• 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:
Shouldn’t turret weapons increase défense instead of attack?
Defense doesn't shoot down planes, right? Plus, some curve ball planes like Boulton Paul Defiant, which only have one gun turret, were quite good at shooting down bombers from below with the gun turret quite effectively. So I guess just increasing the defense instead of other stats that could damage enemy planes would quite unable to present what could really happen if more turrets were added to the plane.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd imagine that wouldn't be a very good idea. There are more stats than just attack, and the complete lack of agility that I expect a large airframe to have would probably mean they'd suffer a ridiculously low kill/death ratio. I don't know exactly how things would be calculated, but it would probably end up with a similar situation heavy fighters are in right now
AFAIK, two planes with similar agility and max speed would fight quite fairly. As players should be able to put more guns into a bomber-size airframe than on a fighter-size airframe, in the case of just using the same hard attack soft attack mechanics, bomber-size interceptors should be more immune from the bomber defensive turret attack than any interceptors in other sizes. Therefore, the mediocre heavy fighters would just become more irrelevant in the case of just using the same hard attack soft attack mechanics.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
AFAIK, two planes with similar agility and max speed would fight quite fairly. As players should be able to put more guns into a bomber-size airframe than on a fighter-size airframe, in the case of just using the same hard attack soft attack mechanics, bomber-size interceptors should be more immune from the bomber defensive turret attack than any interceptors in other sizes. Therefore, the mediocre would just become more irrelevant in the case of just using the same hard attack soft attack mechanics.
I'm not sure that would really be the case

Against unescorted bombers that might work, but an unescorted bomber is probably going to die to whatever you throw at it
Against an escorted bomber, the agility of the escorts is going to hopelessly outnumber anything the interceptors are going to have, and it's just going to end up with a lot of dead interceptors

Although the point is probably moot because the DD says outright large airframes can't do things like air superiority, and I expect that includes interception
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Defense doesn't shoot down planes, right? Plus, some curve ball planes like Boulton Paul Defiant, which only have one gun turret, were quite good at shooting down bombers from below with the gun turret quite effectively. So I guess just increasing the defense instead of other stats that could damage enemy planes would quite unable to present what could really happen if more turrets were added to the plane.
No but aside from the Defiant the use of the weapon turrets was defensive not offensive
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
No but aside from the Defiant the use of the weapon turrets was defensive not offensive
Apart from the Blackburn Roc. There was also the Hawker Hotspur, but that was only ever a prototype (and with a mock-up turret, at that).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The statement so far was that mission types are determined by the modules (weapons) in the design. They might restrict missions based on the airframe -- do you want light "strategic bombers", or four-engine Flying Fortresses on air superiority? But they might not code a restriction, and just let you fly any plane on any mission, whether or not it will do anything useful.
I'm pretty sure that modules are restricted by airframe, or at least the primary modules are.

Heavy Airframes probably won't be able to mount fixed MG/Cannons, so no Intercept or Air Superiority Missions for them. They probably also won't be able to mount CAS Weapons, so no Ground Support.

On the other end Light Airframes probably won't be able to mount "Strategic" Bomb Bays, so no Strategic Bombing for them.

So while missions will be locked by modules, modules will most likely be restricted by airframe.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm not sure that would really be the case

Against unescorted bombers that might work, but an unescorted bomber is probably going to die to whatever you throw at it
Against an escorted bomber, the agility of the escorts is going to hopelessly outnumber anything the interceptors are going to have, and it's just going to end up with a lot of dead interceptors

