HOI4 Dev Diary - 1.6.2 Update

[DicRoNero]

That’s manpower, not how many troops they have.

v0v are you saying they need that manpower that early and that many for the cost of 300 or 450 PP which could have been invested elsewhere to speed up their buildup?

 

[Virgil Hilts]

Doctrine research is still way too fast, not the opposite. Getting 1944-47 doctrines in 1939-42 shouldn't be a thing.

But the sheer number of new research options does result in an overall lower level of research if you balance your research. I think you're both right, and imo the solution is to cut all doctrine research times(like 10% across the board) but REQUIRE army/naval/air experience for tater doctrines(i.e. starting at Mechanized Offensive in Superior Firepower). So the the first half of the tree goes faster, but second half requires, say, 50 xp for normal speed research, 150 for the speed boost. Right now if you devote a research slot to ground doctrine you're done by 1943. The ingame explanation of requiring practical experience fits nicely, too, it's counterintuitive that a minor that stays neutral until 1942 can figure out modern blitzkrieg on their own before AI Germany does.

 

[Dan1109]

v0v are you saying they need that manpower that early and that many for the cost of 300 or 450 PP which could have been invested elsewhere to speed up their buildup?

I’m not saying that having that much MP that early isn’t inefficient, I’m just saying it’s MP, not conscripts.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

But the sheer number of new research options does result in an overall lower level of research if you balance your research. I think you're both right, and imo the solution is to cut all doctrine research times(like 10% across the board) but REQUIRE army/naval/air experience for tater doctrines(i.e. starting at Mechanized Offensive in Superior Firepower). So the the first half of the tree goes faster, but second half requires, say, 50 xp for normal speed research, 150 for the speed boost. Right now if you devote a research slot to ground doctrine you're done by 1943. The ingame explanation of requiring practical experience fits nicely, too, it's counterintuitive that a minor that stays neutral until 1942 can figure out modern blitzkrieg on their own before AI Germany does.

That sounds like an excellent idea for 1.7.

 

[Mirage2k]

Some really good stuff here, very glad to see the pace of patching since 1.6.0 has gotten to where it needs to be for this game to soon settle into a state of quality that I can recommend it without reservations. So far my response to friends asking about it has been "It's mostly good, but beware of issues a, b, c, d... and it's over 2 years since release".

There's just one big gaping hole left, and that is the behaviour of the battle planner. In particular the excessive shuffling of divisions along the line, and the issues it has with maintaining proper distribution of armies across wide fronts like Barbarossa. When I set up nicely segmented sections of 24 divisions for a front I expect the front lines to keep "holding hands" and sharing increases or decreases of frontage in a reasonable manner, not having them wrap around each other like worms having sex, then suddenly leave gaping holes in the front without warning and auto-assign 20 out of 24 divisions to surround a pocket. Manually fixing these on a weekly basis is a significant contributor to the shuffling issue, so might want to look at this first.

Second would be more variation in combat widths; please, can we have more terrain, general and other modifiers so that it's not always 80, 120 or 160 width?!?! I'm sick and tired of 14-4 inf+arty because I'm forced into 40 width and 2 arty just doesn't have the impact. Often I find that 14-3 or 14-5 makes more sense for my industry/manpower capacities, but nope, those are inferior options because of some arcade rule. It makes the division designer so much less interesting than it could be!

Coincidentally the battle planner and division designer were two of the main selling points towards release in 2016. Sure there are other improvements to be made, to AI, to air, to trade automation and to multiplayer (more game rules like those provided in 1.6.0, please!), but they are lesser issues and for now "good enough".

The main point is: It appears to me that this game is now moving from soon 3 years of being "good" to within a few months of being "great"! That's not something I would have said in 2017 or 2018, so thanks a lot for these recent updates, you're on the right track!

 

[him_15]

Great update, really appreciated! Could you also add a couple of historical commander for Italy in this patch as well? I am having great fun with Italy in MtG but the lack of starting general is really killing me off.

I would be surprised & disappointed to see new artwork added to the game in a bug-fixing patch. But Italy is due to be thoroughly reworked in the next year or two. Have patience.

Been waiting for that since 1.0....

 

[Olanov]

Great update, really appreciated! Could you also add a couple of historical commander for Italy in this patch as well? I am having great fun with Italy in MtG but the lack of starting general is really killing me off.

I would be surprised & disappointed to see new artwork added to the game in a bug-fixing patch. But Italy is due to be thoroughly reworked in the next year or two. Have patience.

Been waiting for that since 1.0....

Poor Canada needs a general or two.

 

[Neo German Kaiser]

"Alliance with Germany now requires Germany to be fascist only."
Why would Eward VIII only want to allied with Mr.Hilter and not the Kaiser ? This isn't make sense to me.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Podcat and lots of great fixes/updates from you and the rest of the team - excellent work . From a modding perspective, I'm particularly partial to:

- naval_avoid_region >= 600 will disable regions for missions as well now. Germany disables the channel if ENG is still a threat

This likes it could be super helpful for helping the AI avoid 'problem areas' (Parts of the Med, for example, in some situations).

- Added Admiral Hipper to German starting construction (MtG only)
- Added two Kirov-Class Cruisers to Soviet starting construction (MtG only)
- Added USS Vincennes and USS Wichita to US starting production (MtG only)
- Added two light cruisers to Italian starting construction (MtG only)

Wonderful - the more ships that were there, being there, the better - great work . Makes this a super-easy week for naval pics - here's USS Wichita under construction (being launched in this case - note she still has a ways to go before she's ready for operations).

Edited because original pic of Wichita launching was huge! Have one of a more reasonable size for the thread. For the full-sized pic (and many more images of USS Wichita, and Vincennes as well if you look around the site) click through to navsource.

 

[blue_yonder]

. I think you're both right, and imo the solution is to cut all doctrine research times(like 10% across the board) but REQUIRE army/naval/air experience for later doctrines(i.e. starting at Mechanized Offensive in Superior Firepower). So the the first half of the tree goes faster, but second half requires, say, 50 xp for normal speed research, 150 for the speed boost. Right now if you devote a research slot to ground doctrine you're done by 1943. The ingame explanation of requiring practical experience fits nicely, too, it's counterintuitive that a minor that stays neutral until 1942 can figure out modern blitzkrieg on their own before AI Germany does.

One of the best ideas I've seen in a long time.

 

[Heracli]

Nice! Would also love the strasbourg put in parralel production of the dunquerque (also not being able to produce them because the treaty say they are 14 kg too heavy is slightly infuriating ^^)

Small question, why not introducing an "out of date" research boost? It's like the "ahead of timr one" but reversed

 

[Mirage2k]

One of the best ideas I've seen in a long time.

And right after you've said that we get a competitor for the title:

Small question, why not introducing an "out of date" research boost? It's like the "ahead of timr one" but reversed

Can we get a third in a row for the hat-trick?

 

[blue_yonder]

And right after you've said that we get a competitor for the title:

Can we get a third in a row for the hat-trick?

well, yes and no. Heracli's suggestion is certainly a good one, but it's been mooted many, many times before. Virgil Hilt's idea though, is entirely original, so far as I know.

 

[Pellaken]

quickly checking seems to indicate its a bunch of basic battery and armor techs

if my spreadsheet tracking techs is correct, what was added is

battleship armour

level 1 light, medium, and heavy guns (added to level 0 general "guns")

level 1 support guns (added to level 0 support guns)

 

[Xerberous]

- Italy alternate fascist plan will now result in Italy First, rather than Pact of Steel

I doubt that this will work in the way it is implemented; 1940 is way too late, Italy has them most probably joined another faction.

 

[Rafled]

So anyway, Spain still joined the war so not fully working yet it seems. Also, Japan seems a bigger menace than Germany currently lol.

Spain can join the Axis still, as Germany has a focus to invite it. The UK player has to influence Spain (by focus) to avoid the Spanish joining the Axis. Maybe the ai UK doesn't care enough, and it doesn't want to keep Gibraltar? : /

 

[UBERWASP]

Doctrine research is still way too fast, not the opposite. Getting 1944-47 doctrines in 1939-42 shouldn't be a thing.

If that's the case then they should add ahead of time penalty for doctrines as well instead of increasing their time cost. But this new changes only makes tech rushing worse.

 

[Fulmen]

If that's the case then they should add ahead of time penalty for doctrines as well instead of increasing their time cost. But this new changes only makes tech rushing worse.

Doctrines should indeed be tied to years, like in every single previous HoI.

 

[scotvince]

"Removed the claim Romania gets on Bulgaria from the relevant event". I hope now romania will not declare war and take bulgaria everytime in historical focus games. Because it is non historical.

"Central Powers will now invite Bulgaria if they exist, are AI, and are non-aligned."
And maybe you should make bulgaria joint the axis at the correct period (1941) also if they are fascists (logical no ?) !

By the way, even before mtg expansion, china was loosing 90% of times. And that is not balanced regarding to history. They have never lost !

As well as Germany declaring war to sweden, thar is not accurate.

 

[Brucesim2003]

As well as Germany declaring war to sweden, thar is not accurate.

Neither is the UK attacking Yugoslavia....