Just the (official) response I was hoping for.there is in HoI4*runs back into hiding*
Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 8 - Experience and Variants
- 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.
there is in HoI4
I wish AA are at least "simulated" for long range, medium range and short range. Because if a 100mm+ has good enough range to "protect" the fleet, the bofors 40 maybe covering a close ship, but 20mm shouldn't count toward a "global AA pool".
Anyway you can't hide for long, we'll find you and make sure you spite the algorithms!
I wonder what other stats are fleet-wide.
But this is much better approach than boring HOI3 random sea combat.
But this is much better approach than boring HOI3 random sea combat.
@Paradox
Can we please add in the tooltips at the bottom the increase in cost in materials and in time. I know it's alpha, but we will need this to know whether its a good idea to build 1 carrier with 4 points in Hangar space or 2 with 1 point in hangar space. The difference could be hundreds of days and possibly several materials per day.
Can we please add in the tooltips at the bottom the increase in cost in materials and in time. I know it's alpha, but we will need this to know whether its a good idea to build 1 carrier with 4 points in Hangar space or 2 with 1 point in hangar space. The difference could be hundreds of days and possibly several materials per day.
I'm getting excited. This is one of the things I really want from a HoI game.
I apologise if somebody has already said this but will there be a similar thing for infantry? Like, I understand that the majority of standard infantry used by various countries were very similar but will we have the option of different "variants" of standard infantry? For example, the US infantry having M1 Garands. For example, using this system on infantry, could the Germans or British choose to have semi-automatic rifle.
I understand this isn't so important, I was just wondering.
I apologise if somebody has already said this but will there be a similar thing for infantry? Like, I understand that the majority of standard infantry used by various countries were very similar but will we have the option of different "variants" of standard infantry? For example, the US infantry having M1 Garands. For example, using this system on infantry, could the Germans or British choose to have semi-automatic rifle.
I understand this isn't so important, I was just wondering.
I never got in to HOI3 but after reading dev diary after dev diary i can't wait i just hope i will learn how to play this game once and for all
i just hope i will learn how to play this game once and for all
there is in HoI4
Awh you guys. Now I wish you did expand the game to continue from 1950 onward as East v. West originally was going to take place in.
Missile Cruisers FTW!
Great. Another game that will be unplayable without flatmap mod. Patton would punch soldier that gave him crumpled map.
Fleetwide aa is important because it was the reality of navy vs air.
US after war calculation showed that about 34% of the planes that came in range of navy aa was destroyed while opponent planes only had 2% chance to score hit on the ships, togther with aircover it cost enemies around 80 planes for a single hit (not inculding kamikaze who had much better chance at a hit).
Excellent DD, from a design perspective HoI4 looks to really be heading in a great direction . Big props to Podcat/Darkrenown/anyone else involved for getting a DD out just before the gathering/Gamescom .
Only thing I'd add to the discussion was that I wouldn't be terribly worried whether there was a cap for XP or not. As long as XP gain is sensibly balanced, if a country didn't use any of their XP, but save it up for an uber-destroyer/tank/interceptor/start in 1943, say, then for the first 2-4 years of the way they'll be fighting with equipment that's poorly optimised for the situation, because they won't have improved it based on their war experience. From a land perspective, if the division structure is based on the same land XP as tank design (which I'm guessing it probably will be, or there'll be a lot of different XP pools and that'd start to get a bit micro-ey - I'm not personally against this, but could see it not getting up on that count) then you'd have to survive for half the war with substandard equipment, then be putting your super tanks into a less advanced division structure. I'd expect any 'XP saving' for the future to balance out in gameplay with the costs it would impose on the present.
Great news.
. Big props to Podcat/Darkrenown/anyone else involved for getting a DD out just before the gathering/Gamescom .Only thing I'd add to the discussion was that I wouldn't be terribly worried whether there was a cap for XP or not. As long as XP gain is sensibly balanced, if a country didn't use any of their XP, but save it up for an uber-destroyer/tank/interceptor/start in 1943, say, then for the first 2-4 years of the way they'll be fighting with equipment that's poorly optimised for the situation, because they won't have improved it based on their war experience. From a land perspective, if the division structure is based on the same land XP as tank design (which I'm guessing it probably will be, or there'll be a lot of different XP pools and that'd start to get a bit micro-ey - I'm not personally against this, but could see it not getting up on that count) then you'd have to survive for half the war with substandard equipment, then be putting your super tanks into a less advanced division structure. I'd expect any 'XP saving' for the future to balance out in gameplay with the costs it would impose on the present.
there is in HoI4
Great news
.
Rome II with a 2.5KM speed? That, my friends, is classic "Fleet in Being" strategy! :laugh:
I am sure those figures are correct, but there was a dramatic difference between AA at Coral Sea and AA at Leyte Gulf. At the beginning of the war, and especially in the Atlantic and Med, fleetwide AA was spotty at best. I agree with your general point,but just sayin.
there is in HoI4
It existed in HOI3, too. It was called CAGs.
Seriously, though, this sounds like it has tons of potential.
I am sure those figures are correct, but there was a dramatic difference between AA at Coral Sea and AA at Leyte Gulf. At the beginning of the war, and especially in the Atlantic and Med, fleetwide AA was spotty at best. I agree with your general point,but just sayin.
Absolutely Chaplain!
And I think the difference was the so-called radar proximity fuse (AKA VT) that The Allies didn't dare use in Europe for fear of it being duplicated and used to put an abrupt end to the bomber campaign over Germany. *
I think it's important that their is a fleet wide AA mechanic but it's at least equally important that it's done correctly. It would be far too easy to make it over-powered by adding it all up like HoI III does against Port Strike.
For example, if you've got your CV surrounded by, say, four CLs & 8 DDs to keep the example simple. The escorts would be in "shells" like electrons orbiting a nucleus. And they'd be quite spread-out too. And I mean miles apart as a Kate will cover four miles in a minute it's essential in order to bring down the attackers before they get in to firing range. It's easy to see from this that a torpedo bomber only has to fly near (everything is relative) to, perhaps, two DDs & one CL to get in to an attack position on the CV. That represents only a quarter of the available AA in addition to the CV herself. Clearly, there's a law of diminishing returns as a third outer "shell" would require twice as many ships (16) and only one or two would be able to engage an incoming attacker.
Now dive bombers have a much easier time of it. Coming (almost) straight down, the (outer "shell") DDs don't get to fire until they're on their way out, leaving only one (inner "shell") CL that might be able to fire in addition to the target.
Please remember that whilst it may well be that a third of the planes to come within range of US fleet AA may have been destroyed, the vast majority of the 80 required for a hit were brought down by defending fighters NOT AAA!
EDIT * I've seen quotes that the VT made AA between 20 & 50 times (WTF?) more effective!
Last edited:
Its the 40mm bofors and 20mm that made AAA much more effective. The VT fuse helped the 5 inchers on US ships but
the rate of fire and targeting, even with radar, did not match the close in killing power of metal that the 40s and 20s put
into the air in front of aircraft at lower altitudes.
The Japanese tried 'rocket projectors' on their ships for AAA and also their main guns up to the 18 inchers on the Yamato
could fire a 'shotgun' AAA round (that didn't work well at all tho).
the rate of fire and targeting, even with radar, did not match the close in killing power of metal that the 40s and 20s put
into the air in front of aircraft at lower altitudes.
The Japanese tried 'rocket projectors' on their ships for AAA and also their main guns up to the 18 inchers on the Yamato
could fire a 'shotgun' AAA round (that didn't work well at all tho).
Not that I am not grateful for this, but I wish you just waited till after the event and made a full diary then. But like I said, I am thankful for this one.