HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer

[minimouse007]

You license the entire design.

Stay tuned for the changes to the combat system, which we will talk about in future Dev Diaries.

That's...a good point actually.

No, unfortunately. We thought about it earlier in the design process, but felt that ultimately it would deviate from the core concept and end up being a little confusing if you have stuff in an Armored Car Battalion that is actually a light tank. Same with mechanised equipment. The suspensions being available for light chassis is what is left over from that (we had already gotten the art).

We have a task internally to look into this.


It's not quite so simple. Monetary cost is not the only factor in determining production cost. Like I said, there are arguments to be made for either interpretation. Riveting for example is cheap in countries with a developed naval industry, because it doesn't require very skilled labor and if you are already producing rivets in the millions to build ships, using them for tanks is pretty cheap. Casting requires you to have heavy industry capable of producing the casts at the scale necessary for mass production (but of you do, it is pretty cheap, yes). Welding was the new thing in the 30ies, required specialized equipment as well as training, and in some countries there was resistance from trade unions for example because a single welder could replace several riveters. So you have a lot of factors, but for a game you want something simple that can be grasped easily. So I went with this split of advantages and disadvantages, even though reality is a bit messier.

it would be really cool if you could license parts only, it would make sense historically, when so many weapons had licensed engines
also.. the argument is 10/10 for average speed.... for land divisions. the 40+ knots of the dd, are definitely their max speed, only reached in battles, so their average travellin speed is actually around 10-20 knots, it's half/third/quarter

 

[PatrykCXXVIII]

How are tankettes represented? Light chassis with no armour?

 

[AndTheBestGamer]

This is what I was waiting from a lot, it's on short word my dream, I'm sure I will buy it immediately when it's out.

 

[1Chf]

It would have been much better to work on finding use-cases for the existing tanks rather than adding new tanks with no use-cases!

This is questionable game design as it basically adds complexity without depth. This is a major issue that the HOI4 designers struggle with (a recent example was the addition of different types of recon).
Especially taking into account what happened with the MTG ship designer. But I understand the need to add some shiny features to put on the DLC product page or 3D models (such as the armored car in previous DLC).

A module system is only interesting if:

1. several significantly different templates for the same unit are viable. Otherwise —and this is what happened with MTG— you're simply adding extra clicks to achieve what could be already done before. In MTG, there is for example only 1 optimal detection ship template, so why force us to click on all the modules? Same for other ships.
2. the choices you make on modules actually have an impact. Making people choose between Armor A, Armor B or Armor C is useless if difference between those modules is negligible in the final fight calculations.
3. (applies to single player only): the AI is competent enough that designing templates actually has a payoff. In MTG, that isn't the case; any template will stomp the AI, so, after the first few hours of discovery, why bother designing templates? (navies are actually not needed in single-player as the AI kills all it ships purposefully on naval bombers, but that's another topic).

Additionally, no true effort was made to balance modules MTG in subsequent patches. Balance in a module system is essential, otherwise there are optimal templates which defeat the very goal of having a module system.

Question to the devs:
Currently, we already have many different tanks, however people overwhelmingly use the same ones (medium tanks).
What makes you think that adding a template designer is beneficial to the gameplay?
What's going to happen is that people will build the same optimal design repeatedly, with extra clicks now. It would have been much better to work on finding use-cases for the existing tanks rather than adding new tanks with no use-cases!

Did you not read the ending of the dev diary? What happened to good faith?

You are spouting nonsense by saying this adds complexity without depth. How does this add complexity without depth? You can literally tailor tanks to your specific needs much better now. Facing a lot of tanks with weak armor? Maybe you need cheaper tank destroyers. Soft targets only? SPAA and some fast tanks to close encirclements effectively. In general, this actually is a great improvement. You now have to balance production cost vs giving the tank a little more firepower. Quality vs quantity.

While I agree that they have to give the AI more attention, you are being extremely harsh. Adding shiny features to put on the DLC? That is literally bad faith. Be a little bit respectful next time so you actually come off as giving valid criticism instead of just taking a dump on their work.

 

[SergeantCatt]

I noticed that last part, in which you talked how a Turkish person sent you guys a map of the railways in the 1930s, so here are a few maps of the Finnish railway grid and system from the 1930s, provided by the Finnish National Archives website finna.fi :
Late 1930: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:55?imgid=1&_=1619686217312#version
Late 1932: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:57?imgid=1
Mid 1935: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:37?imgid=1
Year 1938: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:93 & https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:93?imgid=2 (higher quality)
Also year 1938: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:38
Year 1939: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:39
Year 1940: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:40
Hopefully these maps might be of use

 

[Zauberelefant]

Oh sorry I forgot it was only partially made with casting technology.

In the dev blog, riveted armor is considered to be the cheapest, which requires an extremely long working hours compared to the other two, as well as special tools ... etc.


Which reduces the cost of all armor in the same way, but does not change the fact that riveted armor requires an extremely long working hours.

I am not sure what you are getting at. It's like you say, fixed cost vs variable cost when asking what Method to use.
Arguably, riveting is the worst from engineering and production cost point of view, while requiring the lowest Investment and research. Works nice for minors without a huge steel industry capable of running the Specialized facilities for Casting or welding large armour.
Historically, it was done, and fell out of favour for different reasons, so the same should happen in hoi4.

 

[1Chf]

This looks awesome! I was very skeptical of the Poland focus tree, and still am. It looks far too big and memey, but this DD makes this update look incredibly promising once more. Logistics and tanks? Very nice. The only things to wait for now are the Soviet focus tree (don't make it memey, please make it really good), explaining what you did to doctrines and making the air war as interesting as this new tank system looks. I really like how production cost can be very fine-tuned and balanced against different needs now, as opposed to just making a better tank for the same cost. Great job guys!​

 

[PichuTrainer]

You license the entire design.

So no way then of creating anything like a Sherman Firefly? Or even the historically considered 17-Pounder armed T-34?

 

[Punisher2099]

Will I be able to install weapons from heavy tanks to medium tanks? Historically, such projects existed, for example, the T-44-122.

 

[minimouse007]

I noticed that last part, in which you talked how a Turkish person sent you guys a map of the railways in the 1930s, so here are a few maps of the Finnish railway grid and system from the 1930s, provided by the Finnish National Archives website finna.fi :
Late 1930: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:55?imgid=1&_=1619686217312#version
Late 1932: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:57?imgid=1
Mid 1935: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:37?imgid=1
Year 1938: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:93 & https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:93?imgid=2 (higher quality)
Also year 1938: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:38
Year 1939: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:39
Year 1940: https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti_rautatie.M014:SRMK1:40
Hopefully these maps might be of use

we should maybe create a pinned thread, to collect the national infos on railway grid's, so they can use the sources in time

 

[AndTheBestGamer]

Will I be able to install weapons from heavy tanks to medium tanks? Historically, such projects existed, for example, the T-44-122.

Well, I already like this dlc, you can make everything type of tank, for example Tiger II with 122mm, Turbo Diesel engine and and better protection.

 

[PichuTrainer]

Well, I already like this dlc, you can make everything type of tank, for example Tiger II with 122mm, Turbo Diesel engine and and better protection.

I was more thinking of fitting a Panther with a Gas Turbine engine, which was actually considered.

 

[MiticFenix]

Just a few questions, will this kind of design be improved for the armored cars too? Since the add of the new trains and the little increase on tanks cost production, means everyone is gonna get some extra factories? will the trains be built into military factories or somewhat with the civilian ones? @Archangel85

 

[PichuTrainer]

Just a few questions, will this kind of design be improved for the armored cars too?

Apparently not, which is a shame, so no Pumas with PAK-40's ;(

 

[PichuTrainer]

No, unfortunately. We thought about it earlier in the design process, but felt that ultimately it would deviate from the core concept and end up being a little confusing if you have stuff in an Armored Car Battalion that is actually a light tank. Same with mechanised equipment. The suspensions being available for light chassis is what is left over from that (we had already gotten the art).

But wasn't the Armoured Car more or less a Light tank anyway? As they performed mostly the same role and afforded more on-road mobility at the sacrifice of armour.

 

[AndTheBestGamer]

I was more thinking of fitting a Panther with a Gas Turbine engine, which was actually considered.

That's possible I think, I'm saying that you can make the Tiger II like the one in War Thunder the Tiger II Sla16, with the 16 Valve Turbo Diesel porsche engine.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

@Archangel85
I find it somewhat odd that developing the chassis gives you the Weapon "for free".
The main armarment for one of the most famous Super Heavies (Maus) was simply the gun of the Jagdtiger. Iirc that was exactly the idea: Take an heavy AT gun, but put it in a turret.

So if I think this the other way around, to create a Jagdtiger I first had to research the Super Heavy Chassis to get the gun I need. That sounds very wrong.
And what about a hypothetical Jagdmaus?

/edit: My first idea to solve this problem is to connect those really big guns to naval gun research (at least for people with MtG). A small to medium naval gun is perfect for a really big tank gun.
That's - after all - the point where the famous 8.8 originated from.

 

[PichuTrainer]

View attachment 711133
@Archangel85
I find it somewhat odd that developing the chassis gives you the Weapon "for free".
The main armarment for one of the most famous Super Heavies (Maus) was simply the gun of the Jagdtiger. Iirc that was exactly the idea: Take an heavy AT gun, but put it in a turret.

So if I think this the other way around, to create a Jagdtiger I first had to research the Super Heavy Chassis to get the gun I need. That sounds very wrong.
And what about a hypothetical Jagdmaus?

This is the same game that lets you research the Swordfish, Albacore and Barracuda and not let you operate them from Carriers, and classes the Typhoon and Tempest as Close Air Support aircraft. Some liberties have obviously been made, but I do agree that guns should be separate from chassis.

 

[Crecer13]

I think it would be logical to make tank guns come out of research, for AA, AT guns and Howitzers to make a small button to create a tank version, according to analogy, how to create a version of an aircraft for an aircraft carrier.

 

[Kommunist Fried Chicken]

To be honest, though I don't like some focus designs(like Turkey, compare to China), some battle balance(especially naval battle, screen ships are more efficient than Capital ships, heavy guns perform bad against screen ships, I'm wondering what's the meaning of Capital line, and army AA) and spy system(in the late game, it takes too many time to operate), I do love what you guys created, keep on! Just be more sensitively about balance and update game a bit more often.
(If I may say, anyone see others have many vocations and they do their job not so good, they will be unhappy more or lees.)

And, how about considering make speed of single battalion more useful? like more advance in battle, now, if you cannot break enemy quickly, speed is useless so far.