-
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.
.png){kind=avatar}
Hi I need help with something.
the list on page one says that i have to patch hoi2.exe with the no time limit patch .. How do I do that? When i click on the no time limit patch, it says unable to specify path, what do I do then? And if I just start the game it starts at 1955, and also ends there, with me either loosing or winning, depending on what nation i'm playing.
the list on page one says that i have to patch hoi2.exe with the no time limit patch .. How do I do that? When i click on the no time limit patch, it says unable to specify path, what do I do then? And if I just start the game it starts at 1955, and also ends there, with me either loosing or winning, depending on what nation i'm playing.
Radu said:
And you may want to know that insulting other forum members doesn't happen to be allowed.
zigelation said:
if you click the ntl patch, it should allow you to select the hoi2.exe icon as the thing to be patched. i forget exactly how it is structured but you should be able to specify path just as you find a folder to save a document into for instance. hope that helps.
and Prinz Wilhelm: to be honest they've both insulted each other, as jade rat said he looks like a fool and fancies someone called casey. so its kinda gone both ways... all a bit unnecessary
Prinz Wilhelm said:
I apologize for the insult. Short fuse when it comes to nationalism,but that is not an excuse. I take full responsibility.
BritishImperial said:
I know, but he had the latest reply. It goes for Jade Rat too.
What I really was going to do in this thread was to ask if someone is working on improving the map?
To be honest,that hasn't come up among our priorities. I think it's safe to say when the time comes we will rely on the map projects of others,for inspiration if nothing else.
If there is anything I'd like to see corrected it would be the Indian Peninsula and also Africa and South America somewhat. Clearly some work is needed as there is an understandable bias towards the historically "active" regions during WWII. One needs only to look at Egypt and then South Africa to get a sense of the "granularity" difference.
But so far,the map is pretty low on the list.
If there is anything I'd like to see corrected it would be the Indian Peninsula and also Africa and South America somewhat. Clearly some work is needed as there is an understandable bias towards the historically "active" regions during WWII. One needs only to look at Egypt and then South Africa to get a sense of the "granularity" difference.
But so far,the map is pretty low on the list.
Prinz Wilhelm said:
As Radu said, we haven't been prioritizing it yet. We plan however, on using the Cold War mod-map. (We may modify it somewhat)
What I'd like to see is more provinces to the Middle east, Congo, Korea, India/Pakistan and the corrected borders for Eastern Europe and Caucasus. In addition I would add Kinmen off the coast from Xiamen, China.
The map will probably still be Eurosentric though. IRL, Africa is 13 times larger. China is also larger, but it will be too much work to do anything about.
Last edited:
zigelation said:This is what it tells me
That's an Windows Vista specific error. You need to set the premissions of the entire "Modern Day Scenario 2" folder to allow editing. (I don't know the exact words, as I don't use Vista.)
i tried to say that earlier but the forum was too bloody busy again. i really hate vista so much, it didnt even run hoi properly for me. it has so many errors and stupid complications like that.
@jade rat, PLEASE stop insulting! Radu has already apologized for going out of line.
There is something called "hitling" in Norway. That is to destroy a discussion with labeling someone just as bad as Hitler. Labeling someone communist in a negative way is a mild form of that, and does NOT strengthen your case. It makes you look like an fool, because you insult instead of coming with valid arguments.
Regardless of who started and "who killed who", stop this "discussion".
Edit: I saw you edited your post, and removed some of the insults. Still, take into consideration what I wrote here.
There is something called "hitling" in Norway. That is to destroy a discussion with labeling someone just as bad as Hitler. Labeling someone communist in a negative way is a mild form of that, and does NOT strengthen your case. It makes you look like an fool, because you insult instead of coming with valid arguments.
Regardless of who started and "who killed who", stop this "discussion".
Edit: I saw you edited your post, and removed some of the insults. Still, take into consideration what I wrote here.
Whats wrong with loving your country?
I tried to edit it a while ago but my IE kept bugging out on me.
But their is also a 'saying' here that anyone who seems to hate America is called a communist, its a evolution of what it used to mean and has taken to another meaning as being unpatriotic and not sharing loyalty to the country, or just bashing it. It wasn't meant as communism as the ideologically left kind, i guess i should remember this is international and should re-frame from sayings that could be taken another way.
I tried to edit it a while ago but my IE kept bugging out on me.
But their is also a 'saying' here that anyone who seems to hate America is called a communist, its a evolution of what it used to mean and has taken to another meaning as being unpatriotic and not sharing loyalty to the country, or just bashing it. It wasn't meant as communism as the ideologically left kind, i guess i should remember this is international and should re-frame from sayings that could be taken another way.
Last edited:
Radu said:
Not every but all our top generals went there-Patton, MacArthur, Ike, Bradley...the list goes on and on. If you can even name a decent general (nothing special general but not a bad one) that DIDN'T go there, ill give you total victory.
Because invading another country isnt modeled in HoI.
an iraq strategy that works. rose from a meager major general commanding some paratroopers to a full general running a war in 4 years.
from wiki: A poll recently conducted by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines selected Petraeus as one of the world's top 100 public intellectuals. And in 2007, Time named Petraeus one of the 100 most influential leaders and revolutionaries of the year as well as one of its four runners up for Time Person of the Year
theyre the turkeys ever since patraeus took over. also, how come modern generals cant be good? and, u said all other generals, well, mark clark wasnt too good and lets leave clark at that...
It would be an insult to the two World Wars, WW1 where most generals got their first taste of war and WW2 where some managed to brilliantly adapt to the new warfare type, to equate their intensity to the small war of choice in Iraq.
so this is a type of warfare we've been fighting for years? hmm, i remember 1 example of a gorrilla war and that was vietnam, before Patraeus even graduated from west point. Face it, he deserves skill 4 or 5. major general at skill 5 is my lobby for the game start. i wouldnt give him commando as hes essentially running a war, something commando leaders dont do and has still shown his expertise commanding a large force. perhaps give offensive and defensive doctrine with commando as it will only be a small bonus for most units (-5 for commando and +10 for off/def)
Petraeus skill 5, as in von Manstein assaulting the fortified Crimea skill 5? Or skill 5 as in Zhukov blunting the drive to Moscow skill 5? Or Rommel counter-attacking while his tanks are outnumbered Skill 5? Are you kidding me?!
The threats faced by the US army in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are ZERO compared to what the big boys of WWII had to fight through.Do the insurgents have tanks or APCs? Aircraft? Anti-tank weapons? Artillery? Rocket Artillery? They don't even have an army.
Please... That's like saying Schwartzkopf is the new Rommel for smashing to pieces an army made up of downgraded export models.
I'm not even sure about skill 4. Skill 4 is Kurt Student assaulting Crete.Skill 4 is Chuikov or Paulus coming close to nervous breakdowns during Stalingrad. Or how some American examples? Like Matthew Ridgway.There's an Airborne general for you.Instrumental in D-Day,instrumental in the blunting of the joint North-Korean/Chinese advance. Or James Gavin,"Slim Jim".Young General.Distinguished himself during Market Garden.He was faced with a proper army.The German Army.
The only threat the US ever faced after Korea is that of embarrassment,because it sure as hell didn't face armies that were its equal in the wars it fought.Most of the time it didn't even face armies at all.
So spare me the "Petraeus the Spartan" sermonizing.Petraeus faced but 1% of the odds faced by others that fully deserved their in-game skills of 4 and 5.The odds between the hyper-teched US and the insurgents are so lopsided it's off the scales.
Most nations will have "top" generals,and since Petraeus has made it in the history books he'll be among them,but I sure as hell won't manufacture true field commanders like Steiner or "Panzer" Meyer out of thin air just cause some froth-at-the-mouth american looks cross-eyed at me.
The threats faced by the US army in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are ZERO compared to what the big boys of WWII had to fight through.Do the insurgents have tanks or APCs? Aircraft? Anti-tank weapons? Artillery? Rocket Artillery? They don't even have an army.
Please... That's like saying Schwartzkopf is the new Rommel for smashing to pieces an army made up of downgraded export models.
I'm not even sure about skill 4. Skill 4 is Kurt Student assaulting Crete.Skill 4 is Chuikov or Paulus coming close to nervous breakdowns during Stalingrad. Or how some American examples? Like Matthew Ridgway.There's an Airborne general for you.Instrumental in D-Day,instrumental in the blunting of the joint North-Korean/Chinese advance. Or James Gavin,"Slