Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Update 1.8.0 "Fork" Live - Checksum 3241 (Not for problem reports)

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 45491 Bug Reports 15181 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Andy Gainey

Andy Gainey

Sergeant
Paradox Staff
Sep 26, 2017
79
5
andygainey.com
1.8.0 "Fork" is now live and downloadable through Steam. The last four digits of the checksum are 3241 (the new launcher displays a much longer full checksum; the in-game version will still show just the four digits).

Since 1.8.0 does not contain any major game mechanic changes, it should be save game compatible with 1.7.1. But if you for some reason want to remain on 1.7.1 or older, here are instructions for reverting to patches since 1.5.4, or special instructions for 1.5.3 and earlier.

Please make sure that any mods you are using are updated for 1.8.0, or your game might not run properly (seriously). Due to a few complications that we only noticed very recently, mods will not be properly shown in the new launcher the first time you run. But if you launch the game and run to the full menu, exit, and then relaunch, they should show up correctly. See this thread for more information.

If you discover any bugs in patch 1.8.0, please report them in the bug report forum as usual.

################################################################
######## Patch 1.8.0 "Fork" ########
################################################################

##################################
# Feature & General
##################################
- Added new Launcher
- Added "/mute <user name>" and "/unmute <user name>" chat commands


##################################
# Balance
##################################
- Reduced number of destroyers needed to cover convoy routes from 1 destroyer per 5 convoys to 1 destroyer per 10 convoys
- Convoys can no longer detect convoys as that just drags down the average detection when escorted
- The amount of convoys in a sub battle is now based on the length of the route, so longer = fewer in a battle
- Reduced total possible torpedo reveal chance reduction to 60% from 70% by reducing wolfpack by 5% and commander trait by 5%
- Slightly reduced sub reveal chance when firing torpedos to account for convoys no longer contributing to detection averages
- Slightly reduced passive sub reveal chance in combat to account for convoys no longer contributing to detection averages
- Added 2 sub detection to radar 4 to make t4 subs not so hard to detect when matched up against modern destroyers
- Aluminium Company of Canada focus now gets an additional 14 Aluminium
- upgraded t4 radar to have sub detection from 10 to 14
- upgraded t3 radar to have sub detection from 5 to 6
- increased IC cost for t3 sub hull from 270 to 320
- increased IC cost for t4 sub hull from 300 to 450
- increased IC cost for cruiser sub hull from 370 to 390
- increased number of convoys covered by each destroyer on escort from 10 to 12
- Lowered t3 and t4 submarine torpedo damage from 23 to 22 and 30 to 28 respectively
- slightly increased the speed penalty on depth charges


##################################
# Bugfix
##################################
- Fixed a civil war revolter not getting correct focus tree
- Fixed escaping or sunk convoys from inadvertently affecting damage calculations for the remaining convoys.
- Fixed Diminishing Returns now applying to party popularity changes.
- Fixed lend-lease sender having its convoy sunk instead of the receiver in naval combats
- Prevented subjects from giving units to their overlord as part of a request for expeditionary forces if those units are volunteers or expeditionaries from another country.


##################################
# UI & Database
##################################
- The open music player button in settings now has proper size
- Music Player now has proper spelling in tooltip/settings button
- Fixes for Japanese various names (ships, divisions etc).
- Fixed full name for Canadian general Percival John Montague.


##################################
# Modding
##################################
- Added define to allow scaling of ship part of sub detection inside combats
- Enabled some console commands that had previously been developer-only but which did not really need to be locked.
- add_mines
- release (country)
- debug (toggle miscellaneous in-game debug utilities)
- debug_smooth (toggle within-game-tick frame rendering)
- instant_prepare (division preparation)
- reload_textures
- tag_color (set country color)


##################################
# Stability & Performance
##################################
- Fixed a crash when removing certain unit leader traits.
- Added checks to prevent CTD in cases where AI had sent invalid expeditionary forces
- Optimized game rule checks by finding the game rule in the game rule database more efficiently.
- Prevented a crash if a script tries to make a non-existing country declare war on another country.
- Fixed CTD on invalid set_politics usage by failing to set ruling_party, made it write an error instead.
- Fixed pointer truncation in 64bits in ProtectedMemoryAllocate
- Fixed crash reporter to correctly indicate if the program is built for a 64-bit architecture.
- Fixed a CTD related to expeditionary forces that could lock in saves
- Fixed game crashing in weird ways if a mod tries reusing an id
 
Considering that historically some sub captains would attack from within the convoy, and also considering the number of transport engines that could drown out a sub engine, maybe in the future large convoys actually should hinder sub detection. Obviously not per this bug, but maybe there should be a specially designed mechanic for that.

