HOI4 - Development Diary - 19th Of August 2016

[seattle]

Please make sure that the a.i. doesn't train new units while existing ones are out of supplies. Hungary doesn't need 200 divisions for example. This is an easy fix that vastly improves CPU and a.i. performance.

#air superiority
One suggestion: Add flak to the air superiority calculation with minimal effects. The idea behind this: Currently you only have to send in a dozen fighters to have air superiority in most regions. If AA would provide a small percentage to air superiority, you would by default have air superiority in your territory without having to station tiny fighter wings in each and every region.

@Wminus
"Strg" is actually short for "Steuerungstastepanzerkampfwagenflugabwehrkanone"

 

[Axe99]

That's a good question; I think (based on a vague memory) once the wing gets below the threshold it doesn't restart the mission until it's fully rebuilt, but I can very well remember this wrong.

From what I've seen on air superiority (and this isn't scientific, just what I've noticed in passing, when I've got planes on air superiority and I'm getting hammered, they'll get whittled down to 25 (as I have them set to normal) then they'll sit there, so I always felt that they kept plugging away whenever they had at least one more aircraft over the threshold. Could be wrong though.

 

[Wminus]

@Wminus
"Strg" is actually short for "Steuerungstastepanzerkampfwagenflugabwehrkanone"

StrgPzKwflak haha

 

[Alex_brunius]

#air superiority
One suggestion: Add flak to the air superiority calculation with minimal effects. The idea behind this: Currently you only have to send in a dozen fighters to have air superiority in most regions. If AA would provide a small percentage to air superiority, you would by default have air superiority in your territory without having to station tiny fighter wings in each and every region.

I don't think that's a good idea, because air superiority means combat penalty to enemy divisions...

How would you feel about getting a penalty in combat on the ground because the enemy had AA in their capital in the same airzone 400km behind the front?

 

[Fulmen]

I see a lot of folks lately asking for Manchukuo back. I can relate to that. There is only one way that removing it makes sense to me and that is if it being a puppet instead of integrated was causing problems with the current play mechanics. This is only a guess on my part, naturally, but I don't see a better reason for removing it.

Podcat replied to my question on this a while back and said Manchukuo was removed due to AI reasons.

 

[Soranya]

I don't think that's a good idea, because air superiority means combat penalty to enemy divisions...

How would you feel about getting a penalty in combat on the ground because the enemy had AA in their capital in the same airzone 400km behind the front?

I would think the Airzone System needs a redesing

 

[Communitnerd92]

Nice Paradox

 

[Invader_Canuck]

The match is to the CURRENT template. So, in the example, if the match is above 90% it will move on to the next target template and start working towards that.

So, the two lines in the script mean essentially "move on to target template script X WHEN there is a template design that has a match % Y for the CURRENT one".

So, the switch, is the switch the swapping out of template A to existing template B? Or, we will start updating a new division via the division designer from template A to template B?

 

[minhtuvn]

The plan for the patch is to be able to release it (as a open beta first) in 2-3 weeks barring any outbreaks of plague. Next Friday we'll have some more updates for you as well as talk about some new additions that will be in the patch:

Proper 3 nations of Indochina. YES!

 

[xtfoster]

Not sure if I like the port strike change. Did Japan have 100 % air superiority over Hawai before launching a port strike? Did Britain have over Taranto?

1) He said the limit was 30% not 100%
2) Actually, they did. The US was NOT running ANY form of CAP over the Hawaiian Islands in early December, 1941.
3) Italy's only form of Air Defense around Taranto was 101 Anti-Aircraft guns, 193 MGs, and 27 Barrage Balloons (the rest having been blown away by strong winds during the days leading up to the raid).

 

[safe-keeper]

Not sure if I like the port strike change. Did Japan have 100 % air superiority over Hawai before launching a port strike?

Yes. They had a force of 400 planes, I believe, and faced local fighters that were on the ground and in many cases not even combat-ready. Similar to the Germans when they invaded Russia -- many or most of the 2000 Soviet planes in the opening days lost were destroyed on the ground.

This is why HOI4 needs a surprise attack mechanic, as well as a system, for example a set of laws, which determines the mobilisation of your country. Low mobilisation would be far less costly, but leave you more vulnerable to attack.

I feel the exercise system partly covers this, in that if you're not expecting enemy attack you have your army do exercises, reducing their organisation to nearly nothing, but we need a more fleshed-out system. Podcat's idea of giving the US a temporary penalty to air superiority is a good beginning, I suppose, but in the future it would be nice if there was a more broad and dynamic system.

 

[bERt0r]

Am I the only one banging my head against a wall everytime I use a battleplan?

 

[Matthew1601]

Hi,

I am not sure if I am the only one having this issue, but for some reasons I have never seen Pearl Harbour taking place. Because of that the US-Japan war is either not happening or the US joins the Allies and does nothing.

Still great to see that you are trying to get rid of a lot of problems.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Dan1109]

Pearl Harbor is currently modeled as an attack buff for Japan for 30 days (from Strike USA National Focus). The problem is, even though Hawaii is a War Goal, Japan will not send ships to that area in order to perform Port Strikes with its carrier based bombers and torpedo planes. US has bad problems with its Navy as well. Everyone having this issue, not just you. I would be giddy as a school girl if Naval AI was fixed by 1.2 to handle this properly, but at the minimum, the devs are acknowledging and planning to fix several Naval AI issues in 1.2.

 

[SteelVolt]

SteelVolt said:


So in determining whether to upgrade an existing division to medium_armor_default it checks how much the existing template matches the regiments and support companies in the target_template.

So it can upgrade templates which include light_armor and infantry, or light_armor and motorised, but the motorised ones are more likely to match if I understand that correctly. A division with just infantry probably won't meet the 90% match. Otherwise, the AI is going to try to upgrade every Infantry division to use medium tanks.

Remember, the purpose of this is that the divisions such as those using the GER "Panzer-Division" template (with 4x light armour and 2x motorised) will get upgraded to use medium tanks. Not to upgrade divisions using their "Infanterie-Division" template (9x infantry).

The contents of the medium_armor_default template is not specified in that script. It's unlikely to include foot infantry.

Was this directed at me? Is there a question in there?

 

[SteelVolt]

@SteelVolt

the new additions to the template system look nice, but have you guys done any checks/work to improve the AI's ability to do reliably the basics of template building, i.e. following what the template config files tell it to do? Because it didn't seem to do a very good work with that last I checked... but then maybe it's just me not understanding how it's supposed to work..?

The tests we have done here have been looking good.

 

[SteelVolt]

So, the switch, is the switch the swapping out of template A to existing template B? Or, we will start updating a new division via the division designer from template A to template B?

Both.

 

[Gnollu]

Are there plans to implement destroying planes stationed on an aircraft but not assigned to any mission?
It's kind astrange to have thousands of planes on an airfield which are invulnerable against enemy's air force

 

[Ksyr]

Are there plans to implement destroying planes stationed on an aircraft but not assigned to any mission?
It's kind astrange to have thousands of planes on an airfield which are invulnerable against enemy's air force

I have lost planes without missions. I assume this is due to strategic bombing of airfields.

 

[Meglok]

I have lost planes without missions. I assume this is due to strategic bombing of airfields.

Correct. Strategic bombing will kill planes on the ground. Slowly.