Although the point is probably moot because the DD says outright large airframes can't do things like air superiority, and I expect that includes interception
The defender can also escort their heavy interceptor with their light fighter too. Maybe other than the soft hard attack mechanism, there should be an accuracy stats similar to naval targets strike for specific weapon in specific scenario.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But they weren't very successful designs, turrets were used mostly on bombers and heavy fighters against attack
They weren't successful at what they were initially asked to do, but they would have probably achieved much the same effect as Schrage Musick (which would also be pretty useless for dogfighting) for bomber interception. The Defiant did, in fact, have a reasonable career as a night fighter.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
They weren't successful at what they were initially asked to do, but they would have probably achieved much the same effect as Schrage Musick (which would also be pretty useless for dogfighting) for bomber interception. The Defiant did, in fact, have a reasonable career as a night fighter.
Perhaps a new special module "offensive turret" that gives bonus to interception missions.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Shouldn’t turret weapons increase défense instead of attack?
"Instead of" is a bit extreme, but some defense bonus in addition to doing damage would make sense. This would also help balance out that turrets should be less effective at killing things then similar main weaponry, so you need some other bonus as well to make them not just suck.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
"Instead of" is a bit extreme, but some defense bonus in addition to doing damage would make sense. This would also help balance out that turrets should be less effective at killing things then similar main weaponry, so you need some other bonus as well to make them not just suck.
I think the turrets as defense will force interceptors to improve attack stat. As of now I just want to improve agility for fighters
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"Instead of" is a bit extreme, but some defense bonus in addition to doing damage would make sense. This would also help balance out that turrets should be less effective at killing things then similar main weaponry, so you need some other bonus as well to make them not just suck.
Yes, thinking around it this could suit the turret fighters, as well, since the turret's flexibility allowed them to get wherever the bombers had a defence 'blind spot' alongside or below, thus decreasing their own exposure to fire. Schrage Musick, on the other hand, could only work from below.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The dev can make a project team mechanism to allow players to auto-research all the necessary techs required to produce that historical preset templates weapon.

I really like this idea if it's a broader rework of how tech is researched. Players should be able to queue up future research options that automatically go into the research slot as soon as either: any research slot becomes open, or, a designated tech finishes and the new tech enters that specific slot.

Allowing queued techs can then be used to create these project teams in the form of template tech sequences players can choose from (or ignore and pick their own tech sequence as they do currently)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"Instead of" is a bit extreme, but some defense bonus in addition to doing damage would make sense. This would also help balance out that turrets should be less effective at killing things then similar main weaponry, so you need some other bonus as well to make them not just suck.
All Turrets should have a low attack(not as high as fighter guns) and high defense. Maybe just the top 360 or upward pointing turret would get a bonus against bomber-size airframe planes?
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
All, Turrets should have a low attack(not as high as fighter guns) and high defense. Maybe just the top 360 or upward pointing turret would get a bonus against bomber-size airframe planes?
Hmm, not sure. A lot of it comes down to whether pointing guns at enemy aircraft is a core part of the mission. I mean, forward-firing wing or fuselage guns have no flexibility at all, but if your whole job consists of pointing them at enemy aircraft then they have all the flexibility they need! Maybe it's more like "fixed armaments that are aimed by the pilot get a bonus"? It's possibly useful to give the pilot a "mission job" that gets bonuses to the applicable loadouts. So, a bomber will want the pilot to be flying to aim the bomb, whereas an interceptor or air superiority fighter will want the pilot to be aiming guns at the enemy. This sounds like a mission-based bonus on certain armaments; fixed forward-firing guns, bombs, torpedoes etc. would be prime candidates - turret guns, since they aren't controlled by the pilot directly, wouldn't qualify. Turret guns should definitely add to defence, though. That would all mean that fixed guns are pretty much useless defence for bombers, but great for fighters. Fighter-bombers would ideally get the "pilot boost" to either fixed guns or bombs/rockets, depending on mission. Turrets on bombers would be a bit of "bite" but also a useful boost to defence.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hmm, not sure. A lot of it comes down to whether pointing guns at enemy aircraft is a core part of the mission. I mean, forward-firing wing or fuselage guns have no flexibility at all, but if your whole job consists of pointing them at enemy aircraft then they have all the flexibility they need! Maybe it's more like "fixed armaments that are aimed by the pilot get a bonus"? It's possibly useful to give the pilot a "mission job" that gets bonuses to the applicable loadouts. So, a bomber will want the pilot to be flying to aim the bomb, whereas an interceptor or air superiority fighter will want the pilot to be aiming guns at the enemy. This sounds like a mission-based bonus on certain armaments; fixed forward-firing guns, bombs, torpedoes etc. would be prime candidates - turret guns, since they aren't controlled by the pilot directly, wouldn't qualify. Turret guns should definitely add to defence, though. That would all mean that fixed guns are pretty much useless defence for bombers, but great for fighters. Fighter-bombers would ideally get the "pilot boost" to either fixed guns or bombs/rockets, depending on mission. Turrets on bombers would be a bit of "bite" but also a useful boost to defence.
It is more about statistics saying that top 360 or upward pointing turrets were more effective at intercepting bombers than forward-firing wing or fuselage guns. And guns on the plane can either intercept bombers or defend themselves from interceptors. I cannot see the way I suggest didn't cover every "mission job" a turret would encounter.
 
  • 1
Reactions: