HOI4 Dev Diary - Ally Down Under

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Podcat . Great to see Australia get it's own focus tree and that technology sharing system sounds great as well . Australia will deffo be my first TfV game (not that I'm biased....) Looking forward to hearing about South Africa .

Like Canada we have also been adding extra leaders with unique portraits (magnificent beards make such a difference for admirals).
View attachment 214604

Probably not something for TfV if you don't already have plans, but unless I'm mistaken, that first portrait is of Victor Crutchley, who was actually a British rear-admiral that commanded an Australian and US task group in the Pacific (he was nominally in command at the battle of Savo Island, although circumstances meant he wasn't aware of the battle until it was all over). Prior to Crutchley, another (mostly) Brit, Crace was in charge (after Crutchley, we finally got an Aussie, Collins IIRC, commanding our squadron ). Might be worth having events to transfer the leaders between nations if allied or something? Just a random, and absolutely-not-particularly-important thought.

Paradox DLC policy: Subscription-Style-Grand-Strategy-Game .
If you want to enjoy the game fully, you have to wait 3-4 years to be completed.
HOI4 was the best release Paradox ever had, I thought somethings are going to change, but alas; same old system.

I didn't disagree with your post (I don't disagree on principle ), but generally speaking you can't keep playing subscription games if you don't keep paying. That, and the time it will take to add the features that will be added via DLC will still take 3-4 years - so if we don't take a DLC model, there's still a 3-4 wait, just that no-one gets to play anything (and the devs can't benefit from refinement through playtesting). The alternative is HoI4 as it launched with no extra work on it at all. Development takes time, and the time it takes can't be magically waved away by changing how the product is delivered. However, without the current DLC approach, we're left with the previous HoI1/2/3 approach, where HoI3, even after three expansions, had many mechanics that were deeply, deeply flawed. There's nothing wrong with the "release it and move onto the sequel approach", and you're well within your rights to prefer it this way, but there's also a lot to be said for the kind of "continuous development" approach we've seen since CK2 (particularly given the free content in the patches that come with the updates).

I agree with you 100%
I'm thinking 10% is too low. If it is to be a bonus with some real teeth to it, maybe more? How much will 10% help a minor country?

Keep in mind how tech boosts work - the percentage reductions are cumulative with other reductions (from NFs or electronics tech), so each 10 per cent add up pretty quickly. That, and ten per cent itself isn't insignificant. If someone asked me if I wanted to be paid 10 per cent less, I'd say "hell no", and 10 per cent more "hell yes" .

There are two. you get a warning alert for when someone you actually detect is planning an invasion (this is less useful because quite often the AI will do this early). There is also a second level alert with a sound (the one that has a pirate flag skull on it) that appears when the enemy is about to land or is taking provinces as part of a naval invasion.

I can definitely report this still isn't working very well. It's a tricky one to bug report, but I'm really, really surprised it hasn't been picked up in general QA testing. It's an issue for me every game I play, and my best estimate of the skull and crossbones alert actually resulting in a naval invasion would be around 25 per cent or lower (in my last game, as France, I left land in the far east I'd conquered off the USSR completely unprotected while fighting Japan. It took at least 4 skull-and-crossbones alerts before Japan actually got around to invading that little island off Kamchatka, which was completely undefended, with no fleets or aircraft around it (on the other hand, the UK actually successfully invaded northern europe, and then withdrew, without me noticing, lol - I scrolled back to see two provinces UK-coloured with no troops left there - they'd landed, then all gone home again!) Not trying to have a go, just providing more data (and I hope to provide a save before too long).

The Australian achievement is gonna be so easy now. I kinda regret getting it already. Now I don't have a reason to play as Australia to test the new focus tree.

I know it's a very old-fashioned concept these days, and that there's nothing wrong with only playing for virtual trophies, but you could always play for the challenge/fun/immersion as well? .

 

[Orlunu]

Newfoundland was directly under English control by the game's timeframe.

Here's hoping for special mechanics though that'd keep England from giving the territory to Canada in pretty much every single competitive MP game out there.

I propose that Quebec gets cocky and rebels to join Vichy.

 

[MGL 86]

I didn't know i was paying for national focus trees which I won't play. I can mod them myself.
When I pay for field Marshal edition, I was thinking about new features like espionage, improved battle plans, OOBs etc.

 

[Orlunu]

I didn't know i was paying for national focus trees which I won't play. I can mod them myself.

Which is why you aren't paying for them and Paradox have been so kind as to freely extend the number of DLCs Field Marshal edition buyers are getting as part of their pre-order package to three rather than two. So try not to be too salty about getting free extras.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I didn't know i was paying for national focus trees which I won't play. I can mod them myself.
When I pay for field Marshal edition, I was thinking about new features like espionage, improved battle plans, OOBs etc.

Didn't we just have a riot over putting that behind a pay-wall? It's pretty obvious from a marketing and maintenance standpoint that it's easier to sell things that feel like "more stuff" (narrative content) rather than "fixed stuff" (fairly termed "reworked stuff," since design changes with feedback).

 

[Shock360]

I didn't know i was paying for national focus trees which I won't play. I can mod them myself.
When I pay for field Marshal edition, I was thinking about new features like espionage, improved battle plans, OOBs etc.

Each dlc has its own theme, and this ones is the commonwealth. You were never promised to have focus tree free DLC's, so you shouldn't get angry for it

 

[SnowHawkKiller]

@podcat Will or would you consider having the national focus art be included in the patch so that modders can use it w/o making the DLC a requirement for a mod were it to use them?

 

[mmarques]

Probably not something for TfV if you don't already have plans, but unless I'm mistaken, that first portrait is of Victor Crutchley, who was actually a British rear-admiral that commanded an Australian and US task group in the Pacific (he was nominally in command at the battle of Savo Island, although circumstances meant he wasn't aware of the battle until it was all over). Prior to Crutchley, another (mostly) Brit, Crace was in charge (after Crutchley, we finally got an Aussie, Collins IIRC, commanding our squadron ). Might be worth having events to transfer the leaders between nations if allied or something? Just a random, and absolutely-not-particularly-important thought.

Crace is the second picture, he was actually Australian but joined the RN before the RAN was formed. He served on the HMAS Australia during WW1 and with the Australian squadron for most of his career. Since the RAN was mostly controlled by the RN anyway (in my opinion) he's rightly placed in Australia.
With Crutchley, he was a British born naval officer who was once in command of the Warspite, I believe he should be part of the RN and not the RAN. Unless of course there's an event for interchanging admirals like you suggested.

Crace and Collins should be the two admirals assigned to Australia with perhaps Crutchley coming as an event (again just my opinion).

 

[Axe99]

Crace is the second picture, he was actually Australian but joined the RN before the RAN was formed. He served on the HMAS Australia during WW1 and with the Australian squadron for most of his career. Since the RAN was mostly controlled by the RN anyway (in my opinion) he's rightly placed in Australia.
With Crutchley, he was a British born naval officer who was once in command of the Warspite, I believe he should be part of the RN and not the RAN. Unless of course there's an event for interchanging admirals like you suggested.

Crace and Collins should be the two admirals assigned to Australia with perhaps Crutchley coming as an event (again just my opinion).

I thought that second pic looked a bit more like Collins (our third 'fleet' commander), but on further searching it turns out it's Farncomb (see what looks to be the source pic here). With Crace, it depends how you define "Australian" - he was born in New South Wales prior to Australia as a political entity existing, finished his schooling in the UK and was serving in the RN for most of the HoI4 time period (he was in a Royal Navy command at the start of the game, sent to head up the RAN Squadron in 1939, then transferred back to the RN in late 1942 and served with the RN for the rest of the war, so him and Crutchley had similarly long careers with the RAN, both starting and finishing HoI4's timeframe with the RN).

If they can only be in one navy, I'd have both Crutchley and Crace in the RAN, as that's the navy they did most of their HoI4-level work at, but when there are alt-history paths that include things like breaking ties with the Empire, having Crutchley and probably (an argument could be made either way here, but I'd expect someone who'd finished their education in Britain and served with the RN wouldn't be terribly keen on a Fascist/Communist Australia, although they might come back for the US-allied democratic option) Crace pop up in the RAN in those circumstances. As per my original post, it's a tiny detail (it's below the "Stanley Baldwin" or "John Curtin" level, for example ), but one that'd be nice to sort at some stage, if one of the scripters had spare time on their hands. If not, I'll eventually do some modding to that end.

 

[mmarques]

I thought that second pic looked a bit more like Collins (our third 'fleet' commander), but on further searching it turns out it's Farncomb (see what looks to be the source pic here). With Crace, it depends how you define "Australian" - he was born in New South Wales prior to Australia as a political entity existing, finished his schooling in the UK and was serving in the RN for most of the HoI4 time period (he was in a Royal Navy command at the start of the game, sent to head up the RAN Squadron in 1939, then transferred back to the RN in late 1942 and served with the RN for the rest of the war, so him and Crutchley had similarly long careers with the RAN, both starting and finishing HoI4's timeframe with the RN).

If they can only be in one navy, I'd have both Crutchley and Crace in the RAN, as that's the navy they did most of their HoI4-level work at, but when there are alt-history paths that include things like breaking ties with the Empire, having Crutchley and probably (an argument could be made either way here, but I'd expect someone who'd finished their education in Britain and served with the RN wouldn't be terribly keen on a Fascist/Communist Australia, although they might come back for the US-allied democratic option) Crace pop up in the RAN in those circumstances. As per my original post, it's a tiny detail (it's below the "Stanley Baldwin" or "John Curtin" level, for example ), but one that'd be nice to sort at some stage, if one of the scripters had spare time on their hands. If not, I'll eventually do some modding to that end.

You seem to be right about the pic, I could swear it looked like a young Crace I once saw in a book somewhere .

 

[OBRkenobi]

You get to be Australia's Sudetenland.

NEVER!

 

[Axe99]

You seem to be right about the pic, I could swear it looked like a young Crace I once saw in a book somewhere .

Well, I thought it was Collins, so I wasn't right either . Farncomb did a pretty good job in the war too, I feel a bit bad mis-identifying him for that tart Collins (who was also very good, but far more fond of the limelight and a bit of a self-promoter)!

 

[Gamer_1745]

(who was also very good, but far more fond of the limelight and a bit of a self-promoter)!

Maybe he was just trying to be like Nelson?

 

[happyman40]

Nah I used to It. In fact for this subject, kinda puts a smile to my face, knowing few Paradox devs used the term "Our dlc/patch policy almost like a subscription" in history too and now zealous fans disagreeing to that post is funny to me.

It's actually not that zealous people disagree, its that the majority of customers asked for this style of product delivery.

A couple of years back Paradox conducted an open survey and specifically asked what kind of delivery people preferred to have. Since then they have stuck more firmly into the cheaper and earlier delivery of the main game and reasonably priced expansion packs over time.

Another model that might work is to charge a higher amount for the base game and to make all subsequent game feature updates / patches free; ala Gary Grisbgy's 6 year old War in the east currently selling for $114 AUS , and then charge fees for add-on scenarios.

CIV5 is still more expensive to buy base game; even CIV5 expansions are more expensive than any current Paradox main title AND you still need to base game to play them!

Compared to other similarly complex and well supported strategy games, there are none that give better value.

 

[Orlunu]

I hope Manchukuo is included in this updates as it should be. Any plans to give it or Japans other puppets focus trees? Maybe more options for Japan to focus on the greater east Asia co prosperity sphere and.the way it deals with it puppets which was quite important

Manchukuo wasn't overlooked, it was deliberately cut. It ain't coming back outside some of the mods unless something major changes. I'm certainly planning on copying the Commonwealth framework over to the Co-Prosperity Sphere in mine, but it's very bare-bones at the moment.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Manchukuo wasn't overlooked, it was deliberately cut. It ain't coming back outside some of the mods unless something major changes. I'm certainly planning on copying the Commonwealth framework over to the Co-Prosperity Sphere in mine, but it's very bare-bones at the moment.

Manchukuo and further improvements to workings of puppet states would be prime material for an expansion focused on the land war in Asia, which is sure to come. I'd bet it will be the next one.

 

[Orlunu]

Manchukuo and further improvements to workings of puppet states would be prime material for an expansion focused on the land war in Asia, which is sure to come. I'd bet it will be the next one.

Well, the devs seemed pretty insistent about it back when, and I'm not kidding when I said it was cut (you can still find fragments of it in the game files), but I hope you're right. Pretty miffed to have had my favourite WW2 country, my favourite historical general and the actual land I come from all fail to make the transition from HoI 3 to HoI 4. D:

 

[Lukevan16]

I thought that second pic looked a bit more like Collins (our third 'fleet' commander), but on further searching it turns out it's Farncomb (see what looks to be the source pic here). With Crace, it depends how you define "Australian" - he was born in New South Wales prior to Australia as a political entity existing, finished his schooling in the UK and was serving in the RN for most of the HoI4 time period (he was in a Royal Navy command at the start of the game, sent to head up the RAN Squadron in 1939, then transferred back to the RN in late 1942 and served with the RN for the rest of the war, so him and Crutchley had similarly long careers with the RAN, both starting and finishing HoI4's timeframe with the RN).

If they can only be in one navy, I'd have both Crutchley and Crace in the RAN, as that's the navy they did most of their HoI4-level work at, but when there are alt-history paths that include things like breaking ties with the Empire, having Crutchley and probably (an argument could be made either way here, but I'd expect someone who'd finished their education in Britain and served with the RN wouldn't be terribly keen on a Fascist/Communist Australia, although they might come back for the US-allied democratic option) Crace pop up in the RAN in those circumstances. As per my original post, it's a tiny detail (it's below the "Stanley Baldwin" or "John Curtin" level, for example ), but one that'd be nice to sort at some stage, if one of the scripters had spare time on their hands. If not, I'll eventually do some modding to that end.

Honestly I wouldn't say that Baldwin or Curtin are tiny details. The game obviously isn't perfectly historical but they should at least get the leadership of the game's nations right

 

[Axe99]

Honestly I wouldn't say that Baldwin or Curtin are tiny details. The game obviously isn't perfectly historical but they should at least get the leadership of the game's nations right

Sorry, tiny might have been a bit strong, but I wouldn't want to distract the devs by claiming I wanted Baldwin and Curtin sorted ahead of better AI, more national focus trees/events, depth for China (I'd thnk China needed more than an NF tree and a few events to flesh it out) and a bunch of other things I'd personally prioritise over what is purely flavour (important flavour, to be sure, but purely flavour nonetheless). I'm sure it'll get sorted at some stage, but the devs have a bunch of forumites asking for everything and their pet rabbit added to the game yesterday, and I didn't want to make it sound like it was another "we must have Baldwin and Lyons in the game in 1936 or I'll never buy another Paradox game again!" kind of post.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

I hope New Zealand doesn't get forgotten, we were/are the other half of the ANZACS and often seem to get forgotten