HOI4 Dev Diary - MTG Post Release

[pvt.conners]

"reduced naval XP generation by a large amount"
I dunno, as UK I don't feel like I have enough naval XP most of the time. I never spent any on doctrines, and only researched maybe four techs using the 50xp boost(and practically none ahead of time). Upon entry to war, I can spend very little of fuel on training, US isn't forthcoming with giving lend lease fuel, and it doesn't look like I get much XP from normal naval. And that's with the naval XP guy taken in 1936. I mean I don't struggle, but losing significant part of XP seems like a problem. I'd imagine it's not so for US, but this change would impact UK as well.
So I wonder what does this change mean in effect.

This is true, however the changelog also states:
"increased impact of ratio of ships. This will make smaller ships generate a bit more XP, also made manpower more have impact overall"
It's hard to gauge how this will impact XP generation, so we'll have to wait until the beta is updated.

 

[llib]

That's not how carriers operated. They kept their distance. Unless surprised, which only happened twice in a 6 year war, they sailed away and launched air strikes. This naval system is reminiscent of how navy planners in the 20s and 30s imagined the war to go, not how it actually went.

And it's nice how you completely ignored rest of my post, that suggested the system should allow you to do that, provided that you manage the speed of your task force (no dds on open seas) and manage air attacks in same way you would with land based bombers.

 

[podcat]

This is true, however the changelog also states:
"increased impact of ratio of ships. This will make smaller ships generate a bit more XP, also made manpower more have impact overall"
It's hard to gauge how this will impact XP generation, so we'll have to wait until the beta is updated.

overall it should be slower. and with fuel impact on laws be a bit harder for USA to farm

 

[Fulmen]

Dont worry B is the same as always. It decides what your next order is. Ctrl+B changes already existing movement, so its great if you assign troops somewhere, notice they dont strat redeploy - just hit ctrl+B - and you can toggle their way of movement. its super sweet

Ahh okay, phew. Thanks for the reply.

 

[llib]

This is true, however the changelog also states:
"increased impact of ratio of ships. This will make smaller ships generate a bit more XP, also made manpower more have impact overall"
It's hard to gauge how this will impact XP generation, so we'll have to wait until the beta is updated.

Well what's kind of silly is that normal naval activities don't generate any XP unless you run into enemy. During war it's a problem if you are not USA to have fleets all around training.

 

[PanzerMan7]

And it's nice how you completely ignored rest of my post, that suggested the system should allow you to do that, provided that you manage the speed of your task force (no dds on open seas) and manage air attacks in same way you would with land based bombers.

You can already manage your air on the strategic map and rarely engage by having a fast fleet with good detection. The trouble is it's very ineffective. The planes behave like land based meaning they only attack once and have to cover the whole region. You don't get to use carrier bonuses or doctrines either.

 

[Daelyn75]

We have been tweaking naval balance and detection some more, but it currently is too punishing against subs so it needs some more days of tweaking before we share it.


So the way it works is that if you dont specify the icon it can grab anything (star icon now does that). if you specify the composition as needing a specific icon it will work exactly as now. It also will grab the setup based on current fleet so is easier to set up


it should be once it arrives (its not out yet). but its not something we test a lot for until its done.


I did say next week in the diary Its sure to need some more fixes + sit in open beta for 2 days so we make sure it doesnt break anything.


Well, we have just gotten started on the fixing.


We have been working on that. I think some is in the beta, but I didnt double check the long list now so maybe it wasnt completely ready yet.


well yeah, early telemetry is mostly for fun to share with you guys, we know its gonna be a bit wacky.



If you report it in the bug forum we'll get around to them the double click one I think got solved now, but is not in the beta yet.


Thanks!


I think this is a bug that happens when you have Man the Guns but not Together For Victory. Its not fixed yet but we are working on a fix.


We have discussed it, perhaps moving some years also. Not really decided yet, but perhaps some more bumps from the computer techs


Yeah its a tricky one to solve. We agree its a problem though and will focus on it after we have solved some more of the UX issues.

podcat, this isn't a bug but rather something you guys missed to which I mentioned in the main forum. I'm assuming that all super heavy battleships for all nations work the same.

In 1937, the Japanese designed their super heavy battleships, yet the engine you get to use from the battleship 2 is way under powered to make the ship move anywhere close to the historical speed. The battleship 3 engine has the right horse power to move the ship, and to make it go to around historical speed. One look of the Japanese Yamato on Wikipedia will show you the horsepower it used, and it actually works somewhat correct in the game if the right horsepower is used, which was historically 147k horsepower, the battleship 3 hp is 150k, so it's basically the same. The problem is that the battleship 2 horsepower is 80k hp. So it's way too slow in the game.

I have an easy fix for this. Since you already have a super heavy battleship only armor, you could make a super heavy battleship engine that goes 150k horsepower to augment the slow speed of the ship in the game. Otherwise you have to wait for the 1940 battleship, and then build the super heavy battleship with that new engine, which would push the ability to get out the super heavy battleship much later than what was historical.

 

[llib]

I know trying to balance out the ai in africa has been something you've been tweaking constantly but what fuck us going on there right now? Italy seems ti steamroll Britain almost every time now as Britain puts no troops there until half the continent is lost, at which point all the allies spam too many divisions into it so they all attrition themselves to death.

Britain doesn't have enough forces to properly defend home islands, send expeditionary force to France, defend Egypt and surround Italian East Africa, unless you dedicate yourself to that goal or play very narrow game. This combines at point of fall of france with some areas being handed over to Free French and some to Vichy, and then Free French capitulate, Vichy gets even more. And at that point Vichy/Italians/Germans think it's good idea to send in forces, which will
1) Either drown if Royal Navy is patrolling the seas
2) Stomp everything allies may have left if Royal Navy is not patrolling the seas.

 

[Dlin369]

Will the Loyalist USA get the ability to go fascist without Honoring the Confederacy?

Also will the Democratic Party name for the Constitutionalist USA be changed to the Democrats (right now it’s the Republicans, which is weird because FDR is the leader)

 

[Voigt]

About research speed, since the change +5% Speed is nothing compared to -5% Research Time, especially after stacking.

In general I like the research rework,,and that you can't research that much ahead of time anymore, but I still think the Researrch Bonus fron Electronic Engineering needs doubeling, so 4%, 6% and then 10% per Tech.
Also increase the Bonus from Free Trade a bit, but not as much

 

[Pied-Noir]

@Daelyn75

That's a very good idea, and makes a lot of sense.

However, I am curious as to why the 11" guns on the Scharnhorst battleships and Deutschland 'pocket battleships' are a superior battery type to the 14" and 15" guns on the Royal Navy's capital ships.

 

[Toreben]

I think this is a bug that happens when you have Man the Guns but not Together For Victory. Its not fixed yet but we are working on a fix.

Actually I have every single DLC and expansions, even Sabaton music DLCs

Also, I managed to keep every Dominions into the British Empire via the focus, but the decision of Propaganda in South Africa did not disappear once the country became facist (Minor bug)

 

[llib]

You can already manage your air on the strategic map and rarely engage by having a fast fleet with good detection. The trouble is it's very ineffective. The planes behave like land based meaning they only attack once and have to cover the whole region. You don't get to use carrier bonuses or doctrines either.

So you want to be in battle and you don't want to be in battle. What can I tell you, the gun range was removed from the system, and it's not like carriers would be able to teleport from combat.
By the way if you look on Midway, Japanese may have got shot at US carriers... if they would have their surface fleet operating independently. But both sides tried to sort of fight with carriers, and Japanese only tried to use surface fleet after they lost carrier battle. This would also have forced US to increase distance from whatever was left of Japanese carriers making further strikes more difficult or impossible. And it would be pretty possible without weakening the air defense of Japanese carriers if Yamamoto wasn't hanging around hundreds miles away.
That's one major difference that was between US and Japanese operations, US planned battles with anticipation of competent response, whereas Japanese made a plan and assumed US would play along. Of course having broken Japan naval code at times helped.
EDIT: By the way, my understanding is that carriers had to take into account wind and speed and other factors when running air attacks (and also landing). They would be only able to do so much while also keeping the distance. Further I'm really not sure why would carrier based planes that are not in combat have advantage against land based planes, land based attacks are much more easier to manage then carrier.

 

[blue_yonder]

I especially like this one: " reformulated subtracting factories from production line tooltip to be more consistent with the way the English language has developed since 1912"

I loaded up the game just to glimpse this Edwardian gem before it fades into the sunset, but couldn't find it

 

[PanzerMan7]

So you want to be in battle and you don't want to be in battle. What can I tell you, the gun range was removed from the system, and it's not like carriers would be able to teleport from combat.
By the way if you look on Midway, Japanese may have got shot at US carriers... if they would have their surface fleet operating independently. But both sides tried to sort of fight with carriers, and Japanese only tried to use surface fleet after they lost carrier battle. This would also have forced US to increase distance from whatever was left of Japanese carriers making further strikes more difficult or impossible. And it would be pretty possible without weakening the air defense of Japanese carriers if Yamamoto wasn't handing around hundreds miles away.
That's one major difference that was between US and Japanese operations, US planned battles with anticipation of competent response, whereas Japanese made a plan and assumed US would play along. Of course having broken Japan naval code at times helped.

If the USN recon found the Japanese surface fleet closing on them, they would've turned around and bombed them.

I want combat that is realistic. Carriers closing with surface ships is not. We had realistic carrier behavior in HoI 2 and 3 and 4 until now. This system is how naval theorists in the 30s imagined naval combat.

 

[Bearjuden]

The task force composition editor

Wait...there's a task force composition editor? Geez, I could see the UI was bad just based on what I knew was there, let alone what I didn't see.

I would like a way to independently delineate a ship's "class" and its "role". Maybe even give us autosuggested historical (or historical-esque, since there probably won't be enough real examples) classes based on the role we created. This way I don't have to see "AA Class" destroyers or "Minelayer Class" cruisers, which just looks silly.

 

[Federkiel]

Good job and a responsive course to the demands of us players *thumbsup*

@podcat Is there any chance that Italy gets a few more generals with the patch? They definitely are too short on them and not being looked at in the any of the DLCs yet, they have become more and more unplayable. Italy needs a bit of love please...

 

[blackpowder320]

Added 5 new German advisors that are available after taking Oppose Hitler, Revive the Kaiserreich, or Re-Establish Free Elections, if the player has the Waking the Tiger DLC.

Yeeeey. More boosts to Monarchist Germany.

The USA seriously needs a nerf. Haven't actually gotten my hands on the DLC yet, but everyone I've spoken to has said that the USA has been able to amass gigantic undestrictible fleets and they don't have to deal with Fuel shortages due to how much Oil texas provides.

I think it historically makes sense to have such fuel capacity as USA. Tho I'm in favor of some debuffs (at least in early game) by tying it with The Great Depression spirit.

Overall, I had fun with all the additions in MtG, especially with the task force mechanics. Good work Admiral @podcat and the crew

 

[JackAlNXT]

- Corrected Albanian communist leader

Can the Bulgarian democratic leader also be corrected? Please?

Spoiler

Please, please, please, for the love of God, get that Serbian socialist out of Bulgaria!

 

[dbrickishaw]

The USA seriously needs a nerf. Haven't actually gotten my hands on the DLC yet, but everyone I've spoken to has said that the USA has been able to amass gigantic undestrictible fleets and they don't have to deal with Fuel shortages due to how much Oil texas provides.

I think that the fuel nerf on different economic laws should fix a good part of the issue.