HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer

[Lord Antony]

So, now we'll have even MORE micromanagement. "Thanks", Paradox, you continue ruining your games. Stellaris, EU IV, now - this one.
What next: infantry designer, where we should decide how many chocolates and bullets put into the soldier's backpack?

 

[MrNewVegas]

Care to expand on this? Mediums are only like 5% more supply intensive, and far better. Heavies are 25% more supply intensive. I have absolutely no use for lights other than re-using starting LTs as cheap SPGs for SA. I would never build any more.

I won't disagree with you if you tell me that light tanks are mostly pointless if you have infinite IC but for the IC-strapped nation the light tank can be very useful. You are right that they do much better for maxing soft attack while raising hardness.
Also they are very speedy

 

[ScoffSlaphead72]

How will this affect the 3D models? seeing as there is already DLC for the axis and allied tanks will the default 3D models still be used or will there be custom models for each different variant made?

 

[sudpud]

So you agree then that the tank designer is (like the naval designer) more than likely going to be complexity without depth.
Navy is, as it currently stands, a mostly pointless excercise in clicking, because any ship + naval bombers wins in SP, and carrier + naval bomber wins in MP.

In any event, the questions asked are reasonable and if the developers cannot answer the three questions in a satisfactory way you should be seriously worried about the quality of their product.

Not at all! The customization allows me to try and succeed with multiple different strategies! I have disagreements with how some mechanics are implemented, but the idea that everyone builds the same design is way way way off base. A country with multiple navy objectives (ie escort convoys and fight XXX fleet) should be buidling more than one design of light and dd hulls.

I don't think you understand Navy as well as you think. I never build a single carrier(although I do use existing ones) in MP. A better designed or advanced fleet can beat another fleet with 50% better stats!

I can build a raiding surface fleet for the med as the UK, in order to prevent german tanks from reaching africa, even under red air!

I think you've read things about the naval system, but I'm not sure you actually understand it.

 

[Vohen]

It remains a design goal and tech hasn't ruled it out. But it is a more substantial rework of the AI than just a few lines of code telling it to put all its tank divisions into one container.

A substantial rework that is much, much needed though, as I commented previously.
I'd buy with my eyes closed the accompanying DLC if the patch was just that, even if the DLC had nothing I wanted.
That's how much of a key feature it is, on the same degree of importance as the supply and land/naval combat reworks.

 

[LolloBlue96]

Yeah! Now we're talking!
This dev diary got my hype back up and running! (And almost made me forget I'm salty about no Italy)
I can't wait to make some custom tanks (and maybe mod the *bleep* out of em).
Good job on this one guys! LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

EDIT: Okay now that I have collected my thoughts... do you guys think it'd be possible to make better automation for ships?

 

[sudpud]

So, now we'll have even MORE micromanagement. "Thanks", Paradox, you continue ruining your games. Stellaris, EU IV, now - this one.
What next: infantry designer, where we should decide how many chocolates and bullets put into the soldier's backpack?

There's an auto-designer for folks who don't want to customize.

 

[Happy Trigger]

I like to know how these changes will affect old DLCs, that said...
Question to the Devs: Will ships in MtG gain an automatic design button and reliability budget in accordance with the hull type too?

 

[Corvalix]

tank

 

[Rachidelson]

So, now we'll have even MORE micromanagement. "Thanks", Paradox, you continue ruining your games. Stellaris, EU IV, now - this one.
What next: infantry designer, where we should decide how many chocolates and bullets put into the soldier's backpack?

They just told us to be respectful and offer constructive feedback rather than "You ruining muh game by making me have to think!"
In fact, have you read the diary? It says there will be an auto option for those who don't want to customise, so maybe you should either try using that or just don't buy the DLC.

 

[sudpud]

They just told us to be respectful and offer constructive feedback rather than "You ruining muh game by making me have to think!"

I WANT TO PLAY WW2-themed CHECKERS

 

[sbadkins4]

Parts notes:
Diesel engines should use less fuel, but maybe two versions: one with aluminum cost and one with lower reliability. Historical examples would be how the Soviets developed aluminum engines, while the Japanese used non-aluminum steel ones that had worse reliability and lifespan but were required due to fuel limitations.
Fixed superstructures should be significantly cheaper than turrets; this was a major factor in German production of non-turret armored vehicles.

 

[Com]

I'm getting the impression that MG and multi turret designs are going to become intentionally ineffective, at least past quite early wars.

I really don't like that approach. The new designer adds a lot of customization and options, so why would some of them purposefully lead to dead ends?

A multi turret tank historically and practically can't compete with a standard design, but I don't think that should cause them to be entirely obsolete. Awkward and unusual designs in a system based on customization should be viable designs, if done correctly.

Slapping a bunch of turrets on a tank for soft attack could be a strategy to avoid/delay arty techs, or simply not pay tungesten costs for standard howizters. A multi turret tank with a series of AT turrets on it might add a fair bit of hard attack, but not much piercing at all. I could mix in heavier TDs for piercing and get my hard from those multi turrets. They could be anti light armor divisions/battalions, shredding armored cars and halftracks instead of using much more expensive standard divisions.

HMG/autocannons are almost explicitly soft attack systems. That's a very specific niche, but one that can be filled.

A light tank or armored car that's just a pile of MGs should be a very very cheap way of getting soft attack and hardness on a division, not something that's simply thrown out after 1940 because its simply obsolete now. These lighter divisions might be much more forgiving in terrain, letting them clear out cities easier than normal tanks, or fight in asia without supply or jungle pains. They're so cheap, maybe I could sprinkle armored cars and MG tanks in with certain infantry templates to give them a small edge (if armored car HP/ORG stats get fixed). Perhaps even drop some of these with paratrooper divisions since they're so light.


