Store Page
Hearts of Iron IV
All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos Workshop News Guides Reviews

Hearts of Iron IV

Store Page
Hearts of Iron IV >  Workshop > Bridger's Workshop
39 ratings
Perfect Storm - Multiplayer Balance Mod
Description Discussions0 Comments122 Change Notes
   
Award
Favorite
Favorited
Unfavorite
Balance, Gameplay
File Size
Posted
Updated
588.284 KB
27 Jul, 2016 @ 3:09pm
17 Dec, 2016 @ 8:32am
17 Change Notes ( view )
Links
On Twitter (External link) On Youtube (External link)
Created by
Bridger
Offline
See all 13 collections (some may be hidden)
9,030 Unique Visitors
274 Current Subscribers
52 Current Favorites

Subscribe to download
Perfect Storm - Multiplayer Balance Mod

Description
Unified Changelog:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HMPzr-aTPSnEM8E73pGA5Cwb5OCXmY2_qI0S5RJj80/

World Tension Changes Explaination:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j8fUghFODqu6T5dObULoFrtYNG0nqmOHjfH8zGPWAvA

Overhauled Generic National Focus Tree (Political Section):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DaknpTw_bKr9ufQ-gsUkTH90jMr553c1kO_tfwhYmGY

Perfect Storm is a mod with a single overarching vision: Provide the player with as much flexibility as possible, while keeping the “feel” of World War II intact. To that end we will be doing our best to avoid broad restrictions like “no war declarations before 1939.” Instead, we seek to provide incentives and costs to actions in order to allow for multiple viable routes for players to make their own grand strategy.

Another minor goal will be improving all of the events and national focuses. Currently, there are many events and focuses that present the player with two options and one of them is clearly superior in every case. We will seek to add costs or bonuses to these events and focuses to make them more interesting to play with.

It should be noted that this is a mod specifically designed for multiplayer and none of the changes I have made will be taught to the AI.

I am also developing an MP ruleset designed specifically to work with this mod. It is currently in Beta, so no promises on the balance just yet, but I recommend trying it and leaving feedback with me if possible:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1APgUZre2WW2S1rDpLJf_k6rHjlaTTjai31cr64K_q1A/
122 Comments
< >
Schneeflocke 26 Jul, 2017 @ 7:58am 
Question: Carrier Stacking
Penalty on Sortie Efficiency (per carrier above 4): 20% → 5%

Why did you did this? It favors the "super-stack" flottila fights even more. I would do the opposite!
Bridger  [author] 12 Mar, 2017 @ 11:47am 
Not at the moment. I'm taking a break from HOI4.
I WUB PUGS 24 Feb, 2017 @ 11:03am 
Got an update on the way? Your mod is crashing with 1.3.3.
Zamalek 24 Feb, 2017 @ 7:18am 
@Bridger - is there a fix in this mod for the bug in the original Expanded States mod? IIRC it has been fixed in that mod (it's called hotfix1 now), but I'm not sure if it's also in this mod
Fan Hedong 12 Jan, 2017 @ 10:58am 
pls implement this http://steamproxy.net/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=832398441 :) :AOEKnight:
I WUB PUGS 12 Jan, 2017 @ 9:15am 
Bridger, my group that runs pretty big games every Sunday has ran into a problem we'd like you to write a small event chain for. So when the Japanese take 'Southern Expansion' they get a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets, except the Soviets get no say in the matter. I've dug through the National Focus files for all of the majors and 'Southern Expasion' for Japan is the only one that has 'relation = non_aggression_pact' for any country so it look's like Paradox just got lazy. For Molotov-Ribbentrop they have an event chain that gives the player/AI options to accept or decline.

We are working on doing a house rule for the importance of NAP's but it doesn't address the fact that the Soviets just get stuck with this NAP they may or may not want.
Bridger  [author] 4 Jan, 2017 @ 5:28am 
@yossarian: I'll need to play a bit more with the naval game to get a better feel for the balance. I agree that Subs don't feel as strong as they should be in the early game.
Bridger  [author] 4 Jan, 2017 @ 5:27am 
@Garga: there are already disincentives to adding tank destroyers to marines (lower amphib bonus) but DD tanks did exist at D-Day. Do you think the penalty for armored amphibious invasions is too low? I'm honestly pretty convinced that tanks are neccessary in amphib invasions atm. It's far too easy to stop them otherwise (you're stuck with only 80 combat width, which makes it very hard to penetrate a decent defender).

As for artillery, you're trading firepower for organization. Do you think it's not a big enough tradeoff? Do you find 6 arty / 2 inf to be an effective fighting force? In addition, armor is a pretty hard counter to artillery, and they did buff the "hardness" stat on many of the armor/mech/mot units in last patch which was a direct nerf to arty.
Zamalek 3 Jan, 2017 @ 1:06pm 
Bridger, would you be able to tweak/balance the naval aspect of the game? For example buffing subs and nerfing early destroyers
Garga 3 Jan, 2017 @ 12:50pm 
I want to find a way to disallow some overly efficient and absurd combinations as strapping tank destroyers to marines and mountaneers or having more than 2 line artillery brigades per 10 combat width, these are very common house rule.