• 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.

Developer Diary | Plane Designer

image.png

Hello, and welcome back to another Dev Diary for the upcoming By Blood Alone DLC and accompanying Patch 1.12! The team has returned from the summer vacation, and we are now back fixing bugs and tweaking the balancing of the new features and focus trees.

Today, we are taking a look at the Plane Designer. As always, any number value that you are going to see in this DD is subject to change.

The Plane Designer became a subject of discussion, both inside the team and in the community, almost as soon as we announced that No Step Back would feature a Tank Designer. We felt that it would mesh well with the rework of the Italian focus tree, not least because the Italian aviation industry was very well developed and produced some of the best combat airplanes of the war - hampered mostly, as Italy so often was, by lacking production capacity.

We also felt that a Plane Designer would help plug some gaps in the lineup of available aircraft. Over the years, many players have commented on the fact that many nations modified their fighters to also be able to carry bombs, or their tactical bombers to also carry torpedoes. One of the big goals of the Plane Designer was to allow for these types of multi-role aircraft.

At the same time, we didn’t want to make these multi-role planes too powerful. Instead, a plane design optimized for a single mission should still be more effective than a multi-role plane. Where multi-role planes offer flexibility, optimized designs offer top performance, if you can afford them.

The basics of the Plane Designer are probably not a surprise for anyone who is familiar with the Ship or Tank Designers. The base is called an airframe, which roughly corresponds to the hulls and the chassis of the ship and tank designers. The Airframes have a number of module slots, where you can put the modules that give the final design its actual stats. There are three different size classes of airframes: Small, Medium, and Large. Small planes also come in a carrier-capable variant of the airframe.

The types of module slots in the Plane Designer are slightly different from the Tank Designer. There are effectively only three types of slots: Engines, Weapons, and Special modules.

Engine modules are perhaps the most straightforward of them. Unlike tanks, where this slot dictates what type of engine the tank uses and a separate stat determines what its speed is, engine modules in the plane designer determine the number and power of the engines mounted on the aircraft. These engine modules produce a new stat called Thrust, while all other modules have another new stat called Weight. These two stats are effectively the limiting factor of what and how many modules you can put on the plane. A design is only legal if Weight does not exceed Thrust (some people might point out that the only planes with a Thrust/Weight ratio of 1 or better in reality are modern, high-performance fighter jets, but these people will be summarily ignored).

Any excess Thrust is converted into extra speed, which is intended to provide a reason not to fill every module slot.

One thing to note here is that jet engines (and rocket engines, for that matter) are part of these engine slots, which means that they are available for all types of planes. This, by necessity, means that Jet Fighters and other jet-powered airplanes are no longer their own unit type - they are now simply fighters with jet engines. Jet fighters will therefore reinforce regular fighter wings, and also that you can now effectively make jet carrier planes, jet CAS, jet heavy fighters etc.with the plane designer.
Or Rocket Naval Bombers, one supposes, if you really hate your pilots on a personal level.
image5.jpg

Weapon modules are also fairly self-explanatory. But beyond providing offensive stats like Air Attack, weapon modules fulfill two other major functions. The first is that the weapons define what type of plane a design ends up being. For this the designer has a Primary Weapon Slot. The module in this slot defines the role of the final design, i.e. Fighter, CAS, Naval Bomber etc.

This is relevant because the weapon modules also unlock what missions a design has available. That means that the strict separation of mission by type of aircraft will be gone. You can now create fighters that can provide ground support, or Strategic Bombers that can do naval strikes, depending on the modules you put on the plane. There are, of course, some restrictions - strat bombers can never mount the modules necessary to unlock air superiority missions, for example.

We still wanted to give you an easy way to classify your designs on a high level and it also makes it a lot easier to tell the AI what a design actually is and how it should be used. Without accounting for doctrines, there are no stat differences between, say, a fighter that has a set of 4 Heavy MGs in the Primary Weapon Slot and bombs in a secondary weapon slot, and a CAS that has the bombs in the primary weapon slot and the MGs in the secondary slot - but one goes into Fighter Airwings and the other goes into CAS Airwings.
CAS planes have a large variety of weapons available to them to attack ground targets.
image6.jpg

There is a full list of weapons, the missions they unlock, and what they classify a plane as if mounted in the primary weapon slot, below (stats omitted because balancing is still ongoing):

ModuleMissions UnlockedType
2x Light MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
4x Light MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
2x Heavy MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
4x Heavy MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
Cannon IAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
2x Cannon IAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
Cannon IIAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
2x Cannon IIAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
Rocket RailsClose Air Support, Logistics StrikeCAS
Bomb LocksClose Air Support, Naval Strike, Port StrikeCAS
Small Bomb BayClose Air Support, Logistics Strike, Port StrikeCAS
Tank Buster IClose Air Support, Logistics StrikeCAS
Tank Buster IIClose Air Support, Logistics StrikeCAS
Torpedo MountingNaval Strike, Port StrikeNaval Bomber/Maritime Patrol Plane
Guided Anti-Ship MissileNaval Strike, Port StrikeNaval Bomber/Maritime Patrol Plane
Fixed Explosive ChargeKamikaze StrikesSuicide Craft
Medium Bomb BayClose Air Support, Logistics Strike, Strategic BombingTactical Bomber
Large Bomb BayStrategic Bombing, Port StrikeStrategic Bomber

While some of these weapons are unlocked in the (reworked) Air Tech Tree, some of them are also found outside of it, in a similar manner as the tank weapons are found in various trees. I will note that the total number of techs in the Air tech tree has actually decreased.
A view of the Air Tech tree. It has a total of 28 techs, compared to the old tree’s 38 techs.
image9.jpg

One notable aspect is that a lot of these modules provide different stats only for specific missions. For true multi-role planes to make sense, we wanted to make sure that building a design with a mixed set of missions didn’t make the plane useless in some of them. Hanging bombs off a plane should make it less agile and slower, but a fighter that was able to do CAS missions shouldn’t be useless in air superiority missions. Thus, the weight and agility penalties only apply to the fighter if it is actually on a CAS mission, not if it is on an air superiority mission.

Modifiers only apply to certain missions. Here, the bombs the Stuka carries make it less agile, but the dive brakes give it better air defense
image4.jpg

Finally, we have the so-called “Special” module slots. These are effectively a catch-all term of various different items, a list of which you can find below:​

Armor Plate: Increased Air Defense, reduced range
Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks: increased Air Defense, costs Rubber
Drop Tanks: increased range (small airframes only)
Extra Fuel Tanks: increased range, reduced air defense
Dive Brakes: increased air defense, increased naval strike hit chance
Radio Navigation I: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack
Radio Navigation II: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack
Air/Ground Radar: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack, increased naval detection
Air/Ground Radar II: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack, increased naval detection
Air/Air Radar: reduced night penalty when on intercept mission
Air/Air Radar II: reduced night penalty when on intercept mission
Floatplane: increased naval spotting (small airframes only)
Flying Boat: increased naval spotting (medium+large airframes)
LMG Defensive Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
2x LMG Defensive Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
HMG Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
2x HMG Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
Cannon Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
2x Cannon Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
Recon Camera: unlocks recon mission (LaR only)
Demining Coil: unlocks demining mission (MtG only)
Bomb sights I: increased strat attack
Bomb Sights II: increased strat attack
Non-Strategic Materials: reduced Aluminum cost, reduced air defense

Special Modules are primarily intended to help optimize planes for various missions or give them different niches.

The eagle-eyed amongst you have already spotted that planes now have a surface and sub detection stat. Up until now, planes that were active in a sea zone always provided a flat bonus to the spotting speed of any navies active in the seazone. This will now change, with planes having dedicated spotting stats that determine how well they do with helping the navies spot. There are modules, like the Air-Ground Radar and the Flying Boat hull, which give bonuses to naval spotting.

Vanilla planes have those stats already baked in, with some being better than others - carrier planes are better than their land-based counterparts, naval bombers are better than fighters etc.

To further support this, we are adding two more things: Maritime Patrol Planes as a dedicated unit type and a special Naval Patrol mission for planes with the right modules.

Maritime Patrol Planes are built on the Large Airframe, giving them exceptional range. They are able to mount the whole array of naval bomber weapons, but naval strike is really not intended to be their primary role. Maritime Patrol Planes are meant to help with spotting raiders in the deep ocean, where smaller planes with shorter ranges struggle to provide much mission efficiency.
You can run naval patrol missions with many different types of planes.
image2.png

Finally, let’s talk a bit about art! While we already have a large amount of historical art for various plane types, we also wanted to give you more options to visually distinguish your designs, even if it is just to find the plane design more easily in the production menu. For the tank designer, we split up the existing art and recombined it into various combinations to quickly generate a large number of assets. We realized early on that this wouldn’t work for the plane designer. So instead, we decided to fill in some gaps in the existing art as well as add some art for a number of prototypes that flew but were historically passed over for mass-production.
Here is a partial list of new plane icons coming in BBA. Which one’s your favorite?
image1.jpg

We also decided that we wanted to add more 3d art. Much like the tank designer, you can select these assets when you design the plane. We are adding about 80 new 3d models for planes to the DLC, but more on that in the future!
Here is just a teaser of some of the new assets coming in the DLC:
image7.jpg

That is about it for this week. We hope that you will enjoy playing with the Plane Designer as much as we enjoyed making it. To end this DevDiary on a personal note: The Plane Designer will be my final contribution to Hearts of Iron 4. After close to 6 years on the project, all the way from the early days on Together for Victory, the time has come for me to leave the company and move on to greener pastures. It has certainly been an eventful and productive couple of years, and there are many things that I am very proud of (and a few that I regret - like adding Austria-Hungary as a joke and then finding out that people love monarchism). Working on the Hearts of Iron series has always been a dream for me, since the day I launched Hearts of Iron 1, almost 20 years ago now. Few people can say that they had an impact on a piece of entertainment that has had a similar impact on themselves. But the thing I am most proud of is the team we have built. Hearts of Iron is in very good hands, and there are years of content still to be released. I’m looking forward to it - but, once again, as a player.​

Weird designs that QA came up with:
This single plane outguns an entire tank platoon, unfortunately it can’t ever turn:
image11.jpg


And then we restricted the number of bomb bays you can have on a plane:
image3.jpg

6 engines, 8 cannons, 4 cannons in turrets, and a production cost 50% higher than a strategic bomber. Needless to say, this combo is no longer possible:
image10.jpg


When you look at the Spitfire Mark I’s armament and wonder: but what if…more guns?
image8.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 117Like
  • 77Love
  • 6
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
I don't think it would be a good move to ruin a discussion with a nirvana fallacy. Besides, the dev answered that those features would possibly be included in the next update in the Air Changes dev post.
Honestly I meant it as a joke, because I felt suggestions were getting a bit too detailed. I want to be able to use the plane designer to create the plane I need, not design an actual plane. As much fun as that is in KSP, HOI is the wrong game for that.
What the plane designer should do is give me options like skimping on range and investing in bigger guns for home defense planes in Europe or use expanded tanks because I need the rang for the soviet union at the cost of less heavy armament or if I play a minor come up with interesting combinations because I can't afford building several specialist planes.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I want to put this point to rest. Spotting of task forces by aircraft can only be done if there is both an enemy and friendly task force in a naval region the aircraft will provide bonus spotting to the friendly task force. The air wing cannot aid spotting an enemy task force without the presence of a friendly task force. Naval strike and port strike remain as before where they have a separate spotting and engagement calculation for attacking task forces.

So...
NAVAL PATROL mission, the aircraft help friendly task forces locate enemy task forces ? No friendly task force, the mission does nothing ?
NAVAL STRIKE mission, the aircraft locates enemy ships using its own detection statistics, presence of friendly ships not required ?
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Are scout planes affected by designer? Please say yes.

"Show only dev responses" is very useful. You should be able to click the links above each quote to see context.

You can add recon cameras to any type of plane, which unlocks the recon mission. However, only if you put the recon camera in the primary slot and add no other offensive weapons can you designate the design as a scout plane. Scout planes can fly over foreign territory in peacetime and have bonuses to avoid detection.

Yes, recon cameras can be used as secondary "armament"

With a bonus of

Maritime Patrol will take the naval detection from the wing and use it to augment the spotting progress calculation done by fleets in the matching naval regions. so you can use aircraft naval patrols to greatly increase spotting rates for your ships
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A lot of those production numbers were replacement aircraft for ones effectively lost during raids yet the crews still managed to nurse their ship home. To limit the deployed numbers we'd need a system that better represented the time it took for air training with huge penalties to represent acts of desperation where pilots barely trained to just fly never mind having any training for combat were tossed into the air as a sort of airborne cannon-fodder.
Agreed. I've come around over time to the idea of a seperate "pilot" manpower pool as its an entirely different to fly a plane compared to fight the land war. I think that it would also be nice to see actual production numbers over the course of the game, as its entirely possible to get to comparable numbers.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think one way would be to make the penalties for green level wings be extremely penalizing. That way, you would want to spend time training your wings before deploying them even during a war (unless you were desperate, see Japan and the Pacific Theatre).
It bugs me that troops take time training but deploying wings is instantaneous as long as you have the aircraft for it.

Edit: Reading the wiki, green wings get a -15% Air Attack, -15% Agility and Night Operations Penalty of +15%, that's nothing honestly, they should have their Air Defence reduced as well, honestly.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Agreed. I've come around over time to the idea of a seperate "pilot" manpower pool as its an entirely different to fly a plane compared to fight the land war. I think that it would also be nice to see actual production numbers over the course of the game, as its entirely possible to get to comparable numbers.
Part of the reluctance on the part of the devs is [I believe - sure it was said in a DD at one point] they do not want to go back to having an officer pool. So we just need a mechanic to train pilots to fly, and have them trained in batches such that each graduating class is always 100 or 10 depending on whether they're for land or carrier/scout/recon aircraft. If you need more batches you assign more to training and while it doesn't cost anything - this is just basic flight school and leaves us with the need to further train our air wings once formed - it does put a limiter on how many pilots you have to put into those pilot seats. Taking it a step further and one could also assume that medium and heavy bombers and transports need two pilots - co-pilot as well as pilot - and you're further restriced. Sure you can just assign more manpower to flight school but until each class finishes they can't fly at all.

Truncating basic flight training should put out pilots worse than just green - this is where the debuffs I mentioned would come in.

It does mean more to keep track of but either you're producing more planes than pilots so pilots would automatically be assigned to available air-wings awaiting aircrews or more pilots than planes which would mean you don't need to cut training short and could thus gain a slight [maybe very slight] boost to efficiency for having more crews than aircraft. Taking that further richer more populous nations could lengthen training to get pilots of better quality who either have less accidents or gain experience quicker or result in less experience loss when coming in as replacements. The modifiers could be attached to the air-wings when manned so not all would be the same but with additional training and combat experience they'd soon come even.

For now however I'm fine with the system as is. Its not perfect but every round of improvement does make the game better. I'm content to watch this game grow [and play it as it does].
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Part of the reluctance on the part of the devs is [I believe - sure it was said in a DD at one point] they do not want to go back to having an officer pool. So we just need a mechanic to train pilots to fly, and have them trained in batches such that each graduating class is always 100 or 10 depending on whether they're for land or carrier/scout/recon aircraft. If you need more batches you assign more to training and while it doesn't cost anything - this is just basic flight school and leaves us with the need to further train our air wings once formed - it does put a limiter on how many pilots you have to put into those pilot seats. Taking it a step further and one could also assume that medium and heavy bombers and transports need two pilots - co-pilot as well as pilot - and you're further restriced. Sure you can just assign more manpower to flight school but until each class finishes they can't fly at all.

Truncating basic flight training should put out pilots worse than just green - this is where the debuffs I mentioned would come in.

It does mean more to keep track of but either you're producing more planes than pilots so pilots would automatically be assigned to available air-wings awaiting aircrews or more pilots than planes which would mean you don't need to cut training short and could thus gain a slight [maybe very slight] boost to efficiency for having more crews than aircraft. Taking that further richer more populous nations could lengthen training to get pilots of better quality who either have less accidents or gain experience quicker or result in less experience loss when coming in as replacements. The modifiers could be attached to the air-wings when manned so not all would be the same but with additional training and combat experience they'd soon come even.

For now however I'm fine with the system as is. Its not perfect but every round of improvement does make the game better. I'm content to watch this game grow [and play it as it does].
Pilot pool is not the same as an Officer pool so makes a lot more sense then the officer pool did. Training pilots was the main limitation and the costliest part of an airforce, so not having it does limit the game a lot. It's even more clear if we consider fuel usage as pilot training involved 200-700 flight hours while pilots on average only flew a few hours before being shot down. So when running out of fuel so is it not combat missions that can't be flown, it's training and this is what happened to Japan.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
And this can be made by giving more penalties for green wings besides air attack, agility and night operation.
Or rather, increase those penalties besides applying for instance, penalties for ground, strategic and naval attacks of wings.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Super, thanks for answer! Do you think it will be restricted to small airframes? Or maybe we could produce some twin-engine carrier-based designs, like as the american F7F or A-3 Skywarrior?

Also, can someone tell me if medium & large airframes could be fitted with cameras? It could be useful to have recon large planes.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Super, thanks for answer! Do you think it will be restricted to small airframes? Or maybe we could produce some twin-engine carrier-based designs, like as the american F7F or A-3 Skywarrior?

Also, can someone tell me if medium & large airframes could be fitted with cameras? It could be useful to have recon large planes.
They confirmed that cameras could be added to any airframe [except transports which are NOT in the designer] as a secondary armament to allow their use in the recon role. To get any bonuses for a scout plane the recon cameras would need to be the primary armament and no other armament. A camera-only armament allows the otherwise unarmed scout/recon aircraft to fly over foreign terrirtory during peacetime.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
They confirmed that cameras could be added to any airframe [except transports which are NOT in the designer] as a secondary armament to allow their use in the recon role. To get any bonuses for a scout plane the recon cameras would need to be the primary armament and no other armament. A camera-only armament allows the otherwise unarmed scout/recon aircraft to fly over foreign terrirtory during peacetime.
Thanks for the answer, this is very interesting.

Now, if anyone have an idea for twin engines carrier-based designs..
 
Thanks for the answer, this is very interesting.

Now, if anyone have an idea for twin engines carrier-based designs..
I think we need the dev's for that I didn't see any confirmation for medium frames being able to be carrier based and given that it might cause a host of balancing problems I somewhat doubt it. Maybe an option to give light frames Two engines could resolve that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think we need the dev's for that I didn't see any confirmation for medium frames being able to be carrier based and given that it might cause a host of balancing problems I somewhat doubt it. Maybe an option to give light frames Two engines could resolve that.
Pretty sure i saw a no in here somewhere. Carrier versions for light only.
 
So...
NAVAL PATROL mission, the aircraft help friendly task forces locate enemy task forces ? No friendly task force, the mission does nothing ?
NAVAL STRIKE mission, the aircraft locates enemy ships using its own detection statistics, presence of friendly ships not required ?
Good clarification. AND... Surely you can design a plane that does both, and have them on both missions, minimising the problem! FW200 or PBY comes to mind. Well done dev team.
It just means that when on recon you are actively sesrching a prio area for anticipated strike missions - i like it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Good clarification. AND... Surely you can design a plane that does both, and have them on both missions, minimising the problem! FW200 or PBY comes to mind. Well done dev team.
It just means that when on recon you are actively sesrching a prio area for anticipated strike missions - i like it.
I think they answered that a wing only ever performs one mission at a time.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Agreed. I've come around over time to the idea of a seperate "pilot" manpower pool as its an entirely different to fly a plane compared to fight the land war. I think that it would also be nice to see actual production numbers over the course of the game, as its entirely possible to get to comparable numbers.

That's represented by the experience levels of your air wings. As the experienced pilots get killed off, the experience level of the air wing drops, representing experienced pilots being replaced by newly-trained inexperienced ones.

It doesn't simulate a situation where a country could run out of pilots and not be able to put more planes in the air, but I'm not sure how often that kind of thing happened in reality. I'd have thought there were generally enough warm bodies to fill pilot chairs, it was just recognised to one degree or another that putting up poorly-trained pilots wasn't worth the cost in fuel, ammunition and airframes.
 
I think the current system works well without a pilot pool, which wasn't really an issue. It should just take longer to establish an airwing and to train it also the malus to the efficiency of a green wing should be much harsher. I think the Japanese pilots of 1945 were next to useless for anything but Kamikaze attacks.
 
  • 5
Reactions: