Patch Notes | Operation SHOULDER

[Limyx826]

As the community heavily debated on the armoured car and tanks balance, could we have an open beta patch just for balancing this part? Or we will need to wait for April war effort patch to see the next changes while uncertain whether the changes will please the community and the devs?

As many had said, armoured car stats at the moment doesn't given players any more incentive to produce those other than the ones already researched at the game start. Tanks designed from tank designer in many ways can be optimised to even cover the place that armoured car should had been. I hope that the game designers will consider more about the balance between the two.

 

[MordredViking]

Thats great but can you do the same thing for Germany? Every ship starts with Blohm & Voss MIO. Submarines should be default to HDW as it is a dedicated Submarine Designer.

I plan to tackle the others over time as time allows.

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):

View attachment 1272524
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?

More related to the Supersonics / Motherships / Intercontinental Bombers fix, but thanks for pointing those out. Will try to take a look soon(tm).

Cool, but I never knew Supermarine designed the Gloster Gladiator, or De Haviland the Bristol Blenheim...

I hate to nitpick, but Germany for example only starts with MIOs assigned to planes historically designed by the MIO in question. Since Heinkel is unavailable for medium airframes (that's another story), the He 111 starts without a MIO, not arbitrarily with Focke Wulf. That seems to make perfect sense for a historical start date, so can we please have the same treatment for other nations, or at least more consistency?

Nitpicking over; now I'm gonna take the game out for a rip.

I went back and forth on this a LOT when going through the allocations, and ended up deciding to go with assigning MIOs rather than not, as I assumed that players would just go ahead and do that themselves as soon as they could. It was always a pet peeve of mine that equipment already in production didn't have designers assigned.

Is it ideal, no, is it better than it was... I think so.

"Added Supersonic Jets, Motherships and Intercontinental Bombers to MIOs"

THANK YOU!

Always nice to see messages like this

 

[ClunkedIt]

That's just what historically happened though. 1-man turrets were absolute ass garbage, having 1 guy be the gunner, loader and commander of the tank made them shit at all 3 jobs due to having to multitask. 2-man turrets still had the commander multitask as loader preventing him from always keeping situational awareness. 3-man turrets were the sweet spot because now every member could focus on their one job rather than having to multitask.

Yep, totally get that and a great point.

But not every tank built was a "main battle tank" so to speak.
I'm just looking for some variety. Is it possible that we could build a one man turret flame tank/recon which is 20% cheaper because we've got less turret and associated mechanisms.

Or perhaps tank destroyers with two man turrets for the same - so have turret size be a meaningful impact on the IC cost.

Or gatekeep 3 man turrets behind improved chassis?

Everyone builds three man turrets for everything, unless you are making garrisons.

 

[scubasteve1233]

Heads up, we just applied a hotfix, Manoeuvre CHIRO:

• You can now once again retreat to friendly controlled provinces even if they are not owned by friends

Is this save game compatible?

 

[Trans_Atlantic_Drawl]

I went back and forth on this a LOT when going through the allocations, and ended up deciding to go with assigning MIOs rather than not, as I assumed that players would just go ahead and do that themselves as soon as they could. It was always a pet peeve of mine that equipment already in production didn't have designers assigned.

Is it ideal, no, is it better than it was... I think so.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate your time.

The dilemma between historical authenticity and gameplay must be tricky so I can understand your decision even if I disagree. I hope you give is some more consideration. In cases like this, I wonder if a set of game rules dealing with historical content would be an appropriate compromise? This could grant players the choice (for example) of historical vs available MIOs at game start, as well as a host of other options i.e.. plausible vs alien space bats alt history.

 

[lilcritt]

Heads up, we just applied a hotfix, Manoeuvre CHIRO:

• You can now once again retreat to friendly controlled provinces even if they are not owned by friends

THANK YOU FOR THE QUICK FIX!!!

 

[Timmysoboy]

Well, if devs are reading things, I'll throw my broken record request out: can we make it so medals can be assigned when divisions are spawned through national focuses, etc? This will let me give unique medals for flavor (make the rats of tobruk gain hot weather acclimatization)

Probably high effort, low impact.

 

[stingray20]

Thank you for acknowledging this problem. I just hope it doesn't take months before this issue is fixed.

I hope it doesn’t take months either, hopefully they can just go in and undo whatever rule they had for this and revert it back to how it was before until they can fix the retreating across frontlines issue a different way

 

[Zwirbaum]

I hope it doesn’t take months either, hopefully they can just go in and undo whatever rule they had for this and revert it back to how it was before until they can fix the retreating across frontlines issue a different way

Hotfix for the issue was released couple hours ago

 

[William9113]

I do appreciate the quick hot fix and the fixing of some longer time bugs. I would like to see that effort continue, such as adding super heavy railway guns to the relevant MIO or super heavy howitzers to the artillery one

I do like that devs are willing to make changes to give armored cars a purpose, but I’m not so sure light tanks deserved a nerf. I think slight buffs and new mechanics for the reconnaissance stat would help here, such as slight bonuses to artillery attack per reconnaissance point

 

[Sietrin]

new mechanics for the reconnaissance stat

Paired with complete rework of tactics (like making them completly dependent on the composition of units) and making them matter much more, that alone would make recon useful

 

[Ozy]

Heads up, we just applied a hotfix, Manoeuvre CHIRO:

• You can now once again retreat to friendly controlled provinces even if they are not owned by friends

HUGE appreciations for this speedy response, this was truly a game-breaker I was worried I wouldn't get to play again for another several weeks! Props to the devs for the rapid fix!

 

[Caeric]

Yep, totally get that and a great point.

But not every tank built was a "main battle tank" so to speak.
I'm just looking for some variety. Is it possible that we could build a one man turret flame tank/recon which is 20% cheaper because we've got less turret and associated mechanisms.

Or perhaps tank destroyers with two man turrets for the same - so have turret size be a meaningful impact on the IC cost.

Or gatekeep 3 man turrets behind improved chassis?

Everyone builds three man turrets for everything, unless you are making garrisons.

I agree with that, making them cheaper makes sense.

Probably make fixed superstructure even cheaper given how few moving parts that involves compared to a rotating turret ring.

 

[vermicious knid]

I agree with that, making them cheaper makes sense.

Probably make fixed superstructure even cheaper given how few moving parts that involves compared to a rotating turret ring.

Stugs were substantially cheaper than an actual tank built on the same chassis while being just as effective (or moreso) at certain roles.

That should be one of the benchmarks for a correctly calibrated tank designer.

 

[FLUX2226]

I agree with that, making them cheaper makes sense.

Probably make fixed superstructure even cheaper given how few moving parts that involves compared to a rotating turret ring.

Stugs were substantially cheaper than an actual tank built on the same chassis while being just as effective (or moreso) at certain roles.

That should be one of the benchmarks for a correctly calibrated tank designer.

Something that I believe is just as important as making fixing superstructures cheaper: Splitting them into two variants, open and closed. Otherwise it's not possible to represent both an open top SPG and a heavily armored assault gun, they were fundamentally different. Possible implementation I just made up:

The open variant gives a big penalty to hardness and breakthrough compared to a turret, but offers an equally big cost reduction modifier and improves soft and hard attack due to more comfortable working conditions for the crew.

The closed variant gives a small penalty to breakthrough, but doesn't lose hardness and still offers a small cost reduction, while bringing a bigger gun to the battlefield.

 

[Ossiv]

I agree with that, making them cheaper makes sense.

Probably make fixed superstructure even cheaper given how few moving parts that involves compared to a rotating turret ring.

Fixed superstructure should give a large cost reduction, together with reduced breakthrough. StuG III used the same chassis as Panzer III, but StuG (fixed superstructure, 75mm gun) production cost was only 70 percent of Panzer III (3 man turret, 50 mm gun) production cost.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

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

It would also make armoured cars a better alternative to light tanks, which would be great.

Make armoured cars cheaper rather than light tanks more expensive.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

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

That's half the problem though. Nobody uses IW Light Tanks for actual combat. It's only for garrisons. You gotta make armoured cars better so that people use them on other units besides garrisons. If you made them cheaper, then they would be a good choice rather than tanks for early mot. divs.

This update basically made LTs more expensive and made medium tanks more attractive as they only got a +50% increase in IC rather than a +100% increase in IC for LTs.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

What is on these tanks that we don't put when we use the designer?

Easy maintenance mainly.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

Does anyone really think submarines (surface raiders historically, which could occasionally dive) were totally immune to gunfire,ramming and floatplane bombing, and/or these 3 options only ever existed for destroyers

I mean, ramming was a non-issue. However, I agree that floatplanes should give sub attack. However, I have no idea how to balance it as floatplanes would become too good as it doesn't give some of the historical nerfs like, 'You can only use floatplanes in daytime'