HOI4 Dev Diary - Reflections and Romania

[Temudhun Khan]

What countries will be in this patch/DLC? Just because someone didn't join the Axis doesn't mean they couldn't.

I think we will never have a country confirmed for a dlc until his focus tree is revealed. It's a good way to let the hype feed itself.

 

[Ironwang]

Ironwang, mostly entirely agree. The MP exploits need to be addressed.

I think check boxes for rules would be great. No unwanted coup/boost, no non focus War before 1937-9, major must keep ideology, all would be candidates.

I think you are on the money with the Axis majors needing an overhaul, aka they need to be brought down to earth with malus and gating because the generic is too strong.

I disagree on principle with rules limiting division design. I want 15 art 5 inf to be buildable, but I want it to be so bad, that no one would use it. In the same way with fleet you have de facto limits on # of CVs, and there are ideal ratios to Capital/CA/Screens.

Mechanics of the template components should drive division design, not arbitrary division width to equipment used ratio mechanics (IE one line art/aa/at per 10 width).

If people want Tanks in their infantry divisions; there should be a counter to that strat.

I think the big thing is to not let one division, fleet, airwing become THE division, fleet or airwing. The eternal Rock, Paper, Scissors meta of RTS needs to play a role here.
If people start putting tanks in inf divisions, then AT guns should be cheap enough to produce enough of (with foresight) to stall out a tank push...over time. If AT guns become the thing, then soft divisions should become popular, then divisions with high SA should work to counter those, which leads us back to tanks in inf divisions. Thats how it should works in base terms.

I am not certain if it isn't happening because the balance isn't there, or if there is a general unwillingness by the MP community to iterate through strats to counter things like space marines and develop a mutating meta. Instead it seems like people would rather know what the definitive "best" division and strat is, then play that division and ban anything that deviates (All that said, it is disappointing land combat works in a way that makes 1x 40 width > 2x 20 width).

Total Aside:
Also, I think in a "Historical" MP game, Germany should be forced to take Rhineland first (Especially if he is a good player). World tension can be gamed too well by good players (and if you are playing MP with people on Axis majors who dont know how to gate tension properly then it is likely a Allies/Commie victory unless they are even worse).

Look to be honest i agree with you as well, i dont like limiting the divisions as well. The reason space marines are a thing is because of the IC cost/benefit. Although i dont see a fix for it. That is the issue, making AT guns cheaper to produes might help, but still its the fact you have to research AT guns, which in essence is using up a research slot for around 2 years. Which then limits you in other ways of course.
Here a a quick story form a MP game, I once played China in a MP game, and the Japan put a 1934 Heavy Tank AA battalion in every inf division he had. Since the amount of Heavy tank AA needed in each division was so minimal he was able to get around 30-40 divisions with it. He was able to walk through China with these divisions with minimal effort. No way for china to produce anywhere near the quantity of AT guns to be able to stop this.

But yeah i believe maybe im not smart enough to come up with a proper balance fix for space marines :/

 

[Axe99]

Look to be honest i agree with you as well, i dont like limiting the divisions as well. The reason space marines are a thing is because of the IC cost/benefit. Although i dont see a fix for it. That is the issue, making AT guns cheaper to produes might help, but still its the fact you have to research AT guns, which in essence is using up a research slot for around 2 years. Which then limits you in other ways of course.
Here a a quick story form a MP game, I once played China in a MP game, and the Japan put a 1934 Heavy Tank AA battalion in every inf division he had. Since the amount of Heavy tank AA needed in each division was so minimal he was able to get around 30-40 divisions with it. He was able to walk through China with these divisions with minimal effort. No way for china to produce anywhere near the quantity of AT guns to be able to stop this.

But yeah i believe maybe im not smart enough to come up with a proper balance fix for space marines :/

One way to attack it could be to make researching AT and ART prerequisites for TDs and SPART (after all, it's not like there wasn't a fair degree of overlap in the actual guns used for SPART/ART and AT/TDs and AA/SPAA). It'd require some reworking of the tech trees to focus more on the function of the gun rather than an INF/ARM perspective, but that way anyone with SPART/TDs/ARM would have to have already researched the non-armoured versions of those guns already, making it easier from a research perspective for China to filed AT than Japan to field SPAA.

 

[bERt0r]

I think check boxes for rules would be great. No unwanted coup/boost, no non focus War before 1937-9, major must keep ideology, all would be candidates.

I can see the unwanted boosting/coop mechaning being fixed by gameplay softcounter as well once we have an espionage DLC, e.g. having your intelligence agencies arresting the agitators.
It is obvious for most people that rebalancing core mechanics takes a lot of work and time. It would be preferable to fix these exploits through game balance but like @Ironwang said right now a simple checkbox to turn that mechanic off would be preferrable as a baindaid fix. The same goes for the artillery, armor, CAS imbalance heck even supply and no man's land.

 

[Alex_brunius]

One way to attack it could be to make researching AT and ART prerequisites for TDs and SPART (after all, it's not like there wasn't a fair degree of overlap in the actual guns used for SPART/ART and AT/TDs and AA/SPAA). It'd require some reworking of the tech trees to focus more on the function of the gun rather than an INF/ARM perspective, but that way anyone with SPART/TDs/ARM would have to have already researched the non-armoured versions of those guns already, making it easier from a research perspective for China to filed AT than Japan to field SPAA.

If you could use equipment as input to build other equipment what could be done would be splitting up tank construction into chassis + turrets, such that:

Chassi + turret = Tank
Chassi + AT gun = TD
Chassi + ART gun = SPG
Chassi + AA gun = SPAA

And then have for example 1941 Heavy SPG need a more advanced gun (maybe 1942) then 1941 Light SPG (maybe only need 1939 gun).

Might add a bit too much complexity though, but it would be something cool to enable mods to do at least.

 

[Aodhan_]

If you could use equipment as input to build other equipment what could be done would be splitting up tank construction into chassis + turrets, such that:

Chassi + turret = Tank
Chassi + AT gun = TD
Chassi + ART gun = SPG
Chassi + AA gun = SPAA

And then have for example 1941 Heavy SPG need a more advanced gun (maybe 1942) then 1941 Light SPG (maybe only need 1939 gun).

Might add a bit too much complexity though, but it would be something cool to enable mods to do at least.

It would also make your old or new stock piles of equipment useful again rather than them sitting in a warehouse rusting away.

 

[Praetori]

If you could use equipment as input to build other equipment what could be done would be splitting up tank construction into chassis + turrets, such that:

Chassi + turret = Tank
Chassi + AT gun = TD
Chassi + ART gun = SPG
Chassi + AA gun = SPAA

And then have for example 1941 Heavy SPG need a more advanced gun (maybe 1942) then 1941 Light SPG (maybe only need 1939 gun).

Might add a bit too much complexity though, but it would be something cool to enable mods to do at least.

It would be nice with crossovers like that and even some ties between different guns as well. Transforming the 37mm or 88mm AAA into AT variants was not overly research intensive and in many cases utilized the same production-lines, as an example.
It would also be nice to be able to utilize old chassis in storage for production bonuses (efficiency or output) of variants (for example old tanks for SPG variants).

 

[Axe99]

If you could use equipment as input to build other equipment what could be done would be splitting up tank construction into chassis + turrets, such that:

Chassi + turret = Tank
Chassi + AT gun = TD
Chassi + ART gun = SPG
Chassi + AA gun = SPAA

And then have for example 1941 Heavy SPG need a more advanced gun (maybe 1942) then 1941 Light SPG (maybe only need 1939 gun).

Might add a bit too much complexity though, but it would be something cool to enable mods to do at least.

Nice thinking . It would add another layer of interaction to production, so not sure if that's what the devs would like, but I definitely wouldn't be unhappy m'self if I went down that way. Would be all sorts of cool to make it happen for mods at least, although I suspect it wouldn't necessarily be that easy. You could then potentially break them down again as well, making it easier to turn old PZ IIIs into TDs, say......

 

[diablopl4]

I know this is supposed to be a Axis dlc so i hope it iwll include turkey and spain ( Im scared it might be limited to balkans (Romania, bulgaria and hungary), however i would love to see yougoslavia and greece get custom NF.

 

[Hori873]

Thanks for more romanian content!!!

Long live King Michael!

 

[blusarge27]

If you could use equipment as input to build other equipment what could be done would be splitting up tank construction into chassis + turrets, such that:

Chassi + turret = Tank
Chassi + AT gun = TD
Chassi + ART gun = SPG
Chassi + AA gun = SPAA

And then have for example 1941 Heavy SPG need a more advanced gun (maybe 1942) then 1941 Light SPG (maybe only need 1939 gun).

Might add a bit too much complexity though, but it would be something cool to enable mods to do at least.

I like this idea a lot, I really do. For example, being able to build an ISU-122 because you have a surplus of ISU-152 hulls and 122mm guns lying about (as the Soviets actually did) would, I think, add a lot to the game and would mean your tank construction, numbers, and division equipment composition would change from game to game depending on what parts you've been producing the most.

The only thing that concerns me about this is how the variant system would fit into it. Firstly, what is it supposed to represent anyway? If I take a Panzer IV and add one point in the gun category, is that supposed to represent a better shell or an improved firing system? Because surely it 's not supposed to be a whole new gun. But if I throw five points at it the difference in stats is really quite large and would seem to represent going from a KwK 37 to a KwK 40 turning my Panzer IV A into a G. So if can now do this instead through researching a new 1941 gun and mounting it on to my Pz IV chassis, what would be the point in spending XP on gun upgrades and having to deal with the whole reliability/speed balancing act?

 

[Alex_brunius]

I like this idea a lot, I really do. For example, being able to build an ISU-122 because you have a surplus of ISU-152 hulls and 122mm guns lying about (as the Soviets actually did) would, I think, add a lot to the game and would mean your tank construction, numbers, and division equipment composition would change from game to game depending on what parts you've been producing the most.

The only thing that concerns me about this is how the variant system would fit into it. Firstly, what is it supposed to represent anyway? If I take a Panzer IV and add one point in the gun category, is that supposed to represent a better shell or an improved firing system? Because surely it 's not supposed to be a whole new gun. But if I throw five points at it the difference in stats is really quite large and would seem to represent going from a KwK 37 to a KwK 40 turning my Panzer IV A into a G. So if can now do this instead through researching a new 1941 gun and mounting it on to my Pz IV chassis, what would be the point in spending XP on gun upgrades and having to deal with the whole reliability/speed balancing act?

Very good points. I do agree that variants (at least for guns and probably engine too which would be a function of the chassi logically ) would have to be completely re-thought which such a radical approach.

 

[blusarge27]

Very good points. I do agree that variants (at least for guns and probably engine too which would be a function of the chassi logically ) would have to be completely re-thought which such a radical approach.

Pretty much, yeah. I have actually thought about it a bit, but couldn't come up with a viable way to balance it short of making it so you can only spend one or two points in gun upgrades so you can't end up with a 1944 gun with 5 points of upgrades on a Pz II that can blow a hole in a battleship from the beach. Definitely something to think about though, but I don't think we would see any sort of system like that in the base game.

 

[RELee]

Not dissing anything, but I just found it ... odd ... to come from a thread complaining about keeping track of battle plans to another thread introducing more complex equipment design production and procedures.

Am I right?

 

[Xuanzue]

If you could use equipment as input to build other equipment what could be done would be splitting up tank construction into chassis + turrets, such that:

Chassi + turret = Tank
Chassi + AT gun = TD
Chassi + ART gun = SPG
Chassi + AA gun = SPAA

And then have for example 1941 Heavy SPG need a more advanced gun (maybe 1942) then 1941 Light SPG (maybe only need 1939 gun).

Might add a bit too much complexity though, but it would be something cool to enable mods to do at least.

To have a Production more like the one in WITP-AE or Aurora 4X is a thing I hope.

Things to research:

engines
guns-cannons-rockets
chassis

It's not really that much complexity, a good AI can handle it for the people who can't understand why a better mitsubishi engine is a good thing for a Zero.

 

[Xuanzue]

Not dissing anything, but I just found it ... odd ... to come from a thread complaining about keeping track of battle plans to another thread introducing more complex equipment design production and procedures.

Am I right?

battleplans are screwed because the interface is poorly implemented and demand a bazillion of clicks to fix them every time a province is taken.

battleplans are not complex, they are a chore, a boring and dense chore.

 

[Archangel85]

It's not really that much complexity, a good AI can handle it for the people who can't understand why a better mitsubishi engine is a good thing for a Zero.

That was the argument for a lot of the design decisions in HoI 3 that people ended up hating. Why design a gameplay mechanic where the best move is to never touch it?

Leaving aside the whole "good AI" part, which is not trivial to do by any definition.

It is certainly something that goes into the "Ideas for HoI 5" folder, though.

 

[Xuanzue]

That was the argument for a lot of the design decisions in HoI 3 that people ended up hating. Why design a gameplay mechanic where the best move is to never touch it?

Leaving aside the whole "good AI" part, which is not trivial to do by any definition.

It is certainly something that goes into the "Ideas for HoI 5" folder, though.

I would be happy without the AI making the decisions, if there is a good interface with sortable lists to find the kind of weapon/engine I need quickly.

I mentioned it because the amount of people who finds hoi4 complex is absurd. And they need a lot of crutchs when playing something more complex than farmville

Well thanks for removing my hopes of a deeper chain production. Now to have more realistic expectations.

 

[jalapen0]

That was the argument for a lot of the design decisions in HoI 3 that people ended up hating.

Honestly, the only design decision I hated in HOI3 was the way OOB was done. I'm probably in the minority but I think that was too much of a chore and not enough fun. I loved the research and unit part of it....really everything else about HOI3 was pretty enjoyable for me. I hated the OOB naming simulator and HQ babysitting simulator.

 

[Gort11]

Honestly, the only design decision I hated in HOI3 was the way OOB was done. I'm probably in the minority but I think that was too much of a chore and not enough fun. I loved the research and unit part of it....really everything else about HOI3 was pretty enjoyable for me. I hated the OOB naming simulator and HQ babysitting simulator.

OOB was execrable, and HQs were fiddly. I'm glad they're gone.

Having played HoI4, I could never go back to having to individually design divisions. If I wanted to, say, add an anti-tank brigade to every infantry division in the French army, I have to do each one individually, one after the other. In HoI 4 I expend five or ten land XP, and the game does the rest for me.

The "research tanks in four parts" was kinda weird, too, with each kind of research granting you bonuses but also penalties. It meant that researching armour plating was actually a mistake if all you cared about was speed - it doesn't make sense that just knowing you can put heavy armour on a tank means that you must put heavy armour on a tank, sacrificing its speed. Variants are better for this.