Patch Notes | Operation SHOULDER

[nymet260]

Nerfing meds while heavies are already superior. Doesnt makes sense. Boost armored car suppression to make it viable for suppression. Its only the thing people may use it for.

No armor cars dont need more supression, they need to be more flexible and they are on the right track for it just need to push harder. IMO AC's should get another +10 org to round them out to 30 org and another +5 STR to give them 10 strength. I would even go as far as drop their IC cost on all chasis by another 0.5 IC. Increase their base chassis soft attack by %25/%50 since their attack power is so low the bonuses now offered by the new tech boosts from the support weapons tree dont amount to anything really.

Armor cars will never replace trucks or tanks and they arent suppose to. But having that flexibility to be a garrison, Truck substitute or light tank substitute for poorer nations all at once would help bring them to the battlefield.

 

[Metz]

In the equipment template designer can you add info regarding crew size (mostly immersion)?

 

[Wenla]

Good!

 

[Zwirbaum]

I like that you do something about armored cars. But seriously, to me it seems you guys absolutely don't understand the underlying issue with armored cars.

Armored cars and light tanks have an identical suppression value, and both units cost 60 pieces of equipment and 500 manpower per unit in a division template. So, the difference between both comes down to production costs, hardness (equipment losses basically), and the research slot bottleneck.

Let's see, loaded up a game to compare production costs and hardness, both MIOs are fully upgraded:

View attachment 1272458
Cheap light tank vs basic armored car, nevermind it's 2 Steel vs 1 Steel!

As you can see, the light tanks are still not only cheaper, but still offer better hardness. The best armored car I have, with 70% hardness, after researching almost half a dozen tech, now costs 9.3 IC to build, which is more than three times the costs of the still superior basic light tank here.

And a quick word on the research slot bottleneck: lately, with the inclusion of new tech, we lost the liberty to research random stuff on the side. There's no good reason to ever research armored cars, when almost every nation out there already starts with light tank tech, which - as I've shown - is superior to even lategame armored cars.

Proposed solution:

It's ok if light tanks are better combat units, but they should be worse garrison units. Make armored cars considerably better at being in a garrison. Here, that is what you ought to change:

View attachment 1272460View attachment 1272461

And for the love of all that is good, turn up the suppression value for armored cars, so it's not identical to light tanks.

That would make it economically way more feasible to use armored cars and mass produce them for your garrison.

I'll give my perspective on the changes and adjustments made for the Armored Cars (and Tanks) for THIS patch.

Generally the fact that we made this adjustments now, doesn't prevent us from continue on working and making the future adjustments to the Armored Cars. I hope to make Armored Cars interesting unit that is worth considering as an option, instead of it being relegated to one of those categories:
NEVER USE or ALWAYS USE or GARRISON ONLY. This will likely take some time and more balance adjustments, but hopefully with feedback from players (and that of course includes You!) we will eventually reach that point

Yes, we have identified that one of the current issues when it comes to the Armored Cars balance problems is the fact that they are too expensive when compared with NSB Tank Designs. Without NSB the cost comparison looks somewhat better (non-NSB Tank costs start at 7 IC for GW Light Tank) - and I need to keep that in mind, when balancing the equipment across the DLC combinations.

So this set of the IC cost adjustments for the Armored Cars and NSB tanks is to make that disparity smaller. While I wouldn't mind making Armored Cars even cheaper, I don't want to make cost difference become a problem too much for tanks in non-NSB when comparing with Armored Cars right now.

Another step in this set was to introduce some combat stat changes (getting increased attack values from the Artillery Technologies, and also making their organization and HP higher) - to make them differ a bit more from Light Tanks.

I hope this will give at least a bit of reasoning behind those changes

 

[Zwirbaum]

I appreciate the bug fixes but handicapping light tanks is a little lame. I’m going to again state there needs to be a couple of devs in here communicating for a little bit as comments roll in, and please allow an ability to sue for peace without having to capitulate everyone

As Gorion wrote, yes, we are reading the thread(s). And also I will try to reply to comments as much as possible.

 

[RobbiusBossius]

I'll give my perspective on the changes and adjustments made for the Armored Cars (and Tanks) for THIS patch.

