HoI4 Dev Teasers (previously Podcat's Twitter Teasers)

[blahmaster6k]

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.

If it works, what's the problem? It's the end result that matters. And I wouldn't call using bad width suicidally terrible, just not very good.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Changing the province combat width to 75 by itself is easy enough, not worthy of a Development Diary.

Terrain implies Mountains, which should mean a reduction from the default combat width.

Suspect the initial combat width (108?) will be adjusted by terrain.

Also, this is a combat screen, which may mean a Diary about the reworked combat mechanics. Since a hint was dropped about a change to the piercing mechanic, I like the reworked combat mechanics idea.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Since I'm feeling giddy at the moment, let me make a "prediction" I'll probably regret.

Province width 108.
Template width 27W.
Line Artillery unit reduced to twelve (12) guns. Combat width stays at 3.
Line AT unit combat width reduced to zero (0).
Line AA unit combat width reduced to zero (0).

 

[ThaHoward]

Since I'm feeling giddy at the moment, let me make a "prediction" I'll probably regret.

Province width 108.
Template width 27W.
Line Artillery unit reduced to twelve (12) guns. Combat width stays at 3.
Line AT unit combat width reduced to zero (0).
Line AA unit combat width reduced to zero (0).

Reducing guns in arty would be most welcome.

 

[Luckierexpert]

For those who though that would be Italy/Swiss focus tree - there is only one situation when Switzerland can go on war and its when Germany goes for "Operation Tannenbaum" and Italy always goes on this war. Btw. great to see more combat mechanics.

I believe Podcat has already ruled out Italy for this DLC. I think Switzerland will get a focus tree at some point, possibly as part of a BftB content pack with other neutral nations (such as Belgium and Ireland).

 

[Balesir]

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.

I think that depends how it's done. March of the Eagles has a mix of terrain in each province, and combat width is by terrain type, so combat width for a specific province can be 0.25*30 + 0.4*20 + 0.35*16, for example. Combat width can thus be different for every single province; min-max a division width meta for that, suckers!

 

[GrandVezir]

Combat width can thus be different for every single province; min-max a division width meta for that, suckers!

The smallest width that doesn't otherwise suffer a penalty -- probably 8. Stack 'em up like blocks to make the ideal width for a particular province.

Edit to add: that's for defense. For attack, (assuming damage and crit in combat stays like it is now), 50% of modal province width. Stack 2 to attack, +1 for each additional tile.

 

[Balesir]

The smallest width that doesn't otherwise suffer a penalty -- probably 8. Stack 'em up like blocks to make the ideal width for a particular province.

Edit to add: that's for defense. For attack, (assuming damage and crit in combat stays like it is now), 50% of modal province width. Stack 2 to attack, +1 for each additional tile.

OK, but (a) it's only approximate and (b) support companies will fight the "minimum width" aim. Basically, it becomes a lot more debatable and opens up space for variation.

 

[cac579]

Changing the province combat width to 75 by itself is easy enough, not worthy of a Development Diary.

Terrain implies Mountains, which should mean a reduction from the default combat width.

Suspect the initial combat width (108?) will be adjusted by terrain.

Also, this is a combat screen, which may mean a Diary about the reworked combat mechanics. Since a hint was dropped about a change to the piercing mechanic, I like the reworked combat mechanics idea.

Actually the game alrdy has terrain combat width reductions that don't work for some reason. So they are prob just gonna fix what was broken to begin with.

 

[Von Man Steiner]

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

Oh yes it only took half the world and 2 superpowers (3 if you count Britain) 6 years to horribly defeat Germany. Truly an incompetent army from which nothing of military tactics can be learnt.

 

[safe-keeper]

Actually the game alrdy has terrain combat width reductions that don't work for some reason. So they are prob just gonna fix what was broken to begin with.

Sounds great. I mean, people will work out a new meta once they've updated their game and run the numbers, but the new meta will hopefully be a bit more realistic than just "20 and 40w across the board", which seems to be the norm now.

Oh yes it only took half the world and 2 superpowers (3 if you count Britain) 6 years to horribly defeat Germany. Truly an incompetent army from which nothing of military tactics can be learnt.

I would reply, but I know from experience that starting to discuss history can horribly derail threads, so I'll abstain .

 

[minimouse007]

"forced historical divisional templates"
may i have a small comment here, regarding the fact that the professionals of the era, having a full view of the problem and on-hand experience, should beat usually an armchair general in designing a working army, simply due to the fact that... that is how our world works? like if not historical templates are the best to use, that is usually due to the system's inauthentic portrayal of said issue? But if hoi4 works inauthentic, than what exactly is the point of the game? see, most historical games are authentic, the rest are simulators
To be even more blunt: from warfare point of view, whether your yeoman archer has pink underwear or historical ugly, is a simply historical accuracy issue. Is it ahistorical? yeah. Is it impossible? no. pink underwear should "work". but using your buttcheeks to fire the bow is not just some coloring issue, it becomes impossible, if we aren t talking fooling around. The difference between more historical 20wish divisions or 40w-ish should be "pink/historical ugly" as the system stays authentic somewhat. But currently pink is like better 70-80% of the time which goes against authenticity and kinda making the whole fun part in choosing your underwear irrelevant. Since one type is like better most of the times.

*note: colors were a lot more expensive, so the authenticity frame only stays together, if your archer has a pink underwear, and is rich enough/stole it

it is literally the same issue like at the tanks: mediums are "historically"! the tanks that make sense most of the time. Yet 40w meta is so good, it is like heavys have only 2km/h disadvantage, for same cost. Yet we all know how incredibly ahistorical, inauthentic, and not very fun it would be, if heavys would cost the same. So stop these "enforced" stuff, because a game shouldn't call itself historical, or authentic, when artillery-only pr 2w spam works. Some decent work is required regarding combat mechanics, or division designer, because otherwise it stays the same dull, not very interesting, straightforward feature. i keep spamming the same 40w divisions for serious defense or offense roles, and i inflict easily 10, 20 30 times(or more, sadly) the casualty even as minors. this shouldn t be the case, i don t care if it's sp.

 

[RELee]

I would reply, but I know from experience that starting to discuss history can horribly derail threads, so I'll abstain

 

[Sighfer]

The multiplayer button will never stop haunting HoI4. I reiterate that I want a DLC that balances Single and Multiplayer separately.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

The multiplayer button will never stop haunting HoI4. I reiterate that I want a DLC that balances Single and Multiplayer separately.

why? then you'd never be able to practice for MP in SP, and SP players would have a much harder time getting into MP.

 

[Taniwha]

But on the other hand, those of us SP players who have never played multiplayer and never will won't have to worry about our game being balanced for the community we're not part of.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

But on the other hand, those of us SP players who have never played multiplayer and never will won't have to worry about our game being balanced for the community we're not part of.

do you not want SP to be more or less balanced too? do people want the AI allies to win 80% of the time (or the AI axis)? do people want just one type of tank to be viable, or to have super broken techs (like sub3s) be super broken? i really don't think so.

additionally, it just makes little sense. to use a popular game as an example - can you imagine if they intentionally made combat mechanics in minecraft different for MP and SP?

 

[TalyonUngol]

Cool. If its a combat rework... this might be fun. Though there will always be a Meta. Just a Meta for mountains, then swamps, then forests, etc so you just have a ton of divisions in an army... and now you have to select each individual one to go to a set location.... thats gonna be a hassle but still cool.

 

[Sighfer]

do you not want SP to be more or less balanced too? do people want the AI allies to win 80% of the time (or the AI axis)? do people want just one type of tank to be viable, or to have super broken techs (like sub3s) be super broken?

No, I want SP to be historically accurate, not balanced. I want to see Italy collapse, France too scared to move outside its borders, not oil in Libya, nor Japan successfully taking China. A slider for alt-history memery would be nice, too. That's the real reason you're not getting an Italy rework any time soon - it's historical accuracy and multiplayer balance are diametrically opposed.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

it's historical accuracy and multiplayer balance are diametrically opposed.

do you actually think that the devs balance the game around MP?