• 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 may regret this, but I guess it's a teachable moment and I've about had it up to my eyeballs with this kind of attitude.



"In short" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If you reword someone's statement - to summarize or not -you do not change the intent or sentiment: that is an intentional misquote.

We did not say any of what you suggested, nor did we intend it.



Free features are generally harder to apply resources for than paid ones. I know it isn't the done thing to acknowledge it, but I think it's better that we're open about the truth. We're a business. We're also passionate about HOI. Those two things just have to coexist - it isn't one or the other. That means a balance has to be struck: doing part of this now and part of it later is.. .well, a balance.

I clearly state that we all want to do saving/loading of templates as a next step.

Why isn't it happening right now? Because I decided there were more important things to focus on. I stand by that. I do not owe you my time to work on something you want for free.

And to clear up another oddity: making this feature moddable was not just for you. There are a dozen reasons why it's a good thing to have presets be moddable - maybe MP communities want to have restricted presets, maybe detailed historical mods want to give you some suggested designs, etc. If you choose to translate that into some sort of tacit insult, that's your choice: but it will make you look silly.



This was an odd segue, but fair enough. If we didn't playtest, you'd find out pretty fast. I invite you to apply for a job here and come and show us all how it's done, though.



We have a wide and constructive relationship with a lot of our modders. A lot of them seem pretty happy with this feature, and I recognize several in the comments here. You do not speak for the modding community: stop trying.
I, at least, value directness very highly, so I like that you made this statement. Most of it is stuff I already assumed, but I very much appreciate you making it explicit and from your official position.
 
  • 18Like
  • 3
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 logic.
There was zero programmer time used to change the categories of battalions since it's all in script. It was a task I could do myself, so I did.
 
  • 16Like
  • 6
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Good questions.

It is also, why I am pleasantly surprised that the developers are introducing pre-sets. No matter what choices they make, converting the game system stats to represent the hundreds of different ships, planes, and tanks during the war, through the medium of the designers, is going to create many points of debate. I hope the future debates can be civil. I know there are many players with a vast knowledge of WW2. It sounds like you know quit a bit yourself and can contribute to the future conversation.

IMHO, another possible benefit of the pre-sets is they may open the door to new things in the future, if not in vanilla, then in mods. I have played every major mod and so many others. I believe the talent and imagination of the HOI4 modders is something most everyone should try to experience.

Interesting figth against a country where you have chanced the preset!
You play Germany. Make custon presets. Play next game england and fight against your custom german designs… It can cause interesting side effects…
 
  • 2Love
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Ah! So Will Commonwealth Countries use - say- British Presets? Or on the other hand, will Minor Countries like the Commonwealth countries also have their Preset designs along with British ones? Does Canada, for example, have access to the Sexton, Ram, and ergo the Grizzly? More interestingly, will there be a "tech block" for accessing these design presets- Imagining something like Black Ice for example?
theoretically yes, although I've only ever used static country tags for the allowed fields. the preset themselves are shown for each chassis so you unlock presets with each chassis you research. so you could in example have a panzer IV chassis tech that unlock the Panzer IV chassis and that chassis has all the presets for the Panzer IV defined for it. selecting those presets is still dependent on you having all the modules and upgrades unlocked so that acts as a further barrier. so using our Panzer Iv example, if you want to make the Panzer IV F2 you need to have unlocked that gun module compared to the short 7.5cm gun on the Panzer IV D or E.
 
  • 13
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
More interestingly, will there be a "tech block" for accessing these design presets- Imagining something like Black Ice for example?
I'm pretty sure they said it was already blocked by tech. If I understood correctly the presets are grouped by chassis (be it Tank, Plane, or Ship) and any you don't have the required tech for will be greyed out and the tooltip will tell you what techs you are missing to use it.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Guys, as mentioned I'm glad about all those changes to the game, the historical template in particular.
What slightly worries me is the complicated maintenance of said templates. 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 in 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.

There can be a tech block. The system currently works as a sort of hybrid between 'auto upgrade' and a saved preset, using AI designs as blueprints.

In short, this means that some modules that are considered required will block you from selecting the preset (ie: a particular main gun). Modules that aren't required will only be used if you've researched them. It will show you what you're missing if you can't select the preset.

As things stand now, this also means that preset modules will also try and use the best possible version of that module if you have one researched (not including the tank hull). That's behaviour I'm still tinkering with a bit, so I'm not sure if we'll keep it. It's one of those situations where things boil down to historicity vs accessibility.
 
  • 16
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Really looking forward to presets! Will there be ‘subversions’ of the presets, for instance mk.I when a new radar is available, and if so, any chance to have the production line automaticly shifted to the new design?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
There can be a tech block. The system currently works as a sort of hybrid between 'auto upgrade' and a saved preset, using AI designs as blueprints.

In short, this means that some modules that are considered required will block you from selecting the preset (ie: a particular main gun). Modules that aren't required will only be used if you've researched them. It will show you what you're missing if you can't select the preset.

As things stand now, this also means that preset modules will also try and use the best possible version of that module if you have one researched (not including the tank hull). That's behaviour I'm still tinkering with a bit, so I'm not sure if we'll keep it. It's one of those situations where things boil down to historicity vs accessibility.
Much appreciated, thanks! And kudos for all the changes done, especially since NSB: it really opened the game a lot.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Really looking forward to presets! Will there be ‘subversions’ of the presets, for instance mk.I when a new radar is available, and if so, any chance to have the production line automaticly shifted to the new design?

Not really, I think that would be overkill for presets tbh. They work better as monolithic templates - there's nothing stopping you from making those upgrades yourself the usual way.
 
  • 12Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting figth against a country where you have chanced the preset!
You play Germany. Make custon presets. Play next game england and fight against your custom german designs… It can cause interesting side effects…
you can do this already, Despite what most players think, AI designs are scripted, AI can use auto-generated designs from what I saw but they will mostly try to recreate a design that is in folder Common/ai_equipment, I have only done this with ship designs (It works) but I know that there are BBA and NSB scripts too,
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
Nope those were Dunkerque Class Ships and they are on the same line as Scharnhorst Class I think that giving them BC armor 2 is quite fitting as they were faster than Scharnhorst but Dunkerque had overall worse armor than the Scharnhorst while her sister Strasbourg was in line with Scharnhorst, some might argue even better because of her higher top speed. But a bigger problem, if you ask me, is that Scharnhorst class was downgraded from BB armor 1 to BC armor 1 making her worse than Dunkerque class which they were supposed to counter as their secondary mission (the first one being raiding French Convoys) and another reason why I believe Dunkerque class is better of with BC armor is that of their purpose being hunting down German Panzerschiffe (three Deutschland Class "heavy cruisers")

Edit: I just loaded HoI to be sure Richelieu has BB Armor 2, They are easy to confuse as both classes have two quad mounts looking forward
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Nope those were Dunkerque Class Ships and they are on the same line as Scharnhorst Class I think that giving them BC armor 2 is quite fitting as they were faster than Scharnhorst but Dunkerque had overall worse armor than the Scharnhorst while her sister Strasbourg was in line with Scharnhorst, some might argue even better because of her higher top speed. But a bigger problem, if you ask me, is that Scharnhorst class was downgraded from BB armor 1 to BC armor 1 making her worse than Dunkerque class which they were supposed to counter as their secondary mission (the first one being raiding French Convoys) and another reason why I believe Dunkerque class is better of with BC armor is that of their purpose being hunting down German Panzerschiffe (three Deutschland Class "heavy cruisers")

Edit: I just loaded HoI to be sure Richelieu has BB Armor 2, They are easy to confuse as both classes have two quad mounts looking forward
Sorry but disagree. Dunkerque/Strasbourg are fast battleship, I'm fine with your assumption. But Richelieu/Jean Bart are definitely another class (belt armor 330 vs 225mm). Let me have my nice French BB, there's not so much we get as France before we get bullied...
 
  • 2Haha
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry but disagree. Dunkerque/Strasbourg are fast battleship, I'm fine with your assumption. But Richelieu/Jean Bart are definitely another class (belt armor 330 vs 225mm). Let me have my nice French BB, there's not so much we get as France before we get bullied...
You literally wrote that Richelieu had BC armor (I know that names can be confused, I once classified South Dakota as an Iowa), I also don't mind Dunkerques having BB armor but they should be in line with Scharnhorst Class (also why does Scharnhorst have a 1936 heavy battery) [profanity moderated out]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
You literally wrote that Richelieu had BC armor (I know that names can be confused, I once classified South Dakota as an Iowa), I also don't mind Dunkerques having BB armor but they should be in line with Scharnhorst Class (also why does Scharnhorst have a 1936 heavy battery)
Yes: in the current patch both Richelieu and Dunkerque have Batlecruiser armor, while historically Richelieu should have BB armor.

1689810283112.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Yes: in the current patch both Richelieu and Dunkerque have Batlecruiser armor, while historically Richelieu should have BB armor.

View attachment 1006701
Oh god, I'm an idiot, I booted a moded game.
Oh god they turned the Best Treaty Battleship into a Battlecruiser without her DP guns
This is a war crime, This is almost as frustrating as scraping of HMS Warspite and USS Enterprise
 
  • 6Haha
  • 2Like
Reactions:
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.
I think it very much depends on the level of detail.

To use tanks/planes as an example (again):
- There is your basic plane model, say the Me 109
- We know that there are several variants, such as the E, F, G, K - you get the idea
- And yes, those variants had sub-variants: G6, G12, G14, etc.

I think that as a game designer, you want to give yourself limits for multiple reasons (Is the level of detail really that important? Do I confuse players with the level of detail? How much of an impact do these minor changes make? etc.)

Then yet on the other hand, I think it is great for history buffs to customize the layout of a specific model, or allow modders to add detail as they want.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think it very much depends on the level of detail.

To use tanks/planes as an example (again):
- There is your basic plane model, say the Me 109
- We know that there are several variants, such as the E, F, G, K - you get the idea
- And yes, those variants had sub-variants: G6, G12, G14, etc.

I think that as a game designer, you want to give yourself limits for multiple reasons (Is the level of detail really that important? Do I confuse players with the level of detail? How much of an impact do these minor changes make? etc.)

Then yet on the other hand, I think it is great for history buffs to customize the layout of a specific model, or allow modders to add detail as they want.
Yes, that's what we love in the game: we can micro-manage/role play if we wish so, yet it's not needed to succeed. Best of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Modules that aren't required will only be used if you've researched them. It will show you what you're missing if you can't select the preset.
Would it be possible to also show a list of the optional modules that are missing because they aren't researched yet? I think that would make the historical presets more satisfying to use, since then you can make sure that e.g. your Tiger has all the required modules to be historically accurate (within the game's limitations).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: