• 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.

Developer Diary | Summer Open Beta

Hello there, it's me C0RAX.
A bit of the different DD than you’re used to this week. I'm here to introduce a new thing I will be doing over the summer. This summer for 4 weeks we will be giving you the chance to test some of the balance changes coming with the 1.13 Stella Polaris patch. These changes are hand picked for testing in order to get feedback from the community on specific changes that might have large impacts. These changes will affect all three major combat groups (Army, Air, and Navy), and vary from value changes to some new functionality and behavior so be sure to read the change list so you know what you're getting yourself into.

So let's go into how this is going to work. From July 6th until August 3rd there will be a special Summer Open Beta branch on steam, this branch will have the new changes listed below. Additionally it won't have anything new coming with Arms Against Tyranny just changes for base game and previously released DLC’s. In the last week of the test we will post a feedback form to be able to collect feedback data that we can use to analyze your responses. Of course this doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t post about it outside the form, I want to encourage as much discourse, theorizing and number crunching as possible so give it a try and let us know what you think.

Now lets go over the change log.

################################################################
######## Summer Open Beta ######### Balance
################################################################

##########
Air
##########
- Excess thrust will now increase agility instead of max speed (0.5 AGI per excess thrust)
- airframes now how base max speeds to better represent airframe size speed effects
- major air rebalance pass for airframes and modules
- increased tech date for survival studies to 1939
- Improved aircraft turrets
- slight decrease in agility hit for large bomb bays
- small airframe can only take single turret modules
- adjusted turret stats so they are less powerful for fighters but better for bombers
- rebalanced thrust and weights of modules and airframes,
- added new modules
- Large autocannon
- Large bomb rack
- Armor piercing bomb rack
- 3 levels of torpedo mounting
- Added new techs for plane designer (see above)
- Combat better Agility and Speed has increased effect on air combat

##########
Land
##########
- reduced terrain combat widths slightly, change support widths also
- Super Heavy tanks are now support units. Super Heavy tanks are no longer line battalions
- Armor skirts provide 1 more armor
- Most tank chassis' now grant 10-20% more armor
- Super heavy tanks now cost more overall, but require 20 per support company.

##########
Navy
##########
- added damage reduction to piecing thresholds for naval combat
- convoy hitprofile reduced from 120 to 85 bringing it inline with new hitprofile calculations
- Ship torpedoes accuracy increased to bring them back in line with new hitprofile calculations 145 > 100
- slightly decreased AA disruption from ship AA
- removed visibility effects of super heavy bb armor
- rebalanced, ship engines
- removed visibility impacts from medium guns
- rebalanced IC costs to reflect engine changes
- super heavy armor now part of normal heavy armors
- rebalanced armors
- added cruiser armor to carriers


##########
AI
##########
- AI more likely to upgrade division in the field even with equipment deficits
- added generic AI upgraded infantry template for late game infantry
- added ENG and USA upgraded infantry templates for AI and improved their infantry templates in general

Right now let's get into some explanations.

Thrust and weight:
Let's get the big one out the way thrust and weight for planes. This change requires a bit of game explanation and some explanation of aircraft. So why affect agility, agility previously was a stat that was seldom increased but often reduced by making it something you are rewarded by not using all your thrust budget you can lessen the agility effects of modules by not loading up your entire plane creating a choice between maximizing raw damage or maximizing damage bonuses during air to air combat by bring higher Agility.

Now the aircraft stuff, so power/weight is very not intuitive for aircraft, adding more power will make a plane faster but taking weight off a plane won't make it faster since speed is almost entirely determined by thrust against drag not weight. What less weight does provide is better climb rate acceleration plus some other things. These are abstracted into agility in game. So now if you want your plane to go faster you either use a newer airframe with lower drag (higher base speed) or by putting a bigger engine in the existing airframe.

Combat widths:
Now the next big change, terrain combat widths. This is the change that originally spawned the open beta idea. These changes are generally intended to flatten the efficiencies further for combat widths while also reducing division sizes. There will obviously still be certain numbers that fit better than others but overall these differences should be less extreme.

  • Terrain = CW+Reinforcement Width
  • Desert = 82+49
  • Forest = 76+40
  • Hills = 72+36
  • Jungle = 74+34
  • Marsh = 68+22
  • Mountain = 65+25
  • Plains = 82+49
  • Urban = 86+28
Ship penetration:
Finally the last change I want to discuss is the new penetration effect for ships. To put this imply they now reduce damage directly on top of reducing critical chance. The damage reductions are smaller than for land combat but that's because they have a much greater effect on the combat but be careful defeating an armored foe with just small guns should be much harder now.

Thresholds and damage are as follows

Pen to Armor ThreshholdCritical Change FactorDamage Factor
221
111
0.750.750.9
0.50.50.7
0.10.10.5
000.3

##########
HOTFIX
##########
07/07
- hotfix for legacy damage reduction for ships was conflicting with new system (they will now add to each other) set legacy value to 0
- hotfix for missing agility mods for bomb bays

10/07
Naval Combat:
- fixed damage reduction happening before stat initialisation
- fixed +1 to threshold values for ship penetration
issues reported here

- updated combat width defines as per
- implemented type 2 combat widths as per
- improved some templates for planes
- balance pass on new modules
- rebalanced dismantle and conversion costs for BB engines
- adjusted damage reduction thresholds for ships

That concludes the run down of the upcoming “Summer open beta” and it's coming to you tomorrow!. I hope to see you try it out and give feedback on the changes. See you next week for more Arms Against Tyranny content coming your way. It's going to be a pretty one.
 
Last edited:
  • 51Like
  • 16Love
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Reserved For Developer Replies

C0RAX's replies


ClydeFrosch said:
Hmm a little bit dissapointed, that there is no political rebalance like a little buff for democracys to give the player any reason beyond roleplay or focus tree to play that ideology. Maybe buff industry factors and stability for example
Vril266 said:
I like the changes, and I am happy about the beta update. The weight / thrust update and combat wide are a good idea.

But since release of for blood alone there is a massive visual bug, do you have already worked on it, and when do you think it will be fixed?
It's very annoying.

This one:
forum.paradoxplaza.com

HoI 4 - BBA - Field Marshal Portraits Disappear

Description of issue BBA - Field Marshal Portraits Disappear What platform do you play on? Steam Game Version current Enabled DLC Do you have mods enabled? No Description After Peace Conference, Portrait of Italian Field...
forum.paradoxplaza.com
forum.paradoxplaza.com
It's confirmed and there are even dozens of "multiple reports" so I guess you know about.
Click to expand...
As mentioned in the dev diary this is specifically balance effecting changes we want feedback on. its not the full change log for 1.13


Enigma06 said:
Cool changes, it's only a shame that carriers are still untouched.
carriers are not untouched both carrier planes are changed and the carriers themselves


Lean_XD said:
Will Naval armor piercing work like it does with tanks (Tank is not fully pierced) or it will be like with the old piercing system where if the tank was not pierced it had a set amount of buffs
its as listed in the the penetration to damage table in the change log


WojtekTygrys77 said:
Whats the point of CW changes?
These make 40-45w not the same high width peak for efficiency and flatten most of the rest of the curve so the efficiency losses are not quite so harsh from one width to the other when fighting on the common terrain sets


ShadowFighter said:
The agility effect from Bomb Locks vs Small Bomb Bay are strange. The -15 agility from the Bomb Bay is removed in this patch, thus making the Bomb Bay basically always give more agility than the Bomb Locks even though the description for the Bomb Bay says that it makes the plane unable to do "radical maneuvres in combat" (agility).
whoops that's a missed value


TruckerBarry65493 said:
View attachment 1002975
View attachment 1002976
1945 small airframe gets tied for range by 1936 medium? sounds real stupid to me
looks like you might need to use an extra fuel tank if you want more range.


Xary Moft said:
"Super Heavy tanks are now support units. Super Heavy tanks are no longer line battalions"
AH!
You think you can stop me? :p
View attachment 1002972
yep the current change is just moving SH tanks to support, based on the feedback we will move them all over to support in future


Herennius said:
It is slightly confusing that the combat width change is listed in the air section - unless I have missed something, CW is a land-only thing, correct?
oops fixed it
Herennius said:
Nice for us that the summer break for HoI4 seems to come later than for other titles, but of course you all have deserved your summer holidays !
Dev diaries wont be stopping for HOI4 even in summer :cool:


TruckerBarry65493 said:
True yeah, with the buff they got
Speaking of more air, the axis kinda gets screwed in the air war even more now with the 1944 airframe having an extra slot, axis just gets way worse fighters as a whole due to the allies getting the 44 airframe super early from aus, the allied fighters are just way better now, its gonna be tougher for the axis to compete in the air
aus getting airframes super early is known and something I want to address, just not in this beta


Rafomom said:
This CW change isn't solution. This change will literally annoy players instead changing the game. Like you want to fight in USSR, you have mostly forests and plains in Europe part, this can be easy. But you have France, you can't free operate with tanks without getting headache. You won't have time to care about CW, you want to push France as Germany, but France has plains, hills, forests and some mountains, and I have to remember that all these things will be ruined by rivers. Maybe instead changing CW of terrains, could be better change CW of battalions, support companies, maybe give to every doctrine thing like Massive Assault has. I think this idea (make really different numbers for every terrain) can work, but it will require to increase CW on all terrains and change division designer to have more battalions to change, and make finding largest common divisor for certain theatre as I said.
The big point with this is the efficiency difference is very low from one CW to another so you don't need to care so much so long as you in are in the "good" range of CW's somewhere between 10-45cw. of course you can specifically design for a terrain type but this is a rare case.


69arthurrr said:
@Corax I don't normally post here, but I'm part of a community of very experienced & active multiplayer players who effectively use the most popular "vanilla lite" mod - i.e. we keep things as close as possible as to how you devs set it up outside of some minor quality of life and performance optimisation changes for multiplayer. As someone who has 5,000 + hours (I know, v. sad) I generally don't comment on changes as I love the product your team has built and most things can be massaged for a multiplayer setting.

However, these combat width changes are really grating - you've effectively buffed defensive units which fit into more fungible small combat width sizes and nerfed 40+ width attacking divisons (tanks).

Now the key terrain change is FORESTS!!! they shouldn't be an odious 76 width they are simply to common on barb (eastern front), it simply detracts from the quality of life of players (single player and multiplayer) without adding meaningful strategic depth (its honestly feels like the devs are trolling the playerbase xD) - please consider revising the forest width up to 80 width to a lesser extent it would be nice to see hills in the 74-78 range.

The other changes look interesting, I always appreciate attempts to keep the game fresh & improve on the already great product.
Click to expand...
As I said in the DD, this beta is about having a discussion, iterating on ideas and improving the balance changes so feedback is always welcome. thanks for the opinion. :cool:


Atalvyr said:
Do the 3 new Torpedo Mount modules fix the issue of Torpedoes being the only plane weapon that only lose their weight when not mounted, but still keep their agility penalty on non-naval missions?
no agility or weight effects when not on mission


Gorgo Primus said:
If Super Heavies are now support companies, are there any restrictions on what they can do/be in? Paradropping Super Heavy Tanks would be really stupid for example.
Super Heavies should not be airdroppable


LordWahu said:
With the Superheavy tanks becoming Support, can you leave the SHTD and SHAA hardcoded in (Even if you can't make them) so modders can make armored cars and mechanized vehicles using the designer?

Basically setting it up so that modders can make "SHTD" equipment required for mechanized companies, allowing you to design your own half-tracks and the like
all the super heavy variants will remain


Lofina said:
I am somewhat confused by Toperdo Air Research Level 1 in the Air Tree. It gives the Light Torpedo Mounting which is already avaiable if you have the Torpedo Tech in the Naval Tree. I feel like nations who start with Torpedo Tech should also have this one or rather the Light Torpedo Mounting should be exclusive to the Air Research then.
yep research setup for the new torpedoes has not been implemented yet so that will be the case in the final patch
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Is there any talks of adjusting some of the pre BBA air/tank focuses to help give bonuses to all the new tank and air modules? Like for Germany-Soviet treaty instead of giving two 100% tank bonuses, two 100% tank chassis bonuses? And some bonuses to air modules instead of just air frames?
 
  • 14Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Hmm a little bit dissapointed, that there is no political rebalance like a little buff for democracys to give the player any reason beyond roleplay or focus tree to play that ideology. Maybe buff industry factors and stability for example
 
  • 13
  • 5Like
Reactions:
I LOVE the new modules. I waited for something like this, exactly what we needed! Big thanks
I also like the changes, I guess, they will make the game a bit better and a bit less meta in some regions. The weight / thrust update and combat wide are a good idea.

A question:
Since release of for blood alone there is a massive visual bug, do you have already worked on it, and when do you think it will be fixed?
It's very annoying, and I asked in the steamforum, and all complained about it, but no one knew how it's going with that bug, so I may ask here.

This one:

It's confirmed and there are even dozens of "multiple reports" so I guess you know about.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hmm a little bit dissapointed, that there is no political rebalance like a little buff for democracys to give the player any reason beyond roleplay or focus tree to play that ideology. Maybe buff industry factors and stability for example
I like the changes, and I am happy about the beta update. The weight / thrust update and combat wide are a good idea.

But since release of for blood alone there is a massive visual bug, do you have already worked on it, and when do you think it will be fixed?
It's very annoying.

This one:

It's confirmed and there are even dozens of "multiple reports" so I guess you know about.
As mentioned in the dev diary this is specifically balance effecting changes we want feedback on. its not the full change log for 1.13
 
  • 7
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
As mentioned in the dev diary this is specifically balance effecting changes we want feedback on. its not the full change log for 1.13
i just thought some political rebalances would also be needed and it would have been a good idea to bring such changes to this beta as well
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there any chance that tank armour type will get rebalanced?

ATM rivet armour seems to be the meta because it's too easy to overcome the armour penalty of rivets by adding armour ticks, leaving you with a net cost saving on the design.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Will Naval armor piercing work like it does with tanks (Tank is not fully pierced) or it will be like with the old piercing system where if the tank was not pierced it had a set amount of buffs
 
As mentioned in the dev diary this is specifically balance effecting changes we want feedback on. its not the full change log for 1.13

I know. I have read the whole diary.

I am ingame right now, but I will test it tomorrow when it goes online, anyway it looks good, and it goes in the right direction..

Edit: I also edit it above. THANKS for the modules btw. it's exactly what we needed.
 
Last edited:
My SHBB lost 4 knots out of nowhere under the same design. I'd hate that alone already. The rest of ships seem to be intact.

(It's nice things are finally set in motion, though, and at least having some options is good.)

edit: base ship_hull_super_heavy_1 speed is now 24. Oh, boy...

edit2: @C0RAX and also speed penalty from ship_armor_shbb is inconsistent with those of bb/bc, hence such a drastic drop in speed I observe for the class. (And it also misses HP, haha). If you insist the hull to be that slow in its base, the ship needs a new set of engines, then. Propelling a far larger and heavier ship with a stock BB engine is unrealistic, everyone would utilize that space to install more boilers.

I now tag-switched to JAP and their historical Jamato design is... 20.6 knots. That's unreasonable.

dqW6YUh.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
These changes are generally intended to flatten the efficiencies further for combat widths while also reducing division sizes. There will obviously still be certain numbers that fit better than others but overall these differences should be less extreme.
Wait, wasn't the whole point of different combat widths for different terrain types the opposite of this? I thought the idea was to encourage the creation of specialized divs, are we now moving away from that?
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Super Heavy tanks are now support units. Super Heavy tanks are no longer line battalions
Are there any plans to add more options for modding - like extra support company "slots" - to allow modders to deploy more tank variants as support companies?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: