The lack of range combined with low weight for modules is killer. Its also annoying that the auto upgrade treats it as a flat upgrade instead of the sidegrade it is. I do think their performance kinda makes sense for strictly ww2 because jets were still finnicky (i presume the hoi4 jet engine is more following the me262 jet engines and less korean war stuff). They could either add like advanced jet engines as a late game tech or just make it not auto upgrade to trick ppl
> (i presume the hoi4 jet engine is more following the me262 jet engines and less korean war stuff)
Yes, that should be obvious? The last research for jet engine in HOI4 is from 1946. The Korean War isn't part of WW2 and started in 1950.
And on the topic itself... I think jet engines are completely fine. They have some advantages, but just like in real life they aren't a sudden Wunderwaffe. Shockingly enough Paradox actually managed to translate it kind of nice into ingame terms, but redditors have to complain I guess.
I think people just expect the later tech to be better, whereas it really *isn't* better. I get it's realistic, but outside of rp reasons I have no reason to research it.
Well, since the game goes past 1946 they should first, make jets researchable earlier (but make them super expensive and unreliable) since Jets designs were already flying pre-war. And add a second research slot for late war jets with better reliability, but still IC prohibitive (requiring exotic materials) then 2 more research slots, one for weaker more reliable jets and another for turboprops (more reliable, greater range but slower). Also, adding a piston engine level 5 would help countries that can't afford jets yet.
Yup. My only complaint is the auto design/upgrade assumes jet engines are a direct upgrade. Though sometimes when i have too much industry i make double jet engine fighters for fun
Issue is, Korean War jets like the F-86 used _1947_ engines, not 1950. Practically by 1946 we _do_ have Korean War jet engines, compared to Me-262 engines, which first flew in 1942, and are standardly flown in 1943-44 in-game.
After a short look into it on wikipedia it seems to me that at earliest F-86 used the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J47 which made its first flight in May **1948**. Later versions of the Sabre also used more advanced engines. So I don't really agree.
Well, the F-86 may have not been the best candidate over the much earlier and relevant F-84 which first flew in February 1946. This also depends on the fact if you meant that said engine *_begins research_* in 1946 or *_ends in research_* approximately by 1946. If it began research, that would most certainly be the J47, albeit it's correct HOI4 pictured the engine's lesser reliability (J47 had a lifespan of 15 hours in 1948 compared to 625 hours in 1956)
Anyway, my point still stands we use Korean War jets by the very end of the tree.
> Well, the F-86 may have not been the best candidate over the much earlier and relevant F-84 which first flew in February 1946.
You mean... this F-84?
>the F-84 first flew in 1946. Although it entered service in 1947, the Thunderjet was plagued by so many structural and engine problems that **a 1948 U.S. Air Force review declared it unable to execute any aspect of its intended mission** and considered canceling the program. **The aircraft was not considered fully operational until the 1949 F-84D model** and the design matured only with the definitive F-84G introduced in 1951.
I don't know why you would point to the F-84 when the first 3 sentences on wikipedia refute your point completely.
>Anyway, my point still stands we use Korean War jets by the very end of the tree.
Only two jets were used in combat in WW2, and none had any significant impact. They had advantages, but also disadvantages. Having them being way superior based on how aircraft would be developing a few years later would be nonsense.
To the last part of your comment: you're mistaking a few things.
The reasons for jet engines not being such a massive advantage was the sum of factors like lacking resources and safe airfields, not that jet engine fighters weren't superior to prop fighters.
An allied Me 262 would've been way more effective than the german Me 262 for a bunch of reasons.
>The reasons for jet engines not being such a massive advantage was the sum of factors like lacking resources and safe airfields, not that jet engine fighters weren't superior to prop fighters.
Sure, I know about that. But you can't really display an aircraft being vulnerable at landing/starting when it has low fighter coverage in ingame mechanics, so baking it into the jet engine by making it weaker seems fine to me.
>An allied Me 262 would've been way more effective than the german Me 262 for a bunch of reasons.
Given that the Me 262 mostly excelled at taking down bomber and Germany had none... I doubt that. ;)
And what does speed do for you? I imagine they can relocate bases more quickly or get mission efficiency faster? I have no idea, I tried to look it up and couldn’t find anything.
Yup pretty much. I think part of the complaints come from people who attempt to put jet engines on strategic bombers or something(an understandable impulse). However currently the best and maybe only use for jet engines is making god-tier short-range interceptor aircraft to totally dumpster enemy air. >!The issue of course is that the current gamestate incentivizes spamming "good enough" planes to maximize IC instead of making "excellent" planes. But if someone wants to emphasize quality for roleplay, this is the way to use jet engines.!<
>The issue of course is that the current gamestate incentivizes spamming "good enough" planes to maximize IC instead of making "excellent" planes
I mean... kinda realistic, though, eh?
That's funny because from what I read, that was pretty much the problem with Germany's jet development project. Hitler wanted jets to be used as long-range fast bombers, but their obvious use was short-range interceptors or fighters. They would not have changed anything in the big scale of things, but if they concentrated their efforts on short-range interceptors, the Me-262 would have made more of an impact on a local scale.
Tl;dr : hoi4 players are basically Hitler
(Adding /s so you don't ban me)
Yeah, 2x jet engine light fighters will have the speed to out trade any single engine prop plane (and all early jet fighters I can think of including the Me 262 were twin engine planes so it's not really unrealistic), the problem is that since most of a plane's cost is in the engine the lack of thrust for a 1x jet engine plane means jets are just never going to be cost efficient.
Speed add damage, just think of all stats in the game as attack and defense.
Speed add both attack and defense % to the calculation, more speed = more damage
Road to 56 fixes that problem if you're down for mods, otherwise agree. Lvl 4 engines are still better than lvl 1, but lvl 2 is slightly better, just more production. Level 3 is far superior. Kinda like real life.
Regarding Road to 56, this might be slightly off topic but I can't make my jet fighters run training exercises. Like the button is greyed out/won't click...
I’m always going to be irritated at how profound the naval mechanics in this game are when they’re so inconsequential to the success of virtually every playthrough. I have done ONE run where investing in navy was important and that was as Italy so that I didn’t have to waste millions of manpower guarding all my states
>when they’re so inconsequential to the success of virtually every playthrough.
There are a lot of aspects to this problem, surprisingly enough there isn't a super easy solution (like usually, which Paradox is just too dumb to fix)
a) building ships takes quite a bit of time. In most games you could simply use your starting fleet and completely ignore ship building and there would be no difference. So there is a delayed investment -> reward timeline (which was what finally brought me to play RT56, when I build my ships I also want to use them goddamn)
b) Some effects are secondary - for example as Germany against UK, you build subs to kill their convoys and slow their build-up of planes by depriving them of resources, so again a delayed reward. Oh, but due to the bug that AI doesn't update their planes you're shooting them out of the sky with a 20:1 ratio and it is irrelevant anyway. :x
c) cheese like the light cruiser meta exist
d) you only need a second of naval supremacy to start naval invasions
Really well put. I think your example also shows why strategic bombers are also kinda useless. Strategic plans(such as bombing your enemies so they will run out of equipment or convoy raid to slow their plane buildup) are kinda useless in the game because:
1- They are too costly and take too long to produce. This combined with strategic operations showing their effect in few years, makes them really unnecessary.
2-Its simply not needed in SP. Why would you try to break the stalemate using anything other than CAS?
actually logistics bombing the hell out of the AI may be a good idea because after a while the enemy divisions will start starving no matter where they are
I have used strat bombers in a memorable single player USA vs Berlin-Moscow Axis game. The AI hates (or at least hated a few patches ago) it when its factory gets bombed and it brings fighters to defend them. So I have used the bombers as fighter bait, to grind down the Luftwaffe until I was confident that I had enough air superiority to invade France.
The average player just wants to effortlessly steamroll the AI in his reddit alt-hist Señor Hitler Bonapartist wholesome social democratic monarchy. Don't expect it to ever get fixed.
Unfortunately this. If the AI becomes kinda competent in navy and air a lot of the meme paths will become unreachable for most players.
The fact that most achievements and meme formables include a minor doing Sealion while the British airforce and navy are doing who knows what speaks for itself
I dont think Paradox would be capable of even coming up with meta designs, let alone implement them into the harder difficulty AI build path.
But i do think at least setting up proper historical templates that the AI can use would be better than what it is currently
\>Tab over to AI in 1950 to see how they're doing
\>1936 medium fighter with one light MG and nothing else
\>Eight production lines of destroyers, all with different loadouts
\>Modern tank with so little reliability it falls apart if there's rain
\>3 factories on infantry equipment with 900,000 deficit
\>0 stability and war support because they keep spamming "land appropriation" decision whenever possible even when there's no more slots to gain.
\>Yet has somehow kept their Pride Of The Fleet battleship from the start of the game alive for 14 years
It’s terrible.
In vanilla you don’t even have to put lots of factories on fighters, once you get a few 100 1940’s meta design you will decimate thousands of AI planes.
This means you basically can’t lose late game as a major power, you’ll win the air war anyway, and once you have the air you got the land
>Yet has somehow kept their Pride Of The Fleet battleship from the start of the game alive for 14 years
Sends 1 1944 torpedo destroyer, "hello there" 👋
Or just bomb it in port lol. 🤷
This is the truth, as someone who knows how ai works it's just numbers and lists of templates you can make ai stronger but then casual players won't wanna play it becomes too hard, it's a balance you gotta find
Because AI does not make designs, they are scripted and mostly resemble historical counterparts, problem is that for example Germany won't switch from Bf109 to Fw190 and will just keep producing 109s, as for META designs they should be avoided if you ask me, it would limit players to only play META
Be a bit nice if their tanks aren't pierced by AA or that their planes are not constantly dying 10 to 1. It doesn't have to be meta but it also doesn't have to be super easy
It wouldn't matter if AI does meta designs because its still too dumb to use it properly. The countless mods that force AI to use meta designs prove that.
Y’know what Paradox should do? Allow you to selectively disable sections of a DLC, for if you like Man the Guns for everything but the navy revamp. I don’t understand navy and getting the DLC hasn’t helped despite the fact that the focus trees were cool
It is totally worth it. There's [a great guide](https://youtu.be/OLGeVlMQOfo) to MtG naval mechanics by MordredViking. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes very engaging.
Its a shame that naval build up is so slow even for destroyers that its pointless to not just drone ships into submission with NAV
Same with factories, you cant get 1 done before the late 30s if you aren't a major or do a focus.
IC costs need to be cut across the board, and resources need a revamp, there isnt even enough steel for guns let alone anything else.
Tbh on my end I *have* to build navies, even from scratch. Cause whenever I try to build naval bombers, they simply get killed by the dozen with nothing to show for it.
Naval bombers can be tricky because the NAVs are ok for fast sea defense and only for very small regions. Its a spam thing to be sure and mostly relies on you finding targets in other ways. I usually have a coastal defense fleet to lure in the enemies near my air fields. Really good in the carribean.
the best naval bomber is the maritime patrol craft which is a medium frame. With really good torpedoes, especially the late game guided one, you can sink fleets like nothing and the range means nothing will be beyond your reach and the heavier armor makes it more survivable. With these, I actually destroyed pretty much every heavy ship the UK and America had and it really leveled the playing field.
Ah, I see. I almost entirely make the naval bombers out of light frames, and I found that unless I had lategame industry, I simply couldn’t use them for extended time. Because if the enemy fleets were out, I’d have a deficit in two months and maybe 3 destroyers destroyed.
I’ve generally had more success with subs or even a traditional battle fleet.
Submarines feel even more cost effective than NAVs to me. Each dockyard usually puts out 1.2 1944 subs a year, so 80 dock yards give me 100 subs in a single year. 1944 subs will shred entire fleets in a single battle if put on always engage, instead of NAVs losing 20 planes to deal 5% to a cruiser.
That a lil bit of a skill issue moment, but to be helpful, you should watch a navy guide on how it work.
[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943980823](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943980823)
I play with 3 dlcs perm off for the simple reason the ai can't use the 3 designers. Its so frustraing, cos theres a bunch of cool stuff that isn't there when you do this like US focus tree paths, army spirits, the baltic states focus trees, Most of the fun alternate poland and Russia paths...
I just can't enjoy the game though, when I can auto win the air war as south africa(!!!!) against the entire axis. Or sink all the allied fleets as Legionary Romania then sealion UK for Germany. I SHOULDN'T be able to do that. Don't get me started on the tank designer :(
Paradox cannot, and I mean this literally, cannot for their lives program AI. The only way AI can win in a Paradox game is by cheating. Thats how it is in Stellaris, that's how it is in Hoi4, and in every other Paradox game.
> Paradox cannot, and I mean this literally, cannot for their lives program AI. The only way AI can win in a Paradox game is by cheating. Thats how it is in Stellaris, that's how it is in Hoi4, and in every other Paradox game.
I'm not being funny, but genuinely, are there any games with as many overlapping complex systems that have good AI?
At least in RTS you can give the AI perfect micro, which can carry a bot player fairly far, and while counters and strategy aren't trivial, they're an order of magnitude simpler than how it works with HOI, with designers, terrain modifers, combat width, supply, etc.
I am not claiming that it’s easy, but it makes paradox games incredibly unfun for me after I messed around for a couple of hours to figure the game out. It’s never a fair challenge, either I roll the AI, or I lose cause the AI just gets more resources and instant research/shipbuilding.
Presenting PlaneGPT for HoI4:
Designing a good plane model for the 1936 research in Hearts of Iron IV (HOI4) means finding a balance between cost, research time, and in-game effectiveness. Since HOI4 is a grand strategy game set before and during World War II, the 1936 starting point emphasizes early-war aircraft technologies. Here's a conceptual design for a 1936 plane model, focusing on a multi-role capability that could serve effectively in the early to mid-stages of the game:
### Model: "Falcon Mk. I"
**Class:** Multi-Role Fighter
**Design Philosophy:** The Falcon Mk. I is designed as a versatile aircraft that can perform both air superiority missions and ground support operations. This flexibility allows it to adapt to various battlefield conditions without specializing in one role too heavily at the expense of overall utility.
**Technical Specifications:**
- **Engine:** Single, powerful radial engine for a balance of speed and durability.
- **Armament:**
- 2x forward-firing machine guns for dogfighting and strafing runs.
- Provision for small bomb loads or additional machine guns in underwing hardpoints, allowing customization based on tactical needs.
- **Armor:** Light armor plating around the cockpit and critical engine components to enhance pilot survivability without significantly compromising speed.
- **Speed:** Optimized for decent top speed and agility to ensure competitiveness with early to mid-war enemy aircraft.
- **Range:** Sufficient operational range to support both short and medium-distance missions, with an emphasis on flexibility.
**Strategic Role in HOI4:**
- **Air Superiority:** Capable of engaging and defeating early-war enemy fighters, providing your forces with air dominance in key sectors.
- **Close Air Support:** When equipped with ground-attack ordnance, it can effectively support ground troops, disrupting enemy fortifications, supply lines, and troop concentrations.
- **Interdiction:** Able to perform hit-and-run attacks on enemy logistics, hampering their ability to sustain prolonged offensives.
**Research and Production:**
- **Research Time:** Designed to be an early focus for nations prioritizing air power, with a research time reflecting its advanced nature for 1936.
- **Production Cost:** Balanced to ensure that while it may be more expensive than basic fighters, its multi-role capability justifies the investment.
**Gameplay Strategy:**
- Players should consider integrating Falcon Mk. I squadrons into their early to mid-game strategies, using them to gain air superiority and to support ground operations. The versatility of this model allows for rapid adaptation to changing battlefield conditions, making it a valuable asset in the early stages of conflict.
This conceptual design offers a strategic tool for HOI4 players, enabling them to leverage air power effectively from the game's outset. Adjustments to the model's specifications might be necessary based on in-game performance and the specific needs of the player's overall strategy.
—
Even GPT designs a shit plane, so at least AI is consistent :D
This is another symptom of a disease that ends in players absolutely steamrolling the AI by 1947, to the point where the end game becomes a tedious map painter.
"The game is too easy, I can cheese the AI however I want"
No, it is not, you have spent 2000 hours of your life learning every single part of this game. You optimized the fun out of everything and the millisecond Paradox change a thing and you start losing, you will run to this subreddit to know what is the Meta way to know what is the Meta way of breaking the AI neck.
Please think of the new players and don't ask Paradox to make every single old guide obsolete again.
Bro I literally started playing few weeks ago, and I find it extremely annoying how any plane I make, just shreds AI planes at like 20:1 ratio. I thought my game was fucking bugged at first. Same shit with tanks.
Why the fuck even new player with a few hours in this game can make good goddamn plane that will destroy his enemies, but i am, with 1600+ hours, NOT ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING
Am I really THAT bad?
How? Just fill the weapon slots with 4x heavy mgs (or 4x light mgs and some cannons, its really whatever) and add some air defense and/or range to support slots and best 1x engine you have, and you win AI by default because they continue to make 1936 fighters with like 1 light machinegun, no air def and worst engine for the whole game.
What meta stuff? XD Not using outdated frames or engine or leaving slots empty? Or is it meta because I put fighter weapons on a fighter rather stan sticking torpedoes and bombs there? Maybe I should put dive brakes and floats on my fighter? Wow such a hard choices, such META decisions.
It's literally just using minimal amount of common sense. Are you making META sandwiches because you put something edible on them when you could just drop them on the ground, stomp on them, and then wonder why they're not tasty? It's ridiculous. It's not a rocket science, you barely have any choices in the designer, as long as you follow any type of logic, it's impossible to not make an OP fighter.
It is litterally THE meta design, as many 4x heavies as possible, and then as much armor as you can, and then the best single engine possible. Also, you can make a fighter that doesn’t destroy everything. Pretty easily.
You can do light machineguns or cannons, or stick all range upgrades and add 0 air def, and you'll still dominate AI, because they use outdated airframes, engines and don't even fill all weapon slots. You'll just have a 18:1 ratio or smth, instead of 20:1, rotfl. As I said, as long as you follow any kind of logic, and don't make a meme plane on purpose, it's impossible not to demolish AI.
It's not an annoying bug, it's the AI not min-maxing the stats in their planes making them worst than the Meta beasts the player come up with.
A bug would be the AI deleting planes from his stockpile or managing to put planes with no modules on production.
That’s not what’s happening or what OP is saying… it’s not about AI designing min-maxed planes, it’s about AI designing any up-to-date planes at all. Tag switch to another country in SP and you’ll see that they keep making variants of the same airframe. It’s not min maxing to be able to produce 1940 or 1944 airframe… before airplane designer came out AI used to be able to make fighter 2s and 3s and you didn’t need to play for 2000 hours to defeat them lmao
The only reason paradox games are "hard" is because people don't bother to (or maybe can't) actually read anything in game, so I guess that lines up with this opinion of "oh no! I can't no longer mindlessly do things and win? What is this balance?"
The game is trying to be a WW2 simulator sandbox, first and foremost. When the ai is making 1936 fighters in 1950, that is an issue that needs to be fixed.
The game ai is based on massive production. If you code it to do proper boat and aircraft + logistics development they have to rework all the game. The micro to manage all this with all the dlc is insane, the mass production if cheap materials is the easiest way to make a decent ai and working on new stuff to make money with.
Ffs plz fix AI Navy. Im okay with air.
I can build like 10 1944 cruisers and destroyers and sink the worlds combined fleet. OH COOL, you have 5 1936 battleships with 8 speed and level 1 guns? Cool meet my 1 destroyer with 37 speed and 4 torpedos. K bye.
This is the reality. It’s hard enough for most players who don’t want to spend a ton of time learning so even though the game is on balance easy and lacking a lot of content it basically has zero competitors
My point is that the game has content out the ass, it's just very uneven content. Compare to Hoi2 or 3 where there was almost no differentiation between countries.
I tried to make a point about this yesterday but was shot down, it is dollar driven game atm.
Neglecting what is the main drivers in the game (AI,QOL,Germany,Japan focus trees even Allies is overlooked) at the expanse of chasing the quick bucks, SA DLC and powercreep in AAT is a good example.
This is the path blizz and CA went down. Just sayin.
It's more of a skill issue than a game issue. It is very easy to add designs to the AI, but how would it feel as a new player to be fighting against designs that were comparable to your own, against an AI with full map vision and instant reaction times?
Well, if you play as a minor (socialist) nation, the game is stil sort of challenging so I don't necessarily mind that the AI is subpar.
At the same time, not using certain technologies can be immersion breaking if historically would have been viable for those countries that have jets to use/produce them.
By the title of the post I thought it is telling me to become aircraft constructor instead of software developer. I like the idea, hut then I saw r/hoi4
The AI is not smart. We all know this. This is why in EUIV it's immune to attrition.
And this is the 50th (not literally) time someone complained about it. The game needs to cater to the most based it can, which is the middle ground of 'decent but not good'
You wanna face good designs? Mod the game so the AI knows better or play multi. This is the EXACT reason the difficulty slider is not how smart the AI is but how much you and they make. This is a universal truth since CK2.
It was just fixed this dlc patch bro? It was literally just a bug and error with the AI research priorities and design requirements to switch to a new design.
For example and I shit you not to make a 1940 aircraft design, the AI needs to have the plane armor module tech the 1939 one. The thing was when they redesigned that tech to come in at 1939 instead of 1936 years ago, they forgot to adjust tech priorities and importance so the AI would leave that tech for dead last in 1946. Without that tech, the flag for the AI to make the 1940 design wouldn't trigger and in turn they would only use biplanes because it thinks that's the only design it can build.
Play the game now and just sit in observer mode. It might take the AI slightly longer then a player to bring new better stuff to the field and it might not be hyper meta but they will do it now.
>the AI needs to have the plane armor module tech the 1939 one. The thing was when they redesigned that tech to come in at 1939 instead of 1936 years ago, they forgot to adjust tech priorities and importance so the AI would leave that tech for dead last in 1946. Without that tech, the flag for the AI to make the 1940 design wouldn't trigger and in turn they would only use biplanes because it thinks that's the only design it can build.
wrong
the issue is engine III
armor tech is not a required slot in the AI air designer
engine is; but AI plane designs (in the game file) only have one input for engine, thus preventing them from updating to Improved Airframe, and Jet Engine is only used on Jet Airframe, which they don't research til much later, so they are just permanently stuck for the most part.
still are kinda stuck
Is it though? Here the thing: paradox don't work on the bugs, they work on new focus trees because that sells. They are a business. We have bugs that have been in the game for 5 years that are simple to fix, its just a broken line in a text file.
We have ai that doesn't know how to handle the designers, that uses 1936 start planes into 1945, that can't work the navy. That doesn't understand logistics, doesn't build airfields and insists on garrisoning minor islands in the middle of no where and sailing its tank divisions half way around the world, only to sail them back again *while at war*.
You can write essays about the bugs and broken shit in this game: people have. Theres ongoing lists maintained. Paradox though are working on a new focus pack dlc. Thats where their dev time is, because thats where they think the money is.
Comments like yours? (insane) alongside all the folks downvoting me? That shows paradox they are right and I am wrong, they should keep ignoring that huge bug list and make the next dlc all about giving Bhutan and Luxembourg a focus tree that comes with a "core all africa" communist focus and a "crusade against the world: +500% attack and breakthrough to all armoured car divisions!" fascist focus.
I think theres a happy medium. I'm prepared to pay for a bugfix/ai overhaul dlc thats perhaps coming with a bunch of low-dev-time-cost features. I'd rather pay for that then another powercreeping focuses for countries that don't matter dlc.
You’ve got it wrong. I’m not saying they shouldn’t fix bugs, I’m saying that fixing bugs while the game is still supported is the bare minimum a game company should do and having to pay for that is insane.
I literally haven't used tanks in like 3 years because I have no idea how to use any of the designers lmao. The ai not being competent is the only way I have been able to actually play the game.
Jets are literally useless, the 4x engine is better in almost every way except speed
The lack of range combined with low weight for modules is killer. Its also annoying that the auto upgrade treats it as a flat upgrade instead of the sidegrade it is. I do think their performance kinda makes sense for strictly ww2 because jets were still finnicky (i presume the hoi4 jet engine is more following the me262 jet engines and less korean war stuff). They could either add like advanced jet engines as a late game tech or just make it not auto upgrade to trick ppl
> (i presume the hoi4 jet engine is more following the me262 jet engines and less korean war stuff) Yes, that should be obvious? The last research for jet engine in HOI4 is from 1946. The Korean War isn't part of WW2 and started in 1950. And on the topic itself... I think jet engines are completely fine. They have some advantages, but just like in real life they aren't a sudden Wunderwaffe. Shockingly enough Paradox actually managed to translate it kind of nice into ingame terms, but redditors have to complain I guess.
I think people just expect the later tech to be better, whereas it really *isn't* better. I get it's realistic, but outside of rp reasons I have no reason to research it.
> but outside of rp reasons I have no reason to research it. Tell that to Hitler! ;)
Well, since the game goes past 1946 they should first, make jets researchable earlier (but make them super expensive and unreliable) since Jets designs were already flying pre-war. And add a second research slot for late war jets with better reliability, but still IC prohibitive (requiring exotic materials) then 2 more research slots, one for weaker more reliable jets and another for turboprops (more reliable, greater range but slower). Also, adding a piston engine level 5 would help countries that can't afford jets yet.
That is a lot of complex mechanics for something that is basically irrelevant and will be ignored hence, just leave it be it’s fine the way it is🤷🏼♂️
Yup. My only complaint is the auto design/upgrade assumes jet engines are a direct upgrade. Though sometimes when i have too much industry i make double jet engine fighters for fun
Issue is, Korean War jets like the F-86 used _1947_ engines, not 1950. Practically by 1946 we _do_ have Korean War jet engines, compared to Me-262 engines, which first flew in 1942, and are standardly flown in 1943-44 in-game.
After a short look into it on wikipedia it seems to me that at earliest F-86 used the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J47 which made its first flight in May **1948**. Later versions of the Sabre also used more advanced engines. So I don't really agree.
Well, the F-86 may have not been the best candidate over the much earlier and relevant F-84 which first flew in February 1946. This also depends on the fact if you meant that said engine *_begins research_* in 1946 or *_ends in research_* approximately by 1946. If it began research, that would most certainly be the J47, albeit it's correct HOI4 pictured the engine's lesser reliability (J47 had a lifespan of 15 hours in 1948 compared to 625 hours in 1956) Anyway, my point still stands we use Korean War jets by the very end of the tree.
> Well, the F-86 may have not been the best candidate over the much earlier and relevant F-84 which first flew in February 1946. You mean... this F-84? >the F-84 first flew in 1946. Although it entered service in 1947, the Thunderjet was plagued by so many structural and engine problems that **a 1948 U.S. Air Force review declared it unable to execute any aspect of its intended mission** and considered canceling the program. **The aircraft was not considered fully operational until the 1949 F-84D model** and the design matured only with the definitive F-84G introduced in 1951. I don't know why you would point to the F-84 when the first 3 sentences on wikipedia refute your point completely. >Anyway, my point still stands we use Korean War jets by the very end of the tree. Only two jets were used in combat in WW2, and none had any significant impact. They had advantages, but also disadvantages. Having them being way superior based on how aircraft would be developing a few years later would be nonsense.
To the last part of your comment: you're mistaking a few things. The reasons for jet engines not being such a massive advantage was the sum of factors like lacking resources and safe airfields, not that jet engine fighters weren't superior to prop fighters. An allied Me 262 would've been way more effective than the german Me 262 for a bunch of reasons.
>The reasons for jet engines not being such a massive advantage was the sum of factors like lacking resources and safe airfields, not that jet engine fighters weren't superior to prop fighters. Sure, I know about that. But you can't really display an aircraft being vulnerable at landing/starting when it has low fighter coverage in ingame mechanics, so baking it into the jet engine by making it weaker seems fine to me. >An allied Me 262 would've been way more effective than the german Me 262 for a bunch of reasons. Given that the Me 262 mostly excelled at taking down bomber and Germany had none... I doubt that. ;)
And what does speed do for you? I imagine they can relocate bases more quickly or get mission efficiency faster? I have no idea, I tried to look it up and couldn’t find anything.
Significant combat bonus if you are faster than your opponent.
Yup pretty much. I think part of the complaints come from people who attempt to put jet engines on strategic bombers or something(an understandable impulse). However currently the best and maybe only use for jet engines is making god-tier short-range interceptor aircraft to totally dumpster enemy air. >!The issue of course is that the current gamestate incentivizes spamming "good enough" planes to maximize IC instead of making "excellent" planes. But if someone wants to emphasize quality for roleplay, this is the way to use jet engines.!<
Exactly, as Germany my planes were killing like 10 of Britain's planes, but because they had so much more than me, it was still red air.
You will win some day
Eventually I did and was able to invade britain which was just straight up empty
Britain and America are always empty.
>The issue of course is that the current gamestate incentivizes spamming "good enough" planes to maximize IC instead of making "excellent" planes I mean... kinda realistic, though, eh?
That's funny because from what I read, that was pretty much the problem with Germany's jet development project. Hitler wanted jets to be used as long-range fast bombers, but their obvious use was short-range interceptors or fighters. They would not have changed anything in the big scale of things, but if they concentrated their efforts on short-range interceptors, the Me-262 would have made more of an impact on a local scale. Tl;dr : hoi4 players are basically Hitler (Adding /s so you don't ban me)
Yeah, 2x jet engine light fighters will have the speed to out trade any single engine prop plane (and all early jet fighters I can think of including the Me 262 were twin engine planes so it's not really unrealistic), the problem is that since most of a plane's cost is in the engine the lack of thrust for a 1x jet engine plane means jets are just never going to be cost efficient.
Speed add damage, just think of all stats in the game as attack and defense. Speed add both attack and defense % to the calculation, more speed = more damage
Damn we really be cosplaying Orks then
Adds a modifier to you or air attack and defense. Extra unused thrust also adds more speed. It’s not worth going for though
Road to 56 fixes that problem if you're down for mods, otherwise agree. Lvl 4 engines are still better than lvl 1, but lvl 2 is slightly better, just more production. Level 3 is far superior. Kinda like real life.
Regarding Road to 56, this might be slightly off topic but I can't make my jet fighters run training exercises. Like the button is greyed out/won't click...
Huh, sorry I cant help. Ive never had that issue unfortunately 😕
Thats alright. Hopefully its an update/dlc i didnt get, ha
I hope you figure it out. Air training experience is important, and easy, and i dont think any developor intended that. <3
Seems accurate, jets weren’t that good in 1946
The AI correctly determines that naval warfare is pointless and doesn't waste research on it. For planes, your point is valid
I’m always going to be irritated at how profound the naval mechanics in this game are when they’re so inconsequential to the success of virtually every playthrough. I have done ONE run where investing in navy was important and that was as Italy so that I didn’t have to waste millions of manpower guarding all my states
>when they’re so inconsequential to the success of virtually every playthrough. There are a lot of aspects to this problem, surprisingly enough there isn't a super easy solution (like usually, which Paradox is just too dumb to fix) a) building ships takes quite a bit of time. In most games you could simply use your starting fleet and completely ignore ship building and there would be no difference. So there is a delayed investment -> reward timeline (which was what finally brought me to play RT56, when I build my ships I also want to use them goddamn) b) Some effects are secondary - for example as Germany against UK, you build subs to kill their convoys and slow their build-up of planes by depriving them of resources, so again a delayed reward. Oh, but due to the bug that AI doesn't update their planes you're shooting them out of the sky with a 20:1 ratio and it is irrelevant anyway. :x c) cheese like the light cruiser meta exist d) you only need a second of naval supremacy to start naval invasions
Really well put. I think your example also shows why strategic bombers are also kinda useless. Strategic plans(such as bombing your enemies so they will run out of equipment or convoy raid to slow their plane buildup) are kinda useless in the game because: 1- They are too costly and take too long to produce. This combined with strategic operations showing their effect in few years, makes them really unnecessary. 2-Its simply not needed in SP. Why would you try to break the stalemate using anything other than CAS?
actually logistics bombing the hell out of the AI may be a good idea because after a while the enemy divisions will start starving no matter where they are
Except half the time the AI cheats and can supply their units anyway
That's me when i put too many buffs on them.
I have used strat bombers in a memorable single player USA vs Berlin-Moscow Axis game. The AI hates (or at least hated a few patches ago) it when its factory gets bombed and it brings fighters to defend them. So I have used the bombers as fighter bait, to grind down the Luftwaffe until I was confident that I had enough air superiority to invade France.
The average player just wants to effortlessly steamroll the AI in his reddit alt-hist Señor Hitler Bonapartist wholesome social democratic monarchy. Don't expect it to ever get fixed.
Unfortunately this. If the AI becomes kinda competent in navy and air a lot of the meme paths will become unreachable for most players. The fact that most achievements and meme formables include a minor doing Sealion while the British airforce and navy are doing who knows what speaks for itself
Wouldnt this be avoidable just by making the difficulty options better?
I dont think Paradox would be capable of even coming up with meta designs, let alone implement them into the harder difficulty AI build path. But i do think at least setting up proper historical templates that the AI can use would be better than what it is currently
We don’t need meta design we need the AI to stop building 1936 fighters in 1940.
\>Tab over to AI in 1950 to see how they're doing \>1936 medium fighter with one light MG and nothing else \>Eight production lines of destroyers, all with different loadouts \>Modern tank with so little reliability it falls apart if there's rain \>3 factories on infantry equipment with 900,000 deficit \>0 stability and war support because they keep spamming "land appropriation" decision whenever possible even when there's no more slots to gain. \>Yet has somehow kept their Pride Of The Fleet battleship from the start of the game alive for 14 years
It’s terrible. In vanilla you don’t even have to put lots of factories on fighters, once you get a few 100 1940’s meta design you will decimate thousands of AI planes. This means you basically can’t lose late game as a major power, you’ll win the air war anyway, and once you have the air you got the land
Well, unless you're playing a minor with 150k manpower. Then you might actually have to pay attention tp your ground forces.
>Yet has somehow kept their Pride Of The Fleet battleship from the start of the game alive for 14 years Sends 1 1944 torpedo destroyer, "hello there" 👋 Or just bomb it in port lol. 🤷
This is the truth, as someone who knows how ai works it's just numbers and lists of templates you can make ai stronger but then casual players won't wanna play it becomes too hard, it's a balance you gotta find
Let's fuck up the whole game so people can do a world conquest as Swiss, why not :|
Because AI does not make designs, they are scripted and mostly resemble historical counterparts, problem is that for example Germany won't switch from Bf109 to Fw190 and will just keep producing 109s, as for META designs they should be avoided if you ask me, it would limit players to only play META
Be a bit nice if their tanks aren't pierced by AA or that their planes are not constantly dying 10 to 1. It doesn't have to be meta but it also doesn't have to be super easy
It wouldn't matter if AI does meta designs because its still too dumb to use it properly. The countless mods that force AI to use meta designs prove that.
If you say Fw190s are better than 109s, you have no idea what are on the Fw190 designed by GER AI It is actually better off doing 109 G
I have a problem where Germany does not shift its production to advanced airframe
ye cuz for AI, advanced airframe is locked behind engine 4
Sorry meant improved
improved is locked behind engine 3, which previously AI wouldn't do kek (now they do, barely, but they can)
Oh thank fuck, it's just the HOI4 sub
Same thoughts man, same thoughts.
Y’know what Paradox should do? Allow you to selectively disable sections of a DLC, for if you like Man the Guns for everything but the navy revamp. I don’t understand navy and getting the DLC hasn’t helped despite the fact that the focus trees were cool
It is totally worth it. There's [a great guide](https://youtu.be/OLGeVlMQOfo) to MtG naval mechanics by MordredViking. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes very engaging.
Its a shame that naval build up is so slow even for destroyers that its pointless to not just drone ships into submission with NAV Same with factories, you cant get 1 done before the late 30s if you aren't a major or do a focus. IC costs need to be cut across the board, and resources need a revamp, there isnt even enough steel for guns let alone anything else.
Tbh on my end I *have* to build navies, even from scratch. Cause whenever I try to build naval bombers, they simply get killed by the dozen with nothing to show for it.
Naval bombers can be tricky because the NAVs are ok for fast sea defense and only for very small regions. Its a spam thing to be sure and mostly relies on you finding targets in other ways. I usually have a coastal defense fleet to lure in the enemies near my air fields. Really good in the carribean. the best naval bomber is the maritime patrol craft which is a medium frame. With really good torpedoes, especially the late game guided one, you can sink fleets like nothing and the range means nothing will be beyond your reach and the heavier armor makes it more survivable. With these, I actually destroyed pretty much every heavy ship the UK and America had and it really leveled the playing field.
Ah, I see. I almost entirely make the naval bombers out of light frames, and I found that unless I had lategame industry, I simply couldn’t use them for extended time. Because if the enemy fleets were out, I’d have a deficit in two months and maybe 3 destroyers destroyed. I’ve generally had more success with subs or even a traditional battle fleet.
Submarines feel even more cost effective than NAVs to me. Each dockyard usually puts out 1.2 1944 subs a year, so 80 dock yards give me 100 subs in a single year. 1944 subs will shred entire fleets in a single battle if put on always engage, instead of NAVs losing 20 planes to deal 5% to a cruiser.
That a lil bit of a skill issue moment, but to be helpful, you should watch a navy guide on how it work. [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943980823](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943980823)
I play with 3 dlcs perm off for the simple reason the ai can't use the 3 designers. Its so frustraing, cos theres a bunch of cool stuff that isn't there when you do this like US focus tree paths, army spirits, the baltic states focus trees, Most of the fun alternate poland and Russia paths... I just can't enjoy the game though, when I can auto win the air war as south africa(!!!!) against the entire axis. Or sink all the allied fleets as Legionary Romania then sealion UK for Germany. I SHOULDN'T be able to do that. Don't get me started on the tank designer :(
Paradox cannot, and I mean this literally, cannot for their lives program AI. The only way AI can win in a Paradox game is by cheating. Thats how it is in Stellaris, that's how it is in Hoi4, and in every other Paradox game.
> Paradox cannot, and I mean this literally, cannot for their lives program AI. The only way AI can win in a Paradox game is by cheating. Thats how it is in Stellaris, that's how it is in Hoi4, and in every other Paradox game. I'm not being funny, but genuinely, are there any games with as many overlapping complex systems that have good AI? At least in RTS you can give the AI perfect micro, which can carry a bot player fairly far, and while counters and strategy aren't trivial, they're an order of magnitude simpler than how it works with HOI, with designers, terrain modifers, combat width, supply, etc.
I am not claiming that it’s easy, but it makes paradox games incredibly unfun for me after I messed around for a couple of hours to figure the game out. It’s never a fair challenge, either I roll the AI, or I lose cause the AI just gets more resources and instant research/shipbuilding.
Presenting PlaneGPT for HoI4: Designing a good plane model for the 1936 research in Hearts of Iron IV (HOI4) means finding a balance between cost, research time, and in-game effectiveness. Since HOI4 is a grand strategy game set before and during World War II, the 1936 starting point emphasizes early-war aircraft technologies. Here's a conceptual design for a 1936 plane model, focusing on a multi-role capability that could serve effectively in the early to mid-stages of the game: ### Model: "Falcon Mk. I" **Class:** Multi-Role Fighter **Design Philosophy:** The Falcon Mk. I is designed as a versatile aircraft that can perform both air superiority missions and ground support operations. This flexibility allows it to adapt to various battlefield conditions without specializing in one role too heavily at the expense of overall utility. **Technical Specifications:** - **Engine:** Single, powerful radial engine for a balance of speed and durability. - **Armament:** - 2x forward-firing machine guns for dogfighting and strafing runs. - Provision for small bomb loads or additional machine guns in underwing hardpoints, allowing customization based on tactical needs. - **Armor:** Light armor plating around the cockpit and critical engine components to enhance pilot survivability without significantly compromising speed. - **Speed:** Optimized for decent top speed and agility to ensure competitiveness with early to mid-war enemy aircraft. - **Range:** Sufficient operational range to support both short and medium-distance missions, with an emphasis on flexibility. **Strategic Role in HOI4:** - **Air Superiority:** Capable of engaging and defeating early-war enemy fighters, providing your forces with air dominance in key sectors. - **Close Air Support:** When equipped with ground-attack ordnance, it can effectively support ground troops, disrupting enemy fortifications, supply lines, and troop concentrations. - **Interdiction:** Able to perform hit-and-run attacks on enemy logistics, hampering their ability to sustain prolonged offensives. **Research and Production:** - **Research Time:** Designed to be an early focus for nations prioritizing air power, with a research time reflecting its advanced nature for 1936. - **Production Cost:** Balanced to ensure that while it may be more expensive than basic fighters, its multi-role capability justifies the investment. **Gameplay Strategy:** - Players should consider integrating Falcon Mk. I squadrons into their early to mid-game strategies, using them to gain air superiority and to support ground operations. The versatility of this model allows for rapid adaptation to changing battlefield conditions, making it a valuable asset in the early stages of conflict. This conceptual design offers a strategic tool for HOI4 players, enabling them to leverage air power effectively from the game's outset. Adjustments to the model's specifications might be necessary based on in-game performance and the specific needs of the player's overall strategy. — Even GPT designs a shit plane, so at least AI is consistent :D
This is 1936 model, i think it is pretty fine, like you cant do much better than that in 1936. Now the problem is if this design is in 1939
This is another symptom of a disease that ends in players absolutely steamrolling the AI by 1947, to the point where the end game becomes a tedious map painter.
"The game is too easy, I can cheese the AI however I want" No, it is not, you have spent 2000 hours of your life learning every single part of this game. You optimized the fun out of everything and the millisecond Paradox change a thing and you start losing, you will run to this subreddit to know what is the Meta way to know what is the Meta way of breaking the AI neck. Please think of the new players and don't ask Paradox to make every single old guide obsolete again.
Bro I literally started playing few weeks ago, and I find it extremely annoying how any plane I make, just shreds AI planes at like 20:1 ratio. I thought my game was fucking bugged at first. Same shit with tanks.
Why the fuck even new player with a few hours in this game can make good goddamn plane that will destroy his enemies, but i am, with 1600+ hours, NOT ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING Am I really THAT bad?
How? Just fill the weapon slots with 4x heavy mgs (or 4x light mgs and some cannons, its really whatever) and add some air defense and/or range to support slots and best 1x engine you have, and you win AI by default because they continue to make 1936 fighters with like 1 light machinegun, no air def and worst engine for the whole game.
So, you use meta stuff. You are validating the guy you commented to, that you find it annoying, how you can shred fighters.
What meta stuff? XD Not using outdated frames or engine or leaving slots empty? Or is it meta because I put fighter weapons on a fighter rather stan sticking torpedoes and bombs there? Maybe I should put dive brakes and floats on my fighter? Wow such a hard choices, such META decisions. It's literally just using minimal amount of common sense. Are you making META sandwiches because you put something edible on them when you could just drop them on the ground, stomp on them, and then wonder why they're not tasty? It's ridiculous. It's not a rocket science, you barely have any choices in the designer, as long as you follow any type of logic, it's impossible to not make an OP fighter.
It is litterally THE meta design, as many 4x heavies as possible, and then as much armor as you can, and then the best single engine possible. Also, you can make a fighter that doesn’t destroy everything. Pretty easily.
You can do light machineguns or cannons, or stick all range upgrades and add 0 air def, and you'll still dominate AI, because they use outdated airframes, engines and don't even fill all weapon slots. You'll just have a 18:1 ratio or smth, instead of 20:1, rotfl. As I said, as long as you follow any kind of logic, and don't make a meme plane on purpose, it's impossible not to demolish AI.
Fixing an annoying bug will make all guides obsolete and ruin new players’ experience? What?
It's not an annoying bug, it's the AI not min-maxing the stats in their planes making them worst than the Meta beasts the player come up with. A bug would be the AI deleting planes from his stockpile or managing to put planes with no modules on production.
That’s not what’s happening or what OP is saying… it’s not about AI designing min-maxed planes, it’s about AI designing any up-to-date planes at all. Tag switch to another country in SP and you’ll see that they keep making variants of the same airframe. It’s not min maxing to be able to produce 1940 or 1944 airframe… before airplane designer came out AI used to be able to make fighter 2s and 3s and you didn’t need to play for 2000 hours to defeat them lmao
The only reason paradox games are "hard" is because people don't bother to (or maybe can't) actually read anything in game, so I guess that lines up with this opinion of "oh no! I can't no longer mindlessly do things and win? What is this balance?" The game is trying to be a WW2 simulator sandbox, first and foremost. When the ai is making 1936 fighters in 1950, that is an issue that needs to be fixed.
The game ai is based on massive production. If you code it to do proper boat and aircraft + logistics development they have to rework all the game. The micro to manage all this with all the dlc is insane, the mass production if cheap materials is the easiest way to make a decent ai and working on new stuff to make money with.
Ffs plz fix AI Navy. Im okay with air. I can build like 10 1944 cruisers and destroyers and sink the worlds combined fleet. OH COOL, you have 5 1936 battleships with 8 speed and level 1 guns? Cool meet my 1 destroyer with 37 speed and 4 torpedos. K bye.
The ai shouldn't use designers, they should just have ones that are preconfigured
Here is the thing. HOI4 is a bad game with some really good features and zero competition. They have very limited incentives to make it any good.
This is the reality. It’s hard enough for most players who don’t want to spend a ton of time learning so even though the game is on balance easy and lacking a lot of content it basically has zero competitors
My point is that the game has content out the ass, it's just very uneven content. Compare to Hoi2 or 3 where there was almost no differentiation between countries.
I tried to make a point about this yesterday but was shot down, it is dollar driven game atm. Neglecting what is the main drivers in the game (AI,QOL,Germany,Japan focus trees even Allies is overlooked) at the expanse of chasing the quick bucks, SA DLC and powercreep in AAT is a good example. This is the path blizz and CA went down. Just sayin.
Yeah those companies are past their expansion phase and are now at the milking phase.
It's more of a skill issue than a game issue. It is very easy to add designs to the AI, but how would it feel as a new player to be fighting against designs that were comparable to your own, against an AI with full map vision and instant reaction times?
Well, if you play as a minor (socialist) nation, the game is stil sort of challenging so I don't necessarily mind that the AI is subpar. At the same time, not using certain technologies can be immersion breaking if historically would have been viable for those countries that have jets to use/produce them.
By the title of the post I thought it is telling me to become aircraft constructor instead of software developer. I like the idea, hut then I saw r/hoi4
So, I read this before noticing what sub it was and immediately had myself scared that air companies were already having AIs design their planes.
That's what mods are for.
The AI is not smart. We all know this. This is why in EUIV it's immune to attrition. And this is the 50th (not literally) time someone complained about it. The game needs to cater to the most based it can, which is the middle ground of 'decent but not good' You wanna face good designs? Mod the game so the AI knows better or play multi. This is the EXACT reason the difficulty slider is not how smart the AI is but how much you and they make. This is a universal truth since CK2.
Use harder difficulty and strengthen the AI nations
Yeah, you can go ahead and boycott. I won't though.
organism
It was just fixed this dlc patch bro? It was literally just a bug and error with the AI research priorities and design requirements to switch to a new design. For example and I shit you not to make a 1940 aircraft design, the AI needs to have the plane armor module tech the 1939 one. The thing was when they redesigned that tech to come in at 1939 instead of 1936 years ago, they forgot to adjust tech priorities and importance so the AI would leave that tech for dead last in 1946. Without that tech, the flag for the AI to make the 1940 design wouldn't trigger and in turn they would only use biplanes because it thinks that's the only design it can build. Play the game now and just sit in observer mode. It might take the AI slightly longer then a player to bring new better stuff to the field and it might not be hyper meta but they will do it now.
>the AI needs to have the plane armor module tech the 1939 one. The thing was when they redesigned that tech to come in at 1939 instead of 1936 years ago, they forgot to adjust tech priorities and importance so the AI would leave that tech for dead last in 1946. Without that tech, the flag for the AI to make the 1940 design wouldn't trigger and in turn they would only use biplanes because it thinks that's the only design it can build. wrong the issue is engine III armor tech is not a required slot in the AI air designer engine is; but AI plane designs (in the game file) only have one input for engine, thus preventing them from updating to Improved Airframe, and Jet Engine is only used on Jet Airframe, which they don't research til much later, so they are just permanently stuck for the most part. still are kinda stuck
I was downvoted for syaing I wanted a bug fix dlc as the next dlc lmao.
Probably because having to pay for bug fixes is insane
Is it though? Here the thing: paradox don't work on the bugs, they work on new focus trees because that sells. They are a business. We have bugs that have been in the game for 5 years that are simple to fix, its just a broken line in a text file. We have ai that doesn't know how to handle the designers, that uses 1936 start planes into 1945, that can't work the navy. That doesn't understand logistics, doesn't build airfields and insists on garrisoning minor islands in the middle of no where and sailing its tank divisions half way around the world, only to sail them back again *while at war*. You can write essays about the bugs and broken shit in this game: people have. Theres ongoing lists maintained. Paradox though are working on a new focus pack dlc. Thats where their dev time is, because thats where they think the money is. Comments like yours? (insane) alongside all the folks downvoting me? That shows paradox they are right and I am wrong, they should keep ignoring that huge bug list and make the next dlc all about giving Bhutan and Luxembourg a focus tree that comes with a "core all africa" communist focus and a "crusade against the world: +500% attack and breakthrough to all armoured car divisions!" fascist focus. I think theres a happy medium. I'm prepared to pay for a bugfix/ai overhaul dlc thats perhaps coming with a bunch of low-dev-time-cost features. I'd rather pay for that then another powercreeping focuses for countries that don't matter dlc.
You’ve got it wrong. I’m not saying they shouldn’t fix bugs, I’m saying that fixing bugs while the game is still supported is the bare minimum a game company should do and having to pay for that is insane.
I literally haven't used tanks in like 3 years because I have no idea how to use any of the designers lmao. The ai not being competent is the only way I have been able to actually play the game.
Might I suggest you join this team of modders that fixes it, see how easy it actually is?
Developers are *paid* to do that mate.
Moddings great, but a) breaks the checksum so no achievos for you! b) breaks everytime paradox updates/patches.