Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45526 Bug Reports 15223 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Archangel85 said:
I really wanted flamethrowers to give bonuses to fort attack and urban fighting, but unfortunately the way terrain modifiers work is very much tied to subunits on the code side. I pushed pretty hard on this, but when every day of code work uncovers three more days of code work that needs to be done, sacrifices must be made before they endanger the entire feature.
Click to expand...
Regarding the flamethrowers problems, it can still easily be fixed. As most of the country organized their flame thrower tanks into subunits ( 9 to 28 tanks depended on different countries). Those subunits can have any urban bonuses modifier they want.

Gyrvendal said:
This is extremely disappointing: heavy guns should be good against fortifications and in urban combat.
Click to expand...
The dev can consider using the weapons AVs are mounting as another criterion to classify AV. For example, Nashorn, based on Pz IV hull, and Elefant, based on Tiger (P) hull, were both classified as heavy tank destroyer by German in WWII because they both use 88 mm cannon.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It would be nice if the tank designer takes crew comfort into account. This should directly impact Attack as reloading speed is highly dependant on how much elbow room there is in the tank. Optics would also be nice, but I don't see how that could work in the game as none will want bad optics. Some form of consideration of the "soft" stats of the tanks are needed anyway as some historical tanks sacrifice those to get better hard stats.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Znail said:
It would be nice if the tank designer takes crew comfort into account. This should directly impact Attack as reloading speed is highly dependant on how much elbow room there is in the tank. Optics would also be nice, but I don't see how that could work in the game as none will want bad optics. Some form of consideration of the "soft" stats of the tanks are needed anyway as some historical tanks sacrifice those to get better hard stats.
Click to expand...
That would indeed be nice. It's one of the reasons Germany was so successful early on. Their tanks didn't have a lot of armor, and not always the best firepower, but in terms of internal setup they were far superior to most/all the other European nations. Enough space for every crew-member, a large enough crew so that the commander could actually focus on commanding the tank, good optics, communicatiom-devices both for inside the tank and communication with other tanks, the list goes on and on. The French and the early Soviet tanks suffered a lot from tunnel-vision due to bad communication, small turrets and an overload of work for the commander, thus wasting a lot of the strength the tanks may have had on paper.

Things like turret-size and radios definately should be part of it, as they had a significant impact on the performance.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
George Parr said:
That would indeed be nice. It's one of the reasons Germany was so successful early on. Their tanks didn't have a lot of armor, and not always the best firepower, but in terms of internal setup they were far superior to most/all the other European nations. Enough space for every crew-member, a large enough crew so that the commander could actually focus on commanding the tank, good optics, communicatiom-devices both for inside the tank and communication with other tanks, the list goes on and on. The French and the early Soviet tanks suffered a lot from tunnel-vision due to bad communication, small turrets and an overload of work for the commander, thus wasting a lot of the strength the tanks may have had on paper.

Things like turret-size and radios definately should be part of it, as they had a significant impact on the performance.
Click to expand...
Heck look at the Hellcat. On paper that boy should have been shredded, But instead it routinely defeated German advances. Speed, Communication, Vision, Training and reliability seemed to be more important in the war than raw armor and firepower.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
parkerg12 said:
Heck look at the Hellcat. On paper that boy should have been shredded, But instead it routinely defeated German advances. Speed, Communication, Vision, Training and reliability seemed to be more important in the war than raw armor and firepower.
Click to expand...
Another option that is interesting, open topped TD's for the increased awareness and room for loading.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Znail said:
Another option that is interesting, open topped TD's for the increased awareness and room for loading.
Click to expand...
There is a really cool Motor trend Article about the Hellcat. One of the Fastest Tanks ever built, Truly that maneuverability had to lead to increased combat effectiveness. Maybe there could be terrain bonus's related to tanks like it?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
GrandVezir said:
That breaks immersion for you, but are designations like:
  • M4A3E8
  • A13 Mk III
  • T-34/85M
  • Pzkw.IV ausf. F-2
...somehow less of a random-letter salad?
Click to expand...

I saw an image earlier today that reminded me of this post:

A_stroke.png
 
  • 15Haha
  • 4Like
Reactions:
wagnerleung0079 said:
The hulls for variants work fine for ships, but not so much for SPG. Hoping that the dev will and have enough time to implant gun for variants.
Click to expand...
Don't see the issue: a nashorn isn't an underarmoured heavy TD, it's an upgunned medium TD. A Ferdinand is a proper HTD.

You have an example of an undergunned heavy tank?
Mathilda 1/2 would maybe qualify, but i'd say that's an overarmoured light tank.
 
Zauberelefant said:
Don't see the issue: a nashorn isn't an underarmoured heavy TD, it's an upgunned medium TD. A Ferdinand is a proper HTD.

You have an example of an undergunned heavy tank?
Mathilda 1/2 would maybe qualify, but i'd say that's an overarmoured light tank.
Click to expand...
The problem mostly happens in German SPG. The key issue here is modifier can only work in the subunit. In-game, the reason why super-heavy tanks have bonus in attacking fort is they have big guns. For this new tank designer, we might have the freedom to put heavy guns on medium hulls or maybe even light hulls (Waffenträger Krupp-Steyr mit Pak 43), and the current classifying subunit with hull cannot represent what gun their tanks are carrying and undermining the difference between different design chooses. The hull subunit system is still needed and work very well in classifying different AFVs in most cases, but it fails to represent the attack bonus on the German TD like Waffenträger, Nashorn, and Ferdinand (all with long 8.8 mounted on different hulls) and bunker-buster like Dicker Max and Sturer Emil. Therefore, I think the dev may need to implement the gun for subunit only for the SPG.
 
Michael Gladius said:
How will the division designer differentiate between light tanks in combat battalions versus reconnaissance?
Click to expand...
My understanding is, like with the ship designer, you can flag a specific design with a symbol. So you could flag a recon design with the binoculars, and your main-line tank design with the gun turret, or whatever symbol you prefer.
 
wagnerleung0079 said:
The problem mostly happens in German SPG. The key issue here is modifier can only work in the subunit. In-game, the reason why super-heavy tanks have bonus in attacking fort is they have big guns. For this new tank designer, we might have the freedom to put heavy guns on medium hulls or maybe even light hulls (Waffenträger Krupp-Steyr mit Pak 43), and the current classifying subunit with hull cannot represent what gun their tanks are carrying and undermining the difference between different design chooses. The hull subunit system is still needed and work very well in classifying different AFVs in most cases, but it fails to represent the attack bonus on the German TD like Waffenträger, Nashorn, and Ferdinand (all with long 8.8 mounted on different hulls) and bunker-buster like Dicker Max and Sturer Emil. Therefore, I think the dev may need to implement the gun for subunit only for the SPG.
Click to expand...
As the former account got banned, here's the reply:
The attack values and piercing depend on the gun, not the hull. For almost all purposes, except armour, it's moot to differentiate between a nashorn and a sturer max.
It's the gun and the gun alone that matters. Both are direct fire, non turret designs, so that's TD. Both are medium, so medium TD. But they are both upgunned compared to other MTD2.
(Those would have a 75/6mm gun, like Hellcat or SU-85).
For that reason, I don't get your point.
 
Will the research time will be reduced for the technologies ?

As i understand, we will have to research more things such as AT canon to make Heavy tanks , which is never reaearched in my germany game for example, because i don't use them.
 
Archangel85 said:
This also means we can represent vehicles that changed roles during the war more easily, so you can have your StuG III equivalent with a high-soft attack gun
Click to expand...


In this context I'm asking myself, what exactly the different gun types mean.

The "High-Velocity Cannon" is rather straight forward; that should be something like the 8,8-cm-KwK 43 L/71 on the Königstiger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II). But is it possible to distinguish between long range howitzers (e.g. the 150 mm sFH 18/1 L/30 mounted on the "Hummel" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummel_(vehicle)) and short range assault guns used e.g. by the Sturmtiger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger).

I will not dare to say that assault tanks like the Sturmtiger were a rational way to use limited resources, but a 380 mm rocket propelled mortar is simply to meme to ignore.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
WhiiTe_x_Oxyde said:
Will the research time will be reduced for the technologies ?
Click to expand...
If they follow the MtG model, there will be a lot more xp used to accelerate researching the extra items. Even with all those extra items, I don't find naval research takes longer, because each item goes a lot faster and there's the xp to speed it up even more.

In this case, AT guns are already in the tree. So I'd imagine hull, suspension, and armor only need take the same time as the current tank to make everything stay the same, whether that's reducing the base time or having some speed boosts you buy with army xp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back