Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karlito]

In HoI4, the tech tree will be smaller, so for example, rather than having to research separately infantry small arms, infantry motars, infantry machine guns, and infantry anti-tank weapons (as one does in HoI3), you'll simply have to research infantry equipment. So yeah, the tech tree is smaller in a sense, but the number of techs you'll be allowed to research simultaneously has also been reduced. It's not 'dumbing down', so much as it is cutting out most of the meaningless decisions, so the ones that the player does make will have more impact.

[Jopax]

That stuff wasn't actually cut completely, just moved to a more sensible location. You still get to upgrade all that stuff, but instead of using research to do it, you upgrade it using field expirience you aquire by training and fighting with your units.

Which makes an incredible amount of sense really. Because if you have tanks in the field who fight and give valuable feedback to the engineers then they're able to update one of the four things (same four as in HoI3) according to that feedback. Tanks need more oomph, no problem, up the gun, need more speed? Tune up the engine. And the best thing about this is that it really reflects how things were and are done.

Field expirience provides continous upgrades to existing equipment while engineering and research gives you new shiny stuff.

[Sergarr]

So.... it's basically like research in HoI 2? Awww, I quite liked the more detailed research a la HoI 1, myself, and was glad when I saw them expanding the research tree in HoI 3.

On that matter, I would also like to see more detail on combat level. The current model of "two lines of brigades randomly targeting and shooting each other, with any advantages/disadvantages simply altering the shooting/"defending against shooting" rate" doesn't do well to simulate the effects of unit-types like rocket artillery and of combat mobility allowing attackers to focus fire defensive positions in a certain place rather than trying to attack them all at once.

[BlindKitty]

Oy, the research in HoI III wasn't all the rage either, to be honest. The kind of a problem I have with the 'field experience' stuff is that it will force you into a war early - and what's more, it seems like it will be a good move to, for example, start a colonial war early to get some field experience, because you can't get the same result via research. Which makes kind of a sense, but on the other hand, it should logically lead to Italy having better equipment across the board than Germany, since they were fighting Ethiopia in 1936. Not to mention Russian tanks that were build without any reasonable input from field experience, yet were superior to other tanks of the era.

The research, at the same time, seems to be completely linear and what is worse - streamlined. If it will be year-bottlenecked, like in HoI 3, it will be again rush at January to get better tanks, then better infantry, than airplanes etc. (permute for your personal strategy). I would much rather see a little more complex tech tree, with actual technologies leading to improvements in equipment, not just generic 'better infantry' techs. Like, you know, 'riveted armor' then 'cast armor', or something like that, and some of those techs would grant you bonuses. Preferably those bonuses would be procedurally assigned at the beginning of each playthrough and hidden from the player before researching given tech.
Example: one playthrough 'riveted armor' might mean +2 to your tank's armor, and 'cast armor' +1; next time it would be +1 for riveted, and +2 for cast; or even 0 for riveted and +3 for cast. That way it would be harder to optimize research, and you would sometimes waste time and money on useless technology. You know, like in real life.

But maybe you are right, it's not as much 'dumbing down' as moving the focus elsewhere - field experience. Whether this turns out to be a good idea or a bad one remains to be seen.

On that matter, I would also like to see more detail on combat level. The current model of "two lines of brigades randomly targeting and shooting each other, with any advantages/disadvantages simply altering the shooting/"defending against shooting" rate" doesn't do well to simulate the effects of unit-types like rocket artillery and of combat mobility allowing attackers to focus fire defensive positions in a certain place rather than trying to attack them all at once.

That would be great. But probably also resources - consuming, as anything more complex would probably require more processing time... Just look at the turn times in Gary Grigsby's games.

[Knave]

But guys, if Paradox doesn't strip/dumb down research - how will they fix research in a $15 DLC a year from now??

[Jopax]

Yeah, wars would be a more attractive option if they weren't also introducing some other things. Like field training which gives units xp and field xp at the cost of some equipment and manpower drain. Or the new expeditionary forces thing where you can send units to fight in civil wars and whatnot which would also gain you xp.

Also I think they'll be taking into account certain things when it comes to tech. Like the better designed USSR tanks, those will probably be slightly better armored from the get go compared to some of the contemporary designs of other nations. At least I hope they will. And from what I've gathered, upgrading tech will still give your a greater edge compared to simply customizing things with field xp. So while Germany might lack field expirience, nothing says they won't have just a higher tech level in a certain area like armor that will give them a clear edge there. And this creates an interesting dynamic that they've talked about.

Taking all things into account you can either spam reliable, field tested stuff with the risk of falling behind, or you could try and modernize as soon as you get the chance, suffering a slower production while the factories retool and perhaps a lower overall production since the new stuff will surely be more complex. This will lead to a more sensible game I think where you'll see Germany probably spamming Pz4's troghout the war while continually modifying them and then reserving a smaller amount of production for the more advanced designs to make sure they don't fall behind too much, just like it happened historically.

Honestly, the more I talk about this damn game the more I just want to dive in and mess about with all the new things because they all sound so cool and fun to use

[Sergarr]

Preferably those bonuses would be procedurally assigned at the beginning of each playthrough and hidden from the player before researching given tech.
Example: one playthrough 'riveted armor' might mean +2 to your tank's armor, and 'cast armor' +1; next time it would be +1 for riveted, and +2 for cast; or even 0 for riveted and +3 for cast. That way it would be harder to optimize research, and you would sometimes waste time and money on useless technology. You know, like in real life.

This is a horrible idea. It'll either make no meaningful difference, if the variable bonuses are low, or it'll make success mostly dependent on your luck, if bonuses are high. It's bad. Grand strategies have no place for "haha, you chose poorly!" elements like that.

On that matter, I would also like to see more detail on combat level. The current model of "two lines of brigades randomly targeting and shooting each other, with any advantages/disadvantages simply altering the shooting/"defending against shooting" rate" doesn't do well to simulate the effects of unit-types like rocket artillery and of combat mobility allowing attackers to focus fire defensive positions in a certain place rather than trying to attack them all at once.

That would be great. But probably also resources - consuming, as anything more complex would probably require more processing time... Just look at the turn times in Gary Grigsby's games.

The new naval system in HoI 4, which is going to be a full-blown minigame, has things like screen ships physically shielding the capital ones from enemy fire. They absolutely can do what I've proposed to for land combat, and they probably will, in one of expansions.

Honestly, the more I talk about this damn game the more I just want to dive in and mess about with all the new things because they all sound so cool and fun to use

They always do, until you get your hands on them. Remember how much people were excited about HoI 3 AI army system, and how it actually turned out? All these fancy XP systems require a lot of balancing to be viable in comparison with each other, and something tells me it's not going to be, at least not without a few dozen patches.

[redwallzyl]

new video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17A2zuZEVFY

[redwallzyl]

new dev diary: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hearts-of-iron-iv-37th-development-diary-11th-of-december-2015.896886/

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I liked pretty much everything about HOI3. My only real complaint is that it was TOO able to play out the same way every time. There wasn't really any ability to go from OPM to Superpower like in EUIV or Vicky II, which is arguably the best part of Paradox games.

EDIT: The research felt very weird. Dumbing it down like they have now will only make it worse methinks.

[Kot]

I liked pretty much everything about HOI3. My only real complaint is that it was TOO able to play out the same way every time. There wasn't really any ability to go from OPM to Superpower like in EUIV or Vicky II, which is arguably the best part of Paradox games.

That's because the time window is quite a bit too small. You can still take some secondary faction and with incredible skill and luck boost it to make it powerful (muh Poland ;_;) or change the history a bit, but your horrible small country on the other end of the world aren't going to play any serious role in the WW2.

[redwallzyl]

I liked pretty much everything about HOI3. My only real complaint is that it was TOO able to play out the same way every time. There wasn't really any ability to go from OPM to Superpower like in EUIV or Vicky II, which is arguably the best part of Paradox games.

EDIT: The research felt very weird. Dumbing it down like they have now will only make it worse methinks.

sandbox is fine but Luxembourg is never going to conquer anything in 20ish years in the middle of WWII that kind of play is not what the game is meant for. i don't see how research is dumbed down either.

[Zazmio]

One question that comes to mind:  Will the allied AI be able to invade fortress Europa?  Something they couldn't get right in 1, 2, and 3.

I doubt it.  Making good AI for a game this complex is impossible.

[Mini]

Luxembourg is never going to conquer anything in 20ish years in the middle of WWII that kind of play is not what the game is meant for.

That doesn't stop people from trying.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I liked pretty much everything about HOI3. My only real complaint is that it was TOO able to play out the same way every time. There wasn't really any ability to go from OPM to Superpower like in EUIV or Vicky II, which is arguably the best part of Paradox games.

EDIT: The research felt very weird. Dumbing it down like they have now will only make it worse methinks.

sandbox is fine but Luxembourg is never going to conquer anything in 20ish years in the middle of WWII that kind of play is not what the game is meant for. i don't see how research is dumbed down either.

Well that's just silly, what kind of play IS the game meant for? There should be an option to start right before WWI and really be able to change the course of history.