Artillery battalions need to be more affordable

  • 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.

TheAzenPresidentExile

Recruit
25 Badges
Jul 5, 2018
1
16
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
I would strongly suggest revising the division designer's cost for new artillery battalions be reduced from 25 xp to 10 xp. I find it troubling that in order to add an artillery battalion to an infantry division, you have to spend 25 xp plus 5 more xp for the battalion itself.
 
  • 12
  • 6
  • 4Like
Reactions:
The XP's not the problem; that's easy to get by hiring a Chief of Army. The real problem is that just about everyone should already start with 4 or 3 artillery battalions in their divisions, but don't. Some of them don't even start with all their infantry in their divisions (e.g. FIN, who should start with 9 infantry bns instead of 6).

And before someone claims 1 artillery battalion is representative of 3 IRL because it has 36 artillery equipment pieces in it: it's not; what counts is the manpower. The equipment is representative of more than just the guns. This understanding was confirmed as accurate by a dev 2-3 years ago.
 
  • 9
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Army XP is too hard to get and too easy to get at the same time.

It's too easy to get in the way that you just set a guy to some office and the experience comes flowing.
I liked it more to need to train your army for years to get some XP before war, because training let's you get some experience for the war. BUT NOT THAT MUCH. Just appointing some guy to army high command and having a lot of experience just by this is "meh".

And it's too hard to get, because you need SOO much:
- Templates
- Tank design
- Doctrines
- Special Forces
- Army Spirits

And a problem is, if you are actually fighting a war you get punished for being good. If you make a quick clean cut capitulation maybe with collaboration before and risky snakes you get almost no XP. If you go for stupid grinding, attacking into detrimental terrain, dont win a early war too fast and so on, you can grind XP.
And as you need so much and get important stuff from XP the game pushes you to grind, which I dont like.

My suggestions:
- Tax XP for template changes only ONCE: You add a Medium Tank? Great, cost 5 XP and from now you are free to add as many medium tanks to as many templates you want, because now you know how it's done. No more experience needed.
- To award skillful play, maybe give a large XP bonus for capitulating a country which gets reduced over time and is proportional to army size of the country. (Poland gives more than Luxemburg)
 
  • 13
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
And a problem is, if you are actually fighting a war you get punished for being good. If you make a quick clean cut capitulation maybe with collaboration before and risky snakes you get almost no XP. If you go for stupid grinding, attacking into detrimental terrain, dont win a early war too fast and so on, you can grind XP.
And as you need so much and get important stuff from XP the game pushes you to grind, which I dont like.
But if you are already doing great without grinding, why would you consider something "important stuff"?
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
If we want to maintain the previous XP cost for division designs then there is definitely a good reason to reduce the cost for adding additional brigade types. Previously you could construct an infantry division with line "support" battalions just for the cost of the battalions and now there is an extra 25 XP surcharge. This probably ought to be reduced to reflect the fact you do it more often.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
All of the XP costs need to be rebalanced across the whole game. Air XP is way too easy to accumulate. Navy is too easy at the start, then too hard as time goes by. And Army XP is just all over the place. Especially now with the special forces change, in addition to everything else.
 
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
That's a conspiracy to make Overwhelming Firepower spirit somewhat useful :p But that's still a lot of arty to shove into templates before you break even with that.
given the mountaineer path that grants 20% attack to line artillery, it does seem like they're trying to undo the wtt nerf to line arty without just directly doing it.

that bonus does not apply to spg, was one of the first things i thought about but someone checked and nope. it does apply to motorized arty though. not sure about "motorized rocket arty", but the techs that make that a competitive source of damage come too late.

And a problem is, if you are actually fighting a war you get punished for being good. If you make a quick clean cut capitulation maybe with collaboration before and risky snakes you get almost no XP. If you go for stupid grinding, attacking into detrimental terrain, dont win a early war too fast and so on, you can grind XP.
you also don't get much army xp for encircling and killing millions of soldiers, while if you face check them repeatedly to inflict same casualties (and take way more) you get tons.

one of the most practical ways to supplement xp is to buy dl...er...send attache'. that way you get xp from ai's idiocy with army rather than having to do it yourself.

But if you are already doing great without grinding, why would you consider something "important stuff"?
simon is describing a "degenerate incentive" in game terms. player does something otherwise suboptimal and tedious in order to gain an advantage due to questionable design. this is especially true with stuff like spanish civil war where you can slam armies into each other in unplanned areas for both sides so that nobody does or takes much damage, but you still get tons of xp. rather than winning a war, your objective becomes something else due to incentives.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
And a problem is, if you are actually fighting a war you get punished for being good. If you make a quick clean cut capitulation maybe with collaboration before and risky snakes you get almost no XP. If you go for stupid grinding, attacking into detrimental terrain, dont win a early war too fast and so on, you can grind XP.

But the flip side is why this exists in the first place.

The Devs want countries to be able to learn from less than stellar performance to catch up to or overtake winners. So, Germany gets a ton of doctrine reductions and lots of early XP, but "rests on her laurels" if you play her too well in the lead up to Barbarossa. On the other hand, the Soviets may sit there with their black holes of XP (increased costs for doctrines, nerfs to XP generation, and so on), but if they can stay in the fight, all that mediocre fighting generates the XP the motherland needs to catch up.

Generals are the same way. Generals that win a bunch of easy battles basically learn nothing; they learn even less if they have existing traits. Generals with low skill levels and no traits can learn a ton from fighting battles where they don't really win or lose.

I'm not saying it's the best choice in terms of design, but I understand why that design exists and I don't see a better alternative to get what the Devs want out of the game. It only mildly bothers me because I'm terrible at grinding generals even in the SCW.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
All of the XP costs need to be rebalanced across the whole game. Air XP is way too easy to accumulate. Navy is too easy at the start, then too hard as time goes by. And Army XP is just all over the place. Especially now with the special forces change, in addition to everything else.

Army XP is too hard to get and too easy to get at the same time.

It's too easy to get in the way that you just set a guy to some office and the experience comes flowing.
I liked it more to need to train your army for years to get some XP before war, because training let's you get some experience for the war. BUT NOT THAT MUCH. Just appointing some guy to army high command and having a lot of experience just by this is "meh".

And it's too hard to get, because you need SOO much:
- Templates
- Tank design
- Doctrines
- Special Forces
- Army Spirits

And a problem is, if you are actually fighting a war you get punished for being good. If you make a quick clean cut capitulation maybe with collaboration before and risky snakes you get almost no XP. If you go for stupid grinding, attacking into detrimental terrain, dont win a early war too fast and so on, you can grind XP.
And as you need so much and get important stuff from XP the game pushes you to grind, which I dont like.

My suggestions:
- Tax XP for template changes only ONCE: You add a Medium Tank? Great, cost 5 XP and from now you are free to add as many medium tanks to as many templates you want, because now you know how it's done. No more experience needed.
- To award skillful play, maybe give a large XP bonus for capitulating a country which gets reduced over time and is proportional to army size of the country. (Poland gives more than Luxemburg)

Air exp is weird. Designs aren't expensive and it builds up so fast from combat, office and spirit. So you just dump them on doctrines and after that not really needing it anymore. Navy is difficult one. It is not impossible to come by but damn navy giants like USA generate it so fast. I always felt that army xp is rather fine. I'm more than often wanting to spend it on something but not really missing key things out.

One and only reason I never liked using army xp on templates is that you have to keep making same divisions. If you wanted to have light tank division, med tank division, heavy tank division, cavalry divisions, mech division, motorized division, infantry division, assault infantry division, garrison template and defensive force division, special force division (and updages). I would not even dare to think how much exp that would cost. This is why it mostly ends up being line infantry, single cav garrison, single tank, port holders and maybe special forces.

Leveling generals is harder which is fine but some traits won't almost ever go up unless you grind it or have special conditions.

Not sure if exp gaining should be changed or not. You won't really get exp from easy combat as it should be. Machinegunning infantry waves is nothing special or driving your tanks over weaker enemy really does not gain you knowledge about war. Training gets you only so much before you need to test your forces in real combat.

This all also reminds me why I wish veterancy was little different aswell. Being years in hard war should make your army over all better. Current veterancy is tied to that they kill more than lose which is possible mostly for tank divisions. It is good to keep that losing troops make them less trained but that does not really read how much your army have gained war experience. It is totally different bring your fresh shiny army against one that has been having hard lessons. Doctrines are kinda that but but it come short as any nation can have them without war, which is good thing anyway since that shouldn't anyway measure war lessons alone.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
All of the XP costs need to be rebalanced across the whole game. Air XP is way too easy to accumulate. Navy is too easy at the start, then too hard as time goes by. And Army XP is just all over the place. Especially now with the special forces change, in addition to everything else.
Naval XP generation is just bizarre. You can have a few shitty DDs take potshots at each other for months and generate hundreds of XP (not to mention turning the admiral into a living god) while a massive fleet battle that makes the Philippines Sea look tame and causes tens of thousands of casualties and hundreds of ships sunk can be less than a single doctrine and result in no traits gained for the winning admiral. It should be based on like damage done (or like IC of ships sunk or fraction of HP * cost of ship), not just time in battle (which is how it works AFAIK).

A single small engagement also easily turns every ship that participated into max level veterans, which is also strange.
 
Last edited:
  • 7Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Artillery "battalions" should be renamed "regiments" to accommodate their heavy equipment costs. (36 guns is a regiment, a battalion would have 12). Same for AT and AA units as well.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It should be based on like damage done (or like IC of ships sunk or fraction of HP * cost of ship), not just time in battle (which is how it works AFAIK).
Not quite true. Time spent in battle goes into perks (that's why you see a lot of those neat icons on AI admirals who spent their entire career in Sub I's - the damn tubs pew-pew forever to kill a single steamer), while national XP (and admiral level) are based off damage. It's even capped (like 50 XP per day iirc), because large battles with capitals engaging each other really generate a lot of it. Normally you don't see that many of them, though.

I wouldn't say the latter is entirely unrealistic - i.e. battle of Jutland was exerting influence on shipbuilding for many years to come.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Artillery "battalions" should be renamed "regiments" to accommodate their heavy equipment costs. (36 guns is a regiment, a battalion would have 12). Same for AT and AA units as well.
No, the only reason it's 36 guns is to counter how equipment loss is excessive due to to rounding low numbers. It's meant to represent a battalions of 12 guns.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
simon is describing a "degenerate incentive" in game terms. player does something otherwise suboptimal and tedious in order to gain an advantage due to questionable design. this is especially true with stuff like spanish civil war where you can slam armies into each other in unplanned areas for both sides so that nobody does or takes much damage, but you still get tons of xp. rather than winning a war, your objective becomes something else due to incentives.
If that's how you want to play - sure. But do you have to play it that way? If you already can easily win wars, then what kind of "important stuff" do you actually need to do something you already can? Seems to me, that "grind" is just a self-imposed chore, because - oh horror - you won't start a war with maxed out doctrines/generals otherwise. If you can't easily win wars, then "grinding" is pretty logical: it's the only result you'll get anyway.

Even thinking logically: if your tactic already works - you don't need to improve much (if anything); on the contrary, if you are getting a deadlock - that's when XP supposed to help you change your approach. Even from balancing perspective, it's better to be getting way more XP from losses than combat-hours; getting more XP from "stellar performance" simply promotes more one-sided wars.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
If that's how you want to play - sure. But do you have to play it that way? If you already can easily win wars, then what kind of "important stuff" do you actually need to do something you already can?
degenerate incentives can be disregarded, but that doesn't change their existence. game designers usually try to avoid them, because they usually want games to be fun. a game giving rewards for a tedious action not tied to otherwise doing well in the game basically gives players an incentive to not play and/or make play more tedious.

Even thinking logically: if your tactic already works - you don't need to improve much (if anything); on the contrary, if you are getting a deadlock - that's when XP supposed to help you change your approach. Even from balancing perspective, it's better to be getting way more XP from losses than combat-hours; getting more XP from "stellar performance" simply promotes more one-sided wars.
when players want to compete with each other, they do the degenerate incentive because it provides a tangible advantage, and now the other player has to also do it or be at a disadvantage.

net result: rather than concentrating on the decisions that are actually different that game (how the xp is invested) and quickly getting to the point where those ideas succeed or fail, they are instead doing the same thing they do every other game: spending a huge % of the time repeating steps they've done many times before, all the while deliberately avoiding winning wars in a game where you usually want to efficiently win wars.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
degenerate incentives can be disregarded, but that doesn't change their existence. game designers usually try to avoid them, because they usually want games to be fun. a game giving rewards for a tedious action not tied to otherwise doing well in the game basically gives players an incentive to not play and/or make play more tedious.
Incentive exists, yes. Still, you you need to turn your game into tedium in order to be somewhat better at what you already excel? I still say it's a self-imposed thing.

when players want to compete with each other, they do the degenerate incentive because it provides a tangible advantage, and now the other player has to also do it or be at a disadvantage.
True. But when it comes to competition, just as much fault lies in the ruleset (actual or implied - depending on the type of competition) that bans unorthodox strategies, forcing everything to only be done in a certain way.

I might be wrong, but my impression of an "average competitive MP game" is that USSR that somehow manages to blitz SCW is more likely to get banned for "ruining the game" than be allowed to keep their trophy.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions: