Should they be able to? I know in HOI3 I always get requests from minors for them, but don't know why it's not a thing in 4.
- 2
Why does the AI not ask for production liscenses?
- Thread starter coffeelingfine
- 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.
It would be nice if licensed tanks can move at normal speed without needing to spend time teching the tanks, which damages the point of the license.
For most AI the issue is what it would license. Most AI minors have < 20 military factories, and will put the majority of them on guns and artillery. If they licensed tanks or planes they would produce very few of them even if they put half of their IC on just one.
I find license most useful when playing mods that constrain tech slots. You can puppet a nation with decent stuff and license out tanks/planes/mine laying (sometimes) while skipping the research. I've had massively XP-boosted variant fighter 3's while having no air equipment or doctrine stuff researched at all. You are still at a handicap but at least you can actually use some non-infantry options. License is also useful for tech discount, an advanced puppet will effectively give you a substantial discount on every equipment tech it has at the price of civ IC while researching those.
For most AI the issue is what it would license. Most AI minors have < 20 military factories, and will put the majority of them on guns and artillery. If they licensed tanks or planes they would produce very few of them even if they put half of their IC on just one.
I find license most useful when playing mods that constrain tech slots. You can puppet a nation with decent stuff and license out tanks/planes/mine laying (sometimes) while skipping the research. I've had massively XP-boosted variant fighter 3's while having no air equipment or doctrine stuff researched at all. You are still at a handicap but at least you can actually use some non-infantry options. License is also useful for tech discount, an advanced puppet will effectively give you a substantial discount on every equipment tech it has at the price of civ IC while researching those.
- 2
- 1
Licenses are useless due to the ahistorical excessive amount of research slots that minors get in the generic focus tree. Italy also should have their research slots decreased by 1.
- 2
Depends on what you mean by "should". The action is not implemented for the AI. There are no specific circumstances or configurations where the AI currently should be choosing the action.
If you mean more generally whether it would be a good idea for the AI to have the capability, probably yes. It is a niche feature locked in a DLC, but in a few circumstances licensing can be beneficial, especially with a human player who specifically AOT-researches something in order to license it.
If licensing had been there from the start, minors would probably have less research slots. Arguably the smallest ones could not have a single one then and depend on licenses for equipment production.
Also, civilian factories being badly defined somewhere between construction industry and general civilian productivity makes balancing difficult. Civilian factories in the game can directly be used for military and industrial growth, so minors are poor in those. Still a country might have significant non-industrial exports like food or precious metals (without military uses) etc. to finance equipment licenses.
- 2
hoi4 economics is too simple for my taste. I'm not saying get the economy of victoria 2 ... but at least something similar to Eu4 ... with resources for the population, consumer goods that are actually ... consumer goods, even abstract with 2-3 resources. If the war is going well even if I lack a resource, the population pulls the belt and resists until the final victory. If the war goes wrong, I lack the resources ... well I get a good civil war ...
- 2
I would argue that in many cases, significantly ahead of time equipment has a penalty that is too large to justify production on a license.
Sure, the US can get 1944 heavy fighters in 1941. But who wants to license that plane just to fire up a production line with a -40% penalty in 1941 while also paying for the license?
Now, licensing that equipment to boost your own research is another thing entirely. That is well worth the time and effort. And there are cases where you can fire up a production line with the penalty, but research the equipment as well, building production efficiency until you have your own equipment to swap into the line, thus building efficiency in anticipation of removing the penalty.
Important safety tip with licenses: Swapping from a licensed piece of equipment to the same exact year/type as your own only removes as much production efficiency as swapping to a new variant with XP applied. So, if I license the Spitfire from Britain and start a production line, then swap to the Aircobra, I can keep most of the production efficiency I built up.
- 4
- 1
- 1
I think you'd need to structure tech progression differently for this to work. Right now you need heavy investment into equipment tech to get relevant equipment modifiers independent of the object produced. It isn't just that licensed stuff is more expensive to produce, it also performs far worse for nations producing off that license than it does for nations that research it, even after extended use by the former.
Also having no access to doctrines at all would be a problem in a game that hypothetically allows nations that succeed for long enough to become powerful.
Important safety tip with licenses: Swapping from a licensed piece of equipment to the same exact year/type as your own only removes as much production efficiency as swapping to a new variant with XP applied. So, if I license the Spitfire from Britain and start a production line, then swap to the Aircobra, I can keep most of the production efficiency I built up.
I did not know this. It would be useful when playing catchup in late-game as minors, especially on cheevo runs that are de facto world conquest (or close) where it's possible to puppet someone from first major war to get things like fighter 3s or modern tanks going.
- 1
The AI doesn't buy licenses because it would just shoot itself in the foot with licensing costs and production maluses. Using licenses effectively requires strategic planning and smart prioritization of research, both of which the AI is completely incapable of ATM.
Even for players, licenses are a questionable investment except as a research boost, and only if you license from effective allies (other players) so the industry is not wasted.
Even for players, licenses are a questionable investment except as a research boost, and only if you license from effective allies (other players) so the industry is not wasted.
What an interesting observation. If licensing had been there from the start and possibly some abstracted form of spying/theft/observation and copying, then the research slots could be adjusted better to reflect the realities of the 1930's and 1940's. Minor countries (and majors) copied each other or followed each other's progress and profited from it in better equipment for themselves.
Would it be a bad thing for such an adjustment to be made in the current game, in a future upgrade? Licensing would have to cost less CF's for minors to benefit, or maybe older tech cost much less CF's, so minors can afford it. They would have older equipment, but that is about right with history, especially as the war progressed.
For Paradox' business interests, probably. Licenses are DoD-exclusive, so either they'd need to retroactively invest significant work in the DLC (which they never did so far) or downgrade a significant part of the DLC to the base game (ditto).
- 1
Hitler granted Italy the license of the PZIII and PZIV. Free. I repeat: FREE! Mussolini refused it only because he trusted his advisers "we produce things better than the advisers" otherwise ... imagine the collapse of the British in Africa against the PZIII and PZIV (which needed 75mm to pierce them ...).
Returning to the issue of licenses, maybe there shouldn't be a malus. In my personal mods I totally eliminate the production malus and set the cost at -100% or -50% in this way they are real licenses, between allies who help each other. (I remember that before capitulating the Germans sent a submarine to japanese with either a tiger II or the tiger II projects inside, don't ask me how the hell they put a beast like the tiger II in it if they put the tank and not the projects!). A idea are this: License cost very few. Now only use special focus (like Mexican or Netherlands focus) make license usefull!
edit: for the DLC, paradox on EU4 have make free varius feature of DLC
Returning to the issue of licenses, maybe there shouldn't be a malus. In my personal mods I totally eliminate the production malus and set the cost at -100% or -50% in this way they are real licenses, between allies who help each other. (I remember that before capitulating the Germans sent a submarine to japanese with either a tiger II or the tiger II projects inside, don't ask me how the hell they put a beast like the tiger II in it if they put the tank and not the projects!). A idea are this: License cost very few. Now only use special focus (like Mexican or Netherlands focus) make license usefull!
edit: for the DLC, paradox on EU4 have make free varius feature of DLC
- 2
- 1
Given the most recent DLC apparently not, pay to win is a 3rd option sadly. By introducing resistance with nearly (or sometimes literally) game-long waiting required to build compliance...unless you drop $20 to get espionage to run a few compliance missions in high-IC nations. Then you get a big IC boost and minimal issues/investment required against resistance there. Contrast with pre-patch where you could just run harsh, garrison up-front, and get the IC immediately. The difference in potential production between DLC and non-DLC was patched to be pretty significant.
- 2
the problem of this DLC are can create more problem than they resolve
- 1