HoI4 Dev Teasers (previously Podcat's Twitter Teasers)

[blahmaster6k]

I hate to be that one guy, but why should it matter whether "historical" division templates are forced to be used or not? Should the player not have creative freedom over how to design their divisions?

Sure, 40 wide divisions aren't really representative of (most)divisions that were used in history, but the combat system right now is well balanced, with 10, 20. and 40w all being optimal for different purposes. I don't have confidence that the combat system as it is can make divisions more realistic without just ending up with some other meta that people will cry about.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I hate to be that one guy, but why should it matter whether "historical" division templates are forced to be used or not? Should the player not have creative freedom over how to design their divisions?

Sure, 40 wide divisions aren't really representative of (most)divisions that were used in history, but the combat system right now is well balanced, with 10, 20. and 40w all being optimal for different purposes. I don't have confidence that the combat system as it is can make divisions more realistic without just ending up with some other meta that people will cry about.

The only way I see this meaningfully making a greater variety of sizes meta is if the overwidth penalty is less that 1:1. If it's 1:1 or greater, any percent overwidth still will result in equipment being wasted, making it unviable.
If it's under 1:1, equipment will still be wasted, but that could sometimes be worth it if having a few extra battalions results in getting more critical hits.
We'll see - maybe it will be an ENTIRELY reworked mechanic, as opposed to just having had some numbers changed, in which case things will be very different. However given that the tank designer was implemented (quite well, all things considered, but still) despite the fact that it, too, will make little difference other than to ensure heavy tanks can be unpiercable makes me think that what we'll be getting will be more or less exactly what the community has been asking for, which tends to be "remove width penalty and make it a historical width."

 

[Dalos]

Swiss guard! So, Papal State focus tree. Did not see that coming. Hope they will add the guard as a new special units.

 

[goodcigar]

I'll be a bit disappointed if they stick to rounded numbers instead of 72 which supports historical divisions.

For historical Division design I would advise the developers to consult user Shaka of Carthage.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/historical-divisions-germany.1060263/

More MHV history Divisions? Division idea.

I try to build history accurate Division when I play HOI4. It hard though understand how to do. It very confusing. Division Designer has some problem too, it not history accurate some ways. And history template worse in battle than meta template...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Zauberelefant]

For historical Division design I would advise the developers to consult user Shaka of Carthage.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/historical-divisions-germany.1060263/

More MHV history Divisions? Division idea.

I try to build history accurate Division when I play HOI4. It hard though understand how to do. It very confusing. Division Designer has some problem too, it not history accurate some ways. And history template worse in battle than meta template...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Hate to say it, but...no, these aren't really that historical, following the TO&E.
You can make a good argument for 40 width as historical, considering corps and army assets and using the 3-4 Artillery battalions in western forces.

 

[bitmode]

I did not expect the battle screen to look exactly as it does now. That means a whole lot of things might stay the same in land battles.

 

[goodcigar]

I hate to be that one guy, but why should it matter whether "historical" division templates are forced to be used or not? Should the player not have creative freedom over how to design their divisions?

Sure, 40 wide divisions aren't really representative of (most)divisions that were used in history, but the combat system right now is well balanced, with 10, 20. and 40w all being optimal for different purposes. I don't have confidence that the combat system as it is can make divisions more realistic without just ending up with some other meta that people will cry about.

You are punished for using historical Divisions.

 

[GrandVezir]

Swiss guard! So, Papal State focus tree. Did not see that coming. Hope they will add the guard as a new special units.

Sabaton "Last Stand" soundtrack or riot.

 

[blahmaster6k]

You are punished for using historical Divisions.

I see no problem with this. Combat is abstracted anyway, battalion manpower and equipment numbers are way out of proportion, so to me it makes no difference what a "historical" division looks like.

While the scenario and country balance should be as close to historical as possible, every little detail doesn't have to be.

 

[orochi2k]

It's Vic3 confirmed again.
If you put the mountains upside down, you get a big "V".
And then, check those numbers on the screenshot.
First, we get 1 and 2, put them together, that's absolutely 3
Then, we get the number 75 that is 7 and 5, 7 + 5 = 12, 1+2 = 3

Next, let's check the army on the left side,
That is a 12width 1 division named "7a...." with states 11/2/6
Put those number together, 12 +1 + 7 + 11 + 2 +6 = 39, 3 + 9 = 12, 1+2 = 3 That's 3 again!

Check the right, that's an 8width 1divison named "...10" with states 4/0/30
Put them together, we find 8 + 1 + 10 + 4+ 0 + 30 = 53. But, 5 + 3 it is not 3.
Something is missing.
Why there is a swiss flag here？ It has a big cross. It looks like "十" which means 10 in both Japanese and Chinese.
Put this secret 10 into consideration, we get 8 + 1 + 10 + 4+ 0 + 30 + 10 = 63,
6 + 3 = 9
That's not 3. But, it's 3 times of 3. It is telling us we already have the number 3 from the rest 3 parts of the image.
That's a confirmation!

Thus, Vic3 is confirmed by mathematics
Cheers!

 

[La Bumm]

Just a question: Was it always like this with the orange and green damage squares in the close air support window? Can't remember that.

Would have thought that they change the combat screen but nevermind. They said in the last dd that this one will cover some mechanical stuff I think.

 

[Sighfer]

75 combat width seems interesting enough, though what specific changes this is an effect of I can't really imagine.

Terrain. They're implementing an old idea for combat they had. Different terrains will have different combat widths, so a player will have to build divisions according to where they will be fighting.

 

[Louella]

SWISS ARMY KNIFE DESIGNER CONFIRMED !!!eleven!!!

I can see it now. Design every aspect of your army's swiss army knives.

adding extra knife blades add soft attack, more files adds hard attack, screwdriver blades add reliability, additional corkscrews add piercing.

You can also make variant swiss army knives, to increase reliability of your cavalry divisions. These variant knives have twice the number of those pointy things that everyone says are for removing stones from horses hooves, but no-one can say for sure, because they've never had to remove a stone from a horse's hoof.

 

[Dlin369]

Just a question: Was it always like this with the orange and green damage squares in the close air support window? Can't remember that.

Would have thought that they change the combat screen but nevermind. They said in the last dd that this one will cover some mechanical stuff I think.

yeah there should be orange and green damage squares currently from CAS fighting - they help show whether it's organization or health being depleted

 

[safe-keeper]

I hate to be that one guy, but why should it matter whether "historical" division templates are forced to be used or not? Should the player not have creative freedom over how to design their divisions?

"But, but, playing as Germany I want to do things the same way as the guys who horribly lost the war!"

 

[DicRoNero]

I did not expect the battle screen to look exactly as it does now. That means a whole lot of things might stay the same in land battles.

I would agree (hey, I even clicked the button!), but this well equally means we're spared of seeing to which extent land combat could potentially... deteriorate.

 

[bitmode]

Terrain. They're implementing an old idea for combat they had. Different terrains will have different combat widths, so a player will have to build divisions according to where they will be fighting.

If it is that, then why is the width 75 in mountains? Shouldn't it be much lower?

 

[Orlunu]

I hate to be that one guy, but why should it matter whether "historical" division templates are forced to be used or not?

"You should be forced to use these" and "using these should be semi-viable at least" are wildly different standards.

 

[blahmaster6k]

"You should be forced to use these" and "using these should be semi-viable at least" are wildly different standards.

They are semi-viable. In singleplayer. You don't need to use 40w to beat the AI.

If you want historical templates to be optimal for multiplayer, that's a different issue entirely, and one entirely based on personal opinion.

 

[Orlunu]

They are semi-viable. In singleplayer. You don't need to use 40w to beat the AI.

If you want historical templates to be optimal for multiplayer, that's a different issue entirely, and one entirely based on personal opinion.

Having no airforce, no artillery, and drinking a dozen shots before you start the session is semi-viable. In singleplayer. Being able to beat broken AI doesn't mean you're aren't using seriously shoddy tools to do it. I didn't say that historical templates should be optimal for multiplayer, but they should at least be simply unoptimal rather than suicidally terrible.