Developer Corner | International Market

[ruhrbaron]

hell yeah. ive been wishing for something like this for years. When you are looking at markets, would you consider looking at auto traders? particularly useful in the late game when due to capital ships the consumption of various strategic resources can wildly and trading partners seem to change their trading laws so that in practice I need to adjust my trades ever other month or so. it'd be cool if I could allocate a budget of civs and say please procure these from friendly, ideally allied nations.

And please let us use design ships in the menu and then select them in games, I hate that I have to redo very similar designs between games. kinda annoying and a hassle that takes some joy out of the game for me

 

[KnyazSuvorov]

Pure mathwise, I'll consider some things about the so called MIO Addendum.

Let's start with infantry equipment:

What we see here is a choice between piercing, hard attack, soft attack.

Let's think of a standard infantry batallion:
Soft Attack: 6
Hard Attack: 1
Piercing: 4
Breakthrough: 3
Defense: 22
Production cost: 50 (per batallion, 0.5 per unit *100 units per batallion)

I know numbers are not final.

But q1: what is the role of infantry in the game?
Answer: to be cannon fodder. To be something that delays enemy offensives but cannot beat them back, nothing more.

q2: Is HOI4 a linear or exponential factor-based game?
Answer: Exponential. Every point of attack exceeding defense or breakthrough leads to a +300% bonus chance to inflict damage(or a multiple of 4 which is the same thing)

What does this mean?

If presented a choice between:
Increasing Soft Attack
Increasing Hard Attack
Increasing Piercing

Assuming equal costs and % effects, I would always increase soft attack. while Infantry piercing and hard attack is always negligible.

Even if we use old pre-NSB MP templates(with medium cannon I tanks), such as 10 tanks with 60 piercing/10 motorized(or mechanized, just whatever with 4 piercing), you will see that increasing piercing by 25% leads to an increase of 0.5% of total piercing by the division (0.4% top piercing: 24 + 9 piercing from tanks + 0.72 piercing from infantry which goes up to 0.9 if you upgrade). That's negligible.

Rewind back for a second. Now, let's try soft attack. Of the 260 base soft attack in a 10/10 medium tank division with medium cannon I, 60 soft attack comes from infantry, 200 from the tank (20 per tank). Increasing infantry soft attack by 25% would equal 15 more soft attack. Is that good or bad? It depends.

If you expect to fight equal width opponents with 260 defense(assuming no combat modifers on either side): you added (260+15*4)/260 = 23% extra attack to your tank division.

if the enemy has at or more than (260+15)= 275 defense for same combat width(assuming no combat modifiers) you added just 5.76% extra attack.

(Above are just examples)

What does this mean? It means, there isn't really a choice between piercing and soft attack, unless you nerf/buff one and downgrade the other. Hard attack vs soft attack will look even worse.

What this will lead to:
1. Players will rush to max out the most cost-efficient stat of a unit first (soft attack for artillery, hard attack for AT, defense for infantry equipment) until there is parity between the cost (funds/XP of an MIO spent) and relative combat efficiency(aka, in order for players to stop upgrading soft attack in favor of piercing, the difference will have to be about 10 more piercing to 1 more soft attack per cost unit).

As such likely for balancing purposes you will have to redesign what's mutually exclusive and what's not, or add a crazy difference in effectiveness of upgrades between say Piercing and Soft Attack or both.

2. Vast majority of options will never be used: as they will likely be too difficult to balance if done impactfully, or too negligible if done without a significant impact.

3. The increase in production cost will not properly be reflected

. You raised hard attack? Lovely. How did you do it?(from an imagination standpoint?

If negligibly, it's fine, we added a few Armor-piercing bullets to our MG42, yeah they won't pierce anything but artillery shields, but still good, right?

But if you do it properly/impactfully, you will suddenly realize "Oh, our german batallion used to run around with rifle-caliber machine guns and be helpless against enemy tanks. Now they magically got piercing which is half of an AT batallion" which makes you start wondering: how can you get there without adding the cost of a few cannons in the unit? You can't beat physics, there's no way a machine gun or even an AT rifle can now pierce armor half-as-thick as a 37mm Pak 36, unless you make it a tungsten-based superweapon.

Pure logic will start faltering unless for every upgrade you make, you won't add a production cost modifier(which is likely to be hard to balance).

Knowing how these updates work, I just want to point out what could happen. The devs will have a hard time navigating through all this.

 

[homerCCCP]

It would be cool to assign a headquarter to MIOs (minimum requirement is to have a MIL factory in said region). Should be then possible to "capture" a MIO (if e.g. you have a CORE in that region) or at least give a reasearch buff once captured.

 

[Umbosch]

It would be cool to assign a headquarter to MIOs (minimum requirement is to have a MIL factory in said region). Should be then possible to "capture" a MIO (if e.g. you have a CORE in that region) or at least give a reasearch buff once captured.

Thats sounds how Asia designer companys in the moment. All asia countrys share the same companys. You must control the right province to use it. But i think its complicatet when it not implentet from gamestart. But i like your idea for my 2 ship disigner problem with Manchukuo. The only they i can have is bullshit and must conquer. Self for reserach is is a trap then i con not change to no designer. The other they i will have can i not get. Only when china steamrolling Japan und i kick him back from the Mengkuko flank.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

Wouldn't the effect of the weapon trading be limited when technologies were also used to unlock subunits and provided Global stats and local unit stats modifiers?
For example, I brought 50 Modern tanks from USA, but I cannot put them into Divison as I have not yet unlocked the modern tank battalion from the tech trees?
Furthermore, Improved Infantry Equipment, Mechanized Equipment, or Support Weapons which all or part of the stats are represented in unit stats modifiers from unlocking tech are totally/partly untradable.

 

[Eruth]

It would be cool to assign a headquarter to MIOs (minimum requirement is to have a MIL factory in said region). Should be then possible to "capture" a MIO (if e.g. you have a CORE in that region) or at least give a reasearch buff once captured.

They said in last weeks DD that they wanted to do this but it was too complicated from a design and code perspective

 

[GrandVezir]

They said in last weeks DD that they wanted to do this but it was too complicated from a design and code perspective

If it's scriptable, you might be able to trigger transfers via event: e.g. with the "Fate of Czechoslovakia" event, Germany gets access to Skoda, or "Restore the Kalmar Union" giving Bofors to Denmark or Norway.

 

[Umbosch]

They said in last weeks DD that they wanted to do this but it was too complicated from a design and code perspective

When you will make it 1 to 1 yes. But when you make it how in Hoi III then no. You can make it how strategic ressource or map control bonus. For example when Germany use B&V and controle in Europe the france ACF with the same effect he get 5% for B&V and production. When he control a other country with 08/15 ship designer he get 2,5% at ship production and repair. Let it limitet with 4 designer. When he chance the designer then is there a temporär malus how in production of the effects and production. Can compensate with officer corps.

 

[DukofDeth]

The AI and balance are still not something that's ready to be talked about since we are still mid development, new functionality is happening all the time and so it can change drastically from week to week. we will have dev diaries later on when things will be a much calmer state to show you how the final feature is balanced into the overall system and the precise behaviours of the AI.

Bitmode is correct about the licencing feature - it is not very helpful. The AI refuses to LL equipment that the asker has not researched so that nixes the usefulness for catching up on research. If I had the tech I would not need to LL it.

 

[Umbosch]

The AI refuses to LL equipment that the asker has not researched so that nixes the usefulness for catching up on research. If I had the tech I would not need to LL it.

Its the same with spy mission and support equipment. First rescue cost most time 50 support equiment. Self when you not research it. And self when you research it but have only one military factory how you will produce it? Nobody will give you ll for so few demand. When i don't know it why i know that i need it? Its the same when you will steal airtech why you have no research it and need 10 interceptors.

 

[Idle America]

How the heck did I miss this dev diary?! This is gonna be awesome!

 

[Crecer13]

Buying resources for factories sounds very strange. Why not take a more realistic route. Gold. The game has resources like aluminum, chrome, and so on. Why not gold? At the beginning of the war, the USSR bought tanks and planes for gold and did not receive them under Lend-Lease. Gold then speeds up the construction of factories, roads, etc.

 

[bitmode]

Gold then speeds up the construction of factories, roads, etc.

Gold is not going to speed up anything unless you can turn it into factories again.

 

[Crecer13]

Gold is not going to speed up anything unless you can turn it into factories again.

For gold, you can buy the construction of a factory from abroad. without using their own factories.

 

[Znail]

(...)
But if you do it properly/impactfully, you will suddenly realize "Oh, our german batallion used to run around with rifle-caliber machine guns and be helpless against enemy tanks. Now they magically got piercing which is half of an AT batallion" which makes you start wondering: how can you get there without adding the cost of a few cannons in the unit? You can't beat physics, there's no way a machine gun or even an AT rifle can now pierce armor half-as-thick as a 37mm Pak 36, unless you make it a tungsten-based superweapon.

Pure logic will start faltering unless for every upgrade you make, you won't add a production cost modifier(which is likely to be hard to balance).

Knowing how these updates work, I just want to point out what could happen. The devs will have a hard time navigating through all this.

The top AT rifle of WW2 had 40mm penetration at 100m range and that is more then half of the 63mm penetration of a 37mm Pak 36, so giving that amount of penetration to an infantry unit is not beyond ww2 technology.

 

[KnyazSuvorov]

The top AT rifle of WW2 had 40mm penetration at 100m range and that is more then half of the 63mm penetration of a 37mm Pak 36, so giving that amount of penetration to an infantry unit is not beyond ww2 technology.

No doubt it's possible. But the price would be astonishing.

Imagine; we have a standard batallion kit of 500 rifles, 30 HMGs, 60 LMGs, 8 mortars, 16 AT rifles.

Now we say: the AT rifles have double-the barrel length of what they used to have.

What does this lead to? let's say a 75% increase in price of each AT rifle.

Now let's turn back to HOI4. The increase in price would not get reflected unless it's a new separate piece of equipment.

Given this improvement is not equipment-based but rather upgrades-based: there would be no accurate reflection of the fact that "yes we have improved the AP capacity of our AT rifles, but that came at the cost of using extra tungsten, more precise manufacturing techniques etc. that used up a lot more of our money and industrial capacity"

In other words, the fact that these improvements cost money won't get reflected because of the depiction choice.

 

[Crecer13]

The top AT rifle of WW2 had 40mm penetration at 100m range and that is more then half of the 63mm penetration of a 37mm Pak 36, so giving that amount of penetration to an infantry unit is not beyond ww2 technology.

The best serial anti-tank rifle (PTRS / PTRD). In 1942, the USSR created the 20mm RES anti-tank rifle gun, which could penetrate 70mm of armor at 100 meters. But this gun looks more like a very light gun. 71 such rifles were produced, but they did not reach the front.

Spoiler

 

[stormsand9]

You can't beat physics, there's no way a machine gun or even an AT rifle can now pierce armor half-as-thick as a 37mm Pak 36, unless you make it a tungsten-based superweapon.

Maybe this is the "Wunderwaffe" part of the roadmap that was talked about years ago!

 

[Harin]

Penetration in game is abstracted, like everything else. Penetration does not necessarily have to mean that an infantry unit had to penetrate the thickest part of a tank's armor to score a kill. Think outside the box of high velocity weapons and increasing the penetration of an infantry unit is very possible.

Simple training can increase penetration in game terms. In 1939 and 1940 light tanks (15mm hull armor) could make ill equipped infantry units break. By 1942 well equipped and trained infantry units were getting harder to break. The tanks had to be upgraded substantially and coordinate much better with infantry and mobile artillery support to breakthrough.

The infantry learned how to fight tanks. Simple things like attacking a tank from the top, where a Panzer IV had only 10mm of armor, or the T-34 had 16mm to 20mm. There were other methods, like controlling the battlefield better and forcing tanks into kill zones, anti-tank mines, gasoline bombs, obstacles, cutting the tanks off from their infantry, cheap bazookas, sticky/magnetic anti-tank shaped charges, TNT used with imagination, getting tanks stuck, disabling tanks, and other sound methods of winning against tanks.

Still, strictly from a numbers perspective, if MIOs are only going to increase an infantry units penetration of 4 by 2% or even 10%, the net effect would be underwhelming.

 

[Hadar]

Will I be able to make "invitation to tender"? Without giving or having market access I just scream to all countries "I want to buy 1000 tanks, give me your offers"? Then AI shows me offers in what time and for what cost I can buy what tanks? So neutral countries can think and say to themselves "hey, I can supply him with that" and potentially adjust their production lines if the deal is made. So selling country would only share stats of one item with one country, selling country would not have to have a surplus of that thing, just reserve production slots for the deal, there would be no need for market access for the disadvantage, that I make obvious to all countries in the world (including my enemies) that I want to buy e.g. 1000 tanks