Game News Hearts of Iron IV - Production and Technology dev diary

[Whisky]

Tags: Hearts of Iron IV; Paradox Interactive

Hearts of Iron IV has had its second dev diary today. This time focusing on Production and technology.

Technology
Equipment appears all through the new technology trees. The idea is that unlocking a new piece of equipment should be very visible, and it should be very clear what you will get. Here is a screenshot showing what the armored tech tree looks like for Germany:

Armored technology is based around chassis that you unlock. Each of the chassis has 4 subtechs, each of which unlocks a variant. So, for example, once you have unlocked the Panzer III tank you can research the tank destroyer variant, StuG III. The StuG III was a Panzer III chassis with the turret removed and a larger fixed gun placed in its stead. Variants like this can be switched to production lines from the original chassis without much of penalty, so once the Panzer IV becomes your main tank and the Panzer III no longer measures up, it's a perfect time to convert to producing StuGs on those Panzer III lines. Most nations developed their vehicles like this during the war, and we wanted to include this flavor. Historically, the StuG III ended up being the most produced armored vehicle in Germany during the war.

There will also be ways to create more custom equipment variants with abilities unlocked by experience over the course of the war. This is also something we will go into more detail on in the future.

By switching to equipment from HoI3's more abstracted model, we gain a lot of cool flavor as well as introducing many of the actual interesting choices that leaders of the time had to deal with. We also believe it will make it easier to understand for new players, as well as being more immersive for players. You will now see results like "10 heavy tanks destroyed" rather than some abstracted strength percentage. Because the production models changes over to lines it also doesn't introduce any more unnecessary micro management, so it is really a win-win.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

To re-iterate:

 

[GarfunkeL]

Might as well quote the additional dev comments here:

Originally Posted by Alex_brunius
Cool stuff!

My only concern is what this means for minor nations. Doesn't this mean you have to make up fictive tech trees for 50+ minors just in case someone wants to play as them and develop their own domestic tanks?

Nope, worst case they have "Basic/Improved/Advanced Medium tank" etc.

Originally Posted by Linx MP
The explanation sounds exciting although the screen shot makes it look a bit poultry. I'm wondering how the production lines will work in practice. Can you choose to have several tank types produced at once? Will this mean that there is a production efficiency malus if you do?

Tanks will not be chickens, don't worry

You can make as many production lines as you like, but each factory can only be assigned to one line at a time, so if you spread your efforts too thin you will not be making much of anything. We'll go into more details about production in a future DD, this one is just the basics to show where we are heading.

Originally Posted by Poh
i like the tech tree as its very clear and easy to follow. Im interested in how the different tech trees will look as some nations didnt produce certain types of equipment. Like is the Super Heavy tank gone, Maus is listed as only a heavy tank.
I guess the reason for putting pzIV at 41 is to have a more continues tree, while having pzI and pzII as mediums instead of light tanks like they should would be to make the medium armored divisions upgrade properly. Only having E-50 as 1945 with no E-75 is a bit confusing imho but i guess its letting the trees evolve into a MBT design in 1945 which should make it easier to balance the nations.
So three questions:
Is the Super Heavy tank brigade gone?
Are we going to see roughly equivalent tech trees or can they diverge between the nations. Like Japan never really produced a heavy tank but had blueprint on the super heavy O-I and produced 1? testing tank.
and the most important question: will we be able to produce the TOG II as britain?

Super heavies are still around, the tree perhaps isn't clear enough, but the Maus is out to the side there in its own class (and the Pz I and II are actually light tanks, despite the heading. Alpha UI.). Nations are all going to have the same basic models available so Japan can build an O I if it really wants to. And no TOG II, sadly, our rule for early heavy tanks is that need to be multi-turreted where possible so TOG is too sensible as odd as that sounds.

You're also correct that the E-50 fills the MBT role here, and that the PzIV as a later tech makes the tree flow better. It was also around the time it got its long gun and became a clear upgrade from the III.

Originally Posted by Thaegen
It sounds great on paper, but the tech screen really look simplistic to represent armoured development.
I'm sorry. We will try to create messier, hard to understand interfaces in the future instead


Edit: also why the ridiculous concept of super heavy tanks?

Because they were things that people built?

Also it should be E-25 to replace Stugs and jagdpanzer.
E-50 to replace Pzkpf IV/V
E-75 and E-90 to replace VI

The role we are using here is that of main battle tank, which for Germany the E-50 fits best (its a bit early, but since it was never actually built it gives some freedom). For the US this is the Patton and for USSR a t-54 for example.

Originally Posted by Blecky
Nice. Since divisions are made up of equipment, will it be possible to capture and integrate foreign equipment after a battle or after defeating a country?

We havent gotten to that in development yet, but the idea is to make this possible.

Originally Posted by Modestus
Looking at the backgrounds PZ1 appears to be researched and in production, PZ 2 being researched and Tiger unlocked but not researched yet, something along those lines?

Yup!

Originally Posted by Variton
I like what I see and hear!

What would the dotted line between Tiger and PzIV represent, you have to have them both to unlock the other?

It means it's a linked tech, if you have one you research the other cheaper, and it provides a way to "cross over" if you have researched down one line. Not entirely sure we'll keep the Improved medium <-> Improved heavy link at this point, but it's used it several other places too.

Originally Posted by Charles Reeps
Darkrenown - so this represents the PZ IVf2? Makes sense.

Exactly. Although, warning upfront, we will likely not follow the variant naming schemes of the various nations exactly.

Originally Posted by GermanKaiser
can we buy equipment?

Yes.

Originally Posted by SanktElmo
One thing that stuck out to me immediately - can we have Light - Medium - Heavy - Superheavy from left to right (basically mirror the current image)? I think that would make the overview even more readable (strongest tanks on the right). Just a suggestion!

Good point!

Originally Posted by Thaegen
The tech tree looks very simplistic, like for a console game.
Everything except the actualiteit picture of the tech tree sounds fantastic. I do hope that this is moddable and also means that we finally have nation specific equipment.

PzKpf III should have at least 4 variants. 3.7cm, 5cm L/42, 5cm L/60 and finally when the PzKpfw IV from Ausf F2 is in production the option to equip the Pzkpfw III with the 7.5cm L/24.

We just unlock the 1 model via the tech and you'll be able to upgrade the gun/engine etc via practical experience.

Also the StuG III should only become a Td from the Ausf F.

There's no reason they couldn't have done so earlier, it's just a decision to have a fixed gun over a turret.

PzKpfw IV -> StuG IV?
Pzkpfw V -> Jagdpanther?
Pzkpwf VI -> Ferdinand/Elefant?
PzKpfw VI Ausf b -> Jagdtiger?

Mostly. I went with the JagdpanzerIV over the StuG IV though IIRC.

Also it should be E-25 to replace Stugs and jagdpanzer.
E-50 to replace Pzkpf IV/V
E-75 and E-90 to replace VI

I'm not sure why you want us to remove the historically produced tanks for some planned and never built models? Where possible I use stuff that was actually built.

Originally Posted by DanJonMin
Are we gonna be able to upgrade specific equipment parts like in HoI3, or is each unit preset and based only on Chassis tech?

Either way, I will be pre-purchasing this with the force of a thousand suns.

Only chassis, although there may be the option of "melting down" equipment to feed the production of compatible variants.

Originally Posted by Holy.Death
So we are limited to historical designs only? I hoped for more freedom in tank design department. Still, it's an improvement over what was before. The picture is quite clear in itself, but the armor screen ain't covering StuG III that's described in DD itself. Will it be added later on (and made "transparent") or will it be "visible" only after Panzer III's chasis is developed? What I mean is that wouldn't it be a bit counter-intuitive in terms of what the player wants to develop? I'd love StuG III as an infantry support but if I couldn't be able to see it wouldn't I have to search for it blindly or be forced to ask how to develop it? Maybe I messed something up, but I want to claryfy this one bit.

"There will also be ways to create more custom equipment variants with abilities unlocked by experience over the course of the war. This is also something we will go into more detail on in the future."

The StuG there is represented by one of the buttons on the Panzer III tech (the one that looks like a bullet striking armor). We only have pictures of the main chassi at the moment, variants are indicated by those icons/buttons.

Originally Posted by L'Afrique
I think you guys are kind of missing the fact that the model names are just flavor descriptors for "Improved Medium Tank" and "Early Light Tank" and stuff. It's not trying to be a realistic Armour Development Simulator.

yeah, its flavor names for different levels of armor. If the player wants differences they need to be spending experience acquired in the war on variant development.

Originally Posted by GermanKaiser
So I can buy 3000 Tanks for Estonia and then invade latvia?
also if we produce trucks are forces getting supplies faster?

Well, if you can afford them, and find someone willing to sell them, and you can man them, sure. The USSR might react with alarm though.

Trucks/Horses won't be tracked though, they are assumed to be part of the basic equipment of a division.

Originally Posted by L'Afrique
That's what the four icons to the right of each tech are. I'm guessing TD, SpArt, SPAA (based on the plane), and something else.

SP rocket arty is the 4th. Bit less common and not quite as good a fit, I know, but close enough.

Originally Posted by Poh
Makes sense. Its sad about the TOG II because its such an iconic "silly" tank that it would make me want to play britain just to field them. From a design perspective i can see why there are better tanks. I would imagine Churchill and Black Prince as Heavy tanks (would fit the 1941 and 1943) then Tortoise as the Super Heavy (1944) design and Centurion as the MBT.

You are pretty spot on, but the UK basic heavy tank is the Vickers Independent

That is what I meant by the ToG2 being oddly too sensible, we want basic heavy tanks to be the pre-war multi-gunned wonders.

Originally Posted by Niko92
In my opinion the Maus should be a 1945 model coming after the Tiger II and the E-50 a continuation of the Panther.

Nah, the Maus is an entirely different branch for a different role, not a direct upgrade of the KT. The E-50 is a continuation of the Panther here though.

Originally Posted by Thaegen
Yes, but that is the major problem for Germany. The E-50 was not build either. Than we should look first at the PzKpfw V Ausf F1 (Schmalturm turret) and F2, before we look at the E-50. As those were closer to be finalized than the E-50.

It's true they were closer to being made, but I didn't think it was enough of an upgrade for the next model of tank, especially not if we make the leap to MBT. Nazi Germany obviously wasn't around for the first generation of post-war tanks, and the Leopard is too far into the future, so I figured the E-50 was the best of the bunch.

Originally Posted by Niko92
How moddable is this?

Very.

Originally Posted by Niko92
Can you change the amount subcategories?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Niko92
Does every model have to have the same amount of subcategories?

The number of subtechs is individual of each tech.

Originally Posted by Niko92
Can you post an example of what a tech looks like in the game files?

improved_light_tank = {
    enable_equipments = {
        light_tank_equipment_2
    }
       
    path = {
        leads_to_tech = advanced_light_tank
        research_cost_coeff = 1
    }
       
    path = {
        leads_to_tech = basic_medium_tank
        research_cost_coeff = 1
    }
       
    research_cost = 180
    start_year = 1938
       
    folder = {
        name = armour_folder
        position = { x = 4 y = 4 }
    }
       
    sub_technologies = {
        improved_light_td
        improved_light_art
        improved_light_spra
        improved_light_spaa
    }
}
   
improved_light_td = {

    enable_equipments = {
        light_tank_destroyer_equipment_2
    }
   
    research_cost = 180
    start_year = 1930
}

Originally Posted by Variton
Trucks not? Is there a distinction between motorized/regular inf brigade? What about APC's?

MOT needs more "equipment", Mech has it's own more expensive equipment representing APCs.

Originally Posted by Charles Reeps
So you're saying there is a generic thing, called "equipment," that one must manufacture?

Yes, you don't build absolutely everything individually. We'll say more when we do the detailed production DD.

Some interesting questions can't be answered until later DDs, sorry.

 

[GarfunkeL]

So, combat/practical experience is now a currency you use to "unlock" special varieties of stuff, and possibly doctrine-upgrades. WTF?

Also, that making a pretty UI that doesn't feel cluttered and is easy to see on a TV is the most important factor. Unless Podcat was just being an ass, which he apparently loves to do.

Individual production lines in factories is a big YAY! As is the modding possibilities. Not tracking horses, trucks, half-tracks and apc's is a big NOO! Why the fuck Pdox so often does this? Introduce something awesome, only to half-ass it in the end?

Also, I stopped at page 10. Doubt any devs answer questions after that, plus the sycophantic half of posters was really getting on my nerves.

 

[Sranchammer]

I will never buy another Paradox game within its first year again.

 

[oscar]

Unrelated, but does anyone know how to get the latest Kaiserreich (1.5) for Darkest Hour working? CTDs when I start a scenario.

Related, I hope they finally fix minors from being ahistorically weak and backwards.

 

[Whisky]

Unrelated, but does anyone know how to get the latest Kaiserreich (1.5) for Darkest Hour working? CTDs when I start a scenario.

Related, I hope they finally fix minors from being ahistorically weak and backwards.

Did you install it over an old installation of Kaiserreich? That can really mess mods up. If so, delete all traces of Kaiserreich and install it again.

Otherwise, I can't think of what's stopping it, unless your DH version is old. I get regular errors from a missing texture when I start it up, but those don't crash the game.

And yes, minors being pathetically weak has been a HOI problem for a very long time. Some things are really hard to implement in a strategy game, but the level of weak that they are can be avoided.

 

[commie]

So, combat/practical experience is now a currency you use to "unlock" special varieties of stuff, and possibly doctrine-upgrades. WTF?

I think that's more of an abstraction. I mean in reality, it was practical and combat experience that drove designers to improve and up gun and up armor their designs where possible and to develop tactics. I mean it was possible to stick a 75mm long barrel on a Pz IV back in 1938 but there didn't seem to be a need to do so at the time. Same with the Pz III. Blitzkrieg doctrine was already obsolete by 1942 thanks to evolving tactics etc.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Well, Blitzkrieg isn't really obsolete even by now, though I can see the argument you're making. And yes, the Germans DID put a 75mm cannon on a Pz IV back in 1938. In fact, production of Pz IV Ausf. A started in 1936. It really didn't require practical and combat experience to do that. Neither did the Soviets need practical and combat experience to built T-35 or T-28. Or British for Matilda I. Or French for Char Bis B1.

So yeah, I understand it's an abstraction but where do you draw the line? Light, medium and heavy tanks were built pre-war. They were also assembled into many sort of units, following several different tactical and operational doctrines. Which is why I liked the HoI3 Practical values - experience made it quicker to build and research stuff - and I'm not too keen on this HoI4 system, if it really means that some stuff is impossible to research until you've got enough xp points to buy it.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

And it raises the spectre of minors being completely ignored, given how the system sounds tailor-made for only the largest powers. That was another good thing about Leadership, since it was separated from things like Industry (the greatest weakness of HoI2 tech system) and some manner of combat XP.

 

[Destroid]

Well, Blitzkrieg isn't really obsolete even by now, though I can see the argument you're making. And yes, the Germans DID put a 75mm cannon on a Pz IV back in 1938. In fact, production of Pz IV Ausf. A started in 1936. It really didn't require practical and combat experience to do that. Neither did the Soviets need practical and combat experience to built T-35 or T-28. Or British for Matilda I. Or French for Char Bis B1.

So yeah, I understand it's an abstraction but where do you draw the line? Light, medium and heavy tanks were built pre-war. They were also assembled into many sort of units, following several different tactical and operational doctrines. Which is why I liked the HoI3 Practical values - experience made it quicker to build and research stuff - and I'm not too keen on this HoI4 system, if it really means that some stuff is impossible to research until you've got enough xp points to buy it.

That 75mm was a low velocity gun (not the same weapon commie was referring to) and wasn't much use against armour, a lot of early tanks used similar weapons because they delivered a large weight of explosive charge, which was better for attacking infantry and fortifications.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Commie didn't specify what he meant. And you didn't really address my main point:

So yeah, I understand it's an abstraction but where do you draw the line? Light, medium and heavy tanks were built pre-war. They were also assembled into many sort of units, following several different tactical and operational doctrines. Which is why I liked the HoI3 Practical values - experience made it quicker to build and research stuff - and I'm not too keen on this HoI4 system, if it really means that some stuff is impossible to research until you've got enough xp points to buy it.

 

[Destroid]

it was possible to stick a 75mm long barrel on a Pz IV back in 1938

With regard to your other concerns, I think it's too soon to say how strict they will be with regard to normal research and battlefield experience, the wording of their blog post is a bit vague.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Man, he ninja-edited that or something, I swear the "long barrel" wasn't there to begin with!

And yeah, it could swing either way, but to me, it looks more like that there could be hard restrictions. Anyway, the best part is that this will make it easier for modders to create more authentic models, and to have them simultaneously as well. It took several years for DWI and RPM2 to come out for HoI3 - basically only TFH made them possible. Now, HoI4 could have support for such mods at launch.

 

[commie]

Man, he ninja-edited that or something, I swear the "long barrel" wasn't there to begin with!

And yeah, it could swing either way, but to me, it looks more like that there could be hard restrictions. Anyway, the best part is that this will make it easier for modders to create more authentic models, and to have them simultaneously as well. It took several years for DWI and RPM2 to come out for HoI3 - basically only TFH made them possible. Now, HoI4 could have support for such mods at launch.

Heh Garfunkel I know that Pzkpw IV had a 75 short barrel even then, that's why I specified long But yeah, the point I was trying to make was that forces built weapons for the doctrine at the time and only the real experience of combat forced them to concentrate toward one direction rather than another.

Furthermore, think of this: as a gamer you KNOW that long range bombers, atomic weapons, long barrel weapons etc. are the way to go and this hindsight is what makes it so difficult to design a game system which puts the player in the position of operating at some time in the past. Why would anyone bother designing light tanks for example when history has shown that's a dead end? When looking back, it's easy to criticise the Germans for focusing on medium bombers and wonder weapons for example, but in 1940 when the war looked almost over or even in 1942 it must have looked far different.

Unlocking tiers based on practical experience at least goes someway to create an effect of shaping design based on combat experience, with doctrines and designs based on Blitzkrieg being naturally gravitated to the German player(as these would get more experience and thus 'unlock' quicker than others.) Remember that the success of Blitzkrieg actually made it even harder for the proponents of long range bombers or some sci-fi 'atomic' weapons to push their case.

 

[Cenobyte]

The new tech system sure seems to be extremely streamlined, but I don't like that they still have the same generic types for all nations. But anyhow, it's only the second dev diary, so it's still way too early to form an opinion about the game. I'll wait for future dev diaries and see what else they want to implement in HoI IV.

 

[Destroid]

What practical value would there be in modelling the differences between a T-34, Panzer 4 and a Sherman? Is there any difference between those vehicles at the level of abstraction Hearts of Iron operates on?

 

[GarfunkeL]

In HoI3 terms, Sherman would have smaller penetration value than the two others. Panzer 4 would have a slightly increased supply and fuel demand, and T-34 would have a slight edge when it comes to terrain maluses.

But that's because of historical reasons. HoI allows you to make different choices, so the vanilla game should just use generic models. If player-run USSR wants gasoline engines in his tanks, it should be possible. Leave the accurate historical modelling for modders, as they have the autism necessary to research and implement the myriad little details.

 

[sser]

The cool thing about tanks is that they can have a pretty nebulous sense of purpose. Environments in particular tended to mold what they became. The Sherman was used as a dispensable workhorse tank to bust through the French countryside. Specifically fitted tank destroyers were the Allies weapon of choice when it came to actual tank battles. But suppose in a weird HoI game you're fighting Russia, or there's a big war in the Middle-East. Maybe you'd want to change the Sherman to be more of a tankbuster, maybe add some armor, etc. This becomes even more true when you consider lend-lease. The Russians fucking hated the Sherman because it was not particularly well suited for those big, open field battles and so it became something of a deathtrap on the steppes. But the Indians and Chinese were like holy fuck, this thing is awesome!

 

[KazikluBey]

Also, that making a pretty UI that doesn't feel cluttered and is easy to see on a TV is the most important factor. Unless Podcat was just being an ass, which he apparently loves to do.

Don't know... Maybe they actually are making it TV friendly, what with them already having boarded the Steam ship and made CKII and EUIV work on Linux (pretty sure CKII didn't support Linux on release?). Is Steambox controller friendliness merely the next logical step?