Der Bismarck said:
It might be worth checking out CORE's brigades. I really like their system.
Also, could I suggest getting rid of light armor divisions? Does anyone actually make them? I don't even think they existed beyond 1943.
-
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.
It might be worth checking out CORE's brigades. I really like their system.
Also, could I suggest getting rid of light armor divisions? Does anyone actually make them? I don't even think they existed beyond 1943.
Interesting Mod
A few questions about your mod:
Type I CV still still has maxspeed 18? Lexington/Saratoga are CV I? That makes very little sense. I figure that most maxspeed 18 carriers are CVEs built on merchant hulls, like the Langley. Lexington class CVs were built on Lexington Class BC hulls, which are type III (Model 2) in your models.csv
Your mod also allows Essex class CVs to be built in 1938. Is this deliberate?
What happened to the Long Island, Bogue, and Sangamon class US CVLs? Was there a conscious decision to exclude them, or has no one made an argument they should be included?
Your unitnames.csv still has 22th Destroyer Division, when it should be 21st. Same error as in Vanilla.
A few questions about your mod:
Type I CV still still has maxspeed 18? Lexington/Saratoga are CV I? That makes very little sense. I figure that most maxspeed 18 carriers are CVEs built on merchant hulls, like the Langley. Lexington class CVs were built on Lexington Class BC hulls, which are type III (Model 2) in your models.csv
Your mod also allows Essex class CVs to be built in 1938. Is this deliberate?
What happened to the Long Island, Bogue, and Sangamon class US CVLs? Was there a conscious decision to exclude them, or has no one made an argument they should be included?
Your unitnames.csv still has 22th Destroyer Division, when it should be 21st. Same error as in Vanilla.
I downloaded the new version and am trying it out.
I have a few unknown string wanted error messages on the Armor Tech screen.
I have a few unknown string wanted error messages on the Armor Tech screen.
Ex Mudder said:
The CV I, is now a 1930's class carrier. Which is why the 1930 carrier CV I is the Lexington/Saratoga. Now the speed question you raise (along with range) is a good question. I believe speed means not max speed but average cursing speed for the range of the carrier. One of things that has been discussed is the need to address range and speed on all navel units no body yet has presented a good across the board solution for range and speed yet, so not a lot of change have been made.
But after looking at it I *think* we should start by change the speed and range on the CV to:
1930 – 20, 3000
1936 – 22, 3500
1938 – 24, 4000
1941 – 26, 4500
1943 – 28, 4500
1945 – 30, 4500
1948 – 30, 4500
Ex Mudder said:
I just double checked the models.cvs file and the Essex is the 1941 class CV not the 1938. So I'm not sure why it seems to be the 1938 carrier for you, this should be the Yorktown class.
Ex Mudder said:
Ok, the Long Island, Bogue, Casablanca, Sangamon, Commencement Bay classes were all CVEs and not CVLs. Now if we check the number of aircraft each operates it reads:
Long Island AC # 16
Bogue AC # 20 - 24
Casablanca AC # 27
Sangamon AC # 36
Commencement Bay AC # 33
Now I don’t think we want these CVE’s to count as they were not uses as fleet carriers but the definition we are using for carriers is:
1 HOI2 carrier = has 45 or more aircraft (in special cases only 36)
1 HOI2 escort carrier = 18 to 44 aircraft (in special cases up to 54)
So we may need to rethink it. What does everyone else think?
Rook
Here is a quick link to information on the CVEs, CVs and CVLs:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/
OK let's make the Ryujo a CVL.rook749 said:The final call (of course) is up to you all
I disagree, they are the cheap alternative to armor and make more sense than Light Armor Brigades. The US should mainly have those Light Armor Divisions.hellfish6 said:
Like in vanilla, old model_0 and model_1 were merged to new model_0.Ex Mudder said:
That's a complex matter, speed, range and fuel consumption are linked, if you make changes there, you need to change all.Ex Mudder said:
Essex class is model 3 and 1941.Ex Mudder said:
Good question, currently we only have named 4 out of the 7 CVE/CVL classes. Sangamon is there as a ship in the 1942 campaign.Ex Mudder said:
I don't understand, for which country, what is wrong?Ex Mudder said:
Which?Der Bismarck said:
Fine, if no one objects, we can do it.rook749 said:
All CVE/CVL, as they have 18 or more aircraft.rook749 said:
Last edited:
rook749 said:
It wouldn't be quite correct to class CV/CVL/CVE entirely based on airgroup size - this should only be used to group CV and CVL.
The real question should be if a CV was able to do fleet service - that is, mostly, having a maximum speed of 25+ knots.
The historic CVE's were mainly for convoy escort duties and had a max speed of ~18-22 knots, while CVL's where just that - light fleet carriers.
With this the question arises how the "CVL" class of DD should be treated ingame - as CVE or CVL (and I think they were intended as CVE).
Paradox is not sure about this, on the Naval tech screen and the stats pages they call it Light Carrier, but in event commands, they use "escort_carrier".
The concept is not perfect, sure, but as the main combat power comes from the aircraft, I see no alternative. You can not give country A a carrier with 30 aircraft, while country B has carrier with 100, that would not be fair. So we need a definition. HIP has CVE and CV as types and CVL are in most cases on the CVE side, but can be both.
The concept is not perfect, sure, but as the main combat power comes from the aircraft, I see no alternative. You can not give country A a carrier with 30 aircraft, while country B has carrier with 100, that would not be fair. So we need a definition. HIP has CVE and CV as types and CVL are in most cases on the CVE side, but can be both.
On Ryujo
One of my sources Osprey/ New Vanguard "Imperal Japanese Navy Aircraft Carriers 1921-45 that the Ryujo design was to kept it under the Washington Tready at 8,000 tons, but was decided the air group of 24 planes was to small. an a scond hanger deck was added that brought her up to 48AC at 12,500 tons over the tready; because of stability problerms twice went into dry dock because of modifications. and by 1942 in the Eastern Solomons where sunk with larger air craft she could of gone down to 38AC because folded wings never cought on with Japanese airplane design just the wing tips.
rook749 said:
One of my sources Osprey/ New Vanguard "Imperal Japanese Navy Aircraft Carriers 1921-45 that the Ryujo design was to kept it under the Washington Tready at 8,000 tons, but was decided the air group of 24 planes was to small. an a scond hanger deck was added that brought her up to 48AC at 12,500 tons over the tready; because of stability problerms twice went into dry dock because of modifications. and by 1942 in the Eastern Solomons where sunk with larger air craft she could of gone down to 38AC because folded wings never cought on with Japanese airplane design just the wing tips.
Panther,
I'm playing a with version 55 as the UK and I noticed something I don't think is correct. Its March of 1939 and I noticed that all my ships other than the CVLs will regain ORG at a rate of .24 at sea. For some reason the CVLs will only regain ORG in port is this WAD?
Rook
I'm playing a with version 55 as the UK and I noticed something I don't think is correct. Its March of 1939 and I noticed that all my ships other than the CVLs will regain ORG at a rate of .24 at sea. For some reason the CVLs will only regain ORG in port is this WAD?
Rook
rook749 said:
After looking into the issue, I also noticed that CVLs (or CVEs or Esscort Carriers) do not get any moral or ORG in the Tech Tree. Or I am missing something in the tech tree?
Rook
Good catch, I have to review this. The reason is probably, that base morale is 30 and there is no increase through techs. They should gain morale like CV. Fixed now.
Last edited:
Both don't exist in HIP and we don't use those tech numbers (2250 and 2290). What do you klick to get the message?
Panther G said:
It is on the Armor & Artillery selection menu.
Further inspection reveals 2250 as SP Art '47 & 2290 as SP rocket Art '46
Is HIP dooms day ready It looked that way on your download sight but i had problems loading/start dooms day with HIP in it?
Im having issues with it loading 1936 scenior from the beginning. Keeps locking up at intatilizing Provicences. Any help?
Then you are talking about a pre revision version of the armor tree. Now
2250 SP Art '47 got 11030
2290 SP rocket Art '46 got 11050
Which version are you referring to?
2250 SP Art '47 got 11030
2290 SP rocket Art '46 got 11050
Which version are you referring to?
Sure, v0.56 is for doomsday. You have made a copy and were following the instructions?Ranger mike said:
Eowunyth said:
Added to the FAQ file.PantherG said:
Last edited:
Just started a new game with v0.56. When researching some brigades I have noticed that they have no stats to be added. ie SP Art Brigade, AT Brigade. What was the reason for the change from the previous version ? Just curious.
Cheers
Cheers
With no stats you probably mean zero values. They get fractional increases, which are there, but are not visible in game. It shows you "0", but actually you get e.g. soft attack +0.5.
There were significant changes, boni were spread further across the techs, some were removed like the defensiveness boni for mobile units, they were added to the unit files. Some units were gaining too many boni, this was corrected.
There were significant changes, boni were spread further across the techs, some were removed like the defensiveness boni for mobile units, they were added to the unit files. Some units were gaining too many boni, this was corrected.
Thanks for the quick response Panther. I thought this might be the case and just wanted to confirm.