• 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 | Small Features #1

Hello there, it's me C0RAX.

This week we are going to talk about some of the small features coming with Arms Against Tyranny, these are small things that add or change the game to increase the QoL or add to the game.

So this week we have 3 main groupings;
  • Division structure
  • Economy
  • Presets

Division Structure
First up we have division structure changes. The way you make a division has been fairly static for quite some time. With this update there are some new changes that increase the challenge and compromises you will have to make when designing your divisions.

First up we have some changes to the categories for each brigade that you choose when you pick the first battalion for each vertical column. Previously we had both artillery, AA and AT in the same category as maneuver units like infantry and tanks. This is no longer the case; artillery, AA, and AT are now in their own category meaning you need to choose how many support brigades you have and how many maneuver brigades you have. This extends to mobile battalion and armored battalion categories.

2023-07-10_15-07_1.png

Previously there was never any real scarcity when it came to a division's battalion slots, you could generally always have whatever number of battalions you wanted in generally any mixture. Now your brigade also starts with the bottom slot locked making a 5x4 grid.this is the default state of divisions and you can unlock this 5th slot by unlocking doctrines giving you a 5x5 grid. When this is combined with the category changes you will need to think about how much combat support battalions you can bring vs vs how many maneuver battalions you you need if you want to make that large division with lots of tank and infantry you will be significantly restricting just how much Artillery, AA and AT you bring to boost your unit.
2023-07-10_15-07.png

2023-07-10_15-06.png



Economy
Now we are onto something many of you have seen in the focus tree dev diaries is the new modifier “Consumer Goods Factories Factor” . This new modifier exists because the Consumer goods calculation and its associated modifiers have changed.

Previously the calculation of consumer goods was calculated by adding all the consumer goods modifiers to get a percentage; it then worked out the number of factories that percentage represented against your total factory count. So if you had 5 civs and 5 mils for 10 total factories and your consumer goods modifiers total was 10% you had to pay 1 civ for consumer goods. You were then “taxed” that number of civilian factories.

This had a nasty problem in that it was very easy to first reach 0% consumer goods which was a considerable balance consideration due to it allowing faster snowballing of the economy. This easiness of reaching 0% consumer goods was then a problem because once you reached 0% other parts of the game where the reward was a further reduction of consumer goods were rendered useless since you cannot go below 0% consumer goods.

This is now done a little differently, firstly there are now 2 steps to the calculation of the percentage. First we have the base value(expected consumer goods), this works the same as the old percentage calculation; it's a simple percent value that is added up together. This generally is only set by laws so it acts as a base value that everything else modifies. We then have the consumer goods factor (the new modifier) which multiplies this value and if there are multiple factor modifiers they are multiplied together meaning that you will generally never actually reach 0% consumer goods from just the factor alone and the effect of each additional consumer good factor modifier has diminishing returns.
2023-07-10_15-08.png
2023-07-10_15-09.png

We have also as part of this made the consumer goods calculation round down consumer goods factories which should help minors a bit while not really being highly noticeable for majors.

For those who want a detailed copy of the calculations it's like this:

ConsumerGoodsPercent = (Base1 + Base2 + ….) *((1+Factor1) * (1+Factor2) * ….)

ConsumerGoods = Max(ConsumerGoodsPercent , MINIMUM_NUMBER_OF_FACTORIES_TAKEN_BY_CONSUMER_GOODS_PERCENT ) (ConsumerGoods * Total factories).RoundedDown



Presets
And finally I kept the most exciting one till last, and that is presets for your equipment designers. Ever since the introduction of the equipment designers we have known that some players don't want to or struggle to interact with the complexity of them especially when they are new to the features or game. This was for many off putting and something they would shy away from or be continuously frustrated with, Since the game didn’t really teach you how to make a well rounded design for each role. This was doubly true if they wanted to recreate a historical vehicle that they know from their own knowledge of WW2 but didn’t understand how to translate that into the game with the designer.

What these are are premade designs for your equipment designers that are stored in the game files. When you create a new variant from a blank chassis you can press the presets button and will get a list of all the presets made for that chassis/hull/airframe. So should you open up the improved heavy tank chassis presets you will find an entry called Tiger I and you will see the picture of the Tiger I tank and if you click it all the modules and roles and values will be set for you. Should you be missing modules or upgrades the preset entry will tell you what you are missing in order to make it, then all you have to do is research those modules and then create the variant.

So now if you don't understand or want to understand the deeper workings of equipment design you can still make good use of the equipment designers just pick the tank you want and the game will make it for you. Of course if you want to try out tweaking the designs to edge your way into the world of equipment design you can do that too. Once the preset is loaded you can adjust any part of the design as normal, and if you feel lost at any point you can just load the preset back in.
2023-07-10_15-09_1.png
2023-07-10_15-10.png

Some of you may wonder why we’re not allowing you to add your own presets or saved templates. In short, this is something we’d like to do and are not ruling out for the future - historical presets are an important step towards making custom presets a possibility.

However, this feature is entirely moddable so if you want your MP mods to have all the latest meta builds there as presets you can do that, or if you want even more templates for your super in depth history mod or maybe a totally different world you can do that. These presets are defined by the templates you make normally for the AI with some new additional fields, you can now define the art and the name of the template.

That's everything for this dev diary, I hope you will enjoy these changes as much as we have. As always feel free to let us know your favorite parts.

Next week we will be bringing you more information on a new system for content along with how it will be tied into the stories you can tell with this expansion and beyond. See you next week.
 
  • 66Like
  • 41Love
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I would like to double down on the TOO FEW LAND XP issue.

It’s so sad that I don’t design a super cool marines division but do the naval Invasion with 14/4s because it also works and I will use the 100 xp !!! that is needed for the marines for doctrine because that’s the winning play.

So I end up using only 2 to 3 different divisions for the whole game to optimize fast doctrines.
And I’m hurting myself because making cool paratroopers even if I don’t really need them and giving them historical names would add so much immersion role play and fun.
But the scarcity of land xp makes me lock myself out of all of that.
This is a big thing. Techs are timegated to prevent rushing, I wonder, would timegating doctrines have a positive impact on HOI4 games? Difference in Doctrine ofc already can have a massive impact on the game. one of the many reasons Germany always crushes France is Germany's numerous land doctrine bonus' from Focus tree. France has fewer and it takes them longer to get there. Some key doctrine things are worth rushing- like mass assault +5% recruitable pop, or I hear rushing guerilla tactics is quite popular in MP
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a big thing. Techs are timegated to prevent rushing, I wonder, would timegating doctrines have a positive impact on HOI4 games? Difference in Doctrine ofc already can have a massive impact on the game. one of the many reasons Germany always crushes France is Germany's numerous land doctrine bonus' from Focus tree. France has fewer and it takes them longer to get there. Some key doctrine things are worth rushing- like mass assault +5% recruitable pop, or I hear rushing guerilla tactics is quite popular in MP

I wouldn’t change doctrines. Getting better at them requiring a lot of fighting makes sense.

I’m talking about having 14/4s with 2 support companies and needing 20 xp to remove the support companies.
( Make removing stuff from templates free? Why would it require xp?)

Or changing 14/4s to 14/4 marines requiring 70 xp.
( Make changing from inf to marines cost only 5xp once and not 14 times. You know how to change from infantry to marines after you did it once. Maybe set a global flag for a certain template change, e.g. “add support AA” and make it cost 10xp the first time and from then on make adding support AA free.)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will we get any naval AI improvement in this DLC? (Bugs are reported and confirmed in the forum)
I mean especially US/UK that have to big areas so current AI basically breaks down.

There are many examples but one concrete consequence/effect is the strikeforce positions:
  1. -CV in Honolulu doesn't help battles in around Guam for example. Which drains US DD/CL assets.
  2. - Same with UK and the med.

Other examples are build strategies. At the moment neither the battle of atlantic and pacific war really happens.

I am loving the game, and have played it way to much, :D
For me I just want to know if a fix is coming this DLC or not.

(Perhaps giving UK/US two naval AI for each area, Atlantic/Europe and Pacific, are a quick fix? for the first example? or perhaps that the strikeforce leaves earlier)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Free features are generally harder to apply resources for than paid ones.
Hoi4 is not free to play, nor are any of the prior DLC. All of them are purchasable items or a subscription still being sold in 2023. IMHO this false distinction is shortsighted and ultimately hurts the brand, game, and product offering as a whole.
To future buyers of AAT: in a few months the product you pay for will be considered "free" as well; allocate your resources accordingly.
 
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
Why can't you fully tie combat width to Doctrines? Make it simpler for the player and distinguish between doctrines. Then, get rid of the combat width penalty or whatever, and just make each be able to bring so many divisions, put the others in reserve. I don't understand the combat width penalty to be honest, it makes little sense and it's an overly complicated mechanic for the player.

The player should still have some design choices, but not goofing around with division sizes nonsense would be better for the game.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Why can't you fully tie combat width to Doctrines? Make it simpler for the player and distinguish between doctrines. Then, get rid of the combat width penalty or whatever, and just make each be able to bring so many divisions, put the others in reserve. I don't understand the combat width penalty to be honest, it makes little sense and it's an overly complicated mechanic for the player.

The player should still have some design choices, but not goofing around with division sizes nonsense would be better for the game.
I'm inclined to agree with you here. Combat width needs to be in the game in some form, but the current system feels like it's over-complicated and really hard to balance.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm inclined to agree with you here. Combat width needs to be in the game in some form, but the current system feels like it's over-complicated and really hard to balance.
Combat width does play a huge role depending on terrain, and my opinion is that the developers have been getting better at this over time.
For example, it does make a huge difference if an infantry division is operating in the Pripjet marshes or other dense woods, or if they are deployed in a steppe area. Wood requires to maintain tight lines of communication, otherwise the unit could be easily infiltrated or bypassed. Steppes on the other hand offer a large area of view, and units can be spread out, making use of field of vision and range of armament.

Edit: What I am trying to say by this is that it is a lot harder to maintain unit coherence with larger units in more difficult terrain. Smaller units fare better in those situations.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Combat width does play a huge role depending on terrain, and my opinion is that the developers have been getting better at this over time.
For example, it does make a huge difference if an infantry division is operating in the Pripjet marshes or other dense woods, or if they are deployed in a steppe area. Wood requires to maintain tight lines of communication, otherwise the unit could be easily infiltrated or bypassed. Steppes on the other hand offer a large area of view, and units can be spread out, making use of field of vision and range of armament.

Edit: What I am trying to say by this is that it is a lot harder to maintain unit coherence with larger units in more difficult terrain. Smaller units fare better in those situations.
Again, I agree that combat width has a place in the game. I just feel like in its current incarnation it's kind of confusing and easy to end up ignoring.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Combat width does play a huge role depending on terrain, and my opinion is that the developers have been getting better at this over time.
For example, it does make a huge difference if an infantry division is operating in the Pripjet marshes or other dense woods, or if they are deployed in a steppe area. Wood requires to maintain tight lines of communication, otherwise the unit could be easily infiltrated or bypassed. Steppes on the other hand offer a large area of view, and units can be spread out, making use of field of vision and range of armament.

Edit: What I am trying to say by this is that it is a lot harder to maintain unit coherence with larger units in more difficult terrain. Smaller units fare better in those situations.
Why make it so complicated? Just say that you can’t have x amount of divisions operating in a heavy forest or mountain. You have 4 different doctrines and likely only 4 different options ( plus/minus some customization or special mountain division or what not) it’s far less complicated. Literally makes no sense to me at least. You don’t see 20 different templates in the armies of the time, because that would be difficult to administer.

what about the cost to administer so many different types of divisions? One for woods, one for marshes, etc.

you already have combat modifiers for the terrain. There really isn’t a reason for it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Why make it so complicated? Just say that you can’t have x amount of divisions operating in a heavy forest or mountain. You have 4 different doctrines and likely only 4 different options ( plus/minus some customization or special mountain division or what not) it’s far less complicated. Literally makes no sense to me at least. You don’t see 20 different templates in the armies of the time, because that would be difficult to administer.

what about the cost to administer so many different types of divisions? One for woods, one for marshes, etc.

you already have combat modifiers for the terrain. There really isn’t a reason for it.
Fair point. I guess a lot of the complications end up being min-maxxers trying to make 19-width divisions to squeeze out a tiny advantage by exploiting width penalties.
 
Why make it so complicated? Just say that you can’t have x amount of divisions operating in a heavy forest or mountain. You have 4 different doctrines and likely only 4 different options ( plus/minus some customization or special mountain division or what not) it’s far less complicated. Literally makes no sense to me at least. You don’t see 20 different templates in the armies of the time, because that would be difficult to administer.

what about the cost to administer so many different types of divisions? One for woods, one for marshes, etc.

you already have combat modifiers for the terrain. There really isn’t a reason for it.
The issue is that limiting by divisions will lead to building larger-that-necessary divisions just to have the upper hand. So we must also take into account the composition of the division. But I agree the main parameter should be how many we can put, while the rest is in reserve for next round.

BTW: found the tests showing that 17 to 19 width was the optimal. Well, don't try this as France holding against Germany, or else you won't hold for long, even with spies network bonus... ;)
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
For the division designer restrictions, is it possible to mod them by column and type? It'd be very interesting to allow an extra few artillery pieces, or tanks, or special 0w versions of them, to divisions with the right doctrine unlocked.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
BTW: found the tests showing that 17 to 19 width was the optimal. Well, don't try this as France holding against Germany, or else you won't hold for long, even with spies network bonus... ;)
I disagree. I can build 18-width divisions and stop Germany cold, and have done so before. Just pay attention.

