Would it be possible to allow strategic bombarment to give some/more experience to both units and leaders? My ground attack bombers are constantly getting heaps of xp while my strategic bombers are learning nothing from their constant bombardments!
-
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.
I agree 100 percent with this. The only way to get STA bombers or leaders EXP is to have them do tactical missions.
I don't know if this is possible at all, but could we get numbers instead of percentage values? It would be very, VERY satisfying in a Göring-ian way, to see how many planes you have in a Fliegerkorps. I read somewhere that you can use the formula 100/engines to figure out how many planes you have in a wing; for example a fighter unit would have 100 planes while strat. bomber units would have 25 planes. I don't know if this came from the devs or the players.
If this was implemented, an air unit of 4 interceptors would show 286/400 instead of 71% strength. You would know that you lost 114 planes in the last aerial battle, and the number rising (through IC spent on reinforcements) would represent heavily damaged planes being repaired and new planes reinforcing the unit.
Would the engine permit something like this?
This would also work incredibly well with tank brigades. 3,000/3,000 barely works for infantry units, it does not work for tank brigades or motorized/mechanised brigades. Do I have 3000 tanks in a brigade? Of course not. Do I have 3000 crew members running the tanks? That means 600 tanks with 5 crew members, which is still too much. Entire Panzer divisions had approximately 300 tanks at best. What would be perfect in this case is, again, numbers. You could even click the brigades to see how many of each model they have.
36/40 Panzer IV
22/60 Panzer III
Wouldn't that be nice? The brigade in this example is upgrading its tanks, and some of the tanks they have are shot, and require repairs.
If these were implemented, more realism could be achieved by having the game keep track of how many tanks of which kind have been lost, and how many enemy tanks have been destroyed.
These would be incredibly nice to have, right?
If this was implemented, an air unit of 4 interceptors would show 286/400 instead of 71% strength. You would know that you lost 114 planes in the last aerial battle, and the number rising (through IC spent on reinforcements) would represent heavily damaged planes being repaired and new planes reinforcing the unit.
Would the engine permit something like this?
This would also work incredibly well with tank brigades. 3,000/3,000 barely works for infantry units, it does not work for tank brigades or motorized/mechanised brigades. Do I have 3000 tanks in a brigade? Of course not. Do I have 3000 crew members running the tanks? That means 600 tanks with 5 crew members, which is still too much. Entire Panzer divisions had approximately 300 tanks at best. What would be perfect in this case is, again, numbers. You could even click the brigades to see how many of each model they have.
36/40 Panzer IV
22/60 Panzer III
Wouldn't that be nice? The brigade in this example is upgrading its tanks, and some of the tanks they have are shot, and require repairs.
If these were implemented, more realism could be achieved by having the game keep track of how many tanks of which kind have been lost, and how many enemy tanks have been destroyed.
These would be incredibly nice to have, right?
I like that idea. For tank units it should not be hard to have a starting count for tanks
based on the manpower to create a historical (somewhat) number and show how many
tanks are left from the base amount over time. Would be a very nice immersion thingie for divisions of armor.
based on the manpower to create a historical (somewhat) number and show how many
tanks are left from the base amount over time. Would be a very nice immersion thingie for divisions of armor.
I like that!
That is also going right in that direction I proposed in the "new-suggestion-Trained-manpower-being-converted-from-Untrained-manpower"-thread.
As I also fits well in the way of seperating units MP from units equipment and solve the reserve/IC/reinforce-problem to a great extend.
My suggestion:
I would very much like to have even more differnt equipment modeled in the units like you described.
So having 3-4 different Models("equipment slots" wich can have different costs and stats) for up to "4 Battalions"/"4 air-wings"/"ships" would be nice. At the moment I just try to have that with an workaround in my mod.
But I think at the same time that we'll already be very happy if they put in even that 3 new values I propose above.
Read all:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...d-manpower&p=13939959&viewfull=1#post13939959
Great idea!
I like the intention and have some additional ideas for implementation.
Please read on if you're interested.
What is missing, or not working right atm:
Units should loose different experience when in need of replacement. And should need different types of men. We have already "normal men" and officers.
IIRC in the Dev Diaries of DI:G it was noted that you would be able to see diffenet pics if the unit gets more experienced and look like a rookie again if they need to much replacements.
(IIRC Devildrad or Danevang noted that it isn't working, but I can't find the post atm..)
In the end, I think, we would all like to be represented the higher need of training or NCO's and Officers in a unit.
To have it as simple integrated into the game as possible.
To get it "right" the LS must be changed that it not only creates officers but also nco. A new value.
Now we would have:
MP: Normal trained personnel
NCO: Better/special trained personnel
Officers: Very well/special trained personnel
These 3 would add with modifiers different amount of morale and Org to a unit.
If MP/NCO/Off dies in battle, then these values decrease also in the unit by that modifier.
Additionaly a modifier that affects the Defensive and Offensive Abilities would be good too.
So a unit with low initial off will suffer more in average if they losse an officer in battle. Right what happend in rl..
Same to nco etc..
Also units like Mtn wuld need a higher number of nco, and units like planes would need much more officers and nco's but few normal MP.
So if your pool of officers is empty it will build without and your units will be hampered by bad morale/org/combat stat malus..
This could be countered to an extend with good training, and if you have later enough off/nco to fill up the ranks.(-> The Su gets better year after year..)
If your units gain experience it should loose some if it needs to much reinforcements. Units were able to keep their lvl of combat experience up to some lvl of lost men. So this should only kick in after big losses, like below 50%, or with an incremental modifier.(Starting low, getting higher the higher the losses are.)
To round it up:
It would be very nice to have production of the equipment seperated from the unit training.
So building tanks and training men to use them would be a different story..
Also would make the representation of reinforce tanks or men much more realistic. No tanks= much worse combat stats..
To have it even highly abstracted it would be sufficient to have just three more values:
In the end a unit woud look like this:
Factories etc. could also need these three types of personnel and would suffer if they don't get their ranks filled.
So you could simulate the effect of having an army sucking up all your qualified men.
Added only one new value like the old MP value.(Like the suggested "QMP")
And three more values in each unit.
These values would need maybe some few modifiers attached to them by the engine.
F.e. the combat stat decrease if low on equipment, org/morale decrease when low on MP/NCO/Officer.
But as that could be static it would not be much more additional calculation.
Sounds good?
Cheers,
Chromos
Great idea!
I like the intention and have some additional ideas for implementation.
Please read on if you're interested.
What is missing, or not working right atm:
Units should loose different experience when in need of replacement. And should need different types of men. We have already "normal men" and officers.
IIRC in the Dev Diaries of DI:G it was noted that you would be able to see diffenet pics if the unit gets more experienced and look like a rookie again if they need to much replacements.
But I didn't noticed that effect so far. Can anyone confirm that?
(IIRC Devildrad or Danevang noted that it isn't working, but I can't find the post atm..)
In the end, I think, we would all like to be represented the higher need of training or NCO's and Officers in a unit.
To have it as simple integrated into the game as possible.
To get it "right" the LS must be changed that it not only creates officers but also nco. A new value.
Now we would have:
MP: Normal trained personnel
NCO: Better/special trained personnel
Officers: Very well/special trained personnel
These 3 would add with modifiers different amount of morale and Org to a unit.
If MP/NCO/Off dies in battle, then these values decrease also in the unit by that modifier.
Additionaly a modifier that affects the Defensive and Offensive Abilities would be good too.
So a unit with low initial off will suffer more in average if they losse an officer in battle. Right what happend in rl..
Same to nco etc..
Also units like Mtn wuld need a higher number of nco, and units like planes would need much more officers and nco's but few normal MP.
So if your pool of officers is empty it will build without and your units will be hampered by bad morale/org/combat stat malus..
This could be countered to an extend with good training, and if you have later enough off/nco to fill up the ranks.(-> The Su gets better year after year..)
If your units gain experience it should loose some if it needs to much reinforcements. Units were able to keep their lvl of combat experience up to some lvl of lost men. So this should only kick in after big losses, like below 50%, or with an incremental modifier.(Starting low, getting higher the higher the losses are.)
To round it up:
It would be very nice to have production of the equipment seperated from the unit training.
So building tanks and training men to use them would be a different story..
Also would make the representation of reinforce tanks or men much more realistic. No tanks= much worse combat stats..
To have it even highly abstracted it would be sufficient to have just three more values:
So we also could have seperated the reinforce/repair costs/time for men and equipment.
In the end a unit woud look like this:
Factories etc. could also need these three types of personnel and would suffer if they don't get their ranks filled.
So you could simulate the effect of having an army sucking up all your qualified men.
Added only one new value like the old MP value.(Like the suggested "QMP")
And three more values in each unit.
These values would need maybe some few modifiers attached to them by the engine.
F.e. the combat stat decrease if low on equipment, org/morale decrease when low on MP/NCO/Officer.
But as that could be static it would not be much more additional calculation.
Sounds good?
Cheers,
Chromos
Cheers,
Chromos
wow, i can't wait. After seeing how great For teh Motherland was, i can't wait for this mod. Long Live Paradox Interactive!
I hope that AI Japan would be more aggressive to the Pacific Ocean, just like what they did historically.
Oh, I almost forgot. Could you please buff the radar? I can't see Moscow from my lvl 10 radar in Dover.
Thanks
Thanks
I'm not a heavy poster, but I am a long time HOI player...all HOI games to date!
That being said...I have money and who do I give it to so I can play this new gem?
That being said...I have money and who do I give it to so I can play this new gem?
will be there new graphic and new sprites (armors ,aircrafts,boats) and new econimic system? .the WW II was also an economic and logistic war.
