The map looks really dumbed down, geographically incorrect etc. makes me sad panda, the HoI3 one was perfect, province number disputable ofc. (I see the pre alpha tag, don't worry)
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.
To be honest, the HoI3 map was anything but geographically correct
And I'm not talking about alpha either. I think it was not until TFH, with a joint effort between Paradox and the community, that they managed to improve it to more realistic levels (and even then only in the most important theaters).
Since Victoria II Paradox seems to be using pretty much the same map (as far as continental borders are concerned), and IMO, that is a pretty good map. Darkest Hour's map is also great. But HoI3? Nah, not really
Personally I'm not crazy about the colors, but otherwise I really like it. Let's see how it develops.
To be honest, the HoI3 map was anything but geographically correct
And I'm not talking about alpha either. I think it was not until TFH, with a joint effort between Paradox and the community, that they managed to improve it to more realistic levels (and even then only in the most important theaters).
Since Victoria II Paradox seems to be using pretty much the same map (as far as continental borders are concerned), and IMO, that is a pretty good map. Darkest Hour's map is also great. But HoI3? Nah, not really
Personally I'm not crazy about the colors, but otherwise I really like it. Let's see how it develops.
I meant the final version ofc, in TFH =D. This kind of looks cartoony... I support the darkening method to simulate topography, would be even better if it could look 3d like in CK2 map. From what I see on this screenshot the Adriatic is catastrophic, but it is pre alpha guess they will improve on it allot.
Last edited:
there is in HoI4
Were you guys inspired at all by War in the Pacific?
I'm getting a lot of vibes that it has had some influence (which I'm perfectly okay with!!!).
I see there is quite some effort in making the game prettier, and that´s nice. Not only map but also the other parts of the interface.
On the other hand considering that, well, no country had experience with USING carriers in war before 1939, I wonder how important experience actually will be in designing units. Japan CAGs were better than british ones for a long time... and you can´t say it was due to 'experience".
On the other hand considering that, well, no country had experience with USING carriers in war before 1939, I wonder how important experience actually will be in designing units. Japan CAGs were better than british ones for a long time... and you can´t say it was due to 'experience".
Nah, we can wait a bit more. Personally I want Victoria 3 to be next.
Looking the map again and Czechoslovakia is pretty big compared to Hungary eh... Accurate?
Looking the map again and Czechoslovakia is pretty big compared to Hungary eh... Accurate?
Except for the tiny fact that Japan had been extensively using their Carrier aircraft to attack Chinese ships, aircraft and land targets since 1937
That is where they learned the lesson that biplanes like the A4N and fixed landing gear designs like the A5N was not cutting it as they encountered stiff resistance from comparably simple land based counterparts.
Ground support is a bit different from carrier action, specially using torpedoes and fighters.
Besides it´s not like they bombed the chinese EVERY day for months. What´s your source on how ground support was done using carriers? How often they were done?
Besides it´s not like they bombed the chinese EVERY day for months. What´s your source on how ground support was done using carriers? How often they were done?
There's no way of knowing, Google only has HoI2 and HoI3 maps of 1936...
I don't really see the relevance of this. How many of the "real" carrier battles went on EVERY day for months?
And how much harder is it to hit a 200 meter ship with bombs compared to a 5 meter truck / bridge?
Japan had real wartime experience of carrier aviation and dogfights in 1937, and this experience without doubt helped them design both better carrier aircraft and carrier designs.
The colours of the nations don't look nice :/ Darken them up to give them the right feeling.. :3 Other than that this looks bloody amazing D
D
Pretty silly example
By 1943 AND carrier attacks on Chongqing? You know how inland that is right?Really, at least stop to read what you post before posting it. That isn´t a source. That´s rubbish.
I´m not saying they didn´t do it. I´m aksing how many times they did. One week of bombing isn´t enough "experience" to have better CAGs than UK, which IS my point. I´m just wondering how important experience will be.
Pretty silly example
Really, at least stop to read what you post before posting it. That isn´t a source. That´s rubbish.
I´m not saying they didn´t do it. I´m aksing how many times they did. One week of bombing isn´t enough "experience" to have better CAGs than UK, which IS my point. I´m just wondering how important experience will be.
First, they starting bombing in 1938. 2 years before 1940 and it wasn't one time. It was 218 bombing campaigns, each consisting of several flights of planes.
Here's an excerpt, (translated from the Chinese by me so the grammar's a bit wonky) from Admiral Shigeru Shimada Taro's memorandum
That's a month in 1940.
Second, the Republic of China Airforce started the war with Boeing P-26's and Curtis Hawks. The first dogfights between metal monoplanes ever, in the world, happened over China. The first American ace of the war was Arthur Chin who racked up 6 victories flying for the Chinese airforce.
Third, In 1938, the Soviets sent hundreds (yes, hundreds) of I-15, and I -16 fighters to China with the pilots to fly them. All of these planes were eventually shot down by the Japanese army and navy airforces. The Japanese air forces of both branches fought them continuously for the early part of the war.
Fourth, despite how far inland they were and as I pointed out earlier, it was a joint bombing operation between the Army and Navy airforce. The Navy wasn't doing anything else with it's carriers from 1938 to 1941, they sent their pilots onto terrestrial bases to attack ground targets and to maintain air superiority.
This is great that we can create new variants, however from now until release, what I would like to know about HoI4 more than anything else is what happens next when a new type/variant of tank is produced and how does that affect my divisions?
If I start making Panthers instead of Panzer 4’s, how does this effect a medium tank brigades statistics for both current and future tank units? Or will it not because there will be separate Pz 3, Pz 4 brigades, Panther brigades etc? Though what happens to the tank brigade when that tank type is no longer being produced and/or there is none left in the production pool of that type of tank?
I’m desperately clinging on to hope that you will say each individual brigade will be comprised of a single tank type (don’t care about variants) and that they can track losses, and automatically pull in replacements of the same tank type from a pool of completed units. But I’m guessing you’re going to take the easy route and that all having varying tank types will do is “average out” a median statistic for all current and future tank brigades.
Could you please please expand on this.
This question was answered in the comments of one of the other Dev diaries. The answer was that a brigade of medium tanks is going to pull reinforcements from your pool of medium tanks, whatever their model. You have limited control based on prioritizing reinforcements and such, but I don't think you can specify which brigades get which models.
I think by the division 'template' unless you change the division elements it would keep drawing on older tank models
til your out of them (such as PZIIIs to PZIVs or PZII lights to PZIII mediums). I could be wrong but that would keep
older models in till you have enough to upgrade and change the divisions template to the new elements.
til your out of them (such as PZIIIs to PZIVs or PZII lights to PZIII mediums). I could be wrong but that would keep
older models in till you have enough to upgrade and change the divisions template to the new elements.
The light to medium transition would be preserved because those count as different types, but I don't think it's going to be able to differentiate between PzIII's and panthers.
Bugger, I thought I had combed through that diary about the templates but must have missed it. So does that mean a medium tank brigade/battalion which was created say in July 1940 with a bunch of medium Pz 3 tanks and sits on the Atlantic wall for three years and does not see any action/incur any losses, will it still have the same or less statistics than a new medium tank brigade created in July 1943 formed entirely from newly created Panther models?
Thanks for the responses