• 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:
That would work if the game had currency, but it does not. Lend lease just takes another MIL. So the problem remains.
Well there is a weapons buying mechanic that spends pp and Civs for weapons for some countries. If they develop it into a mechanic that works. Not a big fan of money I think the PP and Civ abstraction works quite well.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Has there been any thought to increasing the number of all nations military factories to allow smaller nations to build more variety in equipment? As of now, it’s pretty hard to equip specialized divisions as a middle power because you have to devote an entire factory factory to produce, say, armored cars, when your entire nation may only have 7 MILS.

Any increase in MILS would come with a corresponding reduction in the building power of a single MIL. This way there would be greater variety, but not more equipment.
You would want MIL to actually have MORE production so a small nation with, say, 10 MIL, can produce something besides infantry equipment and artillery. Making MILs produce less will hurt smaller nations even more.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
What's next, an artillery designer? :p
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For my own sanity I’m going to assume you are just trolling.
You would want MIL to actually have MORE production so a small nation with, say, 10 MIL, can produce something besides infantry equipment and artillery. Making MILs produce less will hurt smaller nations even more.
Assuming that whatever penalty that you wish to add means the overall production is unchanged, (ie. if you have twice the number of factories but half the production), then diversifying would drastically hurt a minor nations' ability to make the basic stuff. Quite simply, the number of lines you could have at once would increase, but with only a handful of exceptions, the amount of production going into each sector would remain the same. Because you need a certain amount of guns before you can ever think about moving into tanks, just to make sure your armies are fully equipped

The only benefit then would be to majors (who are able to diversify and still fill quotas) and would be able to spare a factory or two to new projects. Making minors even weaker
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
For my own sanity I’m going to assume you are just trolling.
So, either you are trolling or you don’t understand math…
Giving every country double their MILs but reducing their production in half while in theory means production is unchanged, in fact will hurt minor countries even more because they will take double the time to build as many MILs.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's still a complete cock-up of epic proportions and hardly serves as a good example of the average performance of naval bombers..

They had sighted the ships on several occasions but due to poor communication didn't prepare adequatefly

Both the Channel Dash and the Air raid on Force Z are outliers at either end of successfulness
Force Z is similar to Midway, BTW, where 200 odd aircraft from each side resulted in 5 capital ships being sunk.

Seems determining factor is pilot training damage control skill of foes, if 20-30 planes manage to get to drop point of their munition, a capital ship is dead, unless it is cap ship with very good damage control crew.
 
I am starting to think we should just ask them to steal the plane editor from Kerbal Space Program and add a few weapon modules. ;)
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.

WallAcer said:
3. Is expanding the set of aircraft attributes being considered? Possible addition of stats like altitude/rate of climb for example.

More on this soon.
 
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.

IMO that dev post is much more likely to refer to them adding 'thrust' in the new designer than it is to refer to them suddenly adding altitude/rate of climb in the next few DDs.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Seems determining factor is pilot training damage control skill of foes, if 20-30 planes manage to get to drop point of their munition, a capital ship is dead, unless it is cap ship with very good damage control crew.

At least from my reading, there are plenty of examples of 20-30 aircraft at least attacking a capital ship and it surviving (sometimes with only minimal damage, depending on the training of the pilot). Even when X Fliegercorps (a unit trained in attacking shipping) attacked Illustrious with at least that many aircraft, with Illustrious as the primary target, the ship survived (And then survived further bomb damage when docked in Malta, although there's no question after all that it was quite battered!) - see the Armoured Carriers website for a detailed description of the attack. Air attacks on ships were all over the place - they could be very effective, or completely ineffective, or anywhere in-between.

More aircraft helped increase the odds of success, as did training, and there was no question that sailing under air attack for long enough wouldn't end well, but from my reading I wouldn't say that 20-30 is enough for a guaranteed capital ship kill. Noting that not all capital ships were created equal as well, but for argument's sake let's say a late-1930s battleship, so a KGV, Bismarck, Littorio, Richelieu or South Dakota/North Carolina or thereabouts - I'd probably say (wet thumb in the air) you'd want 50 aircraft for something approaching a guaranteed kill - as the "statistical dispersion" on aircraft effectiveness was quite high, even for skilled crews.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
At least from my reading, there are plenty of examples of 20-30 aircraft at least attacking a capital ship and it surviving (sometimes with only minimal damage, depending on the training of the pilot). Even when X Fliegercorps (a unit trained in attacking shipping) attacked Illustrious with at least that many aircraft, with Illustrious as the primary target, the ship survived (And then survived further bomb damage when docked in Malta, although there's no question after all that it was quite battered!) - see the Armoured Carriers website for a detailed description of the attack. Air attacks on ships were all over the place - they could be very effective, or completely ineffective, or anywhere in-between.

More aircraft helped increase the odds of success, as did training, and there was no question that sailing under air attack for long enough wouldn't end well, but from my reading I wouldn't say that 20-30 is enough for a guaranteed capital ship kill. Noting that not all capital ships were created equal as well, but for argument's sake let's say a late-1930s battleship, so a KGV, Bismarck, Littorio, Richelieu or South Dakota/North Carolina or thereabouts - I'd probably say (wet thumb in the air) you'd want 50 aircraft for something approaching a guaranteed kill - as the "statistical dispersion" on aircraft effectiveness was quite high, even for skilled crews.
I`m fine with your estimate too, and even estimates in range of 70+ planes for guaranteed kill. Unless devs somehow nerf land air, navies are in for a rough time, considering player`s ability to design naval bombers and fighters with further range than current Nav2/3. The obvious problem of making 2-4 CVs groups with generously 200-300 NAVs a war winning thing, while keeping 1+k more powerful land based Navs from removing any reason to build fleet, ever.

It`s not like 3-5k TAC2/3 did a poor job at sweeping whatever boats there were in 4+k km radius.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I`m fine with your estimate too, and even estimates in range of 70+ planes for guaranteed kill. Unless devs somehow nerf land air, navies are in for a rough time, considering player`s ability to design naval bombers and fighters with further range than current Nav2/3. The obvious problem of making 2-4 CVs groups with generously 200-300 NAVs a war winning thing, while keeping 1+k more powerful land based Navs from removing any reason to build fleet, ever.

It`s not like 3-5k TAC2/3 did a poor job at sweeping whatever boats there were in 4+k km radius.
Fortunately they did nerf land air dramatically

Land air can't attack a fleet without the fleet having been spotted already. No more "can't sail through red air", if there isn't any ships (or possibly radar/intel) to do the spotting, then the planes can't attack
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Fortunately they did nerf land air dramatically

Land air can't attack a fleet without the fleet having been spotted already. No more "can't sail through red air", if there isn't any ships (or possibly radar/intel) to do the spotting, then the planes can't attack
Planes on maritime patrol are supposed to spot, so what`s the difference?
 
Planes on maritime patrol are supposed to spot, so what`s the difference?
They don't spot themselves, they help fleets spot

They give a...I can't remember if it's precentile or flat..bonus to the spotting score of a fleet

Point is, they can't spot on their own. They need someone else to initialize the spotting. That means fleet

I hope it also means radar/intel, but I don't know on that regard
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, either you are trolling or you don’t understand math…
Giving every country double their MILs but reducing their production in half while in theory means production is unchanged, in fact will hurt minor countries even more because they will take double the time to build as many MILs.
Nope.

Look this isn’t complicated. I’m suggesting that we could increase production (more factories) for all countries, while reducing the IC output for all countries. Some of you simply misread the initial post, and now you are taking a new position and getting held up on insignificant details.

Larger economies already have an advantage over smaller economies. Increasing each economy in the game by 10 percent would make it easier for larger economies to scale, sure, but I’m not suggesting any increase in overall production. And whatever advantage the larger economies have now would simply continue unchanged.

Ironically, without further explanation and elaboration on my part, implementing my initial post would result in less overall equipment in the game, contrary to the responses received. This is so because each MIL would produce less equipment. Meaning that unless we also scaled back the cost for constructing a MIL, over time less equipment would be produced. Of course the initial response to my post suggested the opposite effect, that the game would have more equipment and more lag.

To avoid this problem we could simply reduce the cost of building a MIL by a corresponding amount. My post didn’t cover every detail of the proposed change because I didn’t think that appropriate.

Here is the real issue, stated again: the game keeps adding equipment type but unless you are one of the 3 or 4 largest countries you cannot utilize the new toys. This is ahistorical. Italy, for example, built many different gun, tank, and plane designs. In HOI you cannot do that until very late in the game. You have to put half your meager factories on infantry and artillery. The remaining 8 or so factories limits you to building 8 or so different types of equipment at a maximum. So are you going to four different types of planes? Of course not, not to mention different types of wheeled guns, field guns, etc. France begins the game with even fewer MILS. Powers like Greece and Romania fewer still.

This could all be corrected by implementing my simple change. It would take time to code of course, and I’m not overlooking this, but the basic idea is simple if you take the time to read it over slowly.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Here is the real issue, stated again: the game keeps adding equipment type but unless you are one of the 3 or 4 largest countries you cannot utilize the new toys. This is ahistorical. Italy, for example, built many different gun, tank, and plane designs. In HOI you cannot do that until very late in the game. You have to put half your meager factories on infantry and artillery. The remaining 8 or so factories limits you to building 8 or so different types of equipment at a maximum. So are you going to four different types of planes? Of course not, not to mention different types of wheeled guns, field guns, etc. France begins the game with even fewer MILS. Powers like Greece and Romania fewer still.

This could all be corrected by implementing my simple change. It would take time to code of course, and I’m not overlooking this, but the basic idea is simple if you take the time to read it over slowly.
Well, in that case, what you want is for artillery and infantry equipment cost less IC. Everything else being equal, with cheaper guns and artillery you wouldn't need to have 15-25 MILs churning IE and Art to keep your soldiers armed. You could probably assign less of them for these tasks and then you could have a few factories assigned to Sup Eqp. planes, trucks and maybe a tank line or two.

But saying, halve the cost of producing MILs and halve their production will keep things the same, with the exception that you now need double the MIL factories. And in this case, physically small nations might not have real estate large enough to produce all these MILs anyway.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
They don't spot themselves, they help fleets spot

They give a...I can't remember if it's precentile or flat..bonus to the spotting score of a fleet

Point is, they can't spot on their own. They need someone else to initialize the spotting. That means fleet

I hope it also means radar/intel, but I don't know on that regard
LordWahu said:
@Archangel85 Given recon planes only increase the spotting of normal ships, does that mean land based bombers can't attack ships without a fleet to support them?
Yes.
Presumably you meant this.

Oh well, let`s see how this will work out.
LordWahu said:
@Archangel85 Given recon planes only increase the spotting of normal ships, does that mean land based bombers can't attack ships without a fleet to support them?
Yes.
So, no German air attacking British ships in Mediterranean, no patrol bombers attacking subs unless there is escort to attack sub itself, no sinking of force Z, no sinking of Italian BBs by German air, and, generally speaking no danger of land air hitting naval landings?

Is that correct?
 
Presumably you meant this.

Oh well, let`s see how this will work out.

So, no German air attacking British ships in Mediterranean, no patrol bombers attacking subs unless there is escort to attack sub itself, no sinking of force Z, no sinking of Italian BBs by German air, and, generally speaking no danger of land air hitting naval landings?

Is that correct?

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.
 
  • 15
  • 2Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Sure, but how many of them were deployed at once; and how many would be necessary to knock out a region's industry for a bit? The idea that you need to choke the air full with strategic bombers to seriously damage industry is insane. Most of the time most the larger Allied Raids, were the massed up their bombers, had upwards of 500-700 for both the US and UK each. Furthermore, while there were raids that had 1k+ bombers involved, these were rare and occured later in the war. After checking some numbers, most raids had a max 500-700 bombers for massed strikes with lower numbers being able to still produce results.

My main concern here is that despite the air designer being a thing, we will still need to exceed realistic, or even plausible, numbers of bombers to deployed to a region to see semi-historical results.


I know this. I try and get the US's industry as "close" to "reality" as I can. Vanilla is forced, for gameplay reasons, to neuter the US's Industrial capacity a bit to allow a Germany player the ability to actual have a chance to win.
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.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: