HOI4 Dev Diary - Division Namelists

[Nelfe]

I think it's a very welcome feature which will really help with immersion. Two questions however:



1. Just to check: Does this mean that divisions can only keep their number if that number is on both lists?
E.g. If the 36. Infanterie-Division's changes template to Volksgrenadier-Division, it'll keep it's number because 36 is on the list of Volksgrenadier divisions.
But if the template changes to Jäger-Division, it'll loose its number because there's no number 36 on the list of Jäger divisions?

2.
What happens when the list runs out? For example I build more motorized divisions than the Germans did historically. Will the numbers start overlapping?
For example:

Spoiler: No duplicates as long as the list goes

1. Infanterie-Division
2. Infanterie-Division (mot)
3. Infanterie-Division (mot)
4. Infanterie-Division

Spoiler: Duplicates when the list runs out

70. Infanterie-Division
70. Infanterie-Division (mot)
71. Infanterie-Division
71. Infanterie-Division (mot)

I assume there is an automatic numbering after historical names, but a clarification is needed.

 

[bernu harti]

Nice, but there are many more important points for Paradox to work on - the aim should be a real WWII war game! First of all - a much better AI and game mechanics.

 

[Pallidum]

I think it's a very welcome feature which will really help with immersion. Two questions however:

1. Just to check: Does this mean that divisions can only keep their number if that number is on both lists?
E.g. If the 36. Infanterie-Division's changes template to Volksgrenadier-Division, it'll keep it's number because 36 is on the list of Volksgrenadier divisions.
But if the template changes to Jäger-Division, it'll loose its number because there's no number 36 on the list of Jäger divisions?

2.
What happens when the list runs out? For example I build more motorized divisions than the Germans did historically. Will the numbers start overlapping?

In both cases, the division will use a fallback format.

In the case that a division is changed to a template that doesn't have a scripted entry for their division number, they will use a fallback format. In this case this could be <number> + "Jäger-Division" for example. It will keep its division number as long as it's available.

Similarly, if the hypothetical Jäger-Division list only contains 35 divisions, the next division created would also use the fallback format, with the division number 36, as long as it's available in the numbering scheme. If the Jäger-Division shares numbers with the Infanterie-Division list and number 36 is taken, it will use the next available division number instead and avoid overlaps.

 

[Nelfe]

@Pallidum : can you show us how the number sharing between template works ? Can you choose in the template designer which template are linked ?

 

[Adrized]

So what if Germany switches ideology, would they still get "Grossdeutschland" and "Adolf Hitler" divisions? Or does the namelist change if you switch ideology?

 

[--Yigito123--]

So what if Germany switches ideology, would they still get "Grossdeutschland" and "Adolf Hitler" divisions? Or does the namelist change if you switch ideology?

They probably still keep the same template, but it wouldn't be that difficult to just rename the few divisions with immersion breaking names (I can't imagine there'd be too many). I don't think it'd be worth the effort to create new namelista for different ideologies (And besides, what would you base them on? For the current name lists, it'll be historical divisions).

 

[Gr1pen]

So what if Germany switches ideology, would they still get "Grossdeutschland" and "Adolf Hitler" divisions? Or does the namelist change if you switch ideology?

It's a good question! In theory I'd say maybe they can add an attribute to the division name with ideology="facism" or something similar so they are only used in that event?

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

This new system is better than in previous HoIs and certainly much better than what we have in HoI4 right now.

However it's not perfect. The German army and probably many other armies did not allow parallels of the same number for divisions that were of similar type, e.g. infantry, no matter their level of motorisation.

So IRL even if the 36. Infanterie-Division was turned into motorised, gaining the (mot) at the end of the name, a new foot infantry division would not replace it as the 36. Infanterie-Division, because there already is one. It just happens to be motorised.

All in all though, good stuff.

 

[LiberiusX]

This new system is better than in previous HoIs and certainly much better than what we have in HoI4 right now.

