Dev Diary #6 -Production & Buildings - 15.October 2009

[Alex_brunius]

Regarding the training time issue, what is really missing is some resource quantity for the "training capacity" - basically the number of experienced officers and (especially) NCOs that can be spared to train the new influx. I have some ideas, but I'm still thinking through how to handle it; it's not a complete disaster the way it stands, but there may be an elegant way to do better...

If these values could be added (prefferably one each for nations Navy/Airforce/Army) then so much more could be modelled. Like the Kriegsmarines struggle to expand many times over in a very short time or the IJN Airforce problems to train replacement pilots (At least for its land based aircrafts if not CVs somehow could be flagged as aircrafts/airforce too in this aspect).

Perhaps the training for each branch could have an upkeep cost of oil/supplies/money and result in a modified experience value derived from the base xp value from slider. If possible this cost should also be effected by reinforcements needed, construction & by size of force. Pretty complex stuff to figure out in a good way, must be even harder to code and balance.

Not sure how it could affect production though, the most intuitive way Imo is increased buildtime but unchanged buildcost in ICdays. Or the slightly more complex method suggested by Cueball effecting it through gearing.

 

[Carmir]

This game seems more and more interesting with every new information you give us. I'm "spreading the voice" translating your DDs into spanish in Foro Elite - an Unofficial Paradox Forum for the spanish speaking community-, and your work is creating great expectation. In fact lines such as "wow, this is how the game SHOULD have been from the start" are a common reaction to each DD

Some forumites, after reading this DD and realizing the great possibilites of the new system, have a suggestion/question/petition for you I've been trusted to communicate:

Could it be possible to upgrade tech-teams levels through monetary funding? Will there be a possibility to upgrade tech-team efficiency through some kind of player action?

Thank you very much

 

[Delta107]

This is going to be a very good game, congratz!

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Well, about training divisions and gearing, remeber that the normal cost evaluating the build cost of building units is IC*Days and you have all been focusing on days. How about a mechanic where gearing for ships and the like reduce the number of days and for units reduce IC requirement/day?

 

[Der Bismarck]

Will new user defined buildings be easily moddible?

 

[Chief Savage Ma]

This is going to be an awesome game. Where do I preorder?

 

[Fürstbischof]

Restricting the deployment of newly built ships

In HOI2-DDA you can deploy your new ships in any coastal province which can trace a land supply line to your capital. I.e. Germany, Italy and Russia benefit the most from this rule, because they can deploy their new ships directly to South Africa, India or the Mediterranean. This is highly unrealistic and a gamey tactic. Since island states like UK and Japan already place their new ships in their home provinces, it seems appropriate to follow this approach. Therefore we have 3 alternatives to implement a proper solution.

a) Link the deployment of new ships to the size of the naval base (e.g. CVs, BBs and BCs only in level 9-10 naval bases, CVLs and all Cruisers in level 6+ naval bases, and so on) This'd rule out the smaller captured bases so that larger warships must be deployed to your home bases. But since transports only require a less developed naval industry, they can be placed as usual - but, do we want this loophole?

Infrastructure plays in AOD a more important role, therefore it might be useful to further refine this approach by demanding a certain level of infrastructure (100%?). This'd simulate that only highly industrialized/developed countries/provinces can construct ships/warships and therefore rule out most captured naval bases.

b) Limit the deployment of new ships to your core provinces. This'd treat all majors equally and stop the known abuses.

c) Introduce a new provincial building called "Naval Shipyard". This would limit the deployment of new ships to those provinces, which historically built ships. A positive side effect of this new building'd be that we get another target for our bombers.

 

[Blecky]

In HOI2-DDA you can deploy your new ships in any coastal province which can trace a land supply line to your capital. I.e. Germany, Italy and Russia benefit the most from this rule, because they can deploy their new ships directly to South Africa, India or the Mediterranean. This is highly unrealistic and a gamey tactic. Since island states like UK and Japan already place their new ships in their home provinces, it seems appropriate to follow this approach. Therefore we have 3 alternatives to implement a proper solution.

a) Link the deployment of new ships to the size of the naval base (e.g. CVs, BBs and BCs only in level 9-10 naval bases, CVLs and all Cruisers in level 6+ naval bases, and so on) This'd rule out the smaller captured bases so that larger warships must be deployed to your home bases. But since transports only require a less developed naval industry, they can be placed as usual - but, do we want this loophole?

Infrastructure plays in AOD a more important role, therefore it might be useful to further refine this approach by demanding a certain level of infrastructure (100%?). This'd simulate that only highly industrialized/developed countries/provinces can construct ships/warships and therefore rule out most captured naval bases.

b) Limit the deployment of new ships to your core provinces. This'd treat all majors equally and stop the known abuses.

c) Introduce a new provincial building called "Naval Shipyard". This would limit the deployment of new ships to those provinces, which historically built ships. A positive side effect of this new building'd be that we get another target for our bombers.

IIRC it is now possible to deploy units in provinces where you have enough IC to build those units even if not connected to your home country. This would rule out option b). As for the other two approaches I assume that c) should be the easiest to implement. You could build them in levels like ports. This way it would be difficult to stomp out a naval base capable to construct BB´s in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Balesir]

In another thread:

What i'd like to avoid is to state, where the keel of a new ship is laid down, while i'm giving the construction order.

Can I ask why you want to avoid this? Giving a deployment province for any unit at the point it is first added to the Production queue seems to me to be:

- the most realistic way to handle unit deployment

- a good way to avoid exploitation of newly placed bases to suddenly reinforce distant conquests

- more fun and challenging in the game as it requires more forethought and planning, and

- a good way to encourage the careful consideration and execution of base building (and expansion, if combined with minimum base size requirements for certain units).

What do you find wrong with it?

(This is an honest question - we have not implemented it or anything like it, but we have been considering something to add control in this area for just the reasons discussed above; feedback/comments/opinions would be helpful).

 

[Fürstbischof]

IIRC it is now possible to deploy units in provinces where you have enough IC to build those units even if not connected to your home country. This would rule out option b).

b) is the quick and dirty approach which would be very nasty for minors on WC...

Regarding building units abroad i found this:

... - but at least let me tell that if you gain enough productive IC in remote places, we allow placement of units there (unit produced remotely) These mechanics are of course optional and can be accessed in misc.txt. This comes in handy for places like India(UK) or Korea(Japan).

Balancing factors are for example the slow growing province efficiency (for those who didn’t get it before – it’s a value showing the productivity of the province – a quick conquest will not give you any great gain for a long time even if many factories where captured intact – it also replaces the previously hidden non national and non annexed values from misc.txt).

It seems that - with a dedicated effort - both Japan and UK should be able to deploy units abroad. The question is what's the threshold? And the province efficiency, which should be lower for the conqueror than for the owner, may be a insurmountable obstacle.

As for the other two approaches I assume that c) should be the easiest to implement. You could build them in levels like ports. This way it would be difficult to stomp out a naval base capable to construct BB´s in the middle of nowhere.

Yes, a shipyard which can have (up to 10?) levels would nicely combine a) and c).

 

[Fürstbischof]

In another thread:

What i'd like to avoid is to state, where the keel of a new ship is laid down, while i'm giving the construction order.

Can I ask why you want to avoid this? Giving a deployment province for any unit at the point it is first added to the Production queue seems to me to be:

- the most realistic way to handle unit deployment

- a good way to avoid exploitation of newly placed bases to suddenly reinforce distant conquests

- more fun and challenging in the game as it requires more forethought and planning, and

- a good way to encourage the careful consideration and execution of base building (and expansion, if combined with minimum base size requirements for certain units).

What do you find wrong with it?

Nothing, it'd be fine, since it's the most natural way.

But at this stage of development i don't expect the devs to totally reorganize production, honestly. It'd allow a few intriguing features (capture of ships before completion, bombing of incomplete ships), but the implementation seems to be a huge task. I've seen many interesting proposals during the last months, which seldom got the appropriate attention - by us and you. (ofc we don't know if they got your attention, since your internal discussions indeed are internal) But many seemed to be too complicated. Therefore our discussion centered on the idea of a quick fix, which'd give us the desired result. That is imo the only way to have a chance to see it implemented.

And as it seems your above proposal was rejected because of this reasons?

(This is an honest question - we have not implemented it or anything like it, but we have been considering something to add control in this area for just the reasons discussed above; feedback/comments/opinions would be helpful).

Maybe it's the time to gather all wishes in one thread (like FTG) which'd be moderated by the devs or a volunteer. The first post'd give a summary of all proposals and their actual status (green-yellow-red). This'd allow for an open discussion which features are deemed worthwhile by the customers or impossible by the devs. This should lead to a short list of worthwhile improvements upon which we can vote, so that they can be added in later patches.

If we'd be playing the game already we might see that many of our wishes have come true. But atm we simply don't know what's going on or what are your further plans. Therefore it seems to be a good idea to get more in contact with us and keep the discussions going on until release.

 

[Titan79]

(...) Giving a deployment province for any unit at the point it is first added to the Production queue seems to me to be:

- the most realistic way to handle unit deployment

- a good way to avoid exploitation of newly placed bases to suddenly reinforce distant conquests

- more fun and challenging in the game as it requires more forethought and planning, and

- a good way to encourage the careful consideration and execution of base building (and expansion, if combined with minimum base size requirements for certain units).

What do you find wrong with it?

(This is an honest question - we have not implemented it or anything like it, but we have been considering something to add control in this area for just the reasons discussed above; feedback/comments/opinions would be helpful).

IMO, this would be the best way to handle new ships/units deployment: linking them to a certain province every time you set up a unit/line of units. That could lead to another interesting "side effect": being able to bomb specific production lines (or single produced units). Then we would need, too, the option to roughly know where the enemy has its (main) production lines - and that information could be gathered via espionage somehow.
Too difficult? I don't know - and hope not. But tell me honestly if it wouldn't be a great feature!

(...)
Maybe it's the time to gather all wishes in one thread (like FTG) which'd be moderated by the devs or a volunteer. The first post'd give a summary of all proposals and their actual status (green-yellow-red). This'd allow for an open discussion which features are deemed worthwhile by the customers or impossible by the devs. This should lead to a short list of worthwhile improvements upon which we can vote, so that they can be added in later patches.

If we'd be playing the game already we might see that many of our wishes have come true. But atm we simply don't know what's going on or what are your further plans. Therefore it seems to be a good idea to get more in contact with us and keep the discussions going on until release.

I'm definitely on this one. A unified, multi-colored and moderated wish thread would greatly help to understand what's already been implemented and what's not. Much like the threads you devs used to write some time ago about ARMA enhancement and which are readable in Lennartos' signature...

 

[Balesir]

It seems that - with a dedicated effort - both Japan and UK should be able to deploy units abroad. The question is what's the threshold?

Moddable (misc.txt)

The default is still being tweaked, but somewhere around 20 - 40 IC in the contiguous land area to allow unit placement seems likely.

And the province efficiency, which should be lower for the conqueror than for the owner, may be a insurmountable obstacle.

It just means you have to wait a bit...

Nothing, it'd be fine, since it's the most natural way.

But at this stage of development i don't expect the devs to totally reorganize production, honestly. It'd allow a few intriguing features (capture of ships before completion, bombing of incomplete ships), but the implementation seems to be a huge task.

OK - this feature won't be in the initial release but it might be added later. A simple version might come in a patch, but all the features you list might only be practical in some sort of add-on, if that is ever justified.

IMO, this would be the best way to handle new ships/units deployment: linking them to a certain province every time you set up a unit/line of units. That could lead to another interesting "side effect": being able to bomb specific production lines (or single produced units). Then we would need, too, the option to roughly know where the enemy has its (main) production lines - and that information could be gathered via espionage somehow.
Too difficult? I don't know - and hope not. But tell me honestly if it wouldn't be a great feature!

I think it would be a great feature, indeed! The sad truth is, however, that we have far too many good ideas and "fixes" we want to implement to do them all in any reasonable time period. It's a question of priorities, and not all the good ideas can be fitted in. There are also areas where there is no "idea", as such - just a "we really need to make this work better" but we don't know how, yet. Carrier operations is a good example of this; the current model (even with the tweaks we have made) is flawed, we know that - we just don't have a really good alternative, yet, so we stick with what we have.

Maybe it's the time to gather all wishes in one thread (like FTG) which'd be moderated by the devs or a volunteer. The first post'd give a summary of all proposals and their actual status (green-yellow-red). This'd allow for an open discussion which features are deemed worthwhile by the customers or impossible by the devs. This should lead to a short list of worthwhile improvements upon which we can vote, so that they can be added in later patches.

This would be a good idea, if there is some kind volunteer who would put it together. I don't know how we go about getting moderation set up, but for the time being wyK1NG and I could respond to requests from the volunteer while we sort it out.

 

[Titan79]

IMO, this would be the best way to handle new ships/units deployment: linking them to a certain province every time you set up a unit/line of units. That could lead to another interesting "side effect": being able to bomb specific production lines (or single produced units). Then we would need, too, the option to roughly know where the enemy has its (main) production lines - and that information could be gathered via espionage somehow.
Too difficult? I don't know - and hope not. But tell me honestly if it wouldn't be a great feature!

I think it would be a great feature, indeed! The sad truth is, however, that we have far too many good ideas and "fixes" we want to implement to do them all in any reasonable time period. It's a question of priorities, and not all the good ideas can be fitted in. There are also areas where there is no "idea", as such - just a "we really need to make this work better" but we don't know how, yet. Carrier operations is a good example of this; the current model (even with the tweaks we have made) is flawed, we know that - we just don't have a really good alternative, yet, so we stick with what we have.

Well, if this only means that we'll have to wait for a future patch to see this implemented, I say: no problem. The real issue here is whether you want/can do such a fix or not... and I hope the answer is "yes", no matter if it will be in AoD 1.0 or 1.8 or whatever.

 

[Fürstbischof]

I'm definitely on this one. A unified, multi-colored and moderated wish thread would greatly help to understand what's already been implemented and what's not. Much like the threads you devs used to write some time ago about ARMA enhancement and which are readable in Lennartos' signature...

To my own shame i've to admit that i have seen his pages a long time ago but have simply forgotten them since then. But those threads are long dead now and no longer appropriate for the new game. They're a very good example none the less.

 

[Fürstbischof]

It seems that - with a dedicated effort - both Japan and UK should be able to deploy units abroad. The question is what's the threshold?

Moddable (misc.txt)

The default is still being tweaked, but somewhere around 20 - 40 IC in the contiguous land area to allow unit placement seems likely.

Then we'll see british deployments to India. Very nice.

And the province efficiency, which should be lower for the conqueror than for the owner, may be a insurmountable obstacle.

It just means you have to wait a bit...

I'm sure all players of Japan like to hear this.

Nothing, it'd be fine, since it's the most natural way.

But at this stage of development i don't expect the devs to totally reorganize production, honestly. It'd allow a few intriguing features (capture of ships before completion, bombing of incomplete ships), but the implementation seems to be a huge task.

OK - this feature won't be in the initial release but it might be added later. A simple version might come in a patch, but all the features you list might only be practical in some sort of add-on, if that is ever justified.

These features aren't proposed by me, but'll definitely be on the wishlists of many players. A workable solution for this problem is more important for me.

IMO, this would be the best way to handle new ships/units deployment: linking them to a certain province every time you set up a unit/line of units. That could lead to another interesting "side effect": being able to bomb specific production lines (or single produced units). Then we would need, too, the option to roughly know where the enemy has its (main) production lines - and that information could be gathered via espionage somehow.
Too difficult? I don't know - and hope not. But tell me honestly if it wouldn't be a great feature!

I think it would be a great feature, indeed! The sad truth is, however, that we have far too many good ideas and "fixes" we want to implement to do them all in any reasonable time period. It's a question of priorities, and not all the good ideas can be fitted in. There are also areas where there is no "idea", as such - just a "we really need to make this work better" but we don't know how, yet. Carrier operations is a good example of this; the current model (even with the tweaks we have made) is flawed, we know that - we just don't have a really good alternative, yet, so we stick with what we have.

Maybe you'd set up a thread dedicated to those areas you deem wortwhile to improve? A common brainstorming may offer a few fresh ideas...

(re:carrier ops i may have a few ideas, but maybe later)

Maybe it's the time to gather all wishes in one thread (like FTG) which'd be moderated by the devs or a volunteer. The first post'd give a summary of all proposals and their actual status (green-yellow-red). This'd allow for an open discussion which features are deemed worthwhile by the customers or impossible by the devs. This should lead to a short list of worthwhile improvements upon which we can vote, so that they can be added in later patches.

This would be a good idea, if there is some kind volunteer who would put it together. I don't know how we go about getting moderation set up, but for the time being wyK1NG and I could respond to requests from the volunteer while we sort it out.

It'd be nice to see it before the release but atm are more important things to do.

 

[unmerged(34304)]

As I understand now not all factories works 100% well in provinces. Now there is multiplier, which has each province. In some provinces it is about 123%, in some 80%. Please, can you write the formula, how it is calculated?

For example Italy '36. We have two provinces: Tripoly, LBY and Taranto. They are equal, but IC efficiency multiplier is different! In Tripoly it is 99%, in Taranto - 90%!!!