:shrugs: I didn't see Arheo post in the thread, but since my post is also a reminder to me not to close this thread, it's somewhat needed regardless of who else posts.
-
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.
:shrugs: I didn't see Arheo post in the thread, but since my post is also a reminder to me not to close this thread, it's somewhat needed regardless of who else posts.
It was something of a happening on the forum. I'm just surprised that one of the mods wasn't informed, or the thread itself isn't specially marked (until now) and that you had to more or less independently decide to continue to allow the thread.:shrugs: I didn't see Arheo post in the thread, but since my post is also a reminder to me not to close this thread, it's somewhat needed regardless of who else posts.
but I guess I'm getting off the original purpose of the thread, so I'll just stop here.
Next Wednesday? I thought the new Developer's Corner were every other week.Next wednesday, all will be revealed
Yes, but this Wednesday is not in an other week, so no ice cream this Wednesday*.
QED
* Actually, since the latest "Developer Corner" came out on 18 May, the next should follow two weeks from then, on the 32nd of May. (Checks notes.) First of June.
- 3
Does this mean we are receiving a naval rework patch?Next wednesday, all will be revealed
If by "naval rework" you mean "the naval targeting attribute on aircraft will now prioritize bombing ships that are incorrectly set up in the game's database so they get deleted faster in game" then, yes, we are getting a naval rework.
- 3
The Polish Grom class destroyers should have a lvl 3 engine, similar to the French Fantasque Class destroyers. They were the faster than the Fantasque and much faster than similar tier 2 destroyers like the Tribal, Narvik, Sims, Soldati, Gerard Callenburgh, Asashio, Gnevny, Regele Ferdinand, or any other destroyer of the same time period.
- 3
- 1
@twillie96
Ok, we'll probably add this to the list of proposed changes (unless someone else objects).
What about the two improved Grom-class DD ordered in 1939?
1. Should they be added to the 1939 construction queue at 1 to 5% (ORP Huragan) and 0% (ORP Orkan) readiness?
2. Should they be just 2 more Grom-class DD or should Improved Grom be a new in-game class? If yes, what should be the difference? (improved AA to lv.2?)
Ok, we'll probably add this to the list of proposed changes (unless someone else objects).
What about the two improved Grom-class DD ordered in 1939?
1. Should they be added to the 1939 construction queue at 1 to 5% (ORP Huragan) and 0% (ORP Orkan) readiness?
2. Should they be just 2 more Grom-class DD or should Improved Grom be a new in-game class? If yes, what should be the difference? (improved AA to lv.2?)
- 2
- 1
You mean a pro-naval rework this time? Since there ain't much left to worsen after MtG.
They've bashfully admitted that themselves:
- 2
How do you read these lines, then? Given both how companies rarely admit their own faults in plain words, and the fact they apparently have been unwilling to expand on that DLC experience too.
I took it to mean that they didnt plan to be near as detailed and wide/far-reaching with these changes compared to that patch. That the breadth and depth would be lesser with this if compared.
- 3
+1 to Corpse Fool's interpretation - the words you've quoted @Dimmie_Dumm don't meant what you've inferred, either semantically or even in corporate vagueness.
In terms of expanding on DLC, it's something that's fairly rare. I couldn't say for sure why this is, but an expansion requiring another expansion necessarily limits the potential customer base. As far as I'm aware, since moving to the CK2 model (which was a while ago now, I feel old!) there have been no "expansions of expansions".
If you're talking about things not changing since MtG though, I'm 99% confident that isn't true, in that there have been changes to values and databases since, and at the very least bugfixes. But in terms of wholesale change, which expansions have been heavily reworked since?
Thanks for the reply. the Improved Grom was slightly larger than the previous version and the layout was altered, but no major changes with regards to armament. You could make an argument for increasing the hull to lvl 3 for that, but not really necessary. Adding at least ORP Huragan to construction at 5% completion would be fair, but Orkan you can just add yourself.
Grom and Blyskawica were laid down in 1935 already and completed in 37, so these should be somehow represented in the 36 start. Either at 35% completion or from the focus: "Study British Ship Designs", the latter adding the tech for 36 destroyer, battery and torpedoes, the destroyer design and laying down two Grom classes at 40-50% completion. Personally, I am in favor of the latter.
- 3
OK. it seems the new proposed changes would look like this:
Poland:
Grom-Class DD: upgrade engine from lv.2 to lv.3
1939 scenario:
add two Grom class DD to the construction queue:
Focus tree:
Study British Ship Designs:
Should create the Grom class DD (including changes as suggested above)
Spawn 2 Grom class DD:
Is there anyone who disagrees or thinks that more things should be added (Poland or any other nation)?
Poland:
Grom-Class DD: upgrade engine from lv.2 to lv.3
1939 scenario:
add two Grom class DD to the construction queue:
- ORP Huragan (5% readiness)
- ORP Orkan (0% readiness)
Focus tree:
Study British Ship Designs:
Should create the Grom class DD (including changes as suggested above)
Spawn 2 Grom class DD:
- ORP Grom
- ORP Blyskawica
Is there anyone who disagrees or thinks that more things should be added (Poland or any other nation)?
- 2
- 1
Please consider giving Coastal Defence Ships access to Battlecruiser armor as that is needed to make them more historically accurate instead of just slower cruisers without the reason why they were slower.Next wednesday, all will be revealed
- 1
- 1
- 8
- 2
Yes, but again they were quite obsolete! With the current mechanics I fear it might make them too OP as we see with CCs and BBs ingame. Take Norway, lost their two coastal defence ships because they were ridicolously obsolete.
You don't have to worry about coastal defense ships ever being OP as they are relatively slow and that is the most important naval stat in HoI4. Norway didn't lose their ships because they were obsolete, they lost them because they were outnumbered 10 to 2 by ships not that much smaller armed with torpedoes and they were slow. Giving them better armor wont suddenly make them able to win that battle. But they were slow,old and quite frankly not very impressive.
The main reason for my suggestion has to do with Sweden as they did have some modern coastal defense ships. Sverige class was constructed at the end of WW1, but were upgraded with modern fire control, new engines and AA guns right before WW2 started, making them about as modern as any ship. They were also used like actual capital ships rather then Noway that sent them alone against destroyers. There are claims that they played a major role in preventing Germany from invading. In game it's very easy to invade Sweden as the weakness of CDS makes the Swedish navy a non-factor.
My goal is not to make CDS OP in any way, just that they should be as "good" as they were. I don't think it will be worth building new ones, even with this change. But they should be worth using or even upgrading the ones you have, rather then just scuttling them to free up manpower for actually useful units.
I have actually tested them as it wasn't hard to make a mod for this. Only issue I had was that I didn't know how to make an icon for BC armor as it needed to be it's own armor class. They more or less performed as expected. 2 CDS more or less filled the role of 1 regular capital ship, but required more escorts and would be totally useless without escorts as the low speed makes them torpedo magnets (remember Norway).
Last edited:
- 4
- 1