However it's not perfect. The German army and probably many other armies did not allow parallels of the same number for divisions that were of similar type, e.g. infantry, no matter their level of motorisation.

So IRL even if the 36. Infanterie-Division was turned into motorised, gaining the (mot) at the end of the name, a new foot infantry division would not replace it as the 36. Infanterie-Division, because there already is one. It just happens to be motorised.

All in all though, good stuff.

The way I understood that picture was that being the Order of Battle of the 36th division through the course of the war, not that they are 4 different divisions at the same time...maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Alex_brunius]

However it's not perfect. The German army and probably many other armies did not allow parallels of the same number for divisions that were of similar type, e.g. infantry, no matter their level of motorisation.

So IRL even if the 36. Infanterie-Division was turned into motorised, gaining the (mot) at the end of the name, a new foot infantry division would not replace it as the 36. Infanterie-Division, because there already is one. It just happens to be motorised.

I'm pretty sure that is how the system works... The picture seems to show the same division keeping the same number, but changing the rest of the name while changing template 3 times. And the rest of the DD and replies clarify that numbers are unique/reserved.

 

[jalapen0]

Ah finally.

 

[Nelfe]

This new system is better than in previous HoIs and certainly much better than what we have in HoI4 right now.

However it's not perfect. The German army and probably many other armies did not allow parallels of the same number for divisions that were of similar type, e.g. infantry, no matter their level of motorisation.

So IRL even if the 36. Infanterie-Division was turned into motorised, gaining the (mot) at the end of the name, a new foot infantry division would not replace it as the 36. Infanterie-Division, because there already is one. It just happens to be motorised.

All in all though, good stuff.

You're wrong. The picture show the same division, and the changes to the name according to the change of template. The system works exactly as you say : you can link number between template, so there won't be a "2. Infanterie-Division" and a "2. Infanterie-Division (mot)" at the same time.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

The way I understood that picture was that being the Order of Battle of the 36th division through the course of the war, not that they are 4 different divisions at the same time...maybe I'm wrong?

I'm pretty sure that is how the system works... The picture seems to show the same division keeping the same number, but changing the rest of the name while changing template 3 times. And the rest of the DD and replies clarify that numbers are unique/reserved.

You're wrong. The picture show the same division, and the changes to the name according to the change of template. The system works exactly as you say : you can link number between template, so there won't be a "2. Infanterie-Division" and a "2.

They are indeed the same division, but I doubt I'm wrong. If in the new system I already have a division called "7. Infanterie-Division (mot)", and then build seven infantry divisions, I'll bet you the 7th of those will be called "7. Infanterie-Division".

Like I explained before, this is not in line with the naming conventions of historical armies where often the number was unique to all divisions of a similar type, though not of a different type (e.g. there was both the 5. Infanterie-Division and 5. Panzer-Division in the Wehrmacht at the same time).

 

[Alex_brunius]

They are indeed the same division, but I doubt I'm wrong. If in the new system I already have a division called "7. Infanterie-Division (mot)", and then build seven infantry divisions, I'll bet you the 7th of those will be called "7. Infanterie-Division".

The DD is pretty clear on that not being the case. Read the following:

The namelist also contains division numbers and these can be shared between several namelists. The game will try to ensure that divisions numbers don't overlap, even across different templates. What this means is that if you already have ten infantry divisions a new motorized division that shares the same numbering scheme will now be the 11th division. You'll no longer have to end up with "2. Infanterie-Divison", "2. Infanterie-Division (mot)" and "2. Infantry Division Type 12" in the same army.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

The DD is pretty clear on that not being the case. Read the following:

Ah, ok, I missed that. I admit I didn't read the DD very thoroughly. But colour me impressed.

I assume the numbers do overlap when the division types are different though, as was historically (e.g. having divisions "5th Infantry" & "5th Armoured" at the same time).

 

[davewolf]

So what if Germany switches ideology, would they still get "Grossdeutschland" and "Adolf Hitler" divisions? Or does the namelist change if you switch ideology?

One of the reasons why I asked whether name lists could be switched via event. And didn't get an answer yet... _insert_whiny_b!tch_sound_

 

[Aodhan_]

To be blunt, we’re not entirely happy with the names that are being generated for new divisions. It doesn’t look very good and to to be honest, they can be a bit immersion breaking. It has been bugging us just as much as I’m sure it has been bugging many of you.

Fortunately, we're now getting around to doing something about it.

Teleporting aircraft is even more immersion breaking, when will you be getting around to doing something about that.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

I read this and thought "man, the forum is going to rip them to pieces for this non-DD," then was shocked to see page after page of glowing praise. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this feature is a waste of development time when so many other gameplay mechanics desperately need attention?

Content development and coding are done by different people. Would you prefer the content developers to sit around playing MP while the coders work on the AI?

EDIT: Axe99'd

 

[Denkt]

Game development are done by many different people with different educations which have different focuses. Not everyone in a development team nowdays are programmers. Nowdays focus have been given to stuff such as game analysis (atleast in Sweden, do not know how other countries do) and educations which focuses on stuff such as gamewriting.

And atleast here game development education is taken as a serious subject with students studing like 10h or so a day, 7 days a week. And we are not talking about self learned programmers but people who try their best to work not as individuals but as a team, so many myths about programming, games and game development.

I try to have a realistic and optimistic view of the work paradox developers (and other game developers do).

About the DD I think it is an excellent idea to add the namelists and it fit the theme the patch is about.

Teleporting aircraft is even more immersion breaking, when will you be getting around to doing something about that.

Please suggest a better solution and when we can talk.

Game development is very much about tradeoff, it is not a bunch of wizards capable of anything at anytime, like no they are not denying you a better, an ideal HOI4 hidding from our view by a spell. They are working hard to make HOI4 a better game but they can not do everything as computional resouces, skill and time are all limited.

And yes at time I do criticizes paradox decisions as I do everything else, and we are actively teached to crticizes about everything we see because how else do we learn if we are not able to think just a single step beyond what we see and yet Im far from perfect but I don't belive in perfection or ideal cases. Yet at the same time we must criticize everything, we must also be able to enjoy the games of previous, our time and future epochs.

As how can we understand games if we do not play games? But how can we make games if the perfect games already exist?

At the same time we are taught to hate and love games, taught to see behind the curtains so we can make the games for futher generations, taught to see games as a products but at the same time appreciate the hard work done.

Game development is a grind without the reward of experince or items but at the same time the road from peasant to hero.

For years I have been unable to rate games on a score table, why, because I if I give a score I must submit to my own bias. I can say I like or do not like a specific game but yet I must say that my view really only apply to myself and not anyone else.

 

[mursolini]

Please suggest a better solution and when we can talk.

Game development is very much about tradeoff, it is not a bunch of wizards capable of anything at anytime, like no they are not denying you a better, an ideal HOI4 hidding from our view by a spell. They are working hard to make HOI4 a better game but they can not do everything as computional resouces, skill and time are all limited.

Better solution:
Planes do plot a path(random heavilly weighted towards zones with least resistance) to target and are engaged by any fighters in zones they fly thrugh under normal rules.

It wouldn`t take any notable amount of machine time to plot such path, and game engagement rules don`t really change, aside from maybe in-path interception having lower probability.

They need to fix the ability of attacker to change targets willy-nilly every few days. If they don`t want in-route interception, they need to implement feature simulating such. If I have a radar network that observes as far as enemy start airfield, and I have a bunch of high-range interceptors, enemy attack should normally to be intecepted by full force. At the moment, it is impossible, because planes only work in one zone, regardless of range.

Current system works fine for low-tech INT and CAS, but it is absolute fubar in case of long-range planes.