These MG/multi turret tanks are inferior in a LOT of ways to normal tanks and tank designs, but I'm getting the impression that they're going to be absolutely useless after a certain date - and I don't think that's good design in a system built for customizability.

 

[Ulysses Sternman]

Hello!

Can you please give as a little bit more details on how are you planning to rework armour?
Since the diary says the old binary system will be reworked I am really curious now how will it work.


Also, I am very excited by today's dev diary, I am just wondering about something... For example, A SU-152, and ISU-152, will we be able to design those in game, and will those vehicles have high soft attack but also be able to knock out most of existing tank designs?

 

[MrNewVegas]

Not at all! The customization allows me to try and succeed with multiple different strategies! I have disagreements with how some mechanics are implemented, but the idea that everyone builds the same design is way way way off base. A country with multiple navy objectives (ie escort convoys and fight XXX fleet) should be buidling more than one design of light and dd hulls.

I don't think you understand Navy as well as you think. I never build a single carrier(although I do use existing ones) in MP. A better designed or advanced fleet can beat another fleet with 50% better stats!

I can build a raiding surface fleet for the med as the UK, in order to prevent german tanks from reaching africa, even under red air!

I think you've read things about the naval system, but I'm not sure you actually understand it.

My point was there is an optimal ship design for convoy escort, and an optimal design for screening destroyers. Making players click 20 times to make them is complexity without depth because there is no point in building anything except the optimal design. In any event, as the post said, navy is pointless in SP because subs + naval bombers do everything you could ever need.

If you never build a single carrier in MP then you are clearly fighting under friendly green air or else you would lose.
Surfacing raiding in the med under red air requires constant micromanagment because eventually naval bombers will destroy your fleet.

 

[MrNewVegas]

There's an auto-designer for folks who don't want to customize.

The auto-designer will either be optimised enough to make customisation pointless (which means it really is complexity with no depth) or it will be bad enough that nobody ever uses it, which means it is complexity without depth. If you are making an anti-sub destroyer for the Atlanic then giving it literally anything beyond anti-sub weaponry is pointless because you will never fight anything with it, but I guarantee you the auto-designer won't do that.

 

[Balesir]

The script is pretty similar to the ship designer. You have your modules:

Thanks for the reply! I guess there are also lines for engine and armour ratings?

So I guess the question is how much national flavor you want to put into this or if you're okay with the 2pdr having the same stats as the German 37mm.

Almost certainly, yes; I will just scale back the tanks part of the mod to providing decisions to make historical variants per the current range in the mod. The guns should be relatively easy to parse, in fact, because they come from defined tech for guns . The more difficult bit might be assessing appropriate engine and armour ratings; I have the (scaled) speeds and armour ratings by model, but it sounds like the only way to tell what the final variant will need as ratings will be to build it in the game and see...

 

[Rachidelson]

The auto-designer will either be optimised enough to make customisation pointless (which means it really is complexity with no depth) or it will be bad enough that nobody ever uses it, which means it is complexity without depth. If you are making an anti-sub destroyer for the Atlanic then giving it literally anything beyond anti-sub weaponry is pointless because you will never fight anything with it, but I guarantee you the auto-designer won't do that.

Ah, yes, so if its good then it is bad, and if it's bad its also bad?

 

[MrNewVegas]

I'm getting the impression that MG and multi turret designs are going to become intentionally ineffective, at least past quite early wars.

I really don't like that approach. The new designer adds a lot of customization and options, so why would some of them purposefully lead to dead ends?

A multi turret tank historically and practically can't compete with a standard design, but I don't think that should cause them to be entirely obsolete. Awkward and unusual designs in a system based on customization should be viable designs, if done correctly.

Slapping a bunch of turrets on a tank for soft attack could be a strategy to avoid/delay arty techs, or simply not pay tungesten costs for standard howizters. A multi turret tank with a series of AT turrets on it might add a fair bit of hard attack, but not much piercing at all. I could mix in heavier TDs for piercing and get my hard from those multi turrets. They could be anti light armor divisions/battalions, shredding armored cars and halftracks instead of using much more expensive standard divisions.

HMG/autocannons are almost explicitly soft attack systems. That's a very specific niche, but one that can be filled.

A light tank or armored car that's just a pile of MGs should be a very very cheap way of getting soft attack and hardness on a division, not something that's simply thrown out after 1940 because its simply obsolete now. These lighter divisions might be much more forgiving in terrain, letting them clear out cities easier than normal tanks, or fight in asia without supply or jungle pains. They're so cheap, maybe I could sprinkle armored cars and MG tanks in with certain infantry templates to give them a small edge (if armored car HP/ORG stats get fixed). Perhaps even drop some of these with paratrooper divisions since they're so light.


These MG/multi turret tanks are inferior in a LOT of ways to normal tanks and tank designs, but I'm getting the impression that they're going to be absolutely useless after a certain date - and I don't think that's good design in a system built for customizability.

Yes, they are introducing many features that serve no purpose rather than making the features they already have serve a purpose.

 

[MrNewVegas]

Ah yes, so if its good then it is bad, and if it's bad its also bad?

If the auto-designer is good enough to replace you manually clicking, why would you ever not use it, making customisation completely pointless.
If it's not good enough to replace manually clicking, then why does it exist?