HOI4 Dev Diary - Reflections and Romania

[Art1985]

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

Hoi5 conformed!

On serious note, will there be changes in research mechanic for more realism and influence from the player and/or dependencies on theoretical/practical levels like it was in hoi3?
I really don't understand why didn't you implemented dockyard mechanics in research tab... (chose technology to research, assign research facilities for max efficiency).

 

[Archangel85]

I think at some point we might want to revisit the research system, but I doubt we will make such a radical change. Certainly not in this DLC.

 

[Art1985]

I think at some point we might want to revisit the research system, but I doubt we will make such a radical change. Certainly not in this DLC.

Thanks for reply, it just feels empty for me in this form like it is today. You just pick research and have predefined research slots that depends on nothing and research time also depends on nothing except dates. In hoi3 it was more interesting to use research tab and to think about what shall I choose to research and where to get ahead of time and accumulate practice and theory for faster research time.
And hoi4 research especially frustrates when you have good mechanics for dockyards that could been used for research.

 

[CrazyZombie]

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.

Current variant system works a bit... "odd"?

It could be better if you just had "engeneering research" screen where you had some levelled techs of guns, armor, engines and etc. Not many in fact - 5-6 levels, which will open exact "options" for exact models. So, you research tank model, which has some "basic" historical layout of main modules, but able to customise it "a-la" Stellaris, sacrificing something for something else. Ofc, some limits to not create WW1 battleship hulls with 460mm guns and other similar chimeras.

 

[CrazyZombie]

I think at some point we might want to revisit the research system, but I doubt we will make such a radical change. Certainly not in this DLC.

Another problem is that we can't modernize already produced equipment and vehicles. I changed the designer company, but I have about 1000 tanks/1000 planes/10 ships of old designer or none at all. No war right now and I logically can afford to myself improvement of "a bit obsolete" vehicles to turn them to improved variants - with new designer company bonuces or bonuces gained from exp use.

 

[Archangel85]

Ofc, some limits to not create WW1 battleship hulls with 460mm guns and other similar chimeras.

HMS Furious would like a word with you.

 

[Alex_brunius]

HMS Furious would like a word with you.

To be fair Furious as built had a single 18 inch gun, not "guns"

 

[CrazyZombie]

HMS Furious would like a word with you.

Well, in the system, I suggested, you will be even able to create such design, but what is the logic of creating a project of cruiser with one 18-inch gun and paper-thin armor?
"Classic" interbellum battleship with 8-9 406mm guns will be cheaper than a fleet of such "cruisers".

Still, suggestion of more high priority I see ability to modernize already produced vehicles. It is more simple to add and can work with current systems of variants and companies.

 

[Sourlol]

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.

I like this idea.

To be fair, AT guns research pretty quickly, and if you need them I would argue using NF bonuses on AT is more important than using them on Art.

Regardless, I think making the AT research more attractive is a good way to go. I think another way may be to make the base art research grant ART & AT guns. Then gate AT2 behind 2x passive researches. Also shorten the AA research for gun 1.

I feel like if you can figure out the ballistics to shoot a projectile like a mortar you can figure out how to shoot it like a gun pretty quickly.

The countries that need this tech early are gated by a shortage of mil factories anyhow so the AT gun output wouldn't be immensely higher.

 

[Paglia]

I see some Vonboe work here !

 

[Axe99]

To be fair Furious as built had a single 18 inch gun, not "guns"

There were going to be two originally, before they decided to turn her into half an aircraft carrier . The Brits plonked the left-over 18" guns (the other Furious gun and a spare) on a couple of monitors, where it didn't stand out at all

Well, in the system, I suggested, you will be even able to create such design, but what is the logic of creating a project of cruiser with one 18-inch gun and paper-thin armor?
"Classic" interbellum battleship with 8-9 406mm guns will be cheaper than a fleet of such "cruisers".

Prior to the Washington Treaty nixing future development, both Britain and Japan had serious plans for 18" armed BBs in the 1920s (not WW1, but more than a decade earlier than the Yamatos - although Britain's N3s would have had to get past some budgetary hurdles). I can't recall off the top of my head how far the US go (from memory, they were going with a twelve-gunned 16" ship, but my memory ain't all that) - but they built a prototype 18" gun in 1919 for use in future BBs, so they definitely had it in mind.

That said, it's also important not to roll with the "a gun is defined by it's size". The 16" guns on the South Dakota/Iowa class were better guns with better shells than those on the Colorados (or Nelsons/Nagatos).

That said, don't get me wrong - some kind of ship-designer style approach for ships would be awesome . However, rather than have arbitrary caps on technology being installed on what hulls, have some kind of weight/capacity restriction and hull-size approach (although this is what I'd hope for, I'm not suggesting for a second it's what the devs have in mind) - so if someone wants to go the full Jacky Fisher and whack 18" guns on a light cruiser, but have no capacity left for decent armour, then go for it .

 

[CrazyZombie]

There were going to be two originally, before they decided to turn her into half an aircraft carrier . The Brits plonked the left-over 18" guns (the other Furious gun and a spare) on a couple of monitors, where it didn't stand out at all

Prior to the Washington Treaty nixing future development, both Britain and Japan had serious plans for 18" armed BBs in the 1920s (not WW1, but more than a decade earlier than the Yamatos - although Britain's N3s would have had to get past some budgetary hurdles).

That said, it's also important not to roll with the "a gun is defined by it's size". The 16" guns on the South Dakota/Iowa class were better guns with better shells than those on the Colorados (or Nelsons/Nagatos).

That said, don't get me wrong - some kind of ship-designer style approach for ships would be awesome . However, rather than have arbitrary caps on technology being installed on what hulls, have some kind of weight/capacity restriction and hull-size approach (although this is what I'd hope for, I'm not suggesting for a second it's what the devs have in mind) - so if someone wants to go the full Jacky Fisher and whack 18" guns on a light cruiser, but have no capacity left for decent armour, then go for it .

Yes, idea was to limit construction with some kind of weight/capacity restriction, no matter, is it tank, plane or ship.

And what do you think about ability to simply "update" already produced vehicles with the use of some factories/shipyards?

 

[Axe99]

Yes, idea was to limit construction with some kind of weight/capacity restriction, no matter, is it tank, plane or ship.

And what do you think about ability to simply "update" already produced vehicles with the use of some factories/shipyards?

Aye . I'm not really qualified to talk on tanks/aircraft (well, I'm not really qualified to talk on ships either, but relatively less-unqualified ) - but on ships there'd need to be a substantial difference between updating things like Radar/AA/ASW/minelaying capability, and updating main armament/armour/propulsion. For the former, it could often be done (for light AA and most of the rest) while they were in port for routine maintenance, but the second involves a long time in dock, depending on the work a similar amount of time to building a new BB in the first place. I'm not entirely sure how I'd handle it with the current system - NIC is a bit easy to pile on and rush things (given how quick BBs and CVs can be built, it'd make modernising older BBs almost a no-brainer, as it'd be done in a few months time.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Aye . I'm not really qualified to talk on tanks/aircraft (well, I'm not really qualified to talk on ships either, but relatively less-unqualified ) - but on ships there'd need to be a substantial difference between updating things like Radar/AA/ASW/minelaying capability, and updating main armament/armour/propulsion. For the former, it could often be done (for light AA and most of the rest) while they were in port for routine maintenance, but the second involves a long time in dock, depending on the work a similar amount of time to building a new BB in the first place. I'm not entirely sure how I'd handle it with the current system - NIC is a bit easy to pile on and rush things (given how quick BBs and CVs can be built, it'd make modernising older BBs almost a no-brainer, as it'd be done in a few months time.

Well, there is some sense in fact. For example, we built some BB's, got some exp and created an improved project with 4x(+1). Why can't we update already built ships to this project?
Another example: we researched and built number of ships without any company and then chose some. Why can't we update the project with this designer effects and modernise already existing ships?

 

[Axe99]

Well, there is some sense in fact. For example, we built some BB's, got some exp and created an improved project with 4x(+1). Why can't we update already built ships to this project?
Another example: we researched and built number of ships without any company and then chose some. Why can't we update the project with this designer effects and modernise already existing ships?

Apologies if I misunderstand - what kind of mechanic do you have in mind for upgrading the pre-variant BB to the 'new variant' BB. I'm not quite sure I follow.

That said, in terms of large upgrades, the issue is that adding armour adds a huge amount of topweight (well, depending on the armour added, but any amount that'd be significant at the HoI4 scale), that might require adding bulges, or removing other material. Same story with armament if it involves heavier guns. 'Updating' propulsion involves cutting huge holes in the (often armoured) deck to remove hundreds if not thousands of tons of equipment. Historically, these operations took a lot of time. For example, even the relatively limited upgrades to HMS Queen Elizabeth took over three years, and modernising Hei started in April 1936 and wasn't finished until January 1940. The changes to the Dorias also took over three years. I wouldn't be unhappy if it was possible, but the economics needs to be made 'right' - ie, this kind of work will tie up a shipyard for nearly as long as it would take to build a new battleship from scratch in the first place.

 

[Person012345]

Great! Glad to see Romania getting a focus tree, it's a very interesting and viable nation to play.

 

[cuendillar]

I have to say that I love that 'Join Comintern', 'Join Axis' and 'Join Allies' aren't mutually exclusive. Even (presumably) needing to leave factions in between taking them, this has potential...

Of course, I get that this works closely with their side-changing in WW2, so I guess it's sort of historical too.

 

[Makosguba]

Is this Focus Tree means that Romania will have only 4 research slots maximum for the entire game?

 

[Archangel85]

We have decided to give them a fifth, for balance reasons.

 

[Telenil]

Five slots plus production licenses plus any technology sharing then? I don't know if minors will be on the same technological level as majors, but it seems they are getting ways to catch up.

I kind of expected production licenses to compensate for the lack of 5th slot.