• 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 | Summer Open Beta

Hello there, it's me C0RAX.
A bit of the different DD than you’re used to this week. I'm here to introduce a new thing I will be doing over the summer. This summer for 4 weeks we will be giving you the chance to test some of the balance changes coming with the 1.13 Stella Polaris patch. These changes are hand picked for testing in order to get feedback from the community on specific changes that might have large impacts. These changes will affect all three major combat groups (Army, Air, and Navy), and vary from value changes to some new functionality and behavior so be sure to read the change list so you know what you're getting yourself into.

So let's go into how this is going to work. From July 6th until August 3rd there will be a special Summer Open Beta branch on steam, this branch will have the new changes listed below. Additionally it won't have anything new coming with Arms Against Tyranny just changes for base game and previously released DLC’s. In the last week of the test we will post a feedback form to be able to collect feedback data that we can use to analyze your responses. Of course this doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t post about it outside the form, I want to encourage as much discourse, theorizing and number crunching as possible so give it a try and let us know what you think.

Now lets go over the change log.

################################################################
######## Summer Open Beta ######### Balance
################################################################

##########
Air
##########
- Excess thrust will now increase agility instead of max speed (0.5 AGI per excess thrust)
- airframes now how base max speeds to better represent airframe size speed effects
- major air rebalance pass for airframes and modules
- increased tech date for survival studies to 1939
- Improved aircraft turrets
- slight decrease in agility hit for large bomb bays
- small airframe can only take single turret modules
- adjusted turret stats so they are less powerful for fighters but better for bombers
- rebalanced thrust and weights of modules and airframes,
- added new modules
- Large autocannon
- Large bomb rack
- Armor piercing bomb rack
- 3 levels of torpedo mounting
- Added new techs for plane designer (see above)
- Combat better Agility and Speed has increased effect on air combat

##########
Land
##########
- reduced terrain combat widths slightly, change support widths also
- Super Heavy tanks are now support units. Super Heavy tanks are no longer line battalions
- Armor skirts provide 1 more armor
- Most tank chassis' now grant 10-20% more armor
- Super heavy tanks now cost more overall, but require 20 per support company.

##########
Navy
##########
- added damage reduction to piecing thresholds for naval combat
- convoy hitprofile reduced from 120 to 85 bringing it inline with new hitprofile calculations
- Ship torpedoes accuracy increased to bring them back in line with new hitprofile calculations 145 > 100
- slightly decreased AA disruption from ship AA
- removed visibility effects of super heavy bb armor
- rebalanced, ship engines
- removed visibility impacts from medium guns
- rebalanced IC costs to reflect engine changes
- super heavy armor now part of normal heavy armors
- rebalanced armors
- added cruiser armor to carriers


##########
AI
##########
- AI more likely to upgrade division in the field even with equipment deficits
- added generic AI upgraded infantry template for late game infantry
- added ENG and USA upgraded infantry templates for AI and improved their infantry templates in general

Right now let's get into some explanations.

Thrust and weight:
Let's get the big one out the way thrust and weight for planes. This change requires a bit of game explanation and some explanation of aircraft. So why affect agility, agility previously was a stat that was seldom increased but often reduced by making it something you are rewarded by not using all your thrust budget you can lessen the agility effects of modules by not loading up your entire plane creating a choice between maximizing raw damage or maximizing damage bonuses during air to air combat by bring higher Agility.

Now the aircraft stuff, so power/weight is very not intuitive for aircraft, adding more power will make a plane faster but taking weight off a plane won't make it faster since speed is almost entirely determined by thrust against drag not weight. What less weight does provide is better climb rate acceleration plus some other things. These are abstracted into agility in game. So now if you want your plane to go faster you either use a newer airframe with lower drag (higher base speed) or by putting a bigger engine in the existing airframe.

Combat widths:
Now the next big change, terrain combat widths. This is the change that originally spawned the open beta idea. These changes are generally intended to flatten the efficiencies further for combat widths while also reducing division sizes. There will obviously still be certain numbers that fit better than others but overall these differences should be less extreme.

  • Terrain = CW+Reinforcement Width
  • Desert = 82+49
  • Forest = 76+40
  • Hills = 72+36
  • Jungle = 74+34
  • Marsh = 68+22
  • Mountain = 65+25
  • Plains = 82+49
  • Urban = 86+28
Ship penetration:
Finally the last change I want to discuss is the new penetration effect for ships. To put this imply they now reduce damage directly on top of reducing critical chance. The damage reductions are smaller than for land combat but that's because they have a much greater effect on the combat but be careful defeating an armored foe with just small guns should be much harder now.

Thresholds and damage are as follows

Pen to Armor ThreshholdCritical Change FactorDamage Factor
221
111
0.750.750.9
0.50.50.7
0.10.10.5
000.3

##########
HOTFIX
##########
07/07
- hotfix for legacy damage reduction for ships was conflicting with new system (they will now add to each other) set legacy value to 0
- hotfix for missing agility mods for bomb bays

10/07
Naval Combat:
- fixed damage reduction happening before stat initialisation
- fixed +1 to threshold values for ship penetration
issues reported here

- updated combat width defines as per
- implemented type 2 combat widths as per
- improved some templates for planes
- balance pass on new modules
- rebalanced dismantle and conversion costs for BB engines
- adjusted damage reduction thresholds for ships

That concludes the run down of the upcoming “Summer open beta” and it's coming to you tomorrow!. I hope to see you try it out and give feedback on the changes. See you next week for more Arms Against Tyranny content coming your way. It's going to be a pretty one.
 
Last edited:
  • 51Like
  • 16Love
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
###############
Mid beta update
###############
- updated combat width defines as per
- implemented type 2 combat widths as per
- improved some templates for planes
- balance pass on new modules
- rebalanced dismantle and conversion costs for BB engines
- adjusted damage reduction thresholds for ships


This will be the last update short of any hotfixes.

Not sure exactly what the damage reduction threshold changes were but it seems to have solved CAs beating heavily armored BBs, which is good. CAs now seem to have a good niche as powerful bullies of smaller and older vessels that are vulnerable to modern armor schemes
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Uhh... I don't know what you've done to Drop Tanks but it now seems basically impossible to get decent range?

Would it be possible to revert the change, or maybe increase base ranges a bit? This is borderline unplayable with 1940 tech. It was fine before.

Defensive fighters like the one below that can only operate in their own airzone will have triple the air defence of anything trying to reach it from further afield
 

Attachments

  • droptanknerf.png
    droptanknerf.png
    729,5 KB · Views: 0
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Since the BBA peace conference changes, post war Japan always ends up with crazy border gore with China getting way more than it feels like they should when they do nothing but get their teeth kicked in and are uninvolved in the naval war and invasion of the home islands. I felt like it worked better and more realistically pre BBA (and during the early part of BBA when sinking ships was worth a lot of peace score). Any plans to address this?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
One advantage with making bombs more viable for CV is that it makes it possible to increase the Torpedo penalty for USA as it would incentivise the use of bombers until their torpedoes are fixed without crippling USA.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Uhh... I don't know what you've done to Drop Tanks but it now seems basically impossible to get decent range?

Would it be possible to revert the change, or maybe increase base ranges a bit? This is borderline unplayable with 1940 tech. It was fine before.

Defensive fighters like the one below that can only operate in their own airzone will have triple the air defence of anything trying to reach it from further afield
Agreed: 1936 French fighters were aiming at 1000km range, I have it tough now because unable to cover air region.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Going back to the air range changes, the change to drop tanks and base ranges are much much much too harsh

With double extra fuel tank and self-sealing, a 1940 fighter has only 1100 km range

The starting planes of Italy can't reach Ethiopian Highlands with their 300km range

It's impossible to get anywhere near historical ranges on the Zero and other long range fighters

Base ranges are so low that designers and spirits barely help.

Even Heavy Fighters need so much Extra Fuel Tanks for a decent range that there's barely room for anything else

Please add a few hundred km of range onto the base models of light, medium and improved airframes
 
  • 7
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
These air ranges are problematic from a number of perspectives - I'll be the first to admit I don't know very much about plane performance during the war, but I do know that P51s were able to fly long range bomber escort missions, such as during Big Week (shoutout to the Operations Room on Youtube) over Germany. The game still (I believe correctly) considers a P51 to be an advanced small frame fighter, but it's now absolutely impossible to get the kind of range that P51s had with any plane design on that frame. Even 4 of the extra fuel tanks modules, which absolutely murder air defense and therefore combat performance, give you a maximum range on an advanced frame fighter of just 1950km, which is more than 200km shorter than the P51's operational range with an external drop tank and (I believe, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) one internal additional fuel tank. I appreciate the shift to percentages, but the base values are just really low right now for accuracy, let alone for balance.

On the balance side, small fighter range means that defending air zones is incredibly easy compared to attacking. In order to reach from one airzone to another with any kind of mission efficiency, you will need to sacrifice air defense, which is one the most important stats in air combat. Defensive planes can focus on air defense and air attack without worrying about range, meaning you'll be shredded on trades. Unless these range values are modified, I'm really worried about the abilities of players to project air superiority into foreign airspace, even if they have a much stronger industrial base to produce fighters with.
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
About the air changes, I'm also annoyed. The reduction is quite drastic for most small airframes, and the problem isn't just the value, but how it's reacting with the rest of the game:
  • the air regions are way too large, especially outside Europe, and we know efficiency is linked to range coverage
  • IA becomes also less efficient, I don't think they needed that debuff
  • several national focus/air designers focus exclusively on small aircraft, but then we might just drop small frames altogether and switch to medium
This comes on top of another recent debuff: the air accidents are now so prevalent that I lose >33% of my TACs air wing to accidents in less than a year in SCW (training + missions). Not only speaking about air battles (>15%). That's really a lot of debuffs with air war...

Now, it's like the naval game: we don't win wars just on air missions, although they help. We can still win the game and enjoy. But this balance is a bit awkward and some countries don't fare as well as others.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Adding on the feedback about air range being much too reduced:

1. Airzones are way too big for those extremely nerfed airframe ranges.
2. Airports in this game are limited to 2000 capacity per state, regardless of what state it is.

In practice this means enormous trouble fielding the ic as players would like to, or historical countries would do. Suppose one is to perform a cross-channel invasion with 20k fighters and CAS. The sensible thing to do would to have them all take off from the coast of southern England (where one can build plenty of airbases, certainly much more than 2000), and have them all perform missions over the beaches of western France. That would be fine and historical for aircraft with barely 1k range that you are introducing if airzones were not so massive and airports are not so constrained.

This, combined with the overall combat with reductions, will mean both sides will oversaturate the combat width on the ground and airport capacity in the air which leads to frustrating stalemates in game.

If you want to push towards those lower ranges at any point of time, the game has to adopt way larger airfield capacities in the long term. For example, you can set maximum airport size to scale with the type of state (2000 for rural, 6000 for urban, 8000 for dense urban, 10000 for metropolis and so on). Currently one can only have 2000 planes in say, london while one can have the same 2000 on say, malta is ridiculous.
 
  • 14Like
Reactions:
Just to make sure not only the complaints are heard so do I actually like the range change as it makes range matter while before it wasn't really a concern. If any changes are to be made so do I think it should be boosting the bonus of modules instead of base ranges.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

Some real ranges in WW2
Spitfire (175 miles)
Thunderbolt (230 miles)
Lightning (520 miles) (heavy fighter)
Mustang (over 600 miles) (very late war long distance fighter with belly tanks…)

So range reduction is a move to right direction… but. In real life there were more options to land airgraft in ww2. Fields, roads and so on. Also more airfields in different areas.
Interesting to see where Paradox goes with these changes…
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

Some real ranges in WW2
Spitfire (175 miles)
Thunderbolt (230 miles)
Lightning (520 miles) (heavy fighter)
Mustang (over 600 miles) (very late war long distance fighter with belly tanks…)

So range reduction is a move to right direction… but. In real life there were more options to land airgraft in ww2. Fields, roads and so on. Also more airfields in different areas.
Interesting to see where Paradox goes with these changes…

Not sure where these figures are coming from - I think you're confusing "Combat Range" or "Radius of Action" with range.

This figure is the max range divided by three - to account for return flight and combat fuel time.

However, this is already accounted for by Air Efficiency in Hoi4 - if you're perfectly bisecting an airzone with your range, then you will only have 50% mission efficiency of your fighters.

It also doesn't account for the centred nature of airbases, when in reality they would be far more spread out, giving planes more reach than if they were flying from the exact geometric centre of the airzone. It also doesn't account for being able to land at nearer airbases for refuel and emergency repairs, before heading back to home base for maintenance.

All of these entails a lot of abstraction - but in order to translate "Operational Range" to the range stat in hoi4, the number should be somewhere around half the Operational range or higher, not one-third. A 280 km Range Spitfire in Hoi4 wouldn't even get full Air Efficiency over Southern England!

What I think we should aim for would be a specifically designed long range Aircraft like the Zero having a Range of around half its historical Operational Range.

So in the case of the Zero (Historical maximum range of 3000+KM), Extra Fuel Tanks and Drop Tanks on a Carrier Fighter 2 should give an in-game range of around 1300-1700km. In the current beta this gives a range of 962km.


All of this historical talk is kind of a diversion though - the game simply isn't much fun if the air situation means that you effectively can't project power. While you theoretically can build "long range fighters" that can do the kind of operations that happened historically by stacking Extra Fuel Tanks, you'll get shredded by low Air Efficiency and the enemy's short range fighters having 2-3x your Air Defence
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The figures were from an article that was considering airplane ranges durin ww2, so they most likely are accurate. And as I allready did say. HOI4 does handle airfields and other option to land quite differently than what was reality in ww2. For example in Finland they did use many temporary airfields, ice beds on lakes and so on to get planes closer to action!
We don´t have any of those in HOI4, but if they make areas smaller and options to have more airfields, who knows, This could work.

Edit…. This was the sourse for the ranges!

 
Last edited:
What I think we should aim for would be a specifically designed long range Aircraft like the Zero having a Range of around half its historical Operational Range.

So in the case of the Zero (Historical maximum range of 3000+KM), Extra Fuel Tanks and Drop Tanks on a Carrier Fighter 2 should give an in-game range of around 1300-1700km. In the current beta this gives a range of 962km.
For some reason I thought that the Zero gained a lot of range from a focus, similar to the US combined bomber offensive focus and therefore carrier fighter 2 normally should have a shorter range. It's been a long while since I last played, is that correct?
 
Yes, these ranges being tossed around, 1000 mile range for a single engine fighter was *RARE*. Mustangs, and the P-47N for the Pacific, that was too late.

Maybe these ranges will bring heavy fighters back.

Battle of Britain was actually fought fighter-wise in a small area, representing the combat range of the Me 109s. They couldn't reach most of the British Isles at all with the single-engine fighters. Spitfires had very short legs. P-47s with droptanks could only escort as far as Aachen. Took P-51s with drop tanks to escort to Berlin.

So, do you want realism, or not? Make up your minds.

EDIT: Yes, Zeros had a long range, but they paid for that with fragiity. No pilot armor, no self-sealing tanks, etc.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Another feature not mentioned in beta content: seems like the Italian IA has been fine tuned to better keep the coast.
Naval landing behind their lines in Tripoli and adjacent tiles used to be so easy, but it seems now that they manager to keep these tiles much more efficiently. Good challenge with two separate gamethrough: was it by chance or has there been an update to the IA path?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, these ranges being tossed around, 1000 mile range for a single engine fighter was *RARE*. Mustangs, and the P-47N for the Pacific, that was too late.

Maybe these ranges will bring heavy fighters back.

Battle of Britain was actually fought fighter-wise in a small area, representing the combat range of the Me 109s. They couldn't reach most of the British Isles at all with the single-engine fighters. Spitfires had very short legs. P-47s with droptanks could only escort as far as Aachen. Took P-51s with drop tanks to escort to Berlin.

So, do you want realism, or not? Make up your minds.

EDIT: Yes, Zeros had a long range, but they paid for that with fragiity. No pilot armor, no self-sealing tanks, etc.
Zero is also more of an exception then the rule as it out ranges other similar planes by a massive margin. It makes more sense to give Japan some special bonus then to use Zero as the range benchmark for generic plane design.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions: