• 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:
As I'm making potential aircraft lists for an icon mods, it could be super to have Convair B-36 in end games as USA.

So here I come with another question: are there "modern" propellers/turbopropellers engines, or are the modern airframes are restricted to jet engines?
 
I think there should be some sort of soft and hard attack equivalent for ground attack stats, why would anti-tank guns be useful against soft targets, or why would machine guns and autocannons not have some effectiveness against infantry? it would add more depth and allow smaller nations to build fighters with just machine guns that could still be used for ground attack.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think they answered that a wing only ever performs one mission at a time.
They did, but certain missions take priority so as long as the strike mission is prioritized over the recon/patrol mission then the unit will search till a target is located and then will be able to attack. Of course if the recon/patrol is the priority then its a wasted click but even so one needs onto to unclick the recon/[atrol mission to get the strike going.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
The UK had a shortage during the Battle of Britain and its partly due to that harsh lesson that the Commonwealth Air Training Plan was set up. Pilots take a while to learn to fly - never mind how to fight in the air - just learning how to not become a smear on the tarmac takes time. During the Battle of Britain the RAF was getting more airframes than they had pilots to fly them.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
There is always something in between.

Regarding the altitude, how about setting up 3 to 5 different altitudes levels for every air strategic region? Different superchargers, Turbo-Charger, MW50, GM-1, or other kinds of engine sub-modules would make the engine have the largest thrust in the designed optimum operational altitudes. If the plane is not operating at its optimum operational altitudes, its engine thrust would receive a debuff and affect the plane's speed and agility. KSP air model is not required.

About the rate of climb, it is just mostly Thrust/Weight. It is the Agility really needs another rework here, if wing load (represented by wing type in-game) is not concerned, and Thrust/Weight is the only variable for agility or max speed, the Japanese A6M Zero in the game would either be faster than the USA P-47, or the USA P-47 would be much slower than it should be.

For the issue of complexity of forcing players to design each ship/tank/plane themselves. I believe it can be easily solved by providing players extra preset templates (historical design for major counties, general design for minor counties) when the said tech is researched.

Or 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.
For example, like Bf 109 A for Germany, the project team would automatically research the Light MG I, Fighter Airframe I, and Aircraft Engine II accordingly with the research slot and Civilian factory player assigned to that project team. After all the techs are researched, the historical preset templates (with all the additional engine power or armor setting as the tank designer, but without costing any air experience ) will appear in the equipment production list.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The UK had a shortage during the Battle of Britain and its partly due to that harsh lesson that the Commonwealth Air Training Plan was set up. Pilots take a while to learn to fly - never mind how to fight in the air - just learning how to not become a smear on the tarmac takes time. During the Battle of Britain the RAF was getting more airframes than they had pilots to fly them.
Repeating myself here, we just need to make the penalties for being a green wing even harsher. If green wings had penalties like -30% Air Defense, -30% Air/Naval/Ground Attack and +30% increased penalty for night missions, I am pretty sure most people would train their wings before sending them to combat (also, if training in an actually contested air space, more pilots should be lost in training).

Regarding altitude, while fun, I don't think it adds more to the game. We can abstract that by saying that aircraft with pressurized cabin have a bonus increment for both air defence and air attack compared to those planes who don't have it and thus simulating somehow them being out of reach for those planes.
Edit: where pressurized cabin would have been a generic module to add to your aircraft design.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Repeating myself here, we just need to make the penalties for being a green wing even harsher. If green wings had penalties like -30% Air Defense, -30% Air/Naval/Ground Attack and +30% increased penalty for night missions, I am pretty sure most people would train their wings before sending them to combat (also, if training in an actually contested air space, more pilots should be lost in training).

Regarding altitude, while fun, I don't think it adds more to the game. We can abstract that by saying that aircraft with pressurized cabin have a bonus increment for both air defence and air attack compared to those planes who don't have it and thus simulating somehow them being out of reach for those planes.
Edit: where pressurized cabin would have been a generic module to add to your aircraft design.
It seem a little bit counter intuitive to just change a few existed variables to let it loosely represent something in abstract, when the dev is making an expansion pack to address old problem with new features.

Regarding altitude, it is just not about pilot in a plane with pressurized cabin can operate the plane in an altitude that no other plane can fly that high, henceforward, plane with pressurized cabin have a bonus increment for both air defence and air attack compared to those planes which don't have. I don’t want to see CAS still get a bonus increment for both air defence and air attack when they conducting ground attack mission.

Altitude is more about engines perform differently (have different thrust value in game) under different operations altitude, hence different plane would have different performance when conducting different air missions in different altitude (different altitude zone in game).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
The main high altitude mission is strat bombing including escorting and intercepting of. All that is needed really is to give planes bonus or penalties to those missions depending on how well the plane is adapted to high altitude.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Isn't that kind of redundant given that non-pressurized cabine planes went out of fashion real quick? And 1936 fighters would lose out against 1944 strat bombers anyways pressurized cabin or not.
 
IIRC, the thing about altitude isn't the cabin, but the engine. And the advantage is less being able to engage at those heights and more if you can't get high enough your opponent can hit you from above and there's not much you can do about it

That last part though makes me think it should be rolled into the agility stat. While important, it's not critical enough to completely rework the mechanics to account for it

Beyond that, making it so early air forces are completely incapable of engaging a better opponent instead of just practically incapable seems like terrible game design. It's possible to work around practical limitations if you're good enough, but physical limitations make the game boring
 
How do you suggest NAV's actually went about doing what you suggest? You can't exactly send out an entire flight of NAV's to randomly search for targets with no clue if there are even anyone around. Even if you spread them out then that means only the lone plane that got lucky would be the one able to actually attack.

Maritime surveillance mission could make sense being able to find ships, but there were still some limitations in that planes only had a vague idea of where they were so even if they found something so would it be difficult to coordinate a strike just by that.

As for ground striking units not in combat so would it only make sense against targets that are moving as stationary units can hide from air rather easily.
Striking targets on the ground should be allowed whether or not there is ongoing combat. Front lines are hard to hide. Certainly damaged should be reduced by things like terrain and entrenchment.
I liked the old system where I could order my bombers to attack certain provinces, troops, etc. You know, like in real life. But now I’m just complaining about the air system. I understand why they changed to the current air system and it does have its perks. Too bad we couldn’t get a hybrid of both. Assign planes to zones but let the player micro if they choose.
 
It seem a little bit counter intuitive to just change a few existed variables to let it loosely represent something in abstract, when the dev is making an expansion pack to address old problem with new features.

Regarding altitude, it is just not about pilot in a plane with pressurized cabin can operate the plane in an altitude that no other plane can fly that high, henceforward, plane with pressurized cabin have a bonus increment for both air defence and air attack compared to those planes which don't have. I don’t want to see CAS still get a bonus increment for both air defence and air attack when they conducting ground attack mission.

Altitude is more about engines perform differently (have different thrust value in game) under different operations altitude, hence different plane would have different performance when conducting different air missions in different altitude (different altitude zone in game).
So the bonus applies only when doing certain missions (Air Superiority, Interception and Strategic Bombing), then. Being able to customize your planes is one thing. Add a whole new attribute to define some vague area of activity, again, while really interesting and exciting for those who care about this kind of stuff, doesn’t bring much back to the game.
 
No, Engines are more or less a linear upgrade path. I didn't feel that the radial vs. inline choice offered enough tradeoffs to really be interesting at the level the player operates. Most countries - as far as I can tell - cared more about the engine performance and availability than its type. The Germans even went from a radial to an inline engine on the later models of the Fw 190.

Not splitting water cooled and radial engines is the only thing that really disappoints me in this scheme. The idea that airspeed depends on thrust and weight is just not really helpful; air speed depends on thrust and drag, while agility feeds off of weight (plus power, wing loadings, wing length and a few other things). Radial engines have more drag but less weight for a given power - which is why it's easier to add weight to them. Agility needs to be >0 to be able to leave the ground (so the thrust > weight thing is still valid), and always adds to interception ability (speed of climb, basically). Bomb bays are much more limited (take up internal space) but external racks add drag - which is important! Same deal with internal fuel and drop tanks. What this system really misses is the weight-drag dichotomy and the crucial effect it has on the design space.

Better base stats, like longer range and higher agility. It's the only way to get more agility, since there are no modules that add agility.

Hmm. What they should really have is better speed for a given power (less drag from the base airframe) and a higher speed cap (stronger airframe under load from drag). They might also have a lower base wing area - which will reduce base agility but could be adjusted by enlarging the wings at the cost of more drag and weight...)

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.
Floats and flying boat hulls add drag. This makes them slow which ought to prevent any blanket "meta" forming. There were a few attempts to create floatplane fighters, but they really struggled in what was a losing battle over speed (and agility - they also add weight off the centre of gravity).

Final question: will there be a modding DevDiary on this designer? It would be neat to know how much of this I can add with modding values.

Edit: also there doesn't seem to be any effect of altitude, but with the revised mission schema that might be fixable with mission-specific modifiers.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Repeating myself here, we just need to make the penalties for being a green wing even harsher. If green wings had penalties like -30% Air Defense, -30% Air/Naval/Ground Attack and +30% increased penalty for night missions, I am pretty sure most people would train their wings before sending them to combat (also, if training in an actually contested air space, more pilots should be lost in training).
Even with vast modifiers I'm afraid that really doesn't cut it. You need to teach people to fly a plane (usually with trainers, so not combat aircraft in any sense) before you can even start to train them how to operate a war plane. Once they know the basics, though, retraining to a new type is relatively swift.

The lack of pilots as a limiting resource has another rather unfortunate effect on the game, too. There is really no reason not to throw all your obsolete cr@p up into the air. Even with green crews. It's just not costing you any sort of resource - those planes are already built, and the manpower is trivial. This is a major reason we see vast swarms of (largely obsolete) aircraft as soon as war starts. The efforts to compensate are making planes way too costly to build and they are also way too slow to wear out. Every plane made flies missions, too. German squadrons (staffeln) had 12 planes so that 9 of them could fly at any time; British squadrons had 16-18 planes in order to get 12 airborne for any given mission. Aircraft reliability should maybe feed into this "flying fraction", or the extra planes could just be assumed (but then why does it take so long to reinforce?) Basically, air units operate so far from what was the case in reality that a selection of game issues are almost inevitable.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, I mean, I would love to have air wings being trained like ground troops, seeing them take time.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, I mean, I would love to have air wings being trained like ground troops, seeing them take time.
The time isn't the issue - and neither are they trained like ground troops (although you could treat ground troops similarly, with "basic training" to turn 'manpower' into raw troops - what is currently called "manpower" - to be converted into functioning units and other structures such as logistics units, AA gunners for static AA, garrisons, signals networks and so on. Pilots get generated at a more-or-less fixed - certainly constrained - rate. These can then be converted to air crews (with extra manpower) which then combine with aircraft to form an air wing. Accidents and wear and tear consume aircraft but not air crews. Air casualties consume air crews, with some reductions in aircrew lossed due to air-sea rescue, fighting over home territory, etc.

This has the effect of limiting the total size of the air force. Since air crews are a limited resource, you naturally want to equip them with the best aircraft you can manage. Obsolete aircraft - if they are not consumed by wear and tear - get scrapped (often after being used for training in the currently implemented sense, which is 'operational training').

I don't know if we will get any such system, but having permanent training units, called in the RAF "Operational Training Squadrons" (imaginative or what? OK, 'what'...), which feed already-trained air crews (note that whole air crews train together at this stage, not just pilots - except for single seater stuff, obviously) as replacements to the frontline air wings would be absolutely historical and a lot less micro-hassle than the current system.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: