- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
Paradox Studio Thread
- Thread starter Payday
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
Goddamn that answers a lot. Was getting very frustrated at having to micro my ass out creating enough naval dominance for a Norway invasion with a complementary new patch Germany run when before it was a couple clicks and done.
Also not sure I like the change where naval invasion number is now limited behind tech. The problem was never the number of invasion plans, it was the ability to spam single division plans up to the total division count. Leave it to Paradox screwing up basic balancing in the name of appeasing the most lukewarm of forum poster intelligence.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2021
Bobbobson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2020
I've played the Ottomans a bit yesterday. Even with improved AI I don't think we'll see anything even close to historical Ottomans without some rebalancing. Ottomans look like they'll be really powerful in the hands of player, but I doubt AI will be able to handle starting situation's mechanics well. On the one side you're incentivised to take vassals due to early problems with control and proximity, on the other, you're required to own 100 locations by 1400 or the "Rise of the Turks" fails. Rushing Constantinople and making it capital may cause further issues with controlling Anatolia, at least until you develop navy and invest a bit in naval value. And then there are Jalayirids with their vassal swarm. They seem extremely stable and are stronger than Ottomans. While players shouldn't have too much problems with them, I don't see AI handle that.
Yeah someone in Tinto has proper vexillology autism. Number of different possible flags for some countries is really stunning.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Hot take but I'm fine if I don't see the historical Ottomans. The circumstances that enabled their success were extremely specific, and the material and geographic conditions that would normally exist to allow a country to emerge as a significant power simply didn't exist for them in 1337. Saying that not seeing them is a dealbreaker would be like saying not seeing Prussia or Valois Burgundy would be a dealbreaker. I would like an AI that is capable of making them perform and reach something similar to the historical influence they did if it can hit approximate historical analogues, but I don't want a game pigeonholing the Ottomans in as something that will happen without player intervention in 1337.
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
Stability is basically the ceiling here. I don't know exactly what it's supposed to represent (maybe a government's preparedness for war, so a no-casus belli war is the government reorganising itself so suddenly?) but the time it takes to get a casus belli not given to you by the game can take years. England and France war so often because the game gives them both a casus belli every 5 years, but whoever can invest more money into building up stability can declare more often without a casus belli. You can't create claims anymore except via parliament but the AI doesn't seem to use the system or never uses it to create claims. Since you can't fabricate territorial claims, the AI is left with no-CB wars, which cost stability and antagonism. The larger you get, the more it costs to increase stability and so eventually the AI reaches a point where the cost/benefit of expansion is untenable or they're large enough that their economy can continue to bulk up their stability. I think the ability to take territory during humiliations/insult wars is meant to allow for wars without stability hits but the AI doesn't see the value in increased war score cost. The minor tags do expand a bit but they tend to hit a ceiling of some sort and then stop. I think Brandenburg already begins at this ceiling.
If people want to see major tags form, there might have to be a small degree of railroading or stability cost reduction for no-CB wars depending on the target/location. The rivalry system might be a good way or doing that, reducing it or removing the cost outright if the rival is a neighbour or something. But it could lead to something that Austria expanding into Bohemia instead of connecting its holdings from Austria across the alps. I think the culture system could serve as a means of helping decide AI expansion paths alongside a touch of situation-based railroading. The Ottomans will gather up all the Turks in Anatolia, take what's offered in the situation (Grrece/Balkans), but then more or less follow the expansion they did IRL into other Muslim majority lands. You could have the stability cost scale proportionally with the number of your pops/tolerated pops/your religion are in the target area, maybe?
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Yeah I appreciate them trying to limit the runaway expansionism of their past few games - even if it's come at the cost of worse bordergore - but they definitely went too far in the other direction with how limited claims are. I'm fine with no-cbing being a fall back, but maybe make it so that the humiliate rival casus belli lets you get some land off them at a reasonable price instead of the current 900% increase? If generating claims and casus bellis has to be a more deliberate and strategic action now, which I am all in favor for, then it should incorporate the rival system since that's one of the most immediate strategic decisions you can make (and would encourage more sensible rival formations).
It did this in EU4, the AI would weight it by culture groups. If it's not already doing that much it needs to.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
I saw EU5 and looks like the Portugal color change from Victoria 3 is sticking. Given all the autists that play these games I'm surprised that didn't cause a pepper spray incident.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Oh boy, here i go a-sperging again!
50 deckspace and Engine II is more comparable to something like Junyo, a very large (she was 24000 tons) merchant carrier conversion complete with added military boilers. But Junyo is a weird ship and most CVEs by far tended to be in the 18-21 kt range and tended to have half that as air complement. There's also Colossus, but that's a CVL based on a CV hull, not a CVE. Both are reasonably modelled by the converted cruiser hull or a CV I with like two deck space.
In practice CVEs were never suitable for battle line use because of the slow speed (prop carriers have to go to top speed and turn into the wind to launch a lot of the time; a more typical top speed was 30-33 knots so you can imagine how much of an issue that is for cohesion.), extreme fragility (even by carrier standards) and incredibly limited airgroup. Also, the aviation equipment (elevators, hangers) could serious limit what airframes a carrier could handle. This is most obvious with jets, but it also applies to CVEs and CVLs. The USA kept the Wildcat (as the FM-1/FM-2) production line running forever because it worked with the CVEs, i think. No game properly models that though.
The main role of CVEs historically was CAP and ASW, mostly for convoys where the speed wasn't an issue. But in-game they are clearly too expensive and too good to be relegated to that alone.
TLDR: HOI4 naval is retarded, CVEs should be much lower and lower capacity to actually represent the real thing and not CVLs.
TLDR: HOI4 naval is retarded, CVE carrier HP should be even lower and CV HP should always matter.
Support ships should be a luxury, at least for poor countries. You could also reasonably argue later (most certainly the 1944 tech, probably even the 1940 tech) amphibious tech should be locked behind it- both the UK and the US massively out produced Japan in dedicated military transports (95% of Japan's military sealift was impressed civilian cargo ships, which caused issues in both landing and in feeding the empire / garrisons since every transport carrying troops wasn't carrying scarce resources).
The problem IMO is that HOI4 is really arcady, so things that expose hard limits on resources like the special project system tend to feel quite bad and arbitrary. That system itself is also full of dumb garbage. You can core all of AH as Hungary, why do I need to spend 400 days on a special project to create a carrier on a merchant hull when even the Italians had no difficulty figuring that out? Why does digging up a scientist for it cost 125 PP, which is a major law change? For that matter, why, as a minor, can't I import radar from majors or what have you? After all, the US shared a lot of it's secret project tech with the UK.
50 deckspace and Engine II is more comparable to something like Junyo, a very large (she was 24000 tons) merchant carrier conversion complete with added military boilers. But Junyo is a weird ship and most CVEs by far tended to be in the 18-21 kt range and tended to have half that as air complement. There's also Colossus, but that's a CVL based on a CV hull, not a CVE. Both are reasonably modelled by the converted cruiser hull or a CV I with like two deck space.
In practice CVEs were never suitable for battle line use because of the slow speed (prop carriers have to go to top speed and turn into the wind to launch a lot of the time; a more typical top speed was 30-33 knots so you can imagine how much of an issue that is for cohesion.), extreme fragility (even by carrier standards) and incredibly limited airgroup. Also, the aviation equipment (elevators, hangers) could serious limit what airframes a carrier could handle. This is most obvious with jets, but it also applies to CVEs and CVLs. The USA kept the Wildcat (as the FM-1/FM-2) production line running forever because it worked with the CVEs, i think. No game properly models that though.
The main role of CVEs historically was CAP and ASW, mostly for convoys where the speed wasn't an issue. But in-game they are clearly too expensive and too good to be relegated to that alone.
TLDR: HOI4 naval is retarded, CVEs should be much lower and lower capacity to actually represent the real thing and not CVLs.
The difference is that if a CVE got hit it was prone to exploding instantly whereas even shitty Japanese fleet carriers could take hours to become a burnt-out husk still capable of floating. Yorktown at Midway was still salvageable after taking 2-3 very nasty torpedo hits. until a submarine finished it off. I don't know if the game has "leaky CAP" but WW2 air defense was simply too weak to stop everything from getting through, so even in lopsided battles carrier HP should be a concern. Late in the war with radar pickets and superb CAP coordination Kamikazes were still getting through and sending carriers home with lucky hits. Submarines should also be able to get opportunistic shots at surface ships and capital ships even with a screen.
TLDR: HOI4 naval is retarded, CVE carrier HP should be even lower and CV HP should always matter.
I have no idea what Recovery chance does but if it's like land combat it's just org recovery. Nice thought, don't know that it matters. It's probably meant to represent the various AKEs that could replenish ships at anchorages without real faculties or at sea.
Support ships should be a luxury, at least for poor countries. You could also reasonably argue later (most certainly the 1944 tech, probably even the 1940 tech) amphibious tech should be locked behind it- both the UK and the US massively out produced Japan in dedicated military transports (95% of Japan's military sealift was impressed civilian cargo ships, which caused issues in both landing and in feeding the empire / garrisons since every transport carrying troops wasn't carrying scarce resources).
The problem IMO is that HOI4 is really arcady, so things that expose hard limits on resources like the special project system tend to feel quite bad and arbitrary. That system itself is also full of dumb garbage. You can core all of AH as Hungary, why do I need to spend 400 days on a special project to create a carrier on a merchant hull when even the Italians had no difficulty figuring that out? Why does digging up a scientist for it cost 125 PP, which is a major law change? For that matter, why, as a minor, can't I import radar from majors or what have you? After all, the US shared a lot of it's secret project tech with the UK.
WarrenZHarding
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2024
A run of CK2 Im playing had this happen (sans flag). Gwynedd had some good luck after the vikings kept toppling the English over and over again. Suffer, Anglos....
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2024
I'd still like to see permanent claims/spy network claims and a flat increase to AI aggressiveness, and a rework of the 100 years war. France will probably just annex their revolting vassals due to the loyalty nerf.
- Joined
- May 25, 2024
I would prefer AI aggressiveness to flow more to natural routes of expansion. Try to form natural borders and all that.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2024
That would feel too railroady to be honest, it'd just result in weighted AI priority for certain region, for example France targets the Rhine after kicking out the English, which would probably be in the 1400's unless the HRE mobilizes against them. It'd be like seeing the Pope call a crusade for Jerusalem or Egypt every time in CK2, it's something you'd have to prepare for. Burgundy could act as a cap against French expansionism but as far as I know Burgundy's rise isn't even represented in EU5. We're kinda up shit creek without a paddle where we gotta balance railroading and expansionism, there are certain things that should be a given like Russia forming, others that should be dependent on the AI like England/Scotland/Wales forming the UK or Portugal/Aragon/Castile forming Spain.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Good.
Hyper-centralized states tended to be more fragile and dependent on leading personalities before the advent of modern managerial bureaucracies, I'm glad that it's not going to be so absurdly lopsided now.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Personally I found the limit on the number of invasions, and the fact they always take the same amount of time to plan regardless of size, to be more annoying, at least early game. As Japan trying to island hop was pure hell when I could only hit 1 or 2 islands at once, and it took like 2 months per. In the end I made a half dozen paratroopers to drop on some of the smaller islands so the marines could focus on the larger shit.
Limiting them to 1 or 2 hangars (and maybe not letting them get the +1 size MIO bonus, although I don't think that's possible as is), cutting them to 20 knots and slashing the price down to like 1.5-2k IC would make them more historically accurate. The problem then becomes they're probably useless because of the way convoys/convoy escorting is abstracted in this game
Oh for sure, Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable was a thing for a reason. I wonder if CVEs should have an increased chance to take a critical hit to further help differentiate them from proper carriers.
It doesn't. There's currently a thread on the Paradox forums about it. Now that CV fighters actually defend against NAV strikes they're incredibly strong defensively:
Someone further in the thread did some testing and it appears land based fighters doing air superiority in the same zone as nav strikes do precisely jack shit, unless the CV fighters are explicitly on the air superiority/interception missions themselves:
Also speaking of the new ability to assign CV planes to missions, it's awesome. My version of Kido Butai has my 6 biggest and best fleet carriers(I'd like more but supply is a bitch) with all of it's NAV/CAS set to naval/port strike and they regularly bomb the absolute shit out of stuff while on their way to/from battles. At one point they just casually nuked 12 destroyers on the way to hit a heavy cruiser squadron. Unfortunately Nimitz is being a giant pussy and won't move his main fleets out so even though I've bagged dozens and dozens of subs/destroyers and even a few heavy cruisers there's still like 11 carriers and a bunch of battleships hiding in San Diego.
Honestly it just kinda reaffirmed my earlier belief that CVEmaxxing is currently the way to go, getting as much deckspace out as cheaply as possible, to maximise the number of strikes you can perform.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Except they don't. They sometimes take 21 days and sometimes take 30 based on whatever the game feels like at the moment. 30 is the most consistent, I think. It ends up punishing you for using small tactical invasions instead of massive invasion to port.
Yeah, but that shouldn't be the solution. I don't understand why they broke a system that wasn't broken
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
The special project bullshit exists to mask the necessity of a total overhaul of the tech tree. The linear progression for everyone and the lack of tech trade between allies boils my blood to the point I abandoned this game months ago.
Also, the lack on integration between land/air/sea tech is plain stupid. You can't do shit that happened in real life, like adapting the Panzer III's cannon on a heavy fighter - the ME-410 A1/U4 - or putting a naval gun on a tank - the prototype SU 100Y. You can research your Infantry Equipment to maximum, but that doesn't affect your planes and tanks machine guns.
Jarolleon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
It turns out there was a stealth nerf to subject loyalty in general. "Relative power to overlord" is always negative no matter how much stronger you are than the vassal.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2020
Unfortunately Johan had a pretty retarded reply to this. Dismissing it and telling the poster to just go decentralised if he wants to use vassals which is like I said, retarded. Just look at the pics he posted, there is no reason why it shouldn't be changed and if done intentionally it's a braindead change.