HoI3 1.4 and the future

[unmerged(1823)]

My original plan was for 1.3 to be the "final patch" but obviously it wasn't enough for everyone. However, the amount of actual bugs in it is very small, and its stable.

The main complaints besides a minor amount of bugs is.

a) AI (not good enough at several things)
b) Balance issues (running out of manpower too early, supply system with puppets, etc)
c) Performance (memory leaks, performance in late game, etc)

We are working on all of this for 1.4, and with the help of a public beta like the one we used for 1.3, we hope to make the majority of Hearts of Iron fans happy.

Several things some people dislike or want are outside the scope of patches..
- User-definable theatres. If we ever do this, it would be as part of an expansion as its major feature, as the impact on everything and its develope
- An OOB editor. Not designing the game to have one is the biggest mistake I've made in a long time. But developing one is simply outside the possibilities in a patch.
- Allied cooperation. This is also a rewrite and expansion for the AI that is simply too extensive.
- Surrender mechanics. Tweaks to events are always possible, but the current system for bitter peace and similar are too rigid to a perfect historical result. We need to sit down and redesign the concept entirely.

Something that we will change with the game like..
- "The game is not 100% historical". Yes we know, this is something we want to do with our games, and have been upfront about for 5 years.

Soon we will make an expansion for HoI3, as we promised back in one of the first development diaries, as that is the only way we can provide new content for you.

Feel free to gather your suggestions for what you would like to see in an expansion in this thread, we'll monitor this until its time to write the design document for it.

Anyway, its sunday evening, I've had a long week with work, so please be civil and you may end up getting me to stay in it until i go to bed.

 

[Gladiator]

Before thinking at an expansion, I'd like to see a working military AI. Currently, theaters just do a mess on anything is attached to them. If you mean an expansion would involve some rewrite, then it's very welcome. But to "expand" a buggy game without a proper bugfix, well, I just think it's a nonsense.

I'd like to see paratroopers who only paradrops, garrisons who only sit garrisoning, marines who only perform sea invasions, MP who only face revolts. Can theaters be able to do all above, with an expansion?

 

[unmerged(1823)]

I'd like to see paratroopers who only paradrops, garrisons who only sit garrisoning, marines who only perform sea invasions, MP who only face revolts. Can theaters be able to do all above, with an expansion?

I really doubt it. Its a major drawback of making the game so moddable. Of course it will be improved, but I am not sure it will be as you wish there.

 

[Black Lotus]

Glad to see an honest discussion on the game Johan, do what you can with patches and save the large features for expansions!

 

[Devildread]

What about modding possibilities ?

+ Create division and HQ via event (and choose the name and the model)
+ script the combat AI (via event, choosing the province and the stance)

Are the two missing features we modders desperately need.

Please say a word (yes/no) about it.

 

[Gladiator]

I really doubt it. Its a major drawback of making the game so moddable. Of course it will be improved, but I am not sure it will be as you wish there.

Thanks for answering, and for being honest. In my last AAR, I made some efforts to find an elastic way to use AI. I didn't find, except for what I could detach from theaters.

A pity. This game would have become not just "playable" or "funny", but the state of the art.

 

[brisduv]

Thanks for the frank update, I think what you propose for patch 1.4 will go a long ways to making 'the majority' happy. The Naval aspect of the game currently I find the most lacking, adding CAG's was a big step forward from HOI2 but the results seem less realistic than that game's final (Doomsday) results. IOW naval combat in Doomsday worked rather well, CV's ruled, BB's 2nd, submarines were useful. I think this patch will address some? of this but perhaps tweaks to that system will require an expansion? Thanks again.

 

[David29]

I think it's reassuring at least to see a developer admitting mistakes and also laying down exactly what is and what isn't going to be done in terms of patches and expansions.

Really I'm looking forward mostly to the AI and performance improvements.

 

[delra]

First thing I'd like you guys to rethink and change in the expansion would be the whole naval aspect of the game. Unlimited range of AI, ability to cross blocked straits, ability to always see my fleets when they leave ports, the way AI builds its naval stacks too. I'd like to see more balance between ships and I'd like nations to be able to research and build many different types of them at once rather than picking 2-3 only. Old irritating EU3 system is something that should be rethinked for the sake of all Paradox games, Vicky2 included since it will be a very naval game as well for many nations.

Then I'd like to see improvements in diplomacy, politics and espionage adding a whole new non-combat cloak&dagger dimension to the game. I'd like to feel a difference in running a totalitarian country compared to open society countries. I'd like to see Churchill in power and mechanics that put him in power in real history to be possible to happen in the game. I'd like to see regime changes the way they happened in real history in South America, I'd like to see power struggles inside countries, I'd like someone to try to blow up Hitler for example if he pushes the nation too hard. I'd like spies to matter more, I want investment in defensive spies to be obligatory and want to make offensive spies worth putting investment into as well to cripple enemy, not just raise his threat so can be attacked before historic date. Now the whole non-combat aspect seems flat and empty and not very useful for much since ways you can manipulate other countries are very limited. I want to see scientists running away from totalitarian countries to more open ones. Ability to form exped. forces as GiE the way for example Poles did (Anders and Maczek are already in the game in later scenarios after all). Many more.

Then I'd work on alliances and how they cooperate, share tech (share theoretical across the whole faction for example), help each other militarily. I'd like faction leaders to have actual command over members being able to give them objectives (Germany telling Italy to control Balkans, UK telling Canada and Australia where to patrol with ships). I'd like to be able to puppet regions and annex them back at will (Mengkukuo case mostly but there are many more that could be created, Ukraine for example).

Finally I'd take a long look at units and balance them better against each other. For example the whole mobile practical is currently considered vastly inferior to armor practical unts with higher cost/power ratio especially in the late game. I'd make support brigades stronger adding more finesse and diversity to armies. Currently almost noone builds AA, AT and TD. Make them stronger in normal anti-Inf combat so a typical corps of a player or AI would contain different types of support brigades and won't be weaker than if it contained just Art.

With that done, I'd sit an actor or two down and make them record a few basic voice-overs for the game so it starts talking to me the way Betty talks in Egosoft's X games.

And add-on done.

As a side-project, I'd sit a bored dev or two (researchers/artists seem to have a lot of free time) and make them do a few mini-campaigns like Afrika Corps as DLC which could also be a gift for pre-ordering or the demo for the add-on.

 

[Modo]

Apart from more balance fixes (that one never ends ), I'd suggest the following:

1. Expand the military AI to allow more specific missions. I'm guessing they are already partly there as subroutines. But most important, document the military AI, and open at least parts of it to modding. Even the simple ability to set objectives and stances would be great to have.

2. Add general goals for the control screens' AI. Right now only the sliders have options, other places provide just an on/off switch. An intermediate level of control doesn't exist, so either the AI "breaks" things, or you have to manage everything manually. A goal based system comes to mind.

3. Allow some user interaction with the supply system. Routing supplies through HQs and allowing forced port-to-port connections would be a start.

4. Try to make the general diplomacy options useful. Currently things like alliances (not factions), non-aggression pacts or expeditionary forces work in very weird ways that don't help much, if at all. An ideal approach would make it possible to play with all historical events disabled, and still come close to history, but I guess that might require a rewrite of diplomacy.

5. A high-res aware interface would be nice. Font and window scaling is way overdue in Paradox games.

 

[hito1]

I really like this honest and straight talk. I thank you for that!

 

[unmerged(1823)]

What about modding possibilities ?
+ Create division and HQ via event (and choose the name and the model)

This is doable, and I have had it on my "todo when there is time" list since 1.2. I'll try to look into it asap before the public beta. So a yes for 1.4

What about modding possibilities ?
+ script the combat AI (via event, choosing the province and the stance)

Interaction with the military AI is something that is rather risky. The reason why we have not done it is..

a) the event engine is currently not ideal for handling triggers on units and effects on units. Now that I think off it, it could be something that could be done for an expansion. Like "any_unit, random_unit" scope things, and triggers/effects like "experience, stance, order, leader" and many more.

b) performance, performance.

So its a no for 1.4

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Thanks for the frank update, I think what you propose for patch 1.4 will go a long ways to making 'the majority' happy. The Naval aspect of the game currently I find the most lacking, adding CAG's was a big step forward from HOI2 but the results seem less realistic than that game's final (Doomsday) results. IOW naval combat in Doomsday worked rather well, CV's ruled, BB's 2nd, submarines were useful. I think this patch will address some? of this but perhaps tweaks to that system will require an expansion? Thanks again.

I agree. The naval worked better in Doomsday. I'm not sure adding CAG's was good in the long run, but we'll see what we can do with tweaks, and maybe overhaul the naval aspects entirely for an expansion.

We have done quite alot with submarines for 1.4 though.

 

[jackda]

What do you aim to change for 1.4 :


1/About the paratroopers' design , giving in 1.3 the possibility for entire armies to fly (unrealistic TPs and unadapted supplying for paradropped forces).


2/About the UK manpower that is too high, and SU's wich is far too low?



3/About the weather effectiveness , especially for winter during Barbarossa.


Thanks for giving time to the communauty and answering our questions!

 

[delra]

Can't you create theatres with events?

 

[Devildread]

This is doable, and I have had it on my "todo when there is time" list since 1.2. I'll try to look into it asap before the public beta. So a yes for 1.4



Interaction with the military AI is something that is rather risky. The reason why we have not done it is..

a) the event engine is currently not ideal for handling triggers on units and effects on units. Now that I think off it, it could be something that could be done for an expansion. Like "any_unit, random_unit" scope things, and triggers/effects like "experience, stance, order, leader" and many more.

b) performance, performance.

So its a no for 1.4

I can understand the second point.

About the first I love you. Thanks.

 

[Black Guardian]

What about modding possibilities ?

+ Create division and HQ via event (and choose the name and the model)
+ script the combat AI (via event, choosing the province and the stance)

Are the two missing features we modders desperately need.

Please say a word (yes/no) about it.

Further issues for me as a modder are:

+bug (?!) with doctrine-modding in regards to their effect on units See here

+A trigger for checking which law is in action to enable us modders to play with the political situation of the country much better

I hope these rather simple issues will be addressed in 1.4. so we can finally continue working without thinking about nasty work-arounds.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

I'm not commenting on every single thing here, as lots we need to think about and discuss internally, so don't feel dismayed if you dont get a personal answer from me today.

3. Allow some user interaction with the supply system. Routing supplies through HQs and allowing forced port-to-port connections would be a start.

Making supply depots that exists on the map and demand things to let the network flow through them is a possibility, but we also have to teach the AI how to manage the supplyflow then, which is a major task.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Johan, 1.3 was not anywhere near bugfree as you suggest. Perhaps on look at the surface, but below there are still critical errors with very basic gamemechanics/balance that you as a consumer really think should work out of the box.

Three examples:

# Research improving technologies add nothing.
# Reserve IC cost calculated wrong, leading to extremely low build-costs for reserves and huge armies.
# 75-100 Carrier airplanes (2xCAGs) cost more industry to build then an entire Battleship.

Such things are just not good.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Further issues for me as a modder are:

+bug (?!) with doctrine-modding in regards to their effect on units See here

+A trigger for checking which law is in action to enable us modders to play with the political situation of the country much better

I hope these rather simple issues will be addressed in 1.4. so we can finally continue working without thinking about nasty work-arounds.

I don't understand the first comment.

Adding a trigger to check laws is trivial, I'll get in into my list asap.