HoI4 Dev Diary - Tech Changes

[Parkerkev]

Please can you do something about Invasions the current system is awful and lets the game down. I have tried invading on numerous occasions and had no end of frustrations. A simple example was when I was attempting to invade Ireland from the UK, Clicking on Liverpool where my troops were based then on Dublin establish the command but "No Divisions assigned" came up no amount of clicking,right clicking, left clicking, cancelling and trying again could resolve the issue. My Invasion from Wales to Cork did allocate 1 Division out of 5, I could not add more and then I was told it would take 65 days and I need more intel despite the might of the Royal Navy being in the Irish Sea and a huge RAF resource being deployed.
Why not, after clicking on the Invasion Icon, and the Port where your troops are, cut a Port screen where you can click and drop troops into a Landing craft?
Why always Port to Port?
Again coastal regions should be rated in terms of being suitable for a seaborn invasion and handycaped accordingly.
Please do something to improve this and Paratroop drops, again moving to an Airfield screen where you can drop troops into planes, something simple and straight forward.

 

[Fulmen]

Please can you do something about Invasions the current system is awful and lets the game down. I have tried invading on numerous occasions and had no end of frustrations. A simple example was when I was attempting to invade Ireland from the UK, Clicking on Liverpool where my troops were based then on Dublin establish the command but "No Divisions assigned" came up no amount of clicking,right clicking, left clicking, cancelling and trying again could resolve the issue. My Invasion from Wales to Cork did allocate 1 Division out of 5, I could not add more and then I was told it would take 65 days and I need more intel despite the might of the Royal Navy being in the Irish Sea and a huge RAF resource being deployed.
Why not, after clicking on the Invasion Icon, and the Port where your troops are, cut a Port screen where you can click and drop troops into a Landing craft?
Why always Port to Port?
Again coastal regions should be rated in terms of being suitable for a seaborn invasion and handycaped accordingly.
Please do something to improve this and Paratroop drops, again moving to an Airfield screen where you can drop troops into planes, something simple and straight forward.

2003 account, unmerged and first post.

 

[Axe99]

While more plausible than a civil war, I don't see America staying out of the war as realistic. By 1941 the US was already one foot in the war on the Allied side and FDR had arguably been seeking to provoke an incident with Japan for years. By the time of Pearl Harbor Congress had become increasingly pro-war and probably would've flipped to majority pro-war in 1942, even without PH.

Without a doubt, if the game started in 1941, I'd fully agree, but I can imagine a range of plausible alternative outcomes from a 1936 start were a US swings away from intervention in Europe. Asia's a bit more of a stretch, but if they already weren't involved (as historically by the time of Pearl Harbor it was quite clear they were 'in the war', even if they weren't formally a belligerent) then it may be the case that supporting the Allies against what by that point would appear like overwhelming opposition (assuming France fell historically) wouldn't be as clear a decision to make, particularly if there wasn't much interest in the US in going to war.

I also don't see the US sitting idly by as Japan pillages the oil- and rubber-rich East Indies.

They sat idly by (more or less) while Japan invaded Manchuria and half of China, and sunk a US gunboat to boot. After the Panay incident, Britain was pushing the US for a firmer response to Japan, but the US weren't interested. I'm not suggesting it's the most likely outcome, but that it's a historically plausible one, given the right circumstances.

The Italians risking their navy to help the Japanese sounds a bit far-fetched. The Axis was a pretty dysfunctional bunch when it came to co-operating with allies, and the co-operation between the European and Asian Axis was pretty much limited to signing the same piece of paper.

This is more of a stretch, but there was some naval cooperation - Axis raiders docked in Japanese ports, and German long-range subs were able to using basing facilities in either Malaya or the Dutch East Indies (I can't recall the details - I can look up). When Italy's position in Italian East Africa was overrun, one of their sloops even made the journey through the Indian Ocean to seek safety in Japan (successfully too!) At one point, Germany even gave Japan one of their subs (I think a Type XIC), which included training the crew how to use it, and blockade runners and then subs (once blockade runners became too much of a low-odds proposition) exchanged low-level trade between them.

At the end of the day, it would come down to what was in Italy's interest, adjusted for Mussolini's personality and preferences (which, of course, means all bets are off!) but I don't see it as impossible, particularly if Gibraltar was also in Axis hands. If Italy had control of the Med, I would expect their fleet to go in one direction or the other to help finish the war (indeed, at some point in the interwar period (I'd need to look up the details, sorry I can't remember them) Italy started to produce naval designs with an eye to operating in the Indian Ocean or Atlantic, rather than their traditional focus on the Med). It wouldn't be altruistic (Mussolini would presumably be angling for colonies somewhere), but I could see it happening.

At the end of the day, however, it's all counter-factuals - which are impossible to prove. I think there's an argument to be made for the sense in the Axis having a decent naval force (which is where this all started), and that there was some scope for cooperation between Axis powers, but the exact nature of that will remain unknown.

 

[wesleytj]

Without a doubt, if the game started in 1941, I'd fully agree, but I can imagine a range of plausible alternative outcomes from a 1936 start were a US swings away from intervention in Europe. Asia's a bit more of a stretch, but if they already weren't involved (as historically by the time of Pearl Harbor it was quite clear they were 'in the war', even if they weren't formally a belligerent) then it may be the case that supporting the Allies against what by that point would appear like overwhelming opposition (assuming France fell historically) wouldn't be as clear a decision to make, particularly if there wasn't much interest in the US in going to war.

I totally agree. FDR's re-election in 1940 was far from a sure thing. The final electoral college results look like a landslide, but the race was essentially tied in September. His late surge was due ironically to his promise to keep us out of war.

A President Willkie would have been far less likely to push us in the direction of war that FDR did.

 

[Cheshires]

You have two buttons: regular research and research with XP.

Hello!
Tell me, will the basic statistics of ships in DLS be reworked?

For example, now a new type of ship (conditionally) is 50% more expensive in production but increases all characteristics by 50%, which makes the production of old ships meaningless.
And in some modes, conditionally, the new ship is more expensive by 50%, but the characteristics increase by 30% and only some by 50 or more, which gives a choice in production when no example is important anti-aircraft defense or something else.

 

[Ethereld]

They sat idly by (more or less) while Japan invaded Manchuria and half of China, and sunk a US gunboat to boot. After the Panay incident, Britain was pushing the US for a firmer response to Japan, but the US weren't interested. I'm not suggesting it's the most likely outcome, but that it's a historically plausible one, given the right circumstances.

FDR approved the embargo against Japan after their forces occupied French Indochina. Also, while the British had to pay in cash any war material provided by the Americans China had access to the most generous credits.

So in a sense it's true that it's not pausible to see the Americans sitting idle while Japan conquers half of Asia.

The alternative history scenario I see quite pausible it's that another president might have accepted the Japanese offer to restore French Indochina in exchange of lifting the Embargo instead of asking complete withdrawal from China as FDR did in the negotiations that happened before Pearl Harbor.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Also, soviet Union has a bad start with tech and would not out tech ze germans, but historical SU was on par with German Tech w/o the Wunderwaffen.

In 1936 Soviets outtech the Germans if to speak about infantry weapons and tanks, also Soviets have a technical solution for syntetic rubber. Germans are on the same level in planes, and more advanced in naval matters.

 

[Zauberelefant]

In 1936 Soviets outtech the Germans if to speak about infantry weapons and tanks, also Soviets have a technical solution for syntetic rubber. Germans are on the same level in planes, and more advanced in naval matters.

I can only look at the Wiki, but there, soviets have only LARM I, no HARM, but they have paras and MP.
air force is behind Germany, without CAS and TAC I.

Maybe the wiki lacks some Tech?

 

[Magni56]

On another note, will the Land xp system get overhauled eventually? It's kinda whack right now that WWI-esque meatgrinders do more to generate Army xp and level up your leaders than picture-perfect grand encirclements and mobile campaigns. Perhaps make it so that taking ground generates xp and/or give a bonus to encirclements/overruns?

 

[CrazyZombie]

I can only look at the Wiki, but there, soviets have only LARM I, no HARM, but they have paras and MP.
air force is behind Germany, without CAS and TAC I.

Maybe the wiki lacks some Tech?

I speak about IRL. Soviets work on semi-auto rifles and adopt AVS-36 just at the same year, while germans place their bet on "support weapons tech line", Soviets have T-35 heavy tank, slowly produced in small series, with one brigade active and in service in 1936, T-28 medium tank, in production since 1933, with 3 "heavy armored brigades" active in 1936, BT-7 is produced since 1935 and actually is better or equal to any tank, Germans have in the same year.

Germans don't have any light tanks, better than Pz. II, which are not better than even T-26, early Pz. III models from pre-production series are only assembled or on trials, and Germans have nothing similar to T-28 or T-35 up until first series of Pz. IV.

Speaking about air, situation here is tricky. While technically, I-16 and Bf.109 are planes of the same generation, with I-16 being equal or better than early Bf.109, German fighter has better reserves for modernisation. Have no idea of how to show this in game - but waiting for changes of research and variant system for planes and tanks to have it the same way, as for ships. As for bombers, Soviets already have "etalon" prototype of SB-2 tried since 1934 and serial production of SB-2 (TAC1) starts in spring 1936, so they are equal with Germans here. Germans are more advanced in CAS - having Ju87, while Soviet vision of such plane will appear in 1938, so that part is correct in the game. On the other hand, Soviets more or less successfully use their fighters for the same purpose - I-15, I-153 and I-16 will be used as improvised CAS with rockets and bombs up until 1943, which sort of means that this worked. So I'd like to see more tasks for fighters and heavy fighters, allowing them to act as CAS in case of clear from enemy sky.

As for ships, here everything is "more or less" correct. Well, Soviets should have 1936 destroyer already researched and in production just as some "variants" - Project 1 leaders, which in game exist as variant of WW1 DD, were actually better in most technical aspects than Project 7 DDs (1936 DD in game). Also, Kirov cruisers (1936) should be researched and in production from the start. New system allows to make this ship with more flexibility, than before MTG - technically Kirov-class is light cruiser armed with guns, being somewhat between usual CL's 152mm and CA's 203mm, while armor is on the same level with CL's. Anyway, in post-MTG mechanics Soviets already have the base hull for 1936 cruiser, they will experiment on in 1930-s, creating improved variants of Project 26.

Soviets should have syntetic rubber tech of lvl 1 from the start - while Germans shouldn't. Sure, they managed to solve problem of lack of fuel, producing syntetic benzin from coal, but that just means that syntetic rubber and sysntetic fuel should be separate techs from the start, with different buildings for different resource.

On another note, will the Land xp system get overhauled eventually? It's kinda whack right now that WWI-esque meatgrinders do more to generate Army xp and level up your leaders than picture-perfect grand encirclements and mobile campaigns. Perhaps make it so that taking ground generates xp and/or give a bonus to encirclements/overruns?

Well, dealt casualties should give more XP - that one is obvious. Also, capturing VP could give some XP too. I'd also like to high command advisors at political screen give fixed passive income of XP to the related sphere, just as some theorists do.

 

[Gort11]

Well, dealt casualties should give more XP - that one is obvious.

That means fighting tanks gives less XP than fighting infantry. I'd sooner see XP awards proportional to the value of enemy equipment destroyed.

 

[CrazyZombie]

That means fighting tanks gives less XP than fighting infantry. I'd sooner see XP awards proportional to the value of enemy equipment destroyed.

Not only enemy, but your own too. When you lose stuff, you think about reasons of why had it happened.

 

[DukofDeth]

A queue like that would be unhelpful for my playstyle. As a role-player, I allocate different slots to different departments (e.g. as the UK: Ministry of Supply 1, Admiralty 1, War Office 2, Air Ministry 1, Armaments Research Establishment 1). I doubt that there are many people doing this (and you may feel free to smile at my eccentricity! ), but personally I would strongly prefer per-slot queues. Obviously opinions will differ.

Per slot queues would just be a waste of programming time. Sorry, but a simple queue would be fine. If you feel a need to role-play it to that extent, then just keep an eye on which department is going to open up soon, and put something appropriate into the queue [assuming we get one].

 

[DukofDeth]

Add to that colour indicators for the tabs:
- green: at least 1 tech available that is not ahead of historical year
- yellow: only ahead of time techs in this tab
- red: no tech left in this tab

Would do a ton for overview and save a lot of browsing.

Heck yeah! Its long past due the time for the various "Colored..." mods to get some love from the devs! Those are awesome!

 

[DasSnyder]

The sped-up research speed is nice, but I doubt it will overcome the added research. Spending XP to speed up research looks interesting, but 50 XP seems too expensive. In games where I've destroyed the entire Royal Navy with NAVs and battleships I've gotten less than 200 navy XP.

I agree. Naval XP is dreadfully slow and hard to get. I can't think of a game (with 700+ hours) that I've ever even maxed out Naval XP.

 

[thewookie15]

I am not sure if this was answered already, but are land and air doctrines able to be sped up by experience?

 

[BeauNiddle]

I am not sure if this was answered already, but are land and air doctrines able to be sped up by experience?

Land doctrines were definitely mentioned in the earlier DD about tech. Can't remember if air was mentioned.

Found the link https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ary-amphibious-vehicles-and-research.1122205/ definitely only mentions land. (also that land doctrine research has been slowed down)

 

[Novacat]

Land doctrines were definitely mentioned in the earlier DD about tech. Can't remember if air was mentioned.

Found the link https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ary-amphibious-vehicles-and-research.1122205/ definitely only mentions land. (also that land doctrine research has been slowed down)

Devs basically revamped doctrines by having land/air/naval exp boost their respective doctrines. This was primarily due to the previous meta where you always wanted at least one technology slot constantly researching doctrines throughout the entire war. Now you can afford to wait on doctrines until you have the exp to boost them.

 

[Mister Analyst]

@Archangel85

While you are rebalancing research for Man the Guns, do you intend to add a Nuclear Research time reduction/bonus to the Japan National Focus tree? It appears as though Japan is the only nation in the world without a Nuclear technology reduction NF. Thank you for your consideration.

Also, you and your team have put together some wonderful concepts as revealed by the dev diaries. Truly a lot of hard work and collaborative effort behind the scenes.

 

[Svenska Super]

Ok I explain to you:

As israel is situated by many ,hostile neighbours' who would like to remove them from the planet.

IL doctrine therefore is aimed at surviving a long battle of attrition, take example their apc and tanks (mbt merkava) which are armoured up very advanced.
So there is eg. not any doctrine or research thing that better focuses on close combat.

Here must be made more variation. When i play now the game i am very frustrated with the damn inbalance.

why none of you notice this? why we not aim to fix this first? Lets not deny, its time for paradox to seriously upgrade the AI.
And hire some smart people for battle tactics. Instead of giving them their own values.

It is so sad, as I can imagine this game achieving a higher replay experience etc.

Of course someone here will yell yeah there is an entrenchment bonus or tickle back with medics.
Still that system is also far from realism, as a chinese medic attachment will not be that effective as an american or german one.

So it is up to paradox to shape more variety and also shorten up doctrine trees and create more realistic ones. I must say they did some research, but i see the community wants more depth
so do I.

Besides simply building tanks. I think time is ripe also for engine research trees. As they are a good way to give timing to when a nation advances in armor technology and more importantly is able to use it effectively.

So would be cool, if you could prototype research it, embed some units and than finish final completion phase. I think the word research is not applicable to all actions.

I don't see Israel as having a different doctrine than any listed in game. It's just a nation with mobile warfare, full planning bonuses, and a healthy tech advantage. Not sure what you see in them that you think isn't represented by that, or what doctrines you are seeing that aren't represented. Can you give a little more clarification on what you want this doctrine to be? Not just examples, but the actual idea or driving principles that make that doctrine, a doctrine?