• 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:
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.
Yeah, I'm not complaining about the bonus for upward firing turrets on interception missions, but the scheme of fixed guns having higher attack doesn't account for oddities like the machineguns fitted into the rear of bomber engine nacelles (firing backwards). Those sorts of... experiments ought not to have high attack. This might be what is controlled by the "primary weapon" position. The trouble with that would be that turrets should not be allowed as "primary weapons" - but then how do turret fighters work?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, I'm not complaining about the bonus for upward firing turrets on interception missions, but the scheme of fixed guns having higher attack doesn't account for oddities like the machineguns fitted into the rear of bomber engine nacelles (firing backwards). Those sorts of... experiments ought not to have high attack. This might be what is controlled by the "primary weapon" position. The trouble with that would be that turrets should not be allowed as "primary weapons" - but then how do turret fighters work?
Those machine guns fitted into the rear of bomber engine nacelles were controlled remotely in most cases, so I believe they should count as turrets, or maybe we are describing different things. About the turret fighters, this is how it mostly works as an interceptor.
下載.png
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Those machine guns fitted into the rear of bomber engine nacelles were controlled remotely in most cases, so I believe they should count as turrets, or maybe we are describing different things.
They were clearly fired remotely, but often were fixed (and not very effective, but cheap in terms of weight etc....)
About the turret fighters, this is how it mostly works as an interceptor.
Yes, I know.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There are a lot of modules that affect agility, so making a real max-agility plane does require some thinking and deliberate decision making.

This was a deliberate choice to avoid making modules that would be considered "must-haves", given how highly the current meta values agility (even if we changed the impact of agility behind the scenes). If you look at the historical developments, agility lost value while speed gained value as the war progressed. We wanted to represent that.

1. This was discussed and voted down for the same reason that we decided not to add them to the plane designer in the first place.

2. An airwing only ever runs one mission, even if several are selected. It only runs CAS missions if there are battles going on etc. So having the Air Superiority mission active actually means that an air wing would never do any other missions (since they can always run air superiority). We discussed this back and forth and decided that this was the best approach (since that is how the game already works and there are a lot of assumptions built around it in other parts of the game).

3. It was one of the things where we designed it to work like that, then took a look at the code and realized that it was not a very trivial thing to change.

4. We are considering that but have not implemented it yet.

We considered both options and decided that separate airframes were less messy to implement. This does mean that conversions of land-based planes are not possible. One of the reasons was that a tailhook module would effectively just turn into a module tax for carrier planes, a module that you always have to take.

I had a design where we integrate a 3d-design software to be able to sculpt the bolt with the locking lugs, but then found out that our programming department is staffed with cowards

Yes.

Welcome! Rocket Engines will still not use any fuel. This is a deliberate design choice, like it was in vanilla. There will be a new loading screen (and it looks awesome!), but I din't think it will be in the next DD.

We discussed this early and decided against it, because it would make those modules extremely powerful and likely lead to a flying boat meta. While I don't have a problem with that, others do.
I have to point out, the carrier airframe is another kind of "carrier tax". If you want to use carrier planes, you have to take the drawbacks of carrier airframe too. Where's the difference? Except occupying one more slot, but you can add a slot belongs to tailhook only. Airframe tax sounds batter than module tax?

And in tank designer, there exists "flame tank tax" and "AA tank tax", if you're right, why don't you add flame and AA chassis?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If I understand well, the payload (logical) of a bomber vary according to the mission.

So is this correct to assume that I can do a Nell/Betty like bomber, that can carry bombs for ground missions and torpedoes for naval missions ? (maybe not torpedoes, but naval bombs)
 
If I understand well, the payload (logical) of a bomber vary according to the mission.

So is this correct to assume that I can do a Nell/Betty like bomber, that can carry bombs for ground missions and torpedoes for naval missions ? (maybe not torpedoes, but naval bombs)
Yes
 
  • 1
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I see also, another question. for the floatplane and the flying boat special modules, will it affect aircraft ability to land on the naval base? Because if i remember there's a guy who wants that the floatplane/flyingboat can land on the naval base since in the pacific only a small airbases can be found if aircraft designer become the next feature in the next dlc

We discussed this early and decided against it, because it would make those modules extremely powerful and likely lead to a flying boat meta. While Idon't have a problem with that, others do.
How would this become extremely powerful? They can be balanced with great agility, weight, speed, bomb load and HP deductions to a point that flying boat/ floating plane can be destroyed by any previous tier fighter, ground AA and ship AA so that they can only do sea rescue, recon mission and hunt down submarine and unescorted convoys.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You know, being able to mount ASMs are neat. A lot of people don't realize this, but the USA developed a guided antiship missile that served in the Pacific war from 1942 on.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
How would this become extremely powerful? They can be balanced with great agility, weight, speed, bomb load and HP deductions to a point that flying boat/ floating plane can be destroyed by any previous tier fighter, ground AA and ship AA so that they can only do sea rescue, recon mission and hunt down submarine and unescorted convoys.
This can also be easily nerfed by limiting the amount of planes per level of Naval Base, say a range of 10-50 per level compared to 200 per level of Airfield. So number effective are limited by Naval base construction.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
This can also be easily nerfed by limiting the amount of planes per level of Naval Base, say a range of 10-50 per level compared to 200 per level of Airfield. So number effective are limited by Naval base construction.
Pretty sure that would come down to the size of Float/Sea Plane "Wings" its either going to be 10 or 100, and if it is 100 then it would have to be 100 per Naval Base.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Pretty sure that would come down to the size of Float/Sea Plane "Wings" its either going to be 10 or 100, and if it is 100 then it would have to be 100 per Naval
100 still halves the maximum amount of planes compared to Airfield maximum. That curbs the amount of planes and reflects the real life advantage that land airfields weren't necessary for floatplanes
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You know, being able to mount ASMs are neat. A lot of people don't realize this, but the USA developed a guided antiship missile that served in the Pacific war from 1942 on.

The issue would be, as IRL, to have them in sufficient quantities early enough to change the course of the war.

If you field them in late 1943, it's going to be yet another wunderwaffen failure for the Axis and a moot point for the Allies...as IRL.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Pretty sure that would come down to the size of Float/Sea Plane "Wings" its either going to be 10 or 100, and if it is 100 then it would have to be 100 per Naval Base.
Deck size increments for aircraft carriers are 20. This would be a reasonable amount for Floatplane per naval base level. I think the floatplane module could be akin to the carrier capable module, then the naval base would permit stationing of floatplane (naval base capable) module
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The issue would be, as IRL, to have them in sufficient quantities early enough to change the course of the war.

If you field them in late 1943, it's going to be yet another wunderwaffen failure for the Axis and a moot point for the Allies...as IRL.
Assuming historical game progression, that is.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is it possible to tell us what specific plane you are describing?
Sorry for the delay - was travelling. The main one I remembered was the Bell FM-1 Airacuda, but that was actually front-facing MGs, in pusher engine nacelles, in an interceptor... But Bristol Blenheim bombers, Petlyakov Pe-8s, Heinkel He-115 seaplanes and Focke-Wulf Fw-191s all had at least the option of rear-firing machineguns in the engine nacelles. So, to answer your question, no specific plane, but several examples.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Assuming historical game progression, that is.

My pet suggestion would be, for various radars, guide bombs and the like, to introduce shall we say the ''rich man production line'' of electronics. Game changing weapons on paper, that require a staggering investment to be worth it
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
My pet suggestion would be, for various radars, guide bombs and the like, to introduce shall we say the ''rich man production line'' of electronics. Game changing weapons on paper, that require a staggering investment to be worth it
One of the most impactful I think was the development of electronic navigation aids. From nav beacons on carriers (incorporating IFF) to pulse radio navigation in night-time bombers and including simple searchlight "pointers" there was a LOT of innovation going on. The rootlets of SatNav were there, "just" needing space flight (enabled by rocket engines - also a wartime development) and a sprinkling of relativity to work...
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions: