HOI4 Dev Diary - 1.5.2 Update #3 and Telemetry!

[DoubleDD99]

I wonder how Paradox still doesnt understand how difficulty supposed to work in games.Higher difficulty supposed to mean better AI,not unfair and useless negative modifiers.

I made a forum account just to agree to this. One of the few negatives still in the game.

 

[CarlvonClauswitz]

As for why people choose "civilian" and "recruit" difficulties: a lot of people just want to win when they sit down to play a game, and they don't want to have to think too much or have consequences from poor decision making. For most i'd assume games are an escape of some sort, so most people like to escape to a world where their desires become reality with little effort or stress.

I play regular because i feel like that's just how the game is meant to be played... thats why it's called regular, lol. The other ones are for people who like a harder or easier experience.

I like regular with Germany, USSR, and perhaps Japan having bonus traits in the customization menu prior to starting a game. The best way to get difficulty is to make all your potential allies less effective compared to your planned enemies.

Besides, no one wants a strong France...

 

[puppet on a string]

Besides, no one wants a strong France...

well, the allies did

 

[Kuzma Minin]

Thanks for fixing the bug with Poland at the conclusion of the war.

 

[Overand]

Well you asked for feedback about difficulty level. I play on the easiest difficulty most of the time. I play games to have fun. I have more fun in this game in particular on easier difficulty. I also almost exclusively play minor nations. And they need any buff they can get

 

[BlueAndGrey]

Could someone tell me what the Ichi Go decision is

 

[HexAyed]

Could you give some examples of strategy game where AI is even a bit smarter on higher difficulties? All big, AA titles like Total War and Civilization have it this way; by adding "unfair" modifiers.

I believe Supreme Commander and Supreme Command: Forged Alliance learned your play style, and adapted to counter it

 

[mursolini]

I believe Supreme Commander and Supreme Command: Forged Alliance learned your play style, and adapted to counter it

Well, no. AI there was very, very bad, with exception of last level, where AI would cheat on resources, making game very hard.

 

[Less2]

Nowadays I almost always play with 100% slider bonuses to AI nations and regular difficuly. The standard greater difficulty option really sucks, -PP is real a pain to deal with and messes up normal build orders while -production for the player doesn't do much if you can still effortlessly encircle and pocket weak enemy fronts with 4-6 armor divisions. +enemy production letting them really fill fronts and +combat stats on cores is much more interesting to play with. Paradox should consider altering the standard difficulty options to boost AI countries a bit, and remove the awful -PP.

 

[Pyro157]

Could someone tell me what the Ichi Go decision is

It gives you a nice attack boost, but you've got to conquer China in roughly 150 or so days, or else your stability and war support take a nasty hit.

 

[Meglok]

Thanks for new features. Talking about division designer, how abut giving players ability to order template list? Drag and drop instrument or even simple arrows for clicking... Could be pretty helpful.

Heck yes. And sorting divisions by xp would also be a nice QoL improvement. As well as a select all on your naval and air units.

It's not good players' fault that 90% of games are played by people who are so bad at this game that they find the AI a challenge.

If you find the AI in its current form a challenge you can't go around saying you are good at this game... If you find AI hard you would last 2 minutes against actually skilled people...

but I also feel like players in our community know the game better than anyone, even sometimes the Paradox devs.

I ain't dismissing methods of play but you really aren't gonna convince me that paradox wouldn't achieve more by cultivating that form of play as opposed to the 2-3 player games.

Regardless of us being small in scale you can't disvalue the quality of impact we have. Not only do we have as you pointed out experiential knowledge but we also add a fundamental mode of play that this game inherently advertised/praised recreating when the game first came out....... Also ye I don't expect to have the game solely balanced around us. but have the distinction of considering how this could impact this form of play or offer a reliable means of changing it, which they have done so but again It just doesn't feel they have directly tried to involve themselves.

Alot of regular MP games go for 4-8 hours depending on the circumstances and not all of those cemented communities play at the same time so for all Ik they only did this for a few days and are basing there numbers off that

Does the large format MP crowd realize what they sound like? We know the game better than anyone, the devs are clueless and dummying up this data, anyone who plays SP has no idea how to play the game, our size doesn't matter, our impact does, we should be given a closed beta so we can approve of all changes pre-release, you should do what we want because we are so good at the game, yada yada yada.

If you are trying to convince the devs and other players to consider your ideas and proposed changes, you should probably not insult their intelligence. If there are bugs you feel need addressing, report them and PDS will deal with according to the priority PDS assigns to them. Same goes for suggestions, post them in the suggestion sub-forum and let them go through the screening process. You might get better results than your current methods of effecting change.

And if you don't like the way the mechanics work for your 30 man moshpit games, mod the format to your liking. HOI4 is easily modded to fit different playing styles.

 

[Spikeosx]

With 1.5 Cornflakes we added 2 extra difficulty levels and we did some checking up on how that impacted what people selected.

I have been playing on Regular because I want to play with somewhat historical production. I wish I could play Veteran or Elite with somewhat historical production and research (thou its all gamey in this game) by giving AI combat advantages or something else.

 

[Orinsul]

when the patch/DLC came out, I played on recruit? maybe civilian, because I didn't think to check and so hadn't noticed and was wondering what about the DLC made the game so much easier before clicking what was going on.
So if they're the default or maybe just were because of settings changes or something, it could just be people not changing it?

When I think about difficulty I usually go the custom bit and overpowering the specific nations I plan on mainly being against

 

[him_15]

Please also fix the ship icon not positioning correctly in the Taranto port.

 

[Mug Bubule]

I'm not really satisfied with the current level of difficulty. I will use Barbarossa to explain it.

In HOI3, Barbarossa was a daunting task on each side. As a Soviet, your mission was to delay a maximum German push to grind their initial strength while retreating in an ordered fashion to not let your armies be encircled like what happened in real life. You had to delay them for several reason, first, to let their initial bonuses disappear (could be plan organization in hoi4), second, to give you time to overcome from purges, third, to give enough time to your industry to relocate away from frontline. My main issue with this gameplay was that in case of a disaster (like what happened in real life) production system wouldn't let you panic deploy half trained units to try to save the day (which HOI4 do).
On German side, it was even harder as you had to give terrible blow on a dismissive opponent, and try to inflict as much damage as possible to not let the Soviet recover. It was to deal blow after blow and keep momentum as your logistics became more and more overstretched, and as your own bonuses were leaving at the same rythm as Soviets malus. Even after encircling whole army in tense situation, you could congratulate yourself, but you were still far from your objective. Russia felt so big. Like holy hell, I just invaded the size of 2 France and I'm still two France away from Moscow. You were running against the clock and winter that would bog down your whole offensive until after the rasputitsa (that feel better modeled in HOI4). Giving a lot of time to the Soviets to recover. You had still a small period of time after spring and summer where you could try to break the neck of the red army as it wasn't completely ready. After that you still had an opportunity in a succesful defense, using all the land you conquered as a meat grinder, and small localized counter offensive raids to exploit weakness in Soviets line.
In HOI3 you had to plan your thrust from A to Z, you had to manage everything and it may be only me but I liked that, my only issue was airforce that was really a pain to manage (once again, something HOI4 solved). Logistics felt way more important (maybe it wasn't, but the big yellow and red stuff were way more noticeable than a jerrycan that don't tell much about anything. It may have been a clusterfuck, but it was a clusterfuck you had to deal with where in HOI4, logistics is never a problem, except when I realize that my offensive in Burma isn't that successful because I have 1,5m men in the middle of the jungle. Black ice was even better, but for each better thing it did, there was an issue (I still remember the battle of Gibraltar that costed 3M axis troops (before I loaded the save as british and made them retreat because no, not even in their wildest dream, the British could hold this rocks against half of the Wehrmacht and the whole Luftwaffe, while under blocus by the Regia Marina.

in HOI4, in normal difficulty, on both side, you've streamlined your production so well that you have an absolute edge on your opponent. You just quickly assign troops by stack of 24, trying to give them equivalent front width. You assign armoured formation on easy terrain, with thrust order, you don't even need infantry to exploit them. You draw some lines, wait for plan bonus to build up, declare war, look at your troops doing the works (not in an efficient way, but it's not like you need to be efficient, you'll win anyway, and it won't be a Pyrrhic victory. Half the way to Moscow/Stalingrad/Leningrad, it feel like it slow down, that there is less green arrow, your tanks aren't moving like hot steel in butter and you already feel bored, you want Barbarossa to finish quickly so you can draw more arrow (I won't talk about Seelöwe, that was the most depressing game of hearts of iron IV, even watching a let's play is more entertaining). Your line have become a complete mess so you reorganize. Good points for HOI4, it's easier to reorganize than HOI3 OOB. Just draw a few front, wait a few days, and tadaa! And when your troop are once again fully organized (you can use operational mana p) to make it faster for your armoured formations), you click and watch your troops doing the leg work. It's not like there is a mastermind plan or anything to follow, just big arrow that encompass Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad. Once this city are lost, it feel like you fight the remnant of the red army (even more with the new stability system, the Soviet just won't surrender and the Japanese won't exploit Soviet weakness, so Vladivostok give precious VP to the Soviets). On the soviet side, your industry is so powerful that you just crush the german, and they don't have 4 France to hide behind.

I just feel less invested. You sure feel that something happened in the central marsh of white russia, but you don't notice big differences between ukraine's plain and baltic forests. You don't notice logistics, you don't notice a lot of things because you're not invested in your operations. You don't keep track of where each division is, where you could take a few division to assign them to another front. You just take direct contol when you notice easy encirclement, and to end pocket faster.

The higher difficulty (let's say the highest) just make your opponent line so thick that attacking feel pointless (just loose equipement and manpower). And while would you do that when you can let this opponent break is own neck in pointless offensive and wait until there equipement mana is depleted.

There is some interesting Front, like since the extension, I see more and more Japan being able to invade large part of China and being bog down in the mountains. I had a lot of fun, playing as Manchukuo, trying to help Japan achieve victory. The last part of the war, in the mountain, with Japanese out of supply (I think it's more production problem than actual logistic, but whatever) felt really historical. A pointless fight in the mountains, where progression is slow, casualty are high, for nothing but to force an enemy in submission as there is nothing, no ressources, not a lot of industry. And in multiplayer, I guess it could be dangerous to try to finish off the Chinese as it would weaken you a lot for the final confrontation.

But Europe feel completely bleak. I didn't realized that because I was mostly playing minor. There is no challenge in playing a major.

All of this is SP. I don't do a lot of PVP (mostly because I have no one to play with, the group I was playing HOI3 don't enjoy HOI4 and have moved to obscure wargames instead

Hope this doesn't feel to offensive, I might have become bitter about that. I don't know if any of this is constructive at all. To end on a good note, HOI4 solved a lot of HOI3 issues (production for example). Maybe I'm not a good public for this game. Maybe HOI4 is looking for a wider audience that don't care about logistics, about micro and that kind of stuff. I bought the premium++ edition and I feel I'm slowly loosing my love for HOI. Maybe I'll join my friend to play there buggy wargames. Maybe that's what I'm looking for inside of me. But I thought HOI4 could be the game I was looking for. And it still feel far from it.

tl;dr: there is no challenge in (playing major in) HOI4, difficulty level don't add challenge, writing all of this made me sad

 

[SwordOfTheStars]

@podcat Could your team think about going over some previously made focus trees and touching up details that are frustrating? For instance, India would be a really fun country to play except that to get their freedom they have to go into civil war, and beat the allies faction. What I mean is reworking problematic aspects of focus trees, instead of fully replacing them. Perhaps add some industry to people's republic of China. Perhaps give Italy something interesting. Perhaps add a bit of detail to Bulgaria.

 

[Demosthenest]

@Mug Bubule come play multiplayer. Europe is not so bleak when you have an equally skilled enemy team. When you know that if you mess up, you won't take France, let alone Russia. When you know that if you just press "go" to battleplans in the Russian plains your precious tanks will all get encircled and killed in less than a week. This game feels like it was made for player vs player, it's much simplified so you can run this in multiplayer at speed 3+.

 

[Demosthenest]

we should be given a closed beta so we can approve of all changes pre-release

That's the least of my worries or needs. I would like them to listen to us on balance/fixes.

 

[Conad1985]

Guys, first good job! it's clear that you are putting increasing effort in this project, and i am very happy about this.
But please, PLEASE, do something for the multiplayer! Start to interpret data correctly: telemetry data are saying not that people prefer to play coop, but that is LITERALY A MESS to organize a competitive multiplayer with decins of players!
this is due principaly, as i already have the chance to say:
- the absence of a multiplayer match-making, and a ranking of the players. in this way, when you want to organize a game, noobs and pros are mixed up if you don't know them personally. Also fair players are mixed up with laggers, exploiters and trolls.
- clearly Hoi4 is a long, relaxing game, not as a "normal" multiplyer game where a game last 5-10 minutes. A serious game in Hoi4 last at least 4-5 hours. This implies that currently the vetting of the players, holded by the host, (for the reason explained before), is long, boring and stressing and frustrating. Sometimes the lobby for the vetting of the players last itself 1-2 hours, that is a DEVASTATING time that sincerely discourage you to play multiplayer. (this is the correct explanation of telemetry data ). Suggestion to avoid this: instead of leaving the single hosts to host a game, wasting time to long and stressing vetting, YOU paradox create some multiplayer chambers at fixed days-hours, and the player book himself for that slots (the non respect of this self-booking will give a penalty in the ranking). In this way one knows that, for example will play let's say Japan, friday 27 April 2018 at 19.00 CET.
- in the multiplayer create several scenarios (historical, non historical, semi historical, ecc...). Why: some players like to play non historical games having fun creating funny factions, changing ideology, eccetera. So let's give to the host the opportunity to choose a "non historical" scenario. But hardcore gamers prefer historical games, where the balance between factions and shortage of resources and the teamplaying are fundamental. Those players would like a "historical" game, where for example the fascist way is not allowed for the democracies or for example again Japan can't attack malasia before 1940, since if it do it before, allies don't have any more ruber and GG.


best

 

[ElementalBlast64]

Can you finally fix the States within Australia