Very disappointed by the lack of terrain modifiers on the new tank designer

[Gyrvendal]

I'm really a fan of the new tank designer described in the latest DD, however I was extremely disappointed by the following quote:

I really wanted flamethrowers to give bonuses to fort attack and urban fighting, but unfortunately the way terrain modifiers work is very much tied to subunits on the code side. I pushed pretty hard on this, but when every day of code work uncovers three more days of code work that needs to be done, sacrifices must be made before they endanger the entire feature.

I don't care too much about flamethrowers specifically, although it would be super cool. However for tank specialization to be meaningful you absolutely need terrain modifiers on the design. With the announced system, all heavy chassis will need to share the same terrain modifiers, regardless of armor, gun type or chassis year. This is extremely disappointing: heavy guns should be good against fortifications and in urban combat. The weight of armor and engine/tracks quality should affect performance in hills/mountains/marsh etc. There is so much potential for variety and crazy special modules there!
The DLC is still a long ways off. @Archangel85 you mentioned that you pushed hard on this. Is there any chance this could still be done?

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I'm really a fan of the new tank designer described in the latest DD, however I was extremely disappointed by the following quote:


I don't care too much about flamethrowers specifically, although it would be super cool. However for tank specialization to be meaningful you absolutely need terrain modifiers on the design. With the announced system, all heavy chassis will need to share the same terrain modifiers, regardless of armor, gun type or chassis year. This is extremely disappointing: heavy guns should be good against fortifications and in urban combat. The weight of armor and engine/tracks quality should affect performance in hills/mountains/marsh etc. There is so much potential for variety and crazy special modules there!
The DLC is still a long ways off. @Archangel85 you mentioned that you pushed hard on this. Is there any chance this could still be done?

such is the issue of applying a system meant for units (ships) to a piece of equipment within a unit.

 

[Deliberus]

The dev diaries have yet to conclude

 

[pro.gamer.69]

The dev diaries have yet to conclude

the explicitly said it won't happen.

 

[Deliberus]

the explicitly said it won't happen.

ah ok didn't read the quote properly my bad

 

[Louella]

It might happen at some point in the future, but it seems like trying to change it now would take a disproportionate amount of time, that would be better spent on other things at the moment. (like making this new supply & railway system works well)

 

[Kazakk]

Those things may seem small, but they will impact the game in a meaningful way. If you do not have terrain modifiers, then all you need to worry about is IC cost, and if such tank is supposed to fight INF or other tanks.
With terrain modifiers, you can have tanks for combat in cities, muddy/marsh terrain, plain terran, amphibious, etc. Would be lovely playing BackICE with all these modifiers.

 

[podcat]

The DLC is still a long ways off. @Archangel85 you mentioned that you pushed hard on this. Is there any chance this could still be done?

an extremely tiny one. he isnt underestimating the effort of having to essentially redo the unit modifier system from the ground up

 

[pro.gamer.69]

With terrain modifiers, you can have tanks for combat in cities, muddy/marsh terrain, plain terran, amphibious, etc. Would be lovely playing BackICE with all these modifiers.

I mean, you still have that, just on a battalion level.

 

[cac579]

I guess we have to find other reasons why this would be a good idea for the long term in order to increase the likelyhood of this getting done.

 

[Kazakk]

I guess we have to find other reasons why this would be a good idea for the long term in order to increase the likelyhood of this getting done.

If it's such a big deal to do these modifiers, I'd say there are some things which needs dev attention more urgently. Such as diplomacy/peace deals.

 

[cac579]

If it's such a big deal to do these modifiers, I'd say there are some things which needs dev attention more urgently. Such as diplomacy/peace deals.

hoi4 is mainly a combat game if u wanted to have diplo and peace deals you would have to rework internal mechanics and the economy/trade first. But at this point you might as well make vicky 3.

 

[qer]

I honestly don't find it such a big issue. There were some parameters that matter like ground pressure, but at the end of the day a tank will be more vulnerable at forest, marshes, cities and mountains.

 

[Warhawg01]

I guess we have to find other reasons why this would be a good idea for the long term in order to increase the likelyhood of this getting done.

Turning this seemingly Good Idea into a Super Awesome Idea — which boils down to complaining about it with more volume, or getting more people to complain about it —doesn’t actually change the calculus on the other side of the equation: the actual resources required in time and money to implement it. Paradox already did this math, knows this and has been upfront in saying so.

Put this to a vote to the community and I bet this doesn’t make the Top-10.

 

[LordSkorpio]

hoi4 is mainly a combat game if u wanted to have diplo and peace deals you would have to rework internal mechanics and the economy/trade first. But at this point you might as well make vicky

The game may be oriented towards war, but that is no excuse to not have at least a basic diplomacy system. After 5 years I still can't play a game without going full world conquest, even if my original idea was not that. You want to retake Gibraltar as Spain? have fun conquering the whole British Empire. I just don't understand how none of the developers thought that maybe people would like to play limited wars instead going all or nothing everytime. Even the focus trees stories are written as if wars were limited sometimes.

 

[cac579]

The game may be oriented towards war, but that is no excuse to not have at least a basic diplomacy system. After 5 years I still can't play a game without going full world conquest, even if my original idea was not that. You want to retake Gibraltar as Spain? have fun conquering the whole British Empire. I just don't understand how none of the developers thought that maybe people would like to play limited wars instead going all or nothing everytime. Even the focus trees stories are written as if wars were limited sometimes.

hearts of iron was designed around ww2 not ahistorical stuff. Ahistorical stuff makes money hence dlc for focus trees.

Also maybe with the equipment terrain u can add mines (not the laggy version) or more advanced fortifications and have them be useful. There could be applications of unit equipment being affected by aircraft. More heavily armored canopies would be less affected by Hard attack coming from planes. Planes could have a soft attack or hard attack value maybe even weapon piercing for tanks.

 

[Gyrvendal]

If it's such a big deal to do these modifiers, I'd say there are some things which needs dev attention more urgently. Such as diplomacy/peace deals.

I think diplomacy is important, however the devs haven't announced a rework of peace deals, they have announced a tank designer. If they are going to do a tank designer, then they should do it right IMO. With the announced system, despite the number of different modules, there will not be much variety in designs IMO. Every player will make a tank type to crush infantry, and another to counter armor. There may be a few edge cases, such as tanks designed specifically for defense, or slow tanks to accompany regular infantry, but by and large, I think you will make the same designs every time.
Having the terrain modifiers would allow you to customize with terrain in mind, opening up much more design variety, changing what the 'optimal' design is depending on the situation. Of course, I'd also be very excited to see what modders could do with such a system

 

[Secret Master]

I mean, you still have that, just on a battalion level.

That's why I'm not worried about this.

It's not like terrain has no impact on tanks. It will still have the same effects it has now (if I understand the DD correctly). There just won't be a -1% terrain penalty for river crossings if you put a second machine gun on a light tank or something.

"We can't use sloped armor on the Tiger!"

"Why not? We can afford it."

"Yes, but adding sloped armor will penalize the Tiger 0.0067% in marshes. That will ruin our master plan of blitzing through the Pripet Marshes with amphibious Tigers!"

 

[LordSkorpio]

hearts of iron was designed around ww2 not ahistorical stuff. Ahistorical stuff makes money hence dlc for focus trees.

Also maybe with the equipment terrain u can add mines (not the laggy version) or more advanced fortifications and have them be useful. There could be applications of unit equipment being affected by aircraft. More heavily armored canopies would be less affected by Hard attack coming from planes. Planes could have a soft attack or hard attack value maybe even weapon piercing for tanks

I do prefer to play historically, but to be honest this game does not portray WW2 properly...and people say it's because it needs to be able to let players go ahistorical...but then the game basically forces you to conquer the world everytime so where is the sandbox if the outcome is always the same?

 

[cac579]

I do prefer to play historically, but to be honest this game does not portray WW2 properly...and people say it's because it needs to be able to let players go ahistorical...but then the game basically forces you to conquer the world everytime so where is the sandbox if the outcome is always the same?

Well the game would have to be more focused on making a wealthy/prosperous nation because map painting is very boring. This would require a massive rework I don't see them doing. Its better to make WW2 more interesting then focusing on ahistorical BS which just ends of being a joke currently cause they ai sucks and in mp it just turns into a meme game that ends in 1939.