What mods are the most popular?
Logic suggests they're perhaps the areas that need first attention
Logic suggests they're perhaps the areas that need first attention
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Not a bad idea. We know the developers are aware of some of the concerns modders have and add tools or changes to the software to help them out. They also track in some manner which mods are most popular, because we have seen a blue thread or two mentioning the most played mods. I have no knowledge or information of any kind outside that, but in my opinion, it would seem the developers have some awareness of the modding space. It would not surprise me that they even directly communicate with some modders for different reasons, such as how to keep the modding community healthy. But that is me assuming a lot.
For players who bought HOI4 on steam they can go to the workshop and see for themselves. Though the listing can be tedious to dive into. Because of that and because I have a good shot of caffeine in me, I will make a list here.
Most Subscribed: (Note: the list is in order of Unique Visitors, but I chose to report the actual current subscription count. This way you can see which mods have had the most total subscriptions, by order of the list, and see how many subscriptions the mods have as of today. I also skipped past the few graphics or music only mods that require another mod to work.)
The Road to 56 with 862,507 current subscribers.
Millennium Dawn: Modern Day Mod with 693,696.
Kaiserreich with 748,905.
Hearts of Iron IV: The Great War with 554,415.
Player-Led Peace Conferences with 551,684.
Coloured Buttons with 323,239.
Old World Blues: Legacy with 202,660. (Note: Legacy means older version to run on older version of HOI4)
Kaiserreich Old Version with 159,841
52 Chinese Localisation with 352,794.
Cold War the Iron Curtain with 208,023.
Old World Blues with 236,511.
Endsieg: Ultimate Victory with 180,670.
No Division Limit with 135,695.
The New Order: Last Days of Europe with 207,729.
More Division Icons with 160,854.
Modern Day 4 97,632.
The Great War Reduc [Beta] with 174,001.
BlackICE Historical Immersion Mod with 123,274.
State Transfer Tool with 157,854.
Expert AI 4.0 with 127,814.
End of a New Beginning with 123,300.
KeithD68, the next line is not aimed at you, but at anyone who bothered to read this post. I would not try to do the general public's contemporary method of forming an opinion by reading only the title and one stat that I provided. Some of these mods have other mods inside of them. Many of them change many things. It will take a much deeper dive to try and determine what the HOI4 community would like added to the game. I only provided this list due to a caffeine high and because KeithD68 brought up a good question I wanted to explore...while I...had the....energy.
Ok, caffeine high is over.
*Edit for grammar and misspellings.
- 3
- 2
- 1
I would see much possible improvement in the diplomatic sector of the game. Peace conferences are high on my own list of priorities but also meaningful interaction with other countries. Air rework as well.
- 3
I think that would be a bit too much. As it stands I personally feel that Air Aces are partially just there to compensate for air units not getting generals.
- 2
- 1
- 1
While a nice list, it really doesn't cover what the question was asking for. That list shows number of subscribers for each mod but not the number of people (like me) who subscribe to a mod once to see what it is/does and then disable it and go back to whatever I actually enjoy. It also doesn't quantify the overlaps...i.e., people who play with multiple mods at the same time.
We know (because we have seen Dev posts with these statistics) that they can track and show statistics for the numbers that actually get played. This might be tied to either the launcher or (more likely, since these statistics predate the launcher) Steam. So they wouldn't show statistics for people who launch directly from the *.exe.
- 3
- 1
also the internal politics of the countries would also have to be reworked
- 1
I had a suggestion that in order to better represent the effects of mobilization to the civilian economy: any mobilization law above early mobilization should impose a ticking stability penalty, while below would give a ticking stability bonus. This would encourage nations to not remain on war economy the entire game, and actually balance the two. It also would implement a system without severely effecting already existing systems. Its not like theres a way to really exploit this, since obviously there is no benefit to civilian economy aside from the stability increase.
- 2
- 1
I felt that was the only missing thing from the original post. While I'm not quite convinced that the entire system should be redesigned, it has been repeatedly shown that Air is the most unbalanced systems in the whole game. CAS is more powerful than armies, and at high agility can defeat fighters. Stratigic bombers are so expensive and so hard to support that people rarely use them to attack factories. Rockets just dont work right. Reliability is a meaningless resource for aircraft. And transport planes have fluctuated between being OP and nerfed soo often that they have become the most useless and valuble piece of equipment in the game. While I understand the reservations about creating a equipment designer for aircraft, I have concluded that it probably will be the only solution to these problems. Instead of building preset equipment types players would be able to design aircraft for specific missions, so they could build long range scout planes or decent long range escort fighters for their bombers. You could build cheap interceptors long before the rocket technology tech. Perhaps you could even build long range transport planes. Planes would most likely see the most diverse set of designs per game as players would be building the planes they need for their various missions. At the very least, if nothing else, they need to add new planes to the existing tree. We need transport technologies so that we can actually build transport planes with the range they need to be worth it but without the stats which would make them OP. We need another scout tier so that we can eventually be using them to spy on our enemies far away. Theres just so much missing from the air system even while the overall system works well.
- 1
I think 'anything above early mobilisation' sets the bar too high. but I have added a stability drain to the top two tiers in the Waltzing Matilda mod, and it seems to work well. You simply need to take actions to boost stability once in a while - which is highly historical.
An airplane designer would be splendid, but above all others it really needs to have an added variable dimension. What I mean by that is that 'speed' relies on two quite distinct effects, such that just having additive and multiplicative effects on the 'Speed' stat really wouldn't hack it properly. Drag and weight need to be taken account of separately, because there are design strategies that rely on the imbalance between the two. Altitude is also a feature that is conspicuous by its absence in the current system; doctrines and missions that make particular use of different altitude levels are thus effectively impossible to represent meaningfully. Finally, pilots and the availability/value of flight crews isn't really represented, which means that taking high levels of air casualties can only be punished through an excessively high industrial cost on replacement 'planes. The result is zerg-fleets of obsolete fighters playing whack-a-mole and massed CAS winning battles that they shouldn't even be at.
Sorry - that turned into a bit of a rant
- 2
- 1
I believe that territorial claims should gain weight and preferences over the territories bound by a country in the rework of the peace conferences, despite the fact that they have a lower overall score in a war
I also think it could be limited conflicts, claim a peace or white peace treaty to obtain some colonial territories without having to conquer the metropolis to achieve peace
Also territorial claims should speed up a war justification and be less punitive on the stability of the aggressor country in case of war
I also think it could be limited conflicts, claim a peace or white peace treaty to obtain some colonial territories without having to conquer the metropolis to achieve peace
Also territorial claims should speed up a war justification and be less punitive on the stability of the aggressor country in case of war
- 3
- 1
How about instead of adding any new mechanics you actually fix the frontline Ai positioning
- 3
- 2
I know, old post but I just caught up with this thread. I think you missed what @SchwarzKatze was asking for (and what made me abandon making bug reports).ok let me show you.
This is how jira looks like
View attachment 805432
This is how mantis looks like
View attachment 805433
and this is Azure
View attachment 805448
Obviously none of these examples are any from out database, but public example images (I scrubbed names just to be safe and courteous), but these are common systems for handling bugs and they all look somewhat the same, at least in general structure.
As you can see all have a reporter tag attached to them. exporting them would like whatever name and assignee to those jiras (say in a text file with said datastructure). Scrubbing away that data would be, well, I wouldn't wanna do that.
Current state would also be attached to this data, same as repro steps and files, which also can contain meta information about a user. Maybe I wrote "I did this with X tester name" and now it is in the description, you have access to it and bam, now you have some personal info.
Maybe someone has their real name as username, it gets saved in a file, someone opens it and bam, more personal info exposed. Now imagine this as a datastructure, and the data is all intermingled like so, just trying untangle that from the "bug" information would be a nightmare if even possible.
And if something goes wrong at that export it could lead to all sorts of things being leaked
Just to imagine the sheer size of our database, the amount of issues is a lot bigger than the public bug forum here. That is not a brag mind you, it is simply to give you a perspective of the amount of data being processed by any company.
If on top of this developers can resolve and QA can create a lot of issues in one day, like a lot lot.
Even if I hypotethically managed to export everything, scrub everything, absolutely nuke everything. How would I show it to you? Its just a big exported file that is supposed to run on a server via a webbrowser, its not like I can just link it in google drive and you can scrub through it.
Now I am saying this just to give a perspective on how this all work, not to just be a "debbie downer", but to explain the sheer logistical improbabilities that would have to be overcome. Its not just "one" problem, its every problem.
Thats on top of people that would have to be convinced internally.
Im not saying it is an impossible thing, but an improbable one. There is probably a smart way of handling it, but I don't have those answers now, and I just wanted to explain why it would not be an easy thing, like just flipping a switch
I hope that is at least a bit informative if nothing else
To read and create bug reports in the forum, one has to authenticate as well - with a Paradoxplaza account. (The former is a huge problem in itself imho.) What you are saying is that Jira does not allow fine-grained enough authorization to let players see only what they are allowed to. The save games and logs uploaded here in the forum for all to see frequently contain the OS username too btw.
How and which tools you use internally is not really pertinent here. There has to be a workflow already in place for translating between the bug reports forum and the internal tracker. Maybe it is fully automated or a QA person copy-pastes reports of interest into Jira with a link back to the forum. Whatever it is, and particularly if only a small portion of tracked issues have a public counterpart, it should be relatively easy to update the public report's status according to the internal issue's status. Again, this might be a Jira automated action or doing a few clicks manually to assign the right thread labels.
No scrubbing of a data dump needed, just the status (invalid, fix pending, confirmed etc.) and perhaps the target milestone fields flowing back to the forum bug report. No personal data, no internal reports involved.
- 3
- 1
Afaik there is no support for that on the forum side for that atm and no integration into the database for it.
The forum team is a separate entity entirely outside the scope of PDS, and while I personally don't think it's a bad idea within reason, it's not something that I can champion myself at this stage as I have other internal stuff that I want to champion and deal with first.
I think you are underestimating the work required to make such a thing work and the amount of people needed to get involved from various stakeholders
- 9
- 2
The reporting is done from within the game itself on start-up. It reports the
name and remote_file_id fields from each enabled mod descriptor file. This works even when Steam is not currently running.Bug reports do already have labels like "confirmed", "duplicate" etc. Even before they did, developers/QA would write something equivalent as a comment in the thread. So nothing is missing on the forum side in technical terms as far as I can tell. The problem is and has always been that only a tiny fraction of threads receive such updates.
As an example from a bug report thread:
That's all there is to it. Now I don't know @Earl Obelus of Brittany's exact affiliation with PDS but it does look like (a) they had access to the internal tracker, (b) they called those working on the fix "our team" and (c) they updated the external tracker accordingly.
I'm not expecting you individually to champion anything and I'm glad you take time to at least discuss such topics. I just find it stunning that from your description, scaling this up to all public bug reports (a handful per day on average) seems to be an organizational challenge at PDS.
- 3
I was more considering a more automated system that mirrored the internal status of the database and presented it as is,
There is no organizational challenges about going through issues manually and copy pasting them into the database if thats what you were refering to, more like a matter of priority. In fact the last time someone did scrub through a part of the forum was today, but they probably missed flipping the sign; or rather I miscommunicated the task, which is something that we and I can get better at.
However I will never force anyone to write in the forum though, thats on their own perorgative as most developers do not want to have a public facing persona. Yes, that includes writing in the bug forum. Flipping a sign is ok tho, ill look into it.
Hopefully our cadence will increase but it requires that the QA team stands on a stable ground with good processes. The studio split that happened last year allows us more leeway into improvement in these areas, and I admit that in regards to player communication about bug fixes we have not been as communicative as players expect us to. It is not unimportant, I just need to find a time to deal with it in a sane manner, a lot of small tasks that QA does besides bug hunting often stack up
As for reporting issues internally we usually check if its actually a bug before transfering it to the internal database, so we are not stricly copy pasting issues into the database, but are actually regressing them. In a recent cleanup of bugs 33/164 issues were reportable, others were already fixed, wad or otherwise unable to be reported. So approx 20% were actually issues. So when we do these regressions it is not only going through a couple of issues and copypasting them, its verifying that they are actually issues.
So there are no issues doing it, but it takes time to verify them, so it becomes a matter of priority and where we are in the project.
- 13
- 2
I'm a little bit upset navy was not mentioned in the roadmap. I wish if custodian team comes true, navy rebalance is one of their top priority.
- 4
- 4
Hello @Arheo ,
thanks for sharing the roadmap with the community.
Among the many interesting ideas that I read, I was also hoping to find plans to address the issue of AI not being able to handle naval production.
That is: AI is unable to build ships with designs newer than 1936, especially Capital ships. It deletes ships from the production queue to replace them with inferiors templates. New templates come with all slots filled with main batteries, which may be effective, but not historical and it kind of defeats the purpose and fun of having a ship designer. This was reported multiple times and only partially addressed by setting a rule that prevents AI from canceling production of ships that are at least 25% complete.
(some of the above may no be 100% accurate because I haven't played in a while - but the overall problem still stands)
I've read in some posts that this "works as designed" and that it is a design choice to actually help the AI.
I think that AI being able to handle naval production in a way that determines a somewhat decent representation of WW2 naval designs and fleets is a core feature of the game. More so with the release of MtG. This feature is missing.
I stopped playing the game a while ago because of this.
It''s no fun to start in 36, research capitals, build them over the years , just to confront only older enemy AI capital ships, pre-existing at game start.
If coding the AI into building newer ship designs and/or behave in a somewhat more historical way is too much of an effort to satisfy this mainly single player need, then I'm all the way for a simpler solution like "just give it to the AI", for instance, by forcing the AI to build certain pre-defined templates.
Calling this a "design choice" sounds like a poor excuse. I'd rather read that the issue will not be addressed because single player is just a niche.
It would still be a core feature that was never delivered, but at least the explanation would sound more honest.
Thanks for any feedback.
Best,
nk
thanks for sharing the roadmap with the community.
Among the many interesting ideas that I read, I was also hoping to find plans to address the issue of AI not being able to handle naval production.
That is: AI is unable to build ships with designs newer than 1936, especially Capital ships. It deletes ships from the production queue to replace them with inferiors templates. New templates come with all slots filled with main batteries, which may be effective, but not historical and it kind of defeats the purpose and fun of having a ship designer. This was reported multiple times and only partially addressed by setting a rule that prevents AI from canceling production of ships that are at least 25% complete.
(some of the above may no be 100% accurate because I haven't played in a while - but the overall problem still stands)
I've read in some posts that this "works as designed" and that it is a design choice to actually help the AI.
I think that AI being able to handle naval production in a way that determines a somewhat decent representation of WW2 naval designs and fleets is a core feature of the game. More so with the release of MtG. This feature is missing.
I stopped playing the game a while ago because of this.
It''s no fun to start in 36, research capitals, build them over the years , just to confront only older enemy AI capital ships, pre-existing at game start.
If coding the AI into building newer ship designs and/or behave in a somewhat more historical way is too much of an effort to satisfy this mainly single player need, then I'm all the way for a simpler solution like "just give it to the AI", for instance, by forcing the AI to build certain pre-defined templates.
Calling this a "design choice" sounds like a poor excuse. I'd rather read that the issue will not be addressed because single player is just a niche.
It would still be a core feature that was never delivered, but at least the explanation would sound more honest.
Thanks for any feedback.
Best,
nk
- 3
- 1
- 1
- 1
Basic things needs to be improved before add new funcrionalities
Planes teleporting to far air zones even if enemy controls all the surrounding areas
Navy combats that last months vs a submarine while the enemy is executing an amphibious landing in the same sea area
Airborne attack bug, that convert defender into the attacker applying all the maluses to defender.
These kind of basic things need to be fixed with high priority
Planes teleporting to far air zones even if enemy controls all the surrounding areas
Navy combats that last months vs a submarine while the enemy is executing an amphibious landing in the same sea area
Airborne attack bug, that convert defender into the attacker applying all the maluses to defender.
These kind of basic things need to be fixed with high priority
- 5
- 1
I've never agreed more with a comment on a forum thread!
It is perfectly understandable that the management of the Economy is complex and for some, perhaps, it is a "puzzle"; but if we look at its positive aspects, some players might change their minds.
A system with money could allow countries to buy other weapons: Ships, Planes, Tanks, Trains, Weapons, Trucks, etc. and even resources as precious as Fuel, Steel or Rubber. Money that could be paid to other countries to build your factories that you can't build because you don't have enough...
From my point of view, the potential that the eventual inclusion of money and the reform of the commercial system would add would be gigantic (despite the increase in difficulty, of course).
Let's not even talk about a banking system where money can be lent to other countries with an interest rate hahahaha
PS: But hey, let me dream!
- 1
- 1
- Status