Generally the fact that we made this adjustments now, doesn't prevent us from continue on working and making the future adjustments to the Armored Cars. I hope to make Armored Cars interesting unit that is worth considering as an option, instead of it being relegated to one of those categories:
NEVER USE or ALWAYS USE or GARRISON ONLY. This will likely take some time and more balance adjustments, but hopefully with feedback from players (and that of course includes You!) we will eventually reach that point

Yes, we have identified that one of the current issues when it comes to the Armored Cars balance problems is the fact that they are too expensive when compared with NSB Tank Designs. Without NSB the cost comparison looks somewhat better (non-NSB Tank costs start at 7 IC for GW Light Tank) - and I need to keep that in mind, when balancing the equipment across the DLC combinations.

So this set of the IC cost adjustments for the Armored Cars and NSB tanks is to make that disparity smaller. While I wouldn't mind making Armored Cars even cheaper, I don't want to make cost difference become a problem too much for tanks in non-NSB when comparing with Armored Cars right now.

Another step in this set was to introduce some combat stat changes (getting increased attack values from the Artillery Technologies, and also making their organization and HP higher) - to make them differ a bit more from Light Tanks.

I hope this will give at least a bit of reasoning behind those changes

On the topic of tank balance, do you have any plans in regards to tank chassis balance as a whole? because currently there is 0 reason to use anything beyond the initial tank chassis due to a few factors, here's one example

140% eff cap on heavy TD's here, produced from the start of the game in typical USSR macro
Then, i switch the production lines, which causes me to lose almost 100% of my eff cap in return for what? I get a bit more reliability which doesn't matter, a small increase in armor, which isn't that important, and a speed increase...... in return for nuking my production, why would i ever want to do that?

 

[Zenbeast]

Yes, we have identified that one of the current issues when it comes to the Armored Cars balance problems is the fact that they are too expensive when compared with NSB Tank Designs.

First, thanks for the insight. Second, this continues to cement my belief that the plane and tank designers were not good additions to HOI4. The ability to optimize more than the AI and the added burden of this sort of balancing is not worth it for me.

Why are non-nsb designs so much more expensive in comparison? What is on these tanks that we don't put when we use the designer?

Just give me more variants pre-designer.

 

[AleksPosiv]

Finally the unknown Bogdar is out of the game.

 

[SnöwTiger]

I'll give my perspective on the changes and adjustments made for the Armored Cars (and Tanks) for THIS patch.

Generally the fact that we made this adjustments now, doesn't prevent us from continue on working and making the future adjustments to the Armored Cars. I hope to make Armored Cars interesting unit that is worth considering as an option, instead of it being relegated to one of those categories:
NEVER USE or ALWAYS USE or GARRISON ONLY. This will likely take some time and more balance adjustments, but hopefully with feedback from players (and that of course includes You!) we will eventually reach that point

Yes, we have identified that one of the current issues when it comes to the Armored Cars balance problems is the fact that they are too expensive when compared with NSB Tank Designs. Without NSB the cost comparison looks somewhat better (non-NSB Tank costs start at 7 IC for GW Light Tank) - and I need to keep that in mind, when balancing the equipment across the DLC combinations.

So this set of the IC cost adjustments for the Armored Cars and NSB tanks is to make that disparity smaller. While I wouldn't mind making Armored Cars even cheaper, I don't want to make cost difference become a problem too much for tanks in non-NSB when comparing with Armored Cars right now.

Another step in this set was to introduce some combat stat changes (getting increased attack values from the Artillery Technologies, and also making their organization and HP higher) - to make them differ a bit more from Light Tanks.

I hope this will give at least a bit of reasoning behind those changes

May I ask? Why we can design tanks but we cant design armored cars?

 

[Selenter]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/remove-ludwig-beck-from-the-advisors-of-historical-germany.1733329/

Why does Ludwig Beck remain serving Hitler as a military adviser in the historical game for Germany? This is unhistorical. He is one of the obvious anti-Nazi generals who opposed Hitler.


View attachment 1272478

Please explain why the anti-nazi general is available when playing as historical Germany

 

[FLUX2226]

Yes, we have identified that one of the current issues when it comes to the Armored Cars balance problems is the fact that they are too expensive when compared with NSB Tank Designs. Without NSB the cost comparison looks somewhat better (non-NSB Tank costs start at 7 IC for GW Light Tank) - and I need to keep that in mind, when balancing the equipment across the DLC combinations.

I assume this one would be trickier to change, but one reason I see why NSB light tanks are even able to be so cheap in the first place, is that hardness is the only stat that determines "combat" effectiveness on garrison duty. A garrison-optimized light tank is effectively a Bob Semple tank (slow-moving, barely armored and barely armed) while the armored car pays for speed and firepower which it doesn't need for garrison duty. In reality, the armored car would be a much better choice for garrison than this tank design.

Including more stats in the garrison equation might even make higher tier armored cars a valid garrison option, at the moment they offer virtually no benefit over the interwar model.

 

[LordDorotheus]

I like that you do something about armored cars. But seriously, to me it seems you guys absolutely don't understand the underlying issue with armored cars.

Armored cars and light tanks have an identical suppression value, and both units cost 60 pieces of equipment and 500 manpower per unit in a division template. So, the difference between both comes down to production costs, hardness (equipment losses basically), and the research slot bottleneck.

Let's see, loaded up a game to compare production costs and hardness, both MIOs are fully upgraded:

View attachment 1272458
Cheap light tank vs basic armored car, nevermind it's 2 Steel vs 1 Steel!

As you can see, the light tanks are still not only cheaper, but still offer better hardness. The best armored car I have, with 70% hardness, after researching almost half a dozen tech, now costs 9.3 IC to build, which is more than three times the costs of the still superior basic light tank here.

And a quick word on the research slot bottleneck: lately, with the inclusion of new tech, we lost the liberty to research random stuff on the side. There's no good reason to ever research armored cars, when almost every nation out there already starts with light tank tech, which - as I've shown - is superior to even lategame armored cars.

Proposed solution:

It's ok if light tanks are better combat units, but they should be worse garrison units. Make armored cars considerably better at being in a garrison. Here, that is what you ought to change:

View attachment 1272460View attachment 1272461

And for the love of all that is good, turn up the suppression value for armored cars, so it's not identical to light tanks.

That would make it economically way more feasible to use armored cars and mass produce them for your garrison.

Let me start with thank Paradox for completely ignoring the Chinese players or China again.

And I agree with the quoted opinions on Armoured Car, as well other posts suggesting extending Tank Designer to Armoured Car.

Historically and contemporarily, Mechanic and Armoured Car were more alike than either 1) Mechanic and Truck or 2) Armoured Car and Light Tank.

Improvising on conventional recon vehicles as weapon platforms become more and more common into the war. So, it's awkward for the players not be able to design their own unique Armour Car with the Tank Designer.

To take the historical example, heavy armoured cars - like German SdKfz 234/4, British AEC, American M8 with T26E1 turret, and Russian BA-10 with 76.2 mm gun - are monsters of completely different design purpose than the earlier SdKfz 221, Humber, ME, BA-64.

The heavy armoured cars are designed or built with capacity to function as ad hoc tank destroyers, whereas the light armoured cars are more like recon planes replying on hiding and outrunning hostile units.

They are provided with heavier and heavier weapons, for their enemies are more and more heavily armed. With the improvement of engine and other parts of engineering and design, roles and characteristics of recon light tanks, mechanics, and armoured cars converged.

It's reasonable to say that the requirements of the army calls for different designed of lightly armed and armoured combat vehicles. These vehicles turned out to feature wheels, half-track, or track. Turret, no turret, or open turret, light weapons or heavy cannons ...

Sounds familiar? Why not simply have the armoured cars joining the family of the "armoured vehicle designer"? They belong to it anyway. Why else would the tank designer use wheel design? They are almost exclusively reserved for armoured cars and mechanics.

And when playing Japan (in war against China) or a minor (in war against other minor), somewhat armoured armoured car should be sufficient (similar to panzers I and II and with track, but still an armoured car, sounds familiar?)

Although these designs were largely used for garrison, they had their days on the battle field supporting and fighting with infantries and quite murderous. Their roles and characteristics definitely could not be in even the slightest way be represented with the fixed researched armoured cars, but only by tank designer (which could have done this perfectly.)

So why not?



(Edited for grammar and readability.)

 

[FLUX2226]

May I ask? Why we can design tanks but we cant design armored cars?

Armored cars are a DLC feature and were added before the tank designer, so moving them into the tank designer is difficult until LaR gets integrated into the base game.

 

[Zwirbaum]

On the topic of tank balance, do you have any plans in regards to tank chassis balance as a whole? because currently there is 0 reason to use anything beyond the initial tank chassis due to a few factors, here's one example
View attachment 1272515
140% eff cap on heavy TD's here, produced from the start of the game in typical USSR macro
Then, i switch the production lines, which causes me to lose almost 100% of my eff cap in return for what? I get a bit more reliability which doesn't matter, a small increase in armor, which isn't that important, and a speed increase...... in return for nuking my production, why would i ever want to do that?
View attachment 1272517

Honestly speaking, depends on how you define 'plans'

If by that you mean I have set specific date (e.g. NEXT MONTH) to look into it and rebalance, then unfortunately at the moment no.

If we define plans as something less concrete: "like - yes, I would love to look into chassis balance, costs, module allowances, like secondary turret limits on tanks at some unspecified point" - then yes.

 

[Operosus]

Just wanted to say great work with this war effort! Really seems to have covered a lot and fixed many things. Looking forward to playing it.

Do you know if there’s any plans to allow Greece/Byzantium to receive buffs from the Hagia Sofia? Last time I tested, I formed Byzantium and annexed Turkey, yet didn’t get the buff from the Hagia Sofia monument. Seems a little off to me considering the Byzantines are mentioned in its description.

 

[boba22299]

I’m hoping PDX sees this because among all of the issues of the DLC, to which there are many, this is the thing that irked me the most.
Paradox, if every constitutional monarchy in the game is represented as a spirit, why is it a locked advisor for Iraq. You have given me a boatload of advisors in the DLC that I would like to use, but for some reason Iraq is unique and locks Ghazi, and later his successor, as an advisor that just takes up a slot. These effects could easily simply be a spirit, that get removed if you get rid of the monarchy.
Please be consistent, Paradox. If it’s a spirit in the UK, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and countless others, it should be a spirit for Iraq.

Please add state leaders to the game Alim Khan, Washington Luís, Edelmiro Julián Farrell, Johann Koplenig.
Please add officers for Norway and Switzerland.
And enter Henrik Rogstad into the game.
Why doesn't India get independence when the ruling party changes in Britain?

 

[Cheeseless]

I do hope one of these patches could include a fix/adjustment to the Air Base UI so that it can stretch further down. I'd love to be able to see more air wings without scrolling, especially when using Air Groups that take up even more of the restricted space that UI is allowed to have.

 

[Selenter]

Bug fixes are good, but it upsets me that the developers stubbornly ignore bug reports about localization errors or unhistorical advisors.

 

[Silens]

I hope this will give at least a bit of reasoning behind those changes

I do understand, and I greatly appreciate you guys touching ACs at all. It's my love for ACs speaking here, otherwise I would be indifferent to the changes. So understand any criticism/feedback as wanting that particular unit to shine.

On that note, when talking costs of a unit, it's not just pure IC, but the research slot as well. Those are becoming an increasingly rare commodity. Nations like Germany or Britain have to shine in all three branches of the military, army, navy, and airforce. Going into things like armored cars, before you finished your build-up, is almost irresponsible nowadays.

The perceived value of armored cars has to be seen in that light. It's not just pure stats, or a pure IC comparison, but it's also the opportunity cost of not doing something else with your preciuos research slots.

You did a remarkably good job on the special projects and experimental facilities. If fringe tech, like armored cars, wouldn't have to compete with technological heavy-weights like entire tank chassis, artillery, nuclear research, or better airframes? If it could get into some kind of a parallel research framework for lesser projects, which aren't on the same scale as land cruisers, thermonuclear bombs, fleet subs, or radar? That would greatly enhance the experience and reduce the opportunity cost/research bottleneck issue. Maybe special projects that don't require breakthroughs? Idk, just an idea...

And there is also the issue of old policies not covering new equipment, which I'd like to bring to your attention, since you already are here in such a convenient manner (sorry for that):

If those cranes can help building entire armored trains and railway guns, they should be good enough for other heavy equipment as well.

Thank you for responding to our feedback!

PS: Armored car/mechanized designer when?

 

[rutyruts]

UI

• Fixed tooltip for the achievement Woman in the High Castle

Could the description for the achievement I'm just passing by be adjusted to specify starting nation requirements? The current description makes it seem it could be attained with any starting nation.