not to be belligerent here, but nothing you posted is based on the new XPac, simply because nothing we have seen has shown the AI. None of the DDs have commented on the AI except in passing, and I'm pretty sure the WWWs are using older (more stable) builds.
- 6
This is correct. They have said they might show the new expansion on the next WWW.
- 3
This is a war game. Belligerents are required
I wish I could remain hopeful/optimistic like you (too old & too jaded). I stand by my post but I wouldn't be miserable if it turns out I am wrong.
As per xtfoster's post, not meant in belligerence, just logic
. Anyways, Steelvolt's been working on it full-time since 1.2.1 launched. Are you suggesting that in a few months' work he's made no progress at all, even though he's posted on a number of occasions to the contrary? I'm sure the AI won't be perfect after 1.3, but technically speaking you're saying the AI isn't improved at all, and this is a pretty improbable outcome given what we know. I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know, but I do think it's very unlikely you're right if what you said was what you meant to say.Another thing to keep in mind is that two of the bigger issues with the land AI are template construction and front management. One of these issues (template construction) is fairly easily solved mechanically, it's just an issue of time and resources. Front management is a good deal trickier, but it's worth keeping in mind that if the AI is on a single, relatively small front, it actually handles it quite well. Issues arise when the front becomes so long you get shuffling along it (an issue also endemic in HoI3) or the AI bounces its priorities (and troops) between fronts. Significant progress on either of those issues will go a long way to improving the land game (which is what most people talk about when they're talking AI).
The current behavioural/production AI does have a scripted component, although it's still very much in its infancy (the ai_strategies) and the division templates are also scripted, while there are defines for many elements of the AI's behaviour that can be adjusted. Which part of the AI were you thinking about in terms of scripting that isn't already?
As per xtfoster's post, not meant in belligerence, just logic
Not quite. I'm saying that they're focusing/fixing the wrong things. The basics/core of the combat AI doesn't work and they need to focus on that stuff first.
I'm talking primarily here about the combat AI and about having the logic scriptable rather than being able to change values that are used by the AI in the binaries.
Technically, the logic/semantics of your words was that it would not be improved
. I fully take that what you said in response was what you intended to say though . However, I'd note that you're currently being out-languaged by an Australian, lift your game, you Kiwis are generally better at that kind of thing than us . As for whether the basics/core of the combat is being fixed, I think that depends a lot on what you mean (see below).I'm not quite sure what you mean by combat AI though. Do you mean the tactics chosen by commanders, or the attacker to defender ratio when choosing to attack, or the choice of the province to attack? There's not much AI (at all) involved in the actual combat (beyond naval combat, where there is actually a bit going on - and I fully agree, I'd love more control over it, as there's definitely room to improve it). Apologies if I'm missing something really obvious, and you're going "How thick is this Australian?!"