• 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:
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.
What I'm saying is that they should simply things. These conversations about combat width are stupid, they've been going on for years. They constantly make changes to limit the amount of templates that are really viable.

Why make so much effort to do that? Just make a few comparable templates with minor customizations available for each doctrine and be done. I don't understand why there is so much thought put into combat width as a mechanic.

Getting a spreadsheet out to calculate the optimal division width isn't really all that fun tbh. Training troops endlessly to gain some experience to change division size to match optimal width.. I dunno, it's really a distraction more than anything. And, not enough emphasis is placed on combined arms in my opinion. Just a thought.

Divisions with 500+ tank, ok? No one did that because it was impossible to supply and administer. So, why isn't that changed somewhat? I dunno just saying.
 
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
Why make so much effort to do that? Just make a few comparable templates with minor customizations available for each doctrine and be done. I don't understand why there is so much thought put into combat width as a mechanic.
The answer is because that's exactly what they don't want

They don't want a few comparable templates that everyone uses. They want as many viable templates as possible, and to avoid a Meta template as much as possible. All the effort in width is to find a way where the "best" division isn't all that much better than any other, and is worse in certain circumstances, forcing one to adapt to the situation rather than just immediately pick the one template the forums declare best
 
  • 8
Reactions:
What I'm saying is that they should simply things. These conversations about combat width are stupid, they've been going on for years. They constantly make changes to limit the amount of templates that are really viable.

Why make so much effort to do that? Just make a few comparable templates with minor customizations available for each doctrine and be done. I don't understand why there is so much thought put into combat width as a mechanic.

Getting a spreadsheet out to calculate the optimal division width isn't really all that fun tbh. Training troops endlessly to gain some experience to change division size to match optimal width.. I dunno, it's really a distraction more than anything. And, not enough emphasis is placed on combined arms in my opinion. Just a thought.

Divisions with 500+ tank, ok? No one did that because it was impossible to supply and administer. So, why isn't that changed somewhat? I dunno just saying.
Simplifying things makes it less interesting in my opinion. You find your composition of forces out of a few options, and then it is basically who can throw more of those at the enemy. Then my question is why we even would have terrain and weather, or even reconnaissance. It makes things a lot more predictable.

I don't use a spreadsheet - but I get highly excited when a unit layout works for the purpose I have designed it for. That has nothing to do with size or quantity of equipment. I also get thrilled when one of my generals develops a special trait that makes him useful for a specific role.

As we are speaking about specialization, I am certain that you also design not just a plane, so to speak. I would bet that you design fighters, fighter escorts, tactical combers, strategic bombers, recce planes, etc. And I would also think that you look at the best layout to align with cost and available equipment. It is the same principle, just on a different level. Same with naval vessels... or am I wrong?
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I guess my point is that no one made divisions that didn't fit into the doctrine. The doctrine determined how they organized their divisions.

No one made different divisions for different terrain, period. No one had 500+ tanks in an armored division.... I'm just saying. Don't want to cut down most of the customization but there was a reason the divisions were put together in the way that they were put together.

That being said there were major differences... Soviet Rifle Divisions were much different the Infantry divisions in the US because of their doctrines.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I guess my point is that no one made divisions that didn't fit into the doctrine. The doctrine determined how they organized their divisions.

No one made different divisions for different terrain, period. No one had 500+ tanks in an armored division.... I'm just saying. Don't want to cut down most of the customization but there was a reason the divisions were put together in the way that they were put together.

That being said there were major differences... Soviet Rifle Divisions were much different the Infantry divisions in the US because of their doctrines.
I think there is potential in this regard. Maybe make extra locks on specific company types, so someone going down SF could get more artillery, or MA getting more access to infantry (or rather...faster. Don't want a complete lock-out. Making stupid divisions is part of the fun of the designers)

Just a thought experiment for now
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I guess my point is that no one made divisions that didn't fit into the doctrine. The doctrine determined how they organized their divisions.

No one made different divisions for different terrain, period. No one had 500+ tanks in an armored division.... I'm just saying. Don't want to cut down most of the customization but there was a reason the divisions were put together in the way that they were put together.

That being said there were major differences... Soviet Rifle Divisions were much different the Infantry divisions in the US because of their doctrines.
While I understand the point I think I disagree. Why have mountain divisions or marines if not using them in their role? And yes, they are created for a specific terrain.
There are mods that introduce light infantry, ski troops, garrisons, etc. and they are highly effective. I am glad that the developers appear to take this into consideration more.

Then yet, nobody is forced to design everything and anything. The trick is to manage the resources you have at hand. If you can achieve the same goal with a different layout, that’s good for you.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
That doesn't answer the question of why make the change in the first place though. Artillery was already regarded as ahistorically weak by the meta, there was no reason to further nerf it by requiring more xp to make use of it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Artillery was already regarded as ahistorically weak by the meta, there was no reason to further nerf it by requiring more xp to make use of it.
Was it? Aren't HoI4 infantry templates considered as good that contain more artillery than those trying to mimic real world history (to that extend you can within the game's mechanics)?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I guess my point is that no one made divisions that didn't fit into the doctrine. The doctrine determined how they organized their divisions.

No one made different divisions for different terrain, period. No one had 500+ tanks in an armored division.... I'm just saying. Don't want to cut down most of the customization but there was a reason the divisions were put together in the way that they were put together.

That being said there were major differences... Soviet Rifle Divisions were much different the Infantry divisions in the US because of their doctrines.
I think I get where you are coming from, but you may be using the wrong example to support it. WW2 divisions had extreme variations and often fell outside doctrine. I think many people like to look at the Germans as an example. The thing about German divisions is they quickly morphed into the fighting structure necessary to accomplish the mission in front of them and those neat division organizations we see in the history books often did not make it to the front.

Germans were not bashful to swap battalions around to get the job done. They used battle groups constantly, taking parts of several divisions to form. As far as doctrine is concerned, most divisions in the German army did not conform to the doctrine of lighting warfare, or even elastic defense. They did use a massive number of horses to tow things around and almost all the infantry had to walk. Not exactly lighting fast or even quick on defense. Then there were the German divisions on coastal defense that looked nothing like any other division and bore no resemblance to any doctrine of any country.

And that is just Germany. Every nation put the job at hand first, the organization was more of a goal than anything resembling reality.

Since combat situations can be varied in more ways than can be pre-planned for, the fewer division organizations a country uses, the more inefficient it will be. Using a "standard" infantry division in Libya, outside Leningrad, on the coast of Normandy, the plains of Poland, and the mountains of the Caucus, would be inefficient in men and material.

I am not saying that HOI4 needs to be that detailed, but there may be a middle ground where division templates and game play can happily meet.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
The answer is because that's exactly what they don't want

They don't want a few comparable templates that everyone uses. They want as many viable templates as possible, and to avoid a Meta template as much as possible. All the effort in width is to find a way where the "best" division isn't all that much better than any other, and is worse in certain circumstances, forcing one to adapt to the situation rather than just immediately pick the one template the forums declare best

- i have seem the same conversation in many games, that just doesn't work, its end in walking in circles, aiming killig metas could end killing variations, in in MMPORG world theres same dillema, same discussion "we don't want players stick to a meta".
- Devs seems thinks anyone have fun in designing templates, people don't have, thats why so many are asking for a "designer template library" for tanks and planes, long discussions about WWII equipment's doesn't mean same ppl like to spend a lot of time looking at it in a game.
- Megazording 40w templates culture is something bring by the youtubers, not forum discussions, but i understand devs worried about it killing the deep potential of hoi4.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
- i have seem the same conversation in many games, that just doesn't work, its end in walking in circles, aiming killig metas could end killing variations, in in MMPORG world theres same dillema, same discussion "we don't want players stick to a meta".
- Devs seems thinks anyone have fun in designing templates, people don't have, thats why so many are asking for a "designer template library" for tanks and planes, long discussions about WWII equipment's doesn't mean same ppl like to spend a lot of time looking at it in a game.
- Megazording 40w templates culture is something bring by the youtubers, not forum discussions, nut i understand devs worried about it killing the deep potential of hoi4.
not entirely sure what you meant here, but i think i follow and approve. the division templates as they stand now are a needlessly complicated mechanic that doesn't aid game adoption.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I think I get where you are coming from, but you may be using the wrong example to support it. WW2 divisions had extreme variations and often fell outside doctrine. I think many people like to look at the Germans as an example. The thing about German divisions is they quickly morphed into the fighting structure necessary to accomplish the mission in front of them and those neat division organizations we see in the history books often did not make it to the front.

Germans were not bashful to swap battalions around to get the job done. They used battle groups constantly, taking parts of several divisions to form. As far as doctrine is concerned, most divisions in the German army did not conform to the doctrine of lighting warfare, or even elastic defense. They did use a massive number of horses to tow things around and almost all the infantry had to walk. Not exactly lighting fast or even quick on defense. Then there were the German divisions on coastal defense that looked nothing like any other division and bore no resemblance to any doctrine of any country.

And that is just Germany. Every nation put the job at hand first, the organization was more of a goal than anything resembling reality.

Since combat situations can be varied in more ways than can be pre-planned for, the fewer division organizations a country uses, the more inefficient it will be. Using a "standard" infantry division in Libya, outside Leningrad, on the coast of Normandy, the plains of Poland, and the mountains of the Caucus, would be inefficient in men and material.

I am not saying that HOI4 needs to be that detailed, but there may be a middle ground where division templates and game play can happily meet.
This comment hit the nail on the head, and I think that gameplay turns extremely interesting because we have options.

I think it is also helpful when developers come up with historical templates, but I am even more glad we can make our own
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
And back to the Paratroopers. Is it possible to simplify a parachute invasion like a battle plan instead of individually assigning a parachute location, to simplify unnecessary micromanagement. Just draw a line and there will be a parachute invasion on that line.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
ConsumerGoodsPercent = (Base1 + Base2 + ….) *((1+Factor1) * (1+Factor2) * ….)

Can some one calculate this for manchukuo? I need a example to easyer understand and handle it in the future. Japan have stolen most of my factorys. I have 2 stability and -10 war support.

1690972252509.png
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
HOI is getting a deeper and deeper game and I like the QoL improvement that now we are getting preset designs.
However I wish I just could save a few designs of my favourite tanks, planes and ships and carry them over into the next game. In the next game I just can unlock these designs once I have enough XP
 
  • 3
Reactions:
HOI is getting a deeper and deeper game and I like the QoL improvement that now we are getting preset designs.
However I wish I just could save a few designs of my favourite tanks, planes and ships and carry them over into the next game. In the next game I just can unlock these designs once I have enough XP
This, and also that behavior is aligned across all designers, with comparison working for different adjusters.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions: