HOI4 Bonus Diary! - Modding & 1.9 Patchlog

[AP Erebus]

@podcat
So are we really not going to get an answer as to why this hasn't been fixed? Modders can do it, why can't the devs?

I would assume it's because all things need priorisation and that this bug didn't make the cut.

Has the bug been logged in the bug forum? If so, then it's probably in the bug tracking system and the answer is then: they just didn't get time to fix it.

 

[NilsFabian]

- Salchak Toka of Tannu Tuva now has a unique portrait

Well that is a spoiler.
Tanu Tuva focus tree alongside the Soviet focus tree confirmed.

AltHistory element? Salchak Toka confirmed secretary general of the USSR, capital Kyzyl

 

[sekelsenmat]

Has the bug been logged in the bug forum?

Multiple times.

 

[stefffff1871]

just to be sure: the old macedonian border for bulgaria wont be fixed anymore? pre-MTG i mean

 

[cTrix]

I dont think that has been mentioned yet but it says in the patch notes that screen ratio should be 3 instead of 4 now but in the influencer build that wasn't the case.

 

[Xuanzue]

I see, vanilla still allow minors to provoke coups in 2 majors simoultaneusly.

 

[TheKillingJoke]

I see, vanilla still allow minors to provoke coups in 2 majors simoultaneusly.

I dont see the problem?

 

[Xuanzue]

I dont see the problem?

in HoI3 that could not happen. a feature removed in the releases of HoI4 and put behind a paywall 4 years later.

 

[Riekopo]

I was just thinking about the new DLC and I realized something which happened historically during the war. And that is mass disinformation campaigns to deceive the enemy. Like the Allies did before D-Day. And secretly building up forces for a secret attack like the Germans did for the Battle of the Bulge. I think the Devs need to make these things possible.

Maybe a 'Radio Silence' command could be used to try to hide Divisions you want to secretly move into position.

 

[llib]

Scanned through bugfix list using "ships", "modules", "engine". Nada. Huh, thinking, maybe they used some other word... reads through the full list... and nada... Huh, thinking, it's long list, maybe they skipped it, someone else would have noticed if missing as well, so let's seee...

By the way, does this mean that the bug with ship armor/engine defaults is not fixed??? I see no mention of it.
Example bug report (there are multiple ones): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...1-8-2-bb-ship-armor-module-is-bugged.1328711/

No....

Oh so it's not just me, I was wondering if I was blind, but yup...it's not there

Nonononono...

I’m struggling to understand how hard it can be to fix the ship module bug.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Cmon guys, last expansion reworked naval, things like this were introduced(or at least reported) in last patch for that, it's the same situation as was with the major expansion before where carrier planes had huge issues, and this new one still isn't fixed one year later with next expansion? Seriously?
I don't mean to underappreciate all the great work you did, but I would really really hope that this was fixed and just forgotten for the fix list. Because otherwise we are left again and again with versions that have very obvious bug in the naval part of the game, and this time one that really doesn't seem to justify anything like justification that was used previously for carrier planes issues in naval combat - this should not be that difficult to fix!
*sigh*

EDIT: Above post is written as a result of for very long time being extremely frustrated over and over with the start modules things, holding off for rather long time, because surely this would be fixed for the expansion, along with lot of wonderful new features...

 

[Baron Jukaga]

All I saw is the nerfed Firepower doctrine. What is this abomination?

 

[Harin]

I hope I haven't used this one before, but here's a pic of one of the more expensive warship mods ever undertaken (at least of a ship that had already been commissioned in its original form):

What ship is this? The tower and plane look Japanese, but I do not think I have ever since this ship before.

 

[DicRoNero]

What ship is this? The tower and plane look Japanese, but I do not think I have ever since this ship before.

Ise or its sistership, I guess.

 

[llib]

All I saw is the nerfed Firepower doctrine. What is this abomination?

If you mean what I wrote, it's a problem that starting ships have wrong modules (wrong as different then they should have according to the database), meaning some ships that should have decent speed even by later game standard (like HMS Hood, Renown class, whole bunch of cruisers - and that's just speaking Royal Navy), are very slow. This makes them problematic later on to more significant extent than they should be. In theory it should be fixable by upgrading(unless there is another bug I forgot about), but that costs more than new ship would(given that both engine and armor require replacement in some cases), and would be stupid to do for most nations, and of course doesn't take care for the AI.
If you don't care for the naval part of the game or naval history, maybe it's completely insignificant(and even is exploitable against ai because starting ships are much weaker if you manage to build some modern ones), but for those of us that do... well, enough written.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

If you mean what I wrote, it's a problem that starting ships have wrong modules (wrong as different then they should have according to the database), meaning some ships that should have decent speed even by later game standard (like HMS Hood, Renown class, whole bunch of cruisers - and that's just speaking Royal Navy), are very slow. This makes them problematic later on to more significant extent than they should be. In theory it should be fixable by upgrading(unless there is another bug I forgot about), but that costs more than new ship would(given that both engine and armor require replacement in some cases), and would be stupid to do for most nations, and of course doesn't take care for the AI.
If you don't care for the naval part of the game or naval history, maybe it's completely insignificant(and even is exploitable against ai because starting ships are much weaker if you manage to build some modern ones), but for those of us that do... well, enough written.

No I do care about the naval side very much! I was just half joking that I stopped reading the changes when I saw they nerfed firepower doctrine from +20% SA to +10% SA

 

[PowerfulShade]

If I have a field marshall, will I get this DLC?

 

[Axe99]

What ship is this? The tower and plane look Japanese, but I do not think I have ever since this ship before.

@DicRoNero is on the money - I can't remember whether it's Ise or Hyuga (edited - I originally had Haruna, because clearly any Japanese capital ship starting with H will do.....) (although, given the small number of photos of either, I doubt it'd be too hard to find out). Both had their two aftmost turrets removed and replaced with a deck with catapults on it, for handling seaplanes, to enable them to have some capacity to operate aircraft. They weren't terribly effective though, for a bunch of reasons (couldn't recover directly to the ship and floatplanes not being as high performance as non-floatplanes being two biggies, but I think there may have been other issues as well, and I have a vague memory that the mass of the hangar aft did all sorts of horrible things to their trim).

 

[llib]

Scanned through bugfix list using "ships", "modules", "engine". Nada. Huh, thinking, maybe they used some other word... reads through the full list... and nada... Huh, thinking, it's long list, maybe they skipped it, someone else would have noticed if missing as well, so let's seee...

No....


Nonononono...


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Cmon guys, last expansion reworked naval, things like this were introduced(or at least reported) in last patch for that, it's the same situation as was with the major expansion before where carrier planes had huge issues, and this new one still isn't fixed one year later with next expansion? Seriously?
I don't mean to underappreciate all the great work you did, but I would really really hope that this was fixed and just forgotten for the fix list. Because otherwise we are left again and again with versions that have very obvious bug in the naval part of the game, and this time one that really doesn't seem to justify anything like justification that was used previously for carrier planes issues in naval combat - this should not be that difficult to fix!
*sigh*

EDIT: Above post is written as a result of for very long time being extremely frustrated over and over with the start modules things, holding off for rather long time, because surely this would be fixed for the expansion, along with lot of wonderful new features...

Allright so... guys, this is fixed. I don't know why it's missing from the list, or if we all have overlooked it, or if there was additional hotfix.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Allright so... guys, this is fixed. I don't know why it's missing from the list, or if we all have overlooked it, or if there was additional hotfix.

Best release ever, in that case. I don't think we all overlooked it, they simply forgot to add to the changelist.

I wonder how we could check if screening was changed from 4 to 3x, maybe defines somewhere?

 

[Axe99]

Best release ever, in that case. I don't think we all overlooked it, they simply forgot to add to the changelist.

I wonder how we could check if screening was changed from 4 to 3x, maybe defines somewhere?

Iirc, the screening ratio is in the defines. If you search for "screen" in the defines, you shouldn't have to go through too many to find it (but just enough that I'm too lazy to do it right now )