• 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:
Scharnhorst-class had 350 mm belt armor. It was a 32 knots fast battleship, not a battlecruiser. Scharnhorst-class was designed to carry 381 mm guns (like Bismarck), but got 280 mm guns "temporarily" due to lack of 381 mm guns.
I've heard a number of sources claim that the 350mm armor is only some kind of error and the real armor was 320mm just like Bismarck, but either case yes, they were intended to be battleships not battlecruisers.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The first game that I know of that used NATO symbols was Tactics II in 1958. I bought Avalon Hill's Waterloo in 1965 when I was ten, and it had them.
I for one only play with NATO counters because I'm familiar with what they mean at a glance without looking at a silhouette of a tank to figure out if it's heavy or medium.

It also helps if you're trying to do historical division templates as those are available online using those symbols including OOB for armies.
 
  • 11
  • 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.

I wish there was a more general limit on division design at game start but if you unlock certain milestones you can play around with designs as much as you want without losing land xp.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Scharnhorst-class had 350 mm belt armor. It was a 32 knots fast battleship, not a battlecruiser. Scharnhorst-class was designed to carry 381 mm guns (like Bismarck), but got 280 mm guns "temporarily" due to lack of 381 mm guns.
Scharnhorst Class had a love-hate relationship with 380 guns.
What started as a Scharnhorst Class was at first a D Class Panzerschif a design that improved on the Deutschlands, but Hitler being Hitler forced the design to incorporate a third 280" turret
But with Anglo-German Naval Agreement which granted Germany ability to build battleships. Two D Class ships were scraped (almost no progress was made) and Germany put forth what we know as a Scharnhorst Design with 11" guns because
Germany had the best 11" gun in the world
She was supposed to be a surface raider
11" guns could fire 3 salvos per minute and 11" shells were rather compact in size when compared to 15" shells
But after Germany kickstarted a new naval arms race they had to "upscale" in order to keep up with Littorios (German-Italian Relations were not so good at the time)
And Richelieus
For that reason instead of a 3x3 280mm composition, a 3x3 380mm composition was proposed. But there were quite a few problems
A) Germany Didn't know how to fit three 15" guns in a turret
B) Germany Didn't have a 15" gun
C) Germany Didn't want to compromise anymore on the design so they went with the original composition
(but instead, the armament of the Bismarck Class was to be upscaled from 13.5" to 15")
However, after the Channel Dash Gneisenau was refitted with 15" guns only for Hitler to scrap her.
And for a 350mm armor belt. It is more probable that it was 320mm like on Bismarcks but I am not 100% sure, because I saw sources that state both 350mm and 320mm
Still, there is no reason for Scharnhorst to have BC Armor 1 in-game
the only reason she was classified as Battlecruiser by the British is that she was one of the first Fast Battleships with a speed of well over 25" knots and they assumed that Scharnhorst Class was protected only against 11" shells
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I've heard a number of sources claim that the 350mm armor is only some kind of error and the real armor was 320mm just like Bismarck, but either case yes, they were intended to be battleships not battlecruisers.
Before BBA, Scharnhorst Class had BB Armor 1 which I personally think is rather fitting but PDX changed it to BC Armor 1 Because
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
And for a 350mm armor belt. It is more probable that it was 320mm like on Bismarcks but I am not 100% sure, because I saw sources that state both 350mm and 320mm
Still, there is no reason for Scharnhorst to have BC Armor 1 in-game
the only reason she was classified as Battlecruiser by the British is that she was one of the first Fast Battleships with a speed of well over 25" knots and they assumed that Scharnhorst Class was protected only against 11" shells
Scharnhorst-class should be given battleship armor and better engines than it has now in game. It was fast due to high engine power, not because of weak armor.
Your opinion that Scharnhorst could have had the same 320 mm belt as Bismarck sounds logical. No one probably claims that Bismarck was just a battlecruiser.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Regimental units should be incorporated into the force structure, which is in line with history
In the early years of World War II, the German division level was four regimental units plus four battalion units, and company units were already very small units
There are two solutions, one is to increase the design of regiment-level units, which will allow players to spend more time on troop formation, and the other is to eliminate company-level units and add regiment-level units, and the time spent by players on troop formation will not increase or even decrease
For example, the communications company, this unit does not make much sense, because is there any Army division in the 20th century that does not need communications? Every German regimental unit had a communications platoon
I had to think about this one a little.

There is really no uniform standardization of the structure of a Wehrmacht Division for example (and I apologize - I do not know if this applied to other countries).
Germans raised their divisions in waves (Aufstellungswellen). While the divisions of each wave were identically structured, the composition of different draft waves could vary significantly.
Wikipedia has a very interesting article on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufstellungswelle (English), but are more detailed description is available in German here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufstellungswelle, and it really highlights the details.

It gets even more confusing when a division was re-categorized, say from an infantry division to a motorized or armored division.

As mentioned, I do not know what the situation was in other countries, but it certainly does not make the game designer's job easier, as certain things would have to be more generalized.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I will be cruel:
Why create new support regiments? What benefit does this give? How does it make the game better?

If you ask me: this gives zero benefit and is a pure waste of programming resources. I don't see the

Guys, as mentioned I'm glad about all those changes to the game, the historical templates in particular.
What slightly worries me is the complicated maintenance of said templates, especially as new patches/DLC continue to live on. We still have issues with a few ship's designs (e.g. BB Richelieu having BC armor), or whose designs rely on modules before the research has been done (e.g. Radio included with some Tanks).

It might be questioned again and again, so please: don't let QA reply "as designed" :). If you allow a specific design to a template, let's logically make sure all necessary research behind each module is unlocked, or else start with them researched in 1936.
It is probably also a challenge for modders as the game mechanics change
 
  • 2
Reactions:
BTW I have to say it: I'm totally fine that you propose to have NATO units icons. But, since we see that in the DD, let me express an opinion. To me, it seems not as good looking, but also it doesn't do justice to the HOI4 graphic designers who developed such a nice iconography for this game.
For that reason alone: I don't even want to learn what all NATO codes correspond to. ;)
I am glad we have a choice. They are helpful when being able to "read" them.

Btw, the symbol for recon is not a set of bioculars, it is a line from the lower left to upper right of the rectangle. ;)
It also appears that the symbol that they used for horse/cav units (which is the recce symbol), should indeed be a pictogram of a horse: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ls#Armour,_Cavalry_and_Reconnaissance_Units_3
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Plz give us also some amount of factorys for repairs.
Its a micromanagement nightmare to always balance the things that need to be build and the things that need to be repaired
Well, they are there. Maybe it would help if repair priority would not be by default at the bottom. It would be nice to prioritize repair or build - or assign some civ factories for repair, similar to ship docks.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Well, they are there. Maybe it would help if repair priority would not be by default at the bottom. It would be nice to prioritize repair or build - or assign some civ factories for repair, similar to ship docks.
That would be a nice feature: imposible to repair everything, but we could choose either warehouses, railways... have priority and would go to top. I'll upvote your suggestion if you write one.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
NATO symbols are based on the symbols used by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1917, updated with modern units. The US used it in WW2.

"The infantry symbol of a saltire in a rectangle was said to symbolise the crossed belts of an infantryman, while the single diagonal line for cavalry was said to represent the sabre belt. With the formation of NATO in 1949, the US Army system was standardized and adapted, with different shapes for friendly (blue rectangle), hostile (red diamond) and unknown (yellow quatrefoil) forces."
Agreed, when looking at historical German or Soviet map symbols - well, they take some time to read them.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
The AI uses these presets? Too bad you didn't slip up and accidentally gave that to us ironman-approved, I used to love the old exploit you could pull with the civil wars... oh well, at least I can always go back to that version.

Otherwise the changes to divisions do seem interesting, as you never felt limited at the slightest with the old system. However, with the tweak towards a smaller meta division size, how much does this actually affect the game? Are there cases now where I will say "if only I had that one extra row"?

On that note, it might even be fun to expand the system further and make it even harsher, say start with 3 fewer rows and limit the amount of columns as well. Obviously it wouldn't fit a WW2-setting, but wow what an experience in military structural evolution it would be to have that kind of progression. Moddable?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
How moddable are the locks on the division designer?

I tend to never really get more than 3x4 in my division designs, so this limiter doesn't really affect me, but I would love to see an optional system that does, where the locks are even smaller and require more research to open up
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: