Developer Diary | Summer Open Beta

[toegut]

I support these CW changes because they push in the direction of historical divisions. I think there's a divide between the SP community which wants more historical accuracy and the MP community which wants to roll around everywhere with massive 40-42w tank divisions. Nobody during the war used divisions with 500+ tanks (ok, the Soviets did at the beginning and failed miserably).

I don't have a proposal to fix this divide, although maybe doing something with artillery may help because it was way more important during the war than it is in the game.

 

[Pluto2006]

@C0RAX
Hello, since you are making changes to infantry and air stuff, could you please have a quick look and consider additional adjustments from these four please? I am sorry for the ping, but I came home late from work and could not catch up with you when the diary dropped.

Click to get redirected to the Suggestions thread:

Suggestion #1 - Close Air Support Mission

Suggestion #2 - Air Warfare Casualties

Suggestion #3 - Air Attack Ability

Suggestion #4 - Strategic Bombing Mission

Thank you.

 

[ParsonLarson]

I support these CW changes because they push in the direction of historical divisions. I think there's a divide between the SP community which wants more historical accuracy and the MP community which wants to roll around everywhere with massive 40-42w tank divisions. Nobody during the war used divisions with 500+ tanks (ok, the Soviets did at the beginning and failed miserably).

I don't have a proposal to fix this divide, although maybe doing something with artillery may help because it was way more important during the war than it is in the game.

Totally agree. I will go even further, anything over historical size divisions should be penalized.

 

[punnykobold]

Totally agree. I will go even further, anything over historical size divisions should be penalized.

Then the core math of the game needs to be altered. Width changes like this would require a major rework of the combat system to justify, and I don't think it makes sense this late into a very successful game's life cycle.

 

[goodcigar]

There's a bugfix mod here that I'd like to bring attention to.

Steam Workshop::BugFix by Mefisto1029

steamcommunity.com

If you're improving the Plane Designer you might want to hire this guy.

Steam Workshop::Reworked Air Designer

steamcommunity.com

 

[The Colonel]

I support these CW changes because they push in the direction of historical divisions. I think there's a divide between the SP community which wants more historical accuracy and the MP community which wants to roll around everywhere with massive 40-42w tank divisions. Nobody during the war used divisions with 500+ tanks (ok, the Soviets did at the beginning and failed miserably).

I don't have a proposal to fix this divide, although maybe doing something with artillery may help because it was way more important during the war than it is in the game.

You would have to change fundamental combat mechanics to incentivize this sort of historical play, and I think it would be a really tough task. Even just rebalancing values wouldn't get there I don't think, it would just either not change much or make tanks so bad that no one uses them (see: the 1.0 version of NSB when they were crazy expensive, meanwhile motorized was OP so people just used that). The simple fact is that divisions with high attack and breakthrough + concentration of IC into a relatively small # of quality divisions will push faster and with fewer losses.

There's not really that big of a difference between using like a 20w vs 40w division now that targeting is harder to control (plus with smaller divs you gain org per width, so you can force successful attacks at greater cost, which also doesn't seem particularly meaningful as a "historical" thing). Your goal anyway is to fill out of the combat width and pack as many stats into one battle as possible. If I put 4 250 tank divisions into a combat instead of 2 500 tank ones does that make it more historical? Doesn't really feel like a meaningful distinction.

Then the core math of the game needs to be altered. Width changes like this would require a major rework of the combat system to justify, and I don't think it makes sense this late into a very successful game's life cycle.

Agreed. Changing combat width of provinces has nothing to do with penalizing large divisions. The ORG tradeoff is I suppose an attempt at doing that exact thing, it's just that low org can be perversely helpful in the only situations where being precisely meta matters (i.e. in a multiplayer tank battle, if your unit takes longer to de-org but you lose the battle anyway, you're just taking more HP -> IC losses to get the same result).

 

[KRBLACK]

Superior Firepower.
Infinite Fun.

 

[Graphite_66]

The combat width changes are very confusing. Having arbitrary reinforce widths instead of the current 90+45 on plain and 84+42 on forest will just make stacks of divisions behave unpredictably under multiple combat directions. Honestly the combat width system is already difficult enough to adapt to, and making it even more random just takes the strategy out of division design.

The other changes are nice to hear, but it's combat width changes probably need some tidying up or revoked.

 

[HmJ_JP]

I don't know if all that's needed, but I see here and there some good ideas so I trust your best judgment!

 

[DestinyCalls]

After looking into the combat width changes it seems a bit confusing. I think i liked where combat width was personally.

 

[Chromgamer]

This looks rly promising, sh looks fun. But what are the reasons behind changing the combat with. It´s already complicated getting the right combat withs, what´s the benefit of the new changes? It just looks way harder too manage and counterintuitive with the new reinforcment with.

 

[mursolini]

Any changes to line artilley|SP artillery? It`s so bad, everyone is just building tanks, while we should have had a more comboned arms approach.

You would have to change fundamental combat mechanics to incentivize this sort of historical play, and I think it would be a really tough task. Even just rebalancing values wouldn't get there I don't think, it would just either not change much or make tanks so bad that no one uses them (see: the 1.0 version of NSB when they were crazy expensive, meanwhile motorized was OP so people just used that). The simple fact is that divisions with high attack and breakthrough + concentration of IC into a relatively small # of quality divisions will push faster and with fewer losses.

If infantry/AT/AA/TD has notably more hard attack, you would build divisions with more HP and less cost for HP so you don`t bleed as much IC.

 

[ltccone]

Why not make heavy tanks support units too? They were used as independant battalions, there was never a division of them.

 

[Lofina]

I am somewhat confused by Toperdo Air Research Level 1 in the Air Tree. It gives the Light Torpedo Mounting which is already avaiable if you have the Torpedo Tech in the Naval Tree. I feel like nations who start with Torpedo Tech should also have this one or rather the Light Torpedo Mounting should be exclusive to the Air Research then.

 

[C0RAX]

I am somewhat confused by Toperdo Air Research Level 1 in the Air Tree. It gives the Light Torpedo Mounting which is already avaiable if you have the Torpedo Tech in the Naval Tree. I feel like nations who start with Torpedo Tech should also have this one or rather the Light Torpedo Mounting should be exclusive to the Air Research then.

yep research setup for the new torpedoes has not been implemented yet so that will be the case in the final patch

 

[Eruth]

With the Superheavy tanks becoming Support, can you leave the SHTD and SHAA hardcoded in (Even if you can't make them) so modders can make armored cars and mechanized vehicles using the designer?

Basically setting it up so that modders can make "SHTD" equipment required for mechanized companies, allowing you to design your own half-tracks and the like

None of the tank chasses are hardcoded. Modders can already make custom mechanized/armored car variants if they want, they don't need to cannibalise the SHT chasses-- they can just make their own.

 

[Sourlol]

If on nearly every tile everyone is experiencing some minor combat width coverage penalty or 1-2 width below max…then is it so bad?

A lot of the criticism I see of combat width changes are often centered around the notion that one should never experience width issues. As in, back in the day there only was 80 width and there was no reason not to be 20w.

if everyone is slightly off on combat width, then it becomes a relevant stat. If everyone just rolls around in perfect divisors of 80, no one ever has to consider width.

I think it’s a good thing. Since there isn’t an expectation to be perfect on width you can now factor that into your division size with consideration of the terrain you’ll be fighting in.

 

[Alliquid]

oh nvm is just the divisions

 

[goodcigar]

Why not make heavy tanks support units too? They were used as independant battalions, there was never a division of them.

That's true but we only have a very limited unhistorical 5 Support Company slots per Division. So that makes the problem worse. The game really needs a basic "Attach" command at least. It could make one Div follow another around like they are one Div. Or it could temporarily combine them into a new temporary Div template.

 

[Colonel_Kraken]

On the air module changes:

I really like the idea of excess thrust increasing agility. I also really like the idea of engine tech increasing max speed by a percentage of the base airframe speed. I think this provides more interesting choices and trade-offs. One thing that seems odd to me, however, is that equipment that adds weight (fighter weapons for instance) only decreases agility but does not decrease speed at all. As a test, I loaded up a fighter with cannons. Sure, my agility dropped drastically, but I could still fly at max speed? I would think that with all that weight (and each piece of equipment does have a weight stat), I would also reduce my max airspeed some. You may wish to consider some balance there.​

The max speed of an advanced light airframe with tech IV engine is "only" 675 km/h (iirc) in this beta. This seems a bit underrated to me as late war single engine fighters were reaching speeds of 700 - 750 km/h. However, I am completely ok with this if your team introduced some other modules that affected speed (like turbo chargers and superchargers that increase cost and fuel consumption or some other balance) which brings me to my wish list . . .​

Please see Freezer's "Reworked Air Designer" (already mentioned in this thread) mod. Some of it may be a bit of overkill, but some of the ideas are solid. I believe if you balanced the weight of weapons modules with reducing speed (somewhat) with new modules that add production cost but increase speed, you could really get a very nice set of balances and trade-offs and great variety in designs. Here are some additional ideas:

• Add an "Airframe" module radial button in the air designer just like the engine or armor module in the tank designer. This represents improved production capabilities working with aluminum, wing design, struts, spurs, flaps designs, metal smoothing, etc. (I do understand much of this is represented in the airframe techs but hear me out). You can hit the '+' sign to make slight improvements to your airframe (could affect speed, range, agility) while adding production cost (and possibly more aluminum at the highest levels). This allows you to keep your "Basic Airframe" fighter viable later in the war (think Bf-109 k vs. Bf-109 b) while still not negating later airframes (Improved and Advanced) which represent better "from the ground up" designs.

• Add a Fighter Canopy Tech Line
  • Assumed Starting Tech: No Canopy / Open Cockpit (or small windscreen only) - Max speed lock (if this is possible) no matter how big the engine is!
  • Tech 1 "Bird Cage" (e.g. Bf 109) - Flat glass sections held in position by a metal frame and muntins. Rear view is blocked. The frame causes blind spots. Unlocks max airspeed (if this is possible). Increases cost.
  • Tech 2 "Malcolm Hood" (e.g. Spitfire) - Expanding the bird cage concept but bulging the glass outward and adding flush-mounted recessed glass panels behind the openable canopy giving a better view to the rear. Increases defense (I see you coming!); increases agility (I can more quickly anticipate, see, and counter your attacks). Increases cost.
  • Tech 3 "Bubble Canopy" - A single piece of plexiglass constructed without bracing that allows a full 360 degree view. Increases defense, agility and attack. Increases cost a lot.

Thank you!