(Not even necessarily 9-0, either)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I disagree. I can build 18-width divisions and stop Germany cold, and have done so before. Just pay attention.

(Not even necessarily 9-0, either)
Show me :) Especially since the Summer Open Beta, try holding that front by yourself. I never go over speed 3: yet I systematically lose those 2 provinces, whatever 7/1 or 8/1 or even 9/1. I might not be the best player ever, but I know how to rotate my troops.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-07-26 061951.jpg
    Screenshot 2023-07-26 061951.jpg
    561,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 2
Reactions:
Why make it so complicated? Just say that you can’t have x amount of divisions operating in a heavy forest or mountain. You have 4 different doctrines and likely only 4 different options ( plus/minus some customization or special mountain division or what not) it’s far less complicated. Literally makes no sense to me at least. You don’t see 20 different templates in the armies of the time, because that would be difficult to administer.

what about the cost to administer so many different types of divisions? One for woods, one for marshes, etc.

you already have combat modifiers for the terrain. There really isn’t a reason for it.
Well you can have more units operate in the woods. Also, your units should be customized. It does not male sense that a tank or mechanized unit without engineer support could easily push through a wooded area just with the argument that it is hardened and well suited for soft targets. They would get stuck in no time time with well planned and well defended obstacles and strongpoints.
A good example are the Finnish Jäger units that stopped Soviet units dead in their tracks in the Winter War.

That same unit that would work well in wooded areas could be a total failure in the North African desert. as it is not suited or equipped for that terrain. Your mechanized unit could maybe identify weak spots and easily exploit them by bypassing your strongpoints.
The Northern African campaign was highly mobile.

And just for the sake of it, there are role players amongst us. ;)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The issue is that limiting by divisions will lead to building larger-that-necessary divisions just to have the upper hand. So we must also take into account the composition of the division. But I agree the main parameter should be how many we can put, while the rest is in reserve for next round.

BTW: found the tests showing that 17 to 19 width was the optimal. Well, don't try this as France holding against Germany, or else you won't hold for long, even with spies network bonus... ;)
I agree - people will just build the largest division 4x (or what the limit is) and plant it in the area. there is no variety to that.

Just like in real life, tailoring forces for their mission makes a lot more sense, keeps the front line interesting (i.e. who builds the better composition of forces) and requires you to manage your resources.
I think this adds largely to replayability and keeping the game interesting.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The issue is that limiting by divisions will lead to building larger-that-necessary divisions just to have the upper hand. So we must also take into account the composition of the division. But I agree the main parameter should be how many we can put, while the rest is in reserve for next round.

BTW: found the tests showing that 17 to 19 width was the optimal. Well, don't try this as France holding against Germany, or else you won't hold for long, even with spies network bonus... ;)
What does this even mean, if your division templates are mostly fixed and determined by doctrine how are you going to build larger than necessary divisions? You won't' be able to.

I think there needs to be more penalties for building ridiculous divisions as in organizational penalties.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What does this even mean, if your division templates are mostly fixed and determined by doctrine how are you going to build larger than necessary divisions? You won't' be able to.

I think there needs to be more penalties for building ridiculous divisions as in organizational penalties.
Often, we keep adding brigade as time goes. For instance, you might start with 5 motorized and 5 tanks, and then add 1 each when you get some XP. By then end of the game you'll probably have 40+ CW, and some players only swear by these behemoths. I don't, because they also create bottlenecks in terms of supplies, but you'll often see this in youtube playthroughs.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Often, we keep adding brigade as time goes. For instance, you might start with 5 motorized and 5 tanks, and then add 1 each when you get some XP. By then end of the game you'll probably have 40+ CW, and some players only swear by these behemoths. I don't, because they also create bottlenecks in terms of supplies, but you'll often see this in youtube playthroughs.
Again what if that wasn’t really possible to change division sizes like that.

No army in the world at that time would operate like that. They mostly wanted uniformity because it was far easier
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Again what if that wasn’t really possible to change division sizes like that.
Oh sure, in that case would be great. But that's not the general direction of HOI4: we get to fine tune our ships/tanks/planes, I don't see why we couldn't put more of this and less of that as well for leg & mechanized infantry. But I'd be fine to have a variety to cleverly thought templates, I'm just not sure all countries at all points in time would have similar needs.
 
  • 2
Reactions: