Will be there in DLC some focus trees for Soviet republics like Ukraine or Belarus?
- 4
HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer
- Thread starter Archangel85
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Firearms designer, got to find someway of making a fully automatic KAR-98.
- 2
- 1
Appeal to a broader audience, fashion designer for the uniforms.
- 7
- 1
I'm sure I won't be the first to say this, but many tanks for the DD Archangel, sensational work As a player who enjoys using the ship designer to create a situationally-appropriate navy (it's at least possible in SP - I don't play MP "metas") I very much look forward to doing the same with my tanks
Part of the difference between the ship and tank designer is that the tank designer goes into much deeper levels of detail. If the ship designer chose between propulsion types (reciprocating steam, turbines and diesels, for example), and had actual armour layout choices (for example, save weight with box protection of magazines and machinery, vs fully armouring) instead of a simple "tech ladder" approach, there would have been more scope. Not having a dig though - it's always easier going into more depth the second time around, and the ship designer allows those kind of things to be modded in, which I very much hope to do one day
Also - worth noting that the challenge to players there is very similar to the challenge for actual designers during the period - and I wouldn't call providing gameplay challenges that mirror historical challenges a failure
Intriguing - I like the sound of this
This is still possible (indeed sensible) for some ships - ASW DDs for trade protection vs torpedo and AA-heavy DDs for fleet work. The combat and air-attack/AA model, sadly, by mixing surface and carrier combat, limits the scope for specialisation more than the ship designer in some ways (ie, AA cruisers would make more sense if carrier battles were distinctly carrier battles, and the torpedo trade-off could be better represented if there were discrete day and night actions).
Wonderful news - great work
Random thought, but popping this into the in-game tooltip may head off comments on the forum (and be a useful and contextually-appropriate piece of information for players in-game as well)
Also wonderful news On this front, does the arty tab go past '43 now, to facilitate the late-game/early-cold war (given the game goes to 1948) tank (and AA) guns?
I will neither confirm nor deny that all of my tanks will be amphibious tanks
More wonderful news - great work, and great attention-to-detail
These sound like excellent features
I may or may not be joking when I saw "how much would it cost to do this for the ship designer, there's half a chance I'd cover it"
Many thanks
Great news Like artillery, radar (and radio) development didn't end in 1942.
As for a 'naval' pic, there was only ever going to be one type of pic for this DD - and that would be a DD tank of some sort, in this case a Valentine
As a player who enjoys using the ship designer to create a situationally-appropriate navy (it's at least possible in SP - I don't play MP "metas") I very much look forward to doing the same with my tanks Part of the difference between the ship and tank designer is that the tank designer goes into much deeper levels of detail. If the ship designer chose between propulsion types (reciprocating steam, turbines and diesels, for example), and had actual armour layout choices (for example, save weight with box protection of magazines and machinery, vs fully armouring) instead of a simple "tech ladder" approach, there would have been more scope. Not having a dig though - it's always easier going into more depth the second time around, and the ship designer allows those kind of things to be modded in, which I very much hope to do one day
Also - worth noting that the challenge to players there is very similar to the challenge for actual designers during the period - and I wouldn't call providing gameplay challenges that mirror historical challenges a failure
Intriguing - I like the sound of this
This is still possible (indeed sensible) for some ships - ASW DDs for trade protection vs torpedo and AA-heavy DDs for fleet work. The combat and air-attack/AA model, sadly, by mixing surface and carrier combat, limits the scope for specialisation more than the ship designer in some ways (ie, AA cruisers would make more sense if carrier battles were distinctly carrier battles, and the torpedo trade-off could be better represented if there were discrete day and night actions).
Wonderful news - great work
Random thought, but popping this into the in-game tooltip may head off comments on the forum (and be a useful and contextually-appropriate piece of information for players in-game as well)
Also wonderful news
On this front, does the arty tab go past '43 now, to facilitate the late-game/early-cold war (given the game goes to 1948) tank (and AA) guns?I will neither confirm nor deny that all of my tanks will be amphibious tanks
More wonderful news - great work, and great attention-to-detail
These sound like excellent features
I may or may not be joking when I saw "how much would it cost to do this for the ship designer, there's half a chance I'd cover it"
Many thanks
Great news
Like artillery, radar (and radio) development didn't end in 1942.As for a 'naval' pic, there was only ever going to be one type of pic for this DD - and that would be a DD tank of some sort, in this case a Valentine
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I don't believe Man The Guns had too many technologies. It's actually missing a few important things as is the ship designer.
It would be nice if templates for historical vehicle designs were included. For ships as well.
One of the downsides of Man The Guns is that there was historical name and description flavor in the naval tech tree originally. MTG removed this completely. It was never put back in any form. I hope this doesn't happen again with these vehicles.
We need controls to tell a Division to avoid and/or prefer certain types of terrain. So our specialized vehicles actually behave intelligently.
What about main gun sights? Wasn't that a hugely important thing?
What about tank ammunition loaders? Was there any variation in that during WW2?
Mechanized vehicles should be in the Designer as well. Never been a fan really of these broadly abstracted variants. It hurts the immersion when things are just abstracted in a nebulous way.
I hope it's possible to have late war German tanks with very high performance but very low reliability.
This is a big thing, Assault Guns need to be a vehicle type. They are a distinct class of World War 2 vehicles. They're not just a variant. The Germans used them very heavily and Soviets to an extent as well. Basically a cheaper and more performance limited Tank that you can mass produce easily. They were born out of necessity from my understanding.
Radio communication between German tanks was a huge advantage they had early on against the Soviets. I hope this is modeled. Germans actually had physically worse tanks than the Soviets during the opening of Barbarossa but they were well trained, experienced, and had radios and well developed Doctrine.
Armor shouldn't just be an abstracted number like 5. It should tell you an actual real life thickness. Paradox Devs need to think about immersion when designing mechanics. There is an immersive way to make a game mechanic and there is a non-immersive way. Immersive is generally always better unless you're designing a primarily multiplayer game or something.
Max speed should be listed on the engine for the above stated reason. Show both top speed and operational speed or something.
I believe the Germans started using night vision on their vehicles late war.
The Tank tech tree honestly looks too small/simple to me.
Limiting Tank Chassis to an arbitrary 4 special slots is probably going to cause problems with designing historical vehicles. Just like the arbitrary limits with Support Companies on Divisions and arbitrary limits on modules with Submarines. If you want to deck out your Tank design you should be able to. Especially with regards to historical real life designs.
The ability to attach one Division to another is needed.
The ability to detach individual Battalions from a Division temporarily is needed. (Kampfgruppe in real life)
With regards to the tag-symbol system which allows you to send specific Tank designs to specific Divisions. This has the same problem as the tag-symbol system which reinforces naval Task Forces with new ships. It requires you to memorize tags to a specific design, the tags don't really look good visually for a WW2 game, and there are only an arbitrary limited amount of tags to use. Instead of using tags just make it so you can select a Tank Design by name and assign it to Divisions. You don't have to remove tags but I don't want to be forced to use tags. It's simply an inferior way to do it in my opinion.
The auto-design button should have multiple options in my opinion. Auto design by: national historical flavor, offense, defense, speed, reliability, gun power, armor, etc.
Having to pay XP to make physical vehicle and Division designs is a bad system that needs to go imo. It doesn't make any real life sense and the first mod on the Workshop years ago was to remove it I believe. It's an example of over fondness of abstraction imo.
Nations should use their historical designs. It would be really lame if they didn't and just had a bunch of generic ones running around. Maybe make it a game option.
Keep up the good work. Very happy there is a vehicle designer. Does Paradox not employ a community team which gathers feedback from the community for the developers? That's a pretty standard thing in the industry as far as I know. I would definitely do that job lol. I love reading.
It would be nice if templates for historical vehicle designs were included. For ships as well.
One of the downsides of Man The Guns is that there was historical name and description flavor in the naval tech tree originally. MTG removed this completely. It was never put back in any form. I hope this doesn't happen again with these vehicles.
We need controls to tell a Division to avoid and/or prefer certain types of terrain. So our specialized vehicles actually behave intelligently.
What about main gun sights? Wasn't that a hugely important thing?
What about tank ammunition loaders? Was there any variation in that during WW2?
Mechanized vehicles should be in the Designer as well. Never been a fan really of these broadly abstracted variants. It hurts the immersion when things are just abstracted in a nebulous way.
I hope it's possible to have late war German tanks with very high performance but very low reliability.
This is a big thing, Assault Guns need to be a vehicle type. They are a distinct class of World War 2 vehicles. They're not just a variant. The Germans used them very heavily and Soviets to an extent as well. Basically a cheaper and more performance limited Tank that you can mass produce easily. They were born out of necessity from my understanding.
Radio communication between German tanks was a huge advantage they had early on against the Soviets. I hope this is modeled. Germans actually had physically worse tanks than the Soviets during the opening of Barbarossa but they were well trained, experienced, and had radios and well developed Doctrine.
Armor shouldn't just be an abstracted number like 5. It should tell you an actual real life thickness. Paradox Devs need to think about immersion when designing mechanics. There is an immersive way to make a game mechanic and there is a non-immersive way. Immersive is generally always better unless you're designing a primarily multiplayer game or something.
Max speed should be listed on the engine for the above stated reason. Show both top speed and operational speed or something.
I believe the Germans started using night vision on their vehicles late war.
The Tank tech tree honestly looks too small/simple to me.
Limiting Tank Chassis to an arbitrary 4 special slots is probably going to cause problems with designing historical vehicles. Just like the arbitrary limits with Support Companies on Divisions and arbitrary limits on modules with Submarines. If you want to deck out your Tank design you should be able to. Especially with regards to historical real life designs.
The ability to attach one Division to another is needed.
The ability to detach individual Battalions from a Division temporarily is needed. (Kampfgruppe in real life)
With regards to the tag-symbol system which allows you to send specific Tank designs to specific Divisions. This has the same problem as the tag-symbol system which reinforces naval Task Forces with new ships. It requires you to memorize tags to a specific design, the tags don't really look good visually for a WW2 game, and there are only an arbitrary limited amount of tags to use. Instead of using tags just make it so you can select a Tank Design by name and assign it to Divisions. You don't have to remove tags but I don't want to be forced to use tags. It's simply an inferior way to do it in my opinion.
The auto-design button should have multiple options in my opinion. Auto design by: national historical flavor, offense, defense, speed, reliability, gun power, armor, etc.
Having to pay XP to make physical vehicle and Division designs is a bad system that needs to go imo. It doesn't make any real life sense and the first mod on the Workshop years ago was to remove it I believe. It's an example of over fondness of abstraction imo.
Nations should use their historical designs. It would be really lame if they didn't and just had a bunch of generic ones running around. Maybe make it a game option.
Keep up the good work. Very happy there is a vehicle designer. Does Paradox not employ a community team which gathers feedback from the community for the developers? That's a pretty standard thing in the industry as far as I know. I would definitely do that job lol. I love reading.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
I believe that the problem with the new researches that came with Man the Guns was that you would always be focused on industry, eletronics, army, aircrafts and doctrines and that would leave you with little to no time to research all of that stuff at all.
I believe that researching doctrines played a huge role on that, because you would awlays be researching at least one doctrine per time and sometimes 2 or even 3, but now it seems they have completely moved doctrines out of the research field, which probably means we will no longer have to worry about directly researching new doctrines, so maybe this DLC will bring us more time to focus on other types of research.
I'd also like to ask the developers if they plan on expanding these kind of designers towards things like armored cars, mechanised, motorised and aircrafts in the future, as I would love to spend hours trying to figure out the best way to build my motorised. Also, a thing I think should've been added with MtG would be a convoy designer, but that's completely up to the Devs. I hope they read this.
- 1
How many complainers actually work for a competing game company? - asking for a friend...
- 4
- 3
On the subject of speed.
During the Battle of France, Guderian's forces moved without stop for 3 days straight, also with help of certain drugs. They were the breakthrough force supposed to encircle the allied armies, and were successful at that.
I wonder if we will have a new type of command ability, to increase the speed value of a few forces of your forces for a few days, to simulate this? It can then be followed by some type of penalty for a short while, as fatigue hit the soldiers pretty hard after the effect of these drugs ended.
- 3
- 1
- 1
After thinking about it, I think it is worth noting that the main issue with the AI, at least for myself, is not difficulty, but ‘feel’.
The AI often behaves in ways that seem either baffling or out of place in WW2. The overall strength of the AI, its generalized combat effectiveness, isn’t my issue so much as the way it fails to act in ways that look ‘real’, if that makes sense. The AI fights... well. Like a WW1 army. It makes a contiguous front, and slams it into the enemy. If it can’t make a contiguous front, it freaks out. If it makes a breakthrough, it doesn’t exploit it. If it suffers a breakthrough, it doesn’t understand how to stop it very well. It doesn’t seem to understand that tanks and infantry might be things that are not the same and thus might need to be treated differently. I understand that these are not easy things to fix, but even the appearance of the AI being better at dealing with them would go a long way towards making the combat of the game ‘feel’ more like WW2 than, say, WW1.
The AI often behaves in ways that seem either baffling or out of place in WW2. The overall strength of the AI, its generalized combat effectiveness, isn’t my issue so much as the way it fails to act in ways that look ‘real’, if that makes sense. The AI fights... well. Like a WW1 army. It makes a contiguous front, and slams it into the enemy. If it can’t make a contiguous front, it freaks out. If it makes a breakthrough, it doesn’t exploit it. If it suffers a breakthrough, it doesn’t understand how to stop it very well. It doesn’t seem to understand that tanks and infantry might be things that are not the same and thus might need to be treated differently. I understand that these are not easy things to fix, but even the appearance of the AI being better at dealing with them would go a long way towards making the combat of the game ‘feel’ more like WW2 than, say, WW1.
- 2
- 1
Didn't some modders announce that they put a lot of work into making the ship designer working with tanks like 2 weeks ago?
I can't wait to see what crazy ideas people are able to come up with.
I can't wait to see what crazy ideas people are able to come up with.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Meth is a hell of a drug... until your entire army gets strung out on it.
- 1
So, pretty much most new mediums received gun equivalent to Tiger1, 2 years after it`s debut?
Tell us in what way T-34-85s gun was deficient compared to Tiger`s. Soviet 85 was AA gun derivative, like German 88.
Division with 1 battalion of :
- Panther with 300mm of frontal armor, and casemate mounted MG.
- Panther with turret mounted 88L/71 but 15 mm of armor.
- Panther with short 105mm cannon
- Panther with regular 75mm
Whom would win?
Last edited:
I don't have a complaint about adding this design feature if it works as intended and the developer is prepared to address all bugs as they arise rather than working on new dlc contents that can be sold. However, the lack of action to fix gamebreaking naval bugs from the man the guns dlc and the more recent bosphorous dlc convinces me that the developers will not be committed to ensuring the quality of their dlc, and instead will be working on new ones, in a vicious cycle of badly serviced features being added to the game. The feedback from platforms such as steam already shows substantial buyers' regret. I recommend against purchasing this dlc until we see evidence that the developers are willing to service released contents and fix major bugs.
- 1
Yes, optical sights were important. Appears it has been rolled into the "turret".
- 2
The Soviet 85mm was on par with the KwK 36, the KwK 43 as used on the Konigstiger was superior to both guns.
One suggestion/request I'd have is that radios would also affect the organization of the tank, similar to the MTG naval designer ( or at least if organization can be modded in there, i think it would add a lot )
- 1
I dunno, a train designer could be pretty neat. Different designs could improve supply capacity, lessen the effects of bottlenecks, protect them from bombings, etc.
If I didn't have the face of a man who had opened the Ark of the Covenant, I'd kiss you. Seriously, it's tiny things like this and the ability to drag and drop production priority that make me appreciate you guys that much more.
On a different note, will we get 3D models of the Ratte, and will they look as utterly ridiculous as they would have IRL?
- 2
Hello, me and my friends play a lot of HOIV together and ever since the Man the Guns DLC has come out, and knowing that this DLC and I would assume others will continue to add new research (which I am all for) we were wondering if you guys would eventually add an additional research slot to each nation, or possibly for older technologies (Like World War I era support, tank, and early ship designs, that stuff) make it take less time to research. I know personally if I play a minor nation it takes a long time to catch up in naval research (Usually subs, destroyers, and maybe cruisers, beyond that I don't even bother) and that is before one can even start to produce the new quality. But I also understand that realistically those countries would struggle building a navy from almost scratch. I was just curious if the process could be sped up slightly.
I am also sorry to hear about the negative feedback you guys have been getting. On that I do have a question which is, is there an area where to post questions I have about the game or ideas/suggestions to add? (Similar to what question up top) I know you guys are probably very busy, and I don't want to spam an area with too much of my own questions and ideas where it will just be annoying to deal with
I am also sorry to hear about the negative feedback you guys have been getting. On that I do have a question which is, is there an area where to post questions I have about the game or ideas/suggestions to add? (Similar to what question up top) I know you guys are probably very busy, and I don't want to spam an area with too much of my own questions and ideas where it will just be annoying to deal with