Developer Diary | Summer Open Beta

[WSnova]

Just played around some more with the Heavier planes.

I just don´t like the changes to base range for any of the planes, especially heavier ones.

Maybe I was just spoiled because of the ranges. Rushing engines seems to be even more important now so nothing changed on that front.

Seems like building airports near the frontlines will be more important than ever too which is a good thing.

Ehh I dunno, I´ve changed my mind. I feel the range nerf was kinda harsh for medium and heavy airframes, but the more I test it you can make them work and old models still can keep up as long as you keep upgrading their engines and stuff. You will have to get used to keep improving your planes as new engines become available. As far as ranges go I actually think they are Ok now.

Hopefully you guys also give us a way to ranges in kms easily so we can actually design based on our needs. The Naval stuff I turned off al DLCs to see something and it seems a lot of stuff is broken. Dunno if it was because of the update

The 1936 SHBB says can´t be built because of modules, 1940 BC has the same armor value of the 1944 SHBB, 1944 BB has 80 armor.

Will run some naval tests if I feel like it, but dunno. Seems a lot of the changes are above my paygrade. Armor I thought worked fine?

E: and yeah, more research again. And no way to boost it and its on something vital like air. The rich get richer....

 

[Herennius]

The thing is, the naval XP buffs are basically all for techs that give % stat buffs, not unlock new modules, with I guess the idea being that experience helps you learn how to use your tools effectively faster. There aren't any air techs like that, only modules.

That's a good idea, especially when from mid-game we have tons of XP and don't know what do with it, except navy's as you mention.

I would really love to see the mechanic "exp for research bonus" ported from the navy only to air as well. Aside from being a tool to adress the fact that now more techs have to be researched in the air department, it would also deal with air exp being least used (as it is the only of the three lacking an extra sink land has as its own with division design), while piling up fastest over the course of the game due to fairly high numbers of planes operating all the time.

 

[Ossiv]

Please give a special eye for France. Only 3 slot for most od early game, and now more basic research to find... I understand the purpose but you might reconsider the baseline for some majors.

If France gets 4, Germany must have 5. The best in R&D were the USA, Germany and the UK, everyone else lagged behind thru WWII.

 

[GrandVezir]

If France gets 4, Germany must have 5. The best in R&D were the USA, Germany and the UK, everyone else lagged behind thru WWII.

Italy and Japan start with four. France was not 25% technically worse than those, or than Germany/UK/USA for that matter.

The reason France starts with three, is as a deliberate hobble to make them a factory piñata for Germany on historic AI settings. I doubt that's changing any time soon.

 

[Menze]

Dear developer, SOV AI is broken and it doesn't upgrade it's divisions in the field as the AI changelog said, it just keeps all the start divisions and deploy the new upgraded division from zero

 

[ltccone]

Italy and Japan start with four. France was not 25% technically worse than those, or than Germany/UK/USA for that matter.

The reason France starts with three, is as a deliberate hobble to make them a factory piñata for Germany on historic AI settings. I doubt that's changing any time soon.

It is very difficult to model France's 1940 incompetentcy in a game.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Is this true? Are there any physics geeks here? In my mind I am thinking about how commercial aviation CHASES weight reduction with full blown passion. It's true that the speed of commercial aircraft doesn't change a whole lot, but that's because the manufacturers match thrust to weight. So, the reason commercial aviation chases less weight is to reduce the amount of thrust needed in order to increase fuel efficiency. I think . . . . .

Well commercial aviation is somewhat different to the military one to begin with. Commercial flights are all about cutting the costs while still meeting the safety standards and maintaing the bare minimum of comfort for passengers. In the miliatary, there were planes that outright leaked fuel while still at land (SR-71).

Matching thrust to weight is a HoI4 nonsense. Planes are neither helicopters nor rockets, they don't need that much thrust to take off, since they do that by aerodynamical force (i.e. lift), not by applying thrust against weight. As long as the plane can reach its take-off velocity, there's no magical thrust-to-weight threshold which will render it inoperational, while HoI4 implies just that.

Thrust to weight ratio of 1+ was actually quite a feat for combat aircraft, and it was achieved many years after ww2.

If Corax's statement is true, however, typically adding cannons to fighters did increase drag, so you would want to account for that. Also, anything that is an external pod (bomb locks, drop tanks, etc) would give quite a bit of drag and so should decrease speed, but I don't believe there is a "drag" variable in the calculations? Which would mean, the only way to reflect this would be to give a malice to speed based on weight. Just thinking out loud . . . .

Thanks!

Yes, outside armament increases drag and decreases flight characteristics directly. It also increases weight (and thus also worsens flight characteristics indirectly, by forcing you to produce more lift) and requires more internal volume for ammo. And that volume is also precious.

Basically, the entire history of aviation was all about making a [combat] plane as uniform as possible between its wings, fuselage and other parts. When they first swapped corrugated fuselage for a smooth one, drag decreased by some 30% iirc. Then there was a perceivable movement towards wings-fuselage unity (in part to decrease boundary layer, which is summed for the joint of two surfaces; in part due to other reasons). Nowadays these purely aerodynamic sources are long exausted, and thus older planes fully encompassing them like MiG-29 and F-16 are still fairly relevant, despite being 40+ years old.

 

[HmJ_JP]

Italy and Japan start with four. France was not 25% technically worse than those, or than Germany/UK/USA for that matter.

The reason France starts with three, is as a deliberate hobble to make them a factory piñata for Germany on historic AI settings. I doubt that's changing any time soon.

Yep, sorry but for me still hard to swallow. Basically my wars until 1940 can only be based on infantry, and then I can wander into tanks and/or air and/or navy... I'mglad with the many debuffs, it gives some sense of urgency and prioritization, but the constant addition fo new research modules in that context keeps it boring the first years.

 

[JohnParker117]

This is pretty cool but I'm a little disappointed that this dev diary was so short and had basically no new content announced. also, I hope the super heavy tank decision is reversed, because it makes the focuses that give bonuses to them in Russia and Italy's Trees a lot less useful. excited to see the next diaries though!

 

[C0RAX]

Matching thrust to weight is a HoI4 nonsense. Planes are neither helicopters nor rockets, they don't need that much thrust to take off, since they do that by aerodynamical force (i.e. lift), not by applying thrust against weight. As long as the plane can reach its take-off velocity, there's no magical thrust-to-weight threshold which will render it inoperational, while HoI4 implies just that.

Yeah it wasn't meant to represent true thrust and weight as a value. It's more an abstract representation of how aircraft weight and thrust have a range of good to bad aircraft performance, with the bad end leading to an aircraft to bad to fly. Measuring as a 0 summing value makes it much more understandable than having the cut off be a seemingly arbitrary value between 0 and 1 as would be if we used true thrust to weight values. Alas HOI4 is a game and not a aircraft simulation so abstractions are made for this purpose.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Yeah it wasn't meant to represent true thrust and weight as a value. It's more an abstract representation of how aircraft weight and thrust have a range of good to bad aircraft performance, with the bad end leading to an aircraft to bad to fly. Measuring as a 0 summing value makes it much more understandable than having the cut off be a seemingly arbitrary value between 0 and 1 as would be if we used true thrust to weight values. Alas HOI4 is a game and not a aircraft simulation so abstractions are made for this purpose.

It's unclear what was actually achieved by enforcing this tambourine dances around 1:1 thrust to weight ratio (TWR) cut-off and prohibiting e.g. 44:45 TWR planes from entering service.

Besides, air designer is admittedly oversimplified to begin with, so instead TWR could have been made far more important for fighters from the get-go (you're on the right way now, good job) to discourage creating underpowered planes in a natural way.

Tank designs don't limit one's perversions that much, and the only limitation of 4km/h makes sense as that's the lowest base speed for land units. For planes, the barrier of operating necessarily at TWR over 1 is unclear in its reasoning. The root problem here is that other stats (i.e. range) are barely affected by most air modules.

 

[Balesir]

It's unclear what was actually achieved by enforcing this tambourine dances around 1:1 thrust to weight ratio (TWR) cut-off and prohibiting e.g. 44:45 TWR planes from entering service.

Two things limit the weight that can be added to an airplane for war; the physical strength of the airframe and the fact that it has to accelerate to a minimum speed by the end of the runway in order to get airborne before it hits the end fence. IRL runway lengths are variable, and additional aids (like JATO rockets to assist with takeoff - and yes, these were a thing in WW2) can be used to get into the air, but there is still some level of practical limitation. Weight being limited to 'Thrust' is an abstracted way to represent this. Think of it as "past this point the plane is going to be so limited in where it can take off from because it struggles so much to get airborne that it's just not going to work well".

 

[Ossiv]

Italy and Japan start with four. France was not 25% technically worse than those, or than Germany/UK/USA for that matter.

The reason France starts with three, is as a deliberate hobble to make them a factory piñata for Germany on historic AI settings. I doubt that's changing any time soon.

I mean real history. Technologically top three countries were the USA, Germany and the UK. The USA got nuclear bomb first, Germany was ahead in rocket technology, the UK was advanced in radar (just examples). Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union lagged behind the top three in research at that time, and France was occupied most of the war.

The top three knew eachothers strength in research and development. For example the USA did not first allow use of proximity fuses in Europe, in fear of Germany's ability to copy the technology. However, they did not fear that Japan would copy, because Japan was not as advanced at that time.
Those top 3 should have one research slot more than other countries.

 

[GrandVezir]

Those top 3 should have one research slot more than other countries.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here -- that Italy and Japan should be reduced to three at start?

Because it seems to me that's not going to happen for reasons similar to why France is limited to three at start: the game is balanced to smooth the way for early Axis/Imperial Japan gains.

 

[unmerged(742252)]

What do those updated division templates look like out of curiosity? I always feel like the ai can't compete with my division templates and it makes wars too easy

 

[C0RAX]

What do those updated division templates look like out of curiosity? I always feel like the ai can't compete with my division templates and it makes wars too easy

Previously generics nations were building 7/2's and then upgrading to 14/4's. now it builds just 7/2's but it will be upgrade further to make the 7/2 not the target template, probably something closer to 9/1 but that depends on how the CW changes shape out. majors mostly make 9/1 or 9/2's but also now add AA and AT but its specific to each nation.

you can check out all the target templates in SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Hearts of Iron IV\common\ai_templates

 

[WSnova]

Anyways, Did some tests to see if Agility was enough to overcome defense and Air attack.

The test was Germany vs UK, in German occupied German France. I used both drop tanks and extra fuel tanks to get a range of around 1300 kmwhich is more or less enough to fully cover a neighbouring airzone. 950 km(Drop tanks only) left the zone covered but not fully. THough I guess if you are only defending your airzone range doesn´t matter that much.

I tried one build, one focusing on Agility, one focusing on getting lots of armor and Air attack.

Air attack model:

Agility one

Note the agility one is cheaper and has 50% more agility, but has much less armor and air attack.

I did an equal IC build, so it was 2k of the agility one vs 1,416 of the armor one

The agility ones trades pretty badly. By the time the agility planes were running low at around 300 planes, the armor and attack ones were at around 1k planes. So it was around a 3 to 1 loss. So don´t count on pure agility to save you.

I know the test is hardly conclusive(and honestly I don´t care too much to do it in a rigorous manner) but seems agility is not king, at least sacrificing too much Attack and defense for the sake of agility will not win you battles.

I also did a glass cannon build(same as the armor and air attack, replaced the armor with non strategic materials, removed the self sealing fuel tank. At equal IC it was around 1,598 Glass cannons vs the 1,416 Armor and Cannons planes. They got slaughtered p. Badly

One funny design I tried was a smoll range one, full of plates and guns. Sure, they can only cover the Benelux and small airzones effectively, can´t really go well into offense but damn they can fight

 

[FLUX2226]

This is unnecessary. Armor Piercing Bombs are much heavier than torpedos, meaning you cant afford them on long range planes.

The weight doesn't help that much since you can't equip more than one torpedo. Yes, my dive bomber is at 30/30 weight, but it still has drop tanks and extra fuel tanks while still having better naval performance than a torpedo bomber. If range vs. damage is the intended trade-off and 1330 km is considered a short range plane, then I'll still say that the balancing is off.

 

[Znail]

Extra thrust shouldn't give agility it should give extra speed. What should increase agility is lower weight or reduce agility by a fraction of the weight.

Yeah it wasn't meant to represent true thrust and weight as a value. It's more an abstract representation of how aircraft weight and thrust have a range of good to bad aircraft performance, with the bad end leading to an aircraft to bad to fly. Measuring as a 0 summing value makes it much more understandable than having the cut off be a seemingly arbitrary value between 0 and 1 as would be if we used true thrust to weight values. Alas HOI4 is a game and not a aircraft simulation so abstractions are made for this purpose.

Have you considered giving the planes penalties instead of making them unable to fly? There were some seriously under powered planes in use in WW2.

 

[Ossiv]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here -- that Italy and Japan should be reduced to three at start?

Because it seems to me that's not going to happen for reasons similar to why France is limited to three at start: the game is balanced to smooth the way for early Axis/Imperial Japan gains.

As a long time HOI player and war history enthusiast, I am freely expressing my opinion. Do you have something against it?