Are you sure about this formula? This means if armor and piercing are the same you get infinite damage. That's pretty broken imo.
HOI4 Hydra 1.7.0 BETA patch [checksum: d12e]
- Thread starter Andy Gainey
- 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.
Are you sure about this formula? This means if armor and piercing are the same you get infinite damage. That's pretty broken imo.
You're thinking of "if armor is zero", in which case I think the formula is ignored because piercing is higher than armor. If armor == piercing, 90% * 0 / [armor] = 0.
Edit: you might have missed me saying it's the damage reduction. So overall damage can be expressed as:
[damage with other modifiers] * (1 - 0.9 * max((armor - piercing)/armor, 0))
Last edited:
So if armor=piercing you get 100% dmg reduction. What if armor>piercing? Then you have over 100% dmg reduction. How it works in that case?
If armor = piercing you get 0% damage reduction. 0.9 * (armor - piercing)/armor -> 0.9 * (armor - armor) / armor -> 0.9 * 0 / armor -> 0.9 * 0 -> 0.
To be less mathy: at 0 piercing you deal 10% damage, scaling up to 100% damage when piercing = armor.
To be less mathy: at 0 piercing you deal 10% damage, scaling up to 100% damage when piercing = armor.
Some observations from my latest USSR game, which I ran up until October 1942 when I took Berlin:
* China is super aggressive, never stops attacking. Saw this behaviour with the entire Axis as well when they rushed my frontline over and over.
* Raiding submarines don't seem able to hit screens - 50+ submarines vs a single destroyer and the subs didn't hit it
* Volunteers attacking unsupported still
* Fighter vs fighter casualties seem very low - 5,000 fighters vs 5,000 fighters is only producing 20 kills a day on each side
* Fighter casualties don't seem weighted towards the worse fighters - my interwar fighters survive just as well as my 1940 ones. They should be shot down first.
* It's hard to tell what the enemy planes are in tooltips - it would be good to see (Fighter 1) after a plane name to help it be identified.
* AI attacking with very low strength - saw cavalry attacking with 27% strength, looked like this was due to the AI having 0 manpower
* At the fall of Berlin in October 1942, Germany has shortages in everything, but has 3400 spare light tanks it's not using. It'd be good if these could fill in for missing medium tanks.
* AI research choices look generally sensible, but Germany has a RADAR research bonus it's completely neglected. The UK has ignored medium tanks and advanced light tanks.
* USA is completely starved of steel - minus 300 units. As a result it cannot build any ships.
* The UK is still building early destroyers in 1942.
* China is super aggressive, never stops attacking. Saw this behaviour with the entire Axis as well when they rushed my frontline over and over.
* Raiding submarines don't seem able to hit screens - 50+ submarines vs a single destroyer and the subs didn't hit it
* Volunteers attacking unsupported still
* Fighter vs fighter casualties seem very low - 5,000 fighters vs 5,000 fighters is only producing 20 kills a day on each side
* Fighter casualties don't seem weighted towards the worse fighters - my interwar fighters survive just as well as my 1940 ones. They should be shot down first.
* It's hard to tell what the enemy planes are in tooltips - it would be good to see (Fighter 1) after a plane name to help it be identified.
* AI attacking with very low strength - saw cavalry attacking with 27% strength, looked like this was due to the AI having 0 manpower
* At the fall of Berlin in October 1942, Germany has shortages in everything, but has 3400 spare light tanks it's not using. It'd be good if these could fill in for missing medium tanks.
* AI research choices look generally sensible, but Germany has a RADAR research bonus it's completely neglected. The UK has ignored medium tanks and advanced light tanks.
* USA is completely starved of steel - minus 300 units. As a result it cannot build any ships.
* The UK is still building early destroyers in 1942.
I agree that player vs AI exploits are not a real issue since the player has the option not to go down that path (and if he/she does, then that is simply equivalent to lowering the difficulty). Thus, I never suggested that making adjustments ot the CLs was a priority. You may also be right about AI research. For some countries (like Japan and Italy) naval doctrines and selective technology upgrades are clearly important. There is no easy way to track the AI research from within the game, though, so I am not sure how much of a disadvantage this created.
However, my general impression was not that the naval AI was particularly bad. After suffering heavy losses it started doing suicide missions (like sending out single capital raiders), but at that point it was all over anyway. In many skirmishes it did quite well. The big defeats were mostly due to fleet composition.
Now, don't get me wrong. Historically a DD force would be annihilated by a CL force (except possibly at night in an archipelago), and under most circumstances DD torpedoes would be completely ineffective agains CLs. Torpedoes were intended as a weapon against capital ships, and they are very effective in this role in the game as well (at Jutland, the Royal Navy let the Germans escape rather than risk a torpedo attack in its capitals). However, in reality a destroyer squadron would not suicide agains CLs unless there was a compelling need to do so. In a task (strike) force, the hope would be that the capitals could cover its DD screen from the cruisers. And if the screen would get slaughtered, the capitals would withdraw. But this is not happening. They AI stays in the fight against a superior force far too long - as if it thought that the DD screen was evenly matched with the opponents CL screen (with some old torpedo DDs mixed in) and only starts fleeing long after its fate is sealed and the capitals no longer can escape after losing the screen.
As for torpedo DDs being an equal match for CLs on the open sea in MP, I cannot tell since I don't play MP. However, if this is the case it is rather ahistorical and silly. You also mention the Japanese torpedo cruisers. Here it is worth keeping in mind that the Japanese relied on the long lance as a force equalizer against a superior US Navy, and trained extensively in night fighting. The torpedoes performed very well at night in the close waters around Guadalcanal, but even if the open seas had not belonged to the CVs, they were never intended to clear the enemy screen in a BB on BB engagement.
Thus, it seems to me that the game is currently by-and-large behaving historically correct and slight adjustments to the units and AI tactics (and as you point out, research) would be sufficient to sharpen the AI. The argument that in MP games torpedo DDs can be made to be equal to CLs, even if true, is simply not appealing - just as is the case with the ahistorical 7-2 divisions (which I hope could finally disappear in 1.8).
I mean, best naval strategy currently is to stack all your ships into strike force and have couple of scout task forces so I dont know what kind of historical accuracy you're talking about...
Well, devs arent fixing it in the next patch so it probably isnt getting fixed soon...This is simply because the "stacking penalties" are too small. A very easy fix.
Fighter combat has always been something of a joke. As Germany you can usually send 200 planes to volunteer for the Spanish Civil war so I send 100 fighters and 100 CAS. Both myself and the AI run round the clock missions but somehow even outnumbered 5:1 I only shoot down a handful of his planes; I lose far more to accidents than I do to actual combat (but somehow if you swap to the AI country he doesn't lose anywhere near as many planes as I do)
This problem gets worse when you fight over the English Channel. If I have 10,000 planes and the AI has 3000-5000 planes the casualties are still extremely low. Even if I have max radar and as much AA as I can on my side there still isn't much realism. Most of the time about half or more of the UK planes are very old relics from Raj while mine are almost always a 5 engine 1940 model (or better).
Old planes should be about as useful mid game as early light tanks are vs mid game medium tanks. I suspect that they are not as bad as they should be to make minors more relevant.
Unfortunately things are not likely to change until we get the air revamp.
i don't know if this is a bug but my panzer general just got infantry leader he is leading an army composed of 6/4 medium/mechanized and two more generals with same configuration are making swift progress towards it as well. actually they're making twice as much progress as my infantry generals and im playing hold the line france, no offensive moves yet.
AI has some problems with dockyards allocation and convoys.
Playing historical as Germany, USA and Soviets buffed with slider to max.
USA has 0 available convoys and it's priorities are weird. I've loaded latest save, and then auto save at the beginning of the month.
At the beginning it looked like this:
Notice that it still has some metal left (not much, but not negative), and it has 8 unused dockyards. Well i guess 5 since 3 are used for repairs.
Then 3 weeks later:
It has fewer convoys, still the same number of unsued dockyards but now even less docks used on convoys. At the very least it should put the remaining free dockyards to convoys. Of course ideally, it should be better at ASW. I wasn't even trying much. Until 1940 i haven't researched a single naval doctrine or sub tech, and built some subs only using starting docks, finishing the original naval surface queue and building Bismarck and Tirpitz. I did reseach a bit later on, so in 1942 I do have a few, but still, I can't say i've put much effort into that, and the AI's convoys are gone...using subs against the AI feels like I'm using an exploit...
Anyway, the point is:
I don't think AI should be wasting production by having dockyards do nothing, especially when it can afford and desperately needs more convoys.
On a related note, for some reason, as Germany I have:
1800 convoys ! Even though I don't build any, and have built just a few with a single dockyard for a few months. It's either a bug, or a very generous equipment capture after fall of a country. I'm not sure. I don't remember getting convoys before, at least not as many. It's a bit ridiculous.
And of course there are the old things. Soviets suicided 8 million soldiers and most of their equipment into my troops. It's pretty silly if all I have to do is click on the "stop" on my troops to get a win. Soviets got zero provinces in the process. It's probably a mix of AI not being able to estimate the results of it's attacks properly, just rushing, even when running low on unit strength, with default crap templates. But there is no point playing if my armies are invulnerable to anything the AI throws at me.
The frontline AI looks pretty good though. The best I've seen so far.
Playing historical as Germany, USA and Soviets buffed with slider to max.
USA has 0 available convoys and it's priorities are weird. I've loaded latest save, and then auto save at the beginning of the month.
At the beginning it looked like this:
Notice that it still has some metal left (not much, but not negative), and it has 8 unused dockyards. Well i guess 5 since 3 are used for repairs.
Then 3 weeks later:
It has fewer convoys, still the same number of unsued dockyards but now even less docks used on convoys. At the very least it should put the remaining free dockyards to convoys. Of course ideally, it should be better at ASW. I wasn't even trying much. Until 1940 i haven't researched a single naval doctrine or sub tech, and built some subs only using starting docks, finishing the original naval surface queue and building Bismarck and Tirpitz. I did reseach a bit later on, so in 1942 I do have a few, but still, I can't say i've put much effort into that, and the AI's convoys are gone...using subs against the AI feels like I'm using an exploit...
Anyway, the point is:
I don't think AI should be wasting production by having dockyards do nothing, especially when it can afford and desperately needs more convoys.
On a related note, for some reason, as Germany I have:
1800 convoys ! Even though I don't build any, and have built just a few with a single dockyard for a few months. It's either a bug, or a very generous equipment capture after fall of a country. I'm not sure. I don't remember getting convoys before, at least not as many. It's a bit ridiculous.
And of course there are the old things. Soviets suicided 8 million soldiers and most of their equipment into my troops. It's pretty silly if all I have to do is click on the "stop" on my troops to get a win. Soviets got zero provinces in the process. It's probably a mix of AI not being able to estimate the results of it's attacks properly, just rushing, even when running low on unit strength, with default crap templates. But there is no point playing if my armies are invulnerable to anything the AI throws at me.
The frontline AI looks pretty good though. The best I've seen so far.
Last edited:
Ugly stability issue in 1.7, capping you out at 80-90%. Issue starts when at war, if at 100% stability, you don't drop to 70%, but something a bit higher....which might seem nice, but the OP bug reporter stated his invisible cap was 80% and mine was 83%. 64bit Compiler issue hopefully, as this is just simple arithmetic.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...4-stability-limited-to-max-80-at-war.1183034/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...4-stability-limited-to-max-80-at-war.1183034/
It is tied to all the stability modifiers afaik and not a bug tbh.
Base stability is 0-100%. Modifiers are on top of that.
It is this way since 1.5
Has the bug that AI uses its main fleet in a low aggro strike force mission been fixed? Or can you still just pick of small AI convoy protection and patrol force one by one.
That's absurd:
1->Kongo was a Battlecruiser according to wikipedia, I'll take it's word and those of people living during that time and of historians instead of yours on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongō-class_battlecruiser
2->Kongo in game already has better armor (26, BC-armor level 2) than Fuso (25 BB armor level 1)
So it is already perfect (almost, there is a bug in patch 1.7 relating to Kongo).
Maybe you don't have Man the Gun? Without MTG the naval side is not worth discussing IMHO it was very bad, and very good now after MTG.
I don't think so since Paradox use a fixed point system for variables rather than standard integers. They say they could change it now but it'll cause so many subtle issues throughout they don't want to.
They have added more bounds checking on variables tho so hopefully they've fixed all the roll overs.
Are we ever going to see a fix for the exploit where you delete your army and train 1 division with as much width as possible?
The resulting training gives as much xp as another player who is legitimately training 40x 20width divisions.
The resulting training gives as much xp as another player who is legitimately training 40x 20width divisions.
This is false.
All four Kongo-class ships were designated as battlecruisers when they were laid down, but by 1936 all but Hiei were refitted and redesignated as 'Fast Battleship'.
Also one should stop citing a Wikipedia article as it's anything but 'historian' 'those of people living during that time' or whatever you may want to call it.
Last edited: