• 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.
hey i have a request. Are you going to make the legistation cities playable in the next update ? Because it would be kind of cool to play as them.
 
Sarmatia1871 said:
Excellent! Would definitely be very good, as long as I'm not need to do much stuff!

Also, one thing I think would be interesting and atmospheric would be if there was an option to change the ingame fonts into Frakturschrift, like this:

Fraktur%20ABC.jpg

The fonts are definitely moddable (there are a few mods for Victoria, if I remember correctly...), but I'm guessing it would be quite fiddly to do.

However, if it can be done, the mod can actually have an educational value, and teach people the crucial skill of reading early modern and 19th century German documents!

Any idea where I might be able to get this font added into my Microsoft Word Program? Thanks!
 
JRShield said:
Give it to me and i will explain what you'd wan't to know.

By the way in our national anthem is the diets tradition:

Wilhelmus van Nassouwe
Ben ick van Duytschen bloet

Duytschen means both German and Diets.

Hmmm - so, would you happen to know of any radical Dutch nationalists in this period who could be likely candidates to lead a Holland down this sort of part?

(I could pull together a couple of collaborationist ethnologists, but that's about it!)
 
Spitfire_Pilot said:
hey i have a request. Are you going to make the legistation cities playable in the next update ? Because it would be kind of cool to play as them.

I agree they would be quite cool to play (the main reason I decided to have them), but at the moment they're about as playable as the other countries (eg. not very!).

They do need some ministers, and probably an expanded OOB (I think at the moment they have about 2 land divisions, a couple of ships and a plane...), so if you want to help speed up the development of the Legation Cities, please make suggestions!
 
TotenkopfPzD said:
Any idea where I might be able to get this font added into my Microsoft Word Program? Thanks!

You're in luck - just found a whole load here: http://www.jan-siefken.de/fonts.html

(although these ones do seem to be a bit more legible than what was actually used in the 19th century!)
 
With the new land doctrines, how is Mass Assaults a new school of warfare?

Russian tactics, for what Mass Assault is tailored to progressively became more Blitzkrieg style, the main difference between the Russian and German tactics being the Russian ability to use sheer numbers to make breakthroughs rather than using crack mobile units to exploit gaps. In the German army, elite units punched through the lines, with the Russian Army, artillery and infantry/mecahnized waves broke the frontline which elite units exploited with mass tanks and infantry. A perfect example of this is Rossokovsky's offensive north of Orel, the Kutuzov offensive, where he used masses of infantry and armor to break open the frontlines of 4 weak German infantry divisions and then hurled about 300 tanks in 3 big spearheads to drive towards the major railroad juctions west of Orel. The spearheads were decimated by the two Sturzkampfgruppen (Stuka groups), German kampfgruppe centered around luftawffe flak batteries as their core and timely re-enforcements from Model's 9th Army. The Russian attacks towards Seelow heights in 1945, also reveal the tactic of using masses of infantry and tanks to make breakthroughs over the German method of a series of sharp and pinpointed assaults to make breakthroughs and keep pushing. The Russians were far less, well, fluent I suspose, they relied more on brawn, sheer firepower and masses of troops for which their tough units could exploit.

The idea of "mass assault" I think it just a bad term, Russian tactics, if we look at it on a whole is really a modified form of blitzkrieg, but then again, Russian tactics of the 1930s were a world's difference from the 1940s.

I think the land doctrines tree should be divided into two groups, Mechanized Warfare and Traditional Warfare. It is important to remember, the pre-WWI German notion of warfare was also very offensive and fast-moving, the lighting campaigns of 1914 on both fronts show the German skill at (relative to that time), counter-attacks, tactical withdrawls and exploiting the situation offensively. The concept of static WWI-warfare I'm not sure would stick with the Germans, who even in 1918 composed the most progressive use of combined arms the world had seen yet. While the use of armor was not there, the Germans pioneered close-air support and the all-metal Junkers J.I and Hansa-Brandenburg models performed round the clock attacks, similair to the Stuka warfare we'd see later. The Static defense doctrine that belonged to France was simply the response of her military establishment, really France's declining birthrates, lack of enthusiasm for the army and incresingly unfriendly borders on all sides led her to go defensive more than anything. So It's important to keep things in view, would the German Army in Kaiserreich be static? No, it's the same Imperial Army that was the best in Europe for nearly 40 years, it'd be based though on a style of warfare, infantry and firepower based, that is now being outclassed to the even faster, mechanized warfare emerging. In reality, the German Army would fight more like Russia did in WWII than anybody else, because the German Army would rely largely on infantry, in wide-scaled strategic sweeps, combined with superior firepower (remember German artillery was the best in the world in 1914).

The next point is to remember although Germany isn't really that backwards militarily, its tactics are hampered by her inefficient and spread-thin Army. Regardless, I'd reorganize the land doctrines to reflect two styles of warfare, Infantry-based and Mechanized-based, everything descendes from that. Infantry-based could be divided into firepower and static defense, with german taking the firepower-based infantry warfare, and some countries like Austria, Ottomans and Bulgaria taking static infantry warfare, etc. Mechanized warfare would lead to blitzkrieg style warfare, based on pinpointed assaults and encirclements and then the second option would be broad-ranged offensive warfare, similair to russian tactics, who used firepower and massed troops over elite mechanized units encircling and breaking through enemy lines.

That's my take anyways.

---------------

Also, Sarmy, whats next for me to do, Austria OOB or something?
 
I didn't have any other name for the tech group, which indeed has the attack enemy all along to force a catastrophic failure of his defence systems, then exploit the cracks in the defence line idea...it's just bad naming.

And I have little idea on what German army was on the defence... I just thought that WWI mentalities might have stuck...

Sorry. :eek:o
 
CCurio said:
I didn't have any other name for the tech group, which indeed has the attack enemy all along to force a catastrophic failure of his defence systems, then exploit the cracks in the defence line idea...it's just bad naming.

And I have little idea on what German army was on the defence... I just thought that WWI mentalities might have stuck...

Sorry. :eek:o

its also worth noting that because of the general staff, germany managed to stay on top of the world militarily for 40 years, even though they didn't fight a major war in between 1870-1914.
 
Berlichingen said:
With the new land doctrines, how is Mass Assaults a new school of warfare?

...

That's my take anyways.

---------------

Also, Sarmy, whats next for me to do, Austria OOB or something?

Sounds good with the military doctrines - although I'm generally staying out of this, with it not really being my qualified area!

In terms of OOBs, the only major ones that I think still need doing are the Habsburg states and the Ottoman Empire (possibly including Egypt...). Any modifications to the Russian one would also be very good (if you can face the possible scale of the task!) as this was done quite a while ago using the leftovers from the vanilla Soviet army.
 
by the way, whats the backstory behind with the legistation (sp) cities? Or Asia in general. hust curious
 
well for the legaslation cities, add some Chinese generals since they are located in China, but also add some colonists generals. (Sudanese generals, British Indian generals. ). For tech teams maybe add Hong Kong, Chamber of commerce, or just some old companies in Hong Kong or Shanghai. ill give u some.

Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce.

Shanghai industries

Kowloon Industries

Shekou Port

Shanghai weapon's factory.

thats all of the names that i can think of for tech teams.
 
well theres shanghai shipyards and University of Hong Kong. Are you going to do anything about the triads of Shanghai?
 
I'd reorganize the land doctrines to reflect two styles of warfare, Infantry-based and Mechanized-based, everything descendes from that. Infantry-based could be divided into firepower and static defense, with german taking the firepower-based infantry warfare, and some countries like Austria, Ottomans and Bulgaria taking static infantry warfare, etc. Mechanized warfare would lead to blitzkrieg style warfare, based on pinpointed assaults and encirclements and then the second option would be broad-ranged offensive warfare, similair to russian tactics, who used firepower and massed troops over elite mechanized units encircling and breaking through enemy lines.

I think to change doctrines is very important, and I think this is the best way to change those doctrines, but with the addition of Infaterie adaptation or something along those lines.

As for Naval techs, I thinks BB's would have keen getting bigger and more expensive, using up more fuel and supplies. until electronics/computer, gets good enought so they start to get more efficient, and operational cots start to decrease. BC's compared with BB's should be less deadly, less protected, but faster and with a longer range, specially those designed during the 20's and early 30's.

Heavy cruisers started as the 1906-1910 Armored Cruiser AC, but were later replaced by BC's, and AFAIK were not realy build until the Washington Naval Treaty (WNT) forced all the major naval powers to limit there tonnage, so it was seem like a more eficient way to use te limited tonage. In our scenario we do not have the WNT but we have a lot of countries that could see AC's as smaller, cheaper wesels with a punch, your hope for control of the seas. They could de deployed as something that can outfight anything faster, outrun anything stronger. Ether to defend your comertial fleets, to attack your enemy's comertial fleets, or to guard your carriers, in the most progresive Naval High comands, I think Canada it's goning to have one of those.

Super heavy tanks would be my choice for inf. support tanks. Very expensive, used for breaking through tough places, land battleships, developing into medium tanks that would help inf. taking out small forts, machine gun nests. kind of how they where used in the Pasific(sp?) during WW2. So they would go from big fuel and supply users to less use, and they would get faster.

I hope everyone can understand what I wrote, those are just some Ideas, If you like them I have some more.

@ CCurio: If you want, post the effects of the doctrines and I'll give it a shoot and try to ease your burden :D

Edit: Added a coupple of :rolleyes: comas(,).
 
There are sheer size limitations for how big ships can be built, for example the German H-Battleships, after the H-40 were simply too big to be built anywhere in Germany. The H-44, the final design would dwarf the biggest and most modern U.S. Nuclear Carrier, the John C. Stennis!

Most nations would realize the limitations of size and the fruitility of just making ships bigger and bigger, eventually harbors just wouldn't be big enough and the emergence of aircraft increasingly makes gigantic ships just not worth it.
 
PostPaintBoy said:
by the way, whats the backstory behind with the legistation (sp) cities? Or Asia in general. hust curious

Check on the first page on the 'Asien' section ( :) - underneath the big map of the Far East) - this gives the brief outline. I think I've given some more in-depth clarifications earlier in the thread, but these would take me a while to find...
 
Spitfire_Pilot said:
well for the legaslation cities, add some Chinese generals since they are located in China, but also add some colonists generals. (Sudanese generals, British Indian generals. ). For tech teams maybe add Hong Kong, Chamber of commerce, or just some old companies in Hong Kong or Shanghai. ill give u some.

Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce.

Shanghai industries

Kowloon Industries

Shekou Port

Shanghai weapon's factory.

thats all of the names that i can think of for tech teams.

Okay cool - but more specific info is probably needed to get anything done by the next Alpha, as they're not exactly priority no. 1 at the moment!

So, which ministers and leaders exactly would be good to carry over, and what would be the specializations and skills of the tech-teams?

( :) - Pictures would be helpful also!)
 
lifeless said:
well theres shanghai shipyards and University of Hong Kong. Are you going to do anything about the triads of Shanghai?

:D - Possibly better dealt with via events rather than as a new tech-team!

However, they could be quite good to include, as if I'm not mistaken, they were originally organised to attempt to restore the Ming dynasty after the installation of the Qing, and only later developed into a primarily criminal set of organisations - so, they could act as a quite interesting counterweight/equivalent of the Millenarians in Southern China (eg. Legation Cities and AlgOstAsien territories).

Now, does anyone know of any prominent Triad members from the 1930s?
 
Juancho said:
I think to change doctrines is very important, and I think this is the best way to change those doctrines, but with the addition of Infaterie adaptation or something along those lines.

As for Naval techs, I thinks BB's would have keen getting bigger and more expensive, using up more fuel and supplies. until electronics/computer, gets good enought so they start to get more efficient, and operational cots start to decrease. BC's compared with BB's should be less deadly, less protected, but faster and with a longer range, specially those designed during the 20's and early 30's.

Heavy cruisers started as the 1906-1910 Armored Cruiser AC, but were later replaced by BC's, and AFAIK were not realy build until the Washington Naval Treaty (WNT) forced all the major naval powers to limit there tonnage, so it was seem like a more eficient way to use te limited tonage. In our scenario we do not have the WNT but we have a lot of countries that could see AC's as smaller, cheaper wesels with a punch, your hope for control of the seas. They could de deployed as something that can outfight anything faster, outrun anything stronger. Ether to defend your comertial fleets, to attack your enemy's comertial fleets, or to guard your carriers, in the most progresive Naval High comands, I think Canada it's goning to have one of those.

Super heavy tanks would be my choice for inf. support tanks. Very expensive, used for breaking through tough places, land battleships, developing into medium tanks that would help inf. taking out small forts, machine gun nests. kind of how they where used in the Pasific(sp?) during WW2. So they would go from big fuel and supply users to less use, and they would get faster.

I hope everyone can understand what I wrote, those are just some Ideas, If you like them I have some more.

@ CCurio: If you want, post the effects of the doctrines and I'll give it a shoot and try to ease your burden :D

Edit: Added a coupple of :rolleyes: comas(,).

Goodgood - don't worry, you're perfectly understandable, and there's no need to keep apologising!

So it seems as if there's a general consensus developing on what new techs will be needed - eg. big tanks (land battleships), different naval ship models and different land doctrines...

Zeppelins would of course be extremely cool, but may not be workable under the current setup ( :mad: ) - however, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Doomsday will include some sort of capacity and new unit slots for either helicopters or ultra-modern planes, which we can convert into airships!