Maybe make it an admiral skill that they get lower detection for attacking larger convoys.
 
Last edited:
But it should be the sender's convoys for lend lease, not the receivers. It was US/UK destroyers protecting the Arctic route for example. And the US begun a huge buildup of the famous Liberty Ships to meet the UK lend lease demands. After the war many these ships were sold to Greek shipowners who created the gigantic Greek merchant marine.

Or did I read the bug fix wrong?
 
Last edited:
The number of fixes looks rather small, considering all the bugs we reported and that have never been fixed. But it is a step towards more frequent fixes, so I appreciate it.

EDIT1: Looks like there are more new bugs than fixed old bugs (see bug subforum). So it is just business as usual :-(
 
Last edited:
Cheers for the heads-up Andy, and to all the team for the patch :)

starkwolf said:
Considering that historically some sub captains would attack from within the convoy, and also considering the number of transport engines that could drown out a sub engine, maybe in the future large convoys actually should hinder sub detection. Obviously not per this bug, but maybe there should be a specially designed mechanic for that.

Maybe make it an admiral skill that they get lower detection for attacking larger convoys.
Click to expand...

It's not quite as simple as this, for a bunch of reasons. Larger convoys, for example, meant that it was easier to concentrate escorts around the edge, making for fewer gaps in the sonar/asdic ring. Larger convoys also meant (all else being equal) fewer convoys, making it easier for u-boats to miss the convoy altogether. At HoI4's level of abstraction, though, there's no actual setting for 'convoy size' (or a way of allocating escorts to convoys) - so it makes a lot more sense to keep the modifiers stable regardless of 'convoy size' (which is more just the number of ships picked for the battle, something a player has no control over beyond the amount of resources they're importing).

Of course, if there was more depth added here, such that the convoying player could set their convoy sizes and escort densities/patterns, then I'd fully agree that factors like that would be important (but, as best I understand it, even more important, early on, would be the night surface attacks pre-radar).
 
Nice to see you are working further at balancing ASW. However one thing I'm curious about is how PDX feels heavy cruisers and their derivative special classes are doing?

Heavy cruisers seem to have a bit of an identity crisis as far as I can tell with their fairly high cost vs straight up building a cheap battlecruiser to kill enemy cruisers for only a few thousand increased production cost but for more bang for your buck.

Panzerschiff have a bit of a niche of their own as surface raiders with their huge range but once again, fairly expensive. Especially if you want to upgrade them to keep them from becoming obsolete

Coastal Defense Ships I'm just confused what to do with in general with their abysmal speed and range limiting their usefulness even if they can mount heavy guns much like the Panzerschiff.

As for suggestions :

For the Panzerschiff and the CDS I'd like to see some more ability to scale with technology as for example Germany had plans for far more advanced Panzerschiff classes when no longer limited to 10k tons in tonnage such as the Panzerschiff-D class upgraded to carry armor comparable to a battlecruiser and a more extensive secondary battery or the P-class instead focusing on getting a fairly impressive 33kt speed

CDS seem to currently be used as a catch-all category for a wide variety of ships from older obsolete Coastal Defense Ships, a few Armored Cruisers still in service to various newer ones like the Väinämöinen-class or the relatively fast and heavily armored Sverige-class.

I kind of wish there were options for heavier armor for CDS ships since classes like the Sverige-class carried armor similar to that of a battlecruiser and not only the relatively poorly armored ones to make them live up more to their nickname of Coastal Battleships.

As for heavy cruisers themselves I suppose taking a look at costs might be good enough for a start, they aren't bad per se, just not very cost efficient.

As for some unrelated naval changes I'd love to see, having "light-heavy" guns as a separate armament separate from normal heavy armaments (for examples of what I mean, I mean guns like the Krupp 283mm/55 SK/C34, 12-in Mk 8, 330mm St. Chamond, 305mm/55 B-50 Pattern etc.) to be able to build the lighter "large cruiser"-type battlecruiser/cruiser killers such as the Alaska class, Kronshtadt class, Dunkerque etc. having less speed penalties for example but lower heavy piercing than normal battleship guns as the current system only really fits for the sort of WWI-esque type of battlecruisers featuring the same guns as contemporary battleships. Or at least some way to better distinguish them from the more typical battlecruisers left over from WWI

Also an option to mount normal battleship guns on super-heavy battleships, many proposed super-battleships like the Sovetsky Soyuz, German H-class BBs, Montana-class etc. used fairly conventional 16-in guns with the otherwise extremely heavy protection for less of a speed penalty and lower cost than the huge 18-in guns you are locked into using fo SHBB designs.
 
Andy Gainey said:
1.8.0 "Fork" is now live and downloadable through Steam. The last four digits of the checksum are 3241 (the new launcher displays a much longer full checksum; the in-game version will still show just the four digits).

Since 1.8.0 does not contain any major game mechanic changes, it should be save game compatible with 1.7.1. But if you for some reason want to remain on 1.7.1 or older, here are instructions for reverting to patches since 1.5.4, or special instructions for 1.5.3 and earlier.

Please make sure that any mods you are using are updated for 1.8.0, or your game might not run properly (seriously). Due to a few complications that we only noticed very recently, mods will not be properly shown in the new launcher the first time you run. But if you launch the game and run to the full menu, exit, and then relaunch, they should show up correctly. See this thread for more information.
Click to expand...

Now I am confused.

I am currently playing a game with BI mod. According to the line in red, my save game will be OK to play.

But according to the line in yellow, I must wait until BI update to 1.8.0 or risk "serious" problems if I do play it.

Which is it? Can I play it now or not?

And as it would appear that no modders were advised of this change, it may be while for the BI team to find the time to update. Are you really saying that nobody should play mods until the modders have been able to react? Is so, say it. Don't pretend it is the modders' fault for not having an update ready in a few hours.

I am not one of the "never change anything" moaners, but with a little forethought a lot of the moaning could have been prevented.


But the main thing you need to do is learn to communicate clearly. That many players are in the middle of a modded game is not an unlikely proposition. A clear instruction as to whether it is OK to resume that save game is probably something to which you should have given a high priority.
 
Axe99 said:
Cheers for the heads-up Andy, and to all the team for the patch :)



It's not quite as simple as this, for a bunch of reasons. Larger convoys, for example, meant that it was easier to concentrate escorts around the edge, making for fewer gaps in the sonar/asdic ring. Larger convoys also meant (all else being equal) fewer convoys, making it easier for u-boats to miss the convoy altogether. At HoI4's level of abstraction, though, there's no actual setting for 'convoy size' (or a way of allocating escorts to convoys) - so it makes a lot more sense to keep the modifiers stable regardless of 'convoy size' (which is more just the number of ships picked for the battle, something a player has no control over beyond the amount of resources they're importing).

Of course, if there was more depth added here, such that the convoying player could set their convoy sizes and escort densities/patterns, then I'd fully agree that factors like that would be important (but, as best I understand it, even more important, early on, would be the night surface attacks pre-radar).
Click to expand...

Yeah, something to consider if convoy options gets modified and as you said more depth is added. Maybe have it so that some traits on either side could offset the other, a sub captain that will go between the ships can get a number of kills the few times they do come across a convoy, and an escort captain that can effectively organize their escorts can offset sub captain bonuses.
 
Caeric said:
CDS seem to currently be used as a catch-all category for a wide variety of ships from older obsolete Coastal Defense Ships, a few Armored Cruisers still in service to various newer ones like the Väinämöinen-class or the relatively fast and heavily armored Sverige-class.

I kind of wish there were options for heavier armor for CDS ships since classes like the Sverige-class carried armor similar to that of a battlecruiser and not only the relatively poorly armored ones to make them live up more to their nickname of Coastal Battleships.
Click to expand...

I suspect this is a case of it never making sense (for the devs of for the vast majority of players) to go into the level of detail that would differentiated between the various coastal defense ships, beyond what's available in game.
 
starkwolf said:
Considering that historically some sub captains would attack from within the convoy, and also considering the number of transport engines that could drown out a sub engine, maybe in the future large convoys actually should hinder sub detection. Obviously not per this bug, but maybe there should be a specially designed mechanic for that.

Maybe make it an admiral skill that they get lower detection for attacking larger convoys.
Click to expand...
From another viewpoint most sub attacked were carried out on the surface and the more merchant ships there are the more chance there is someone who will spot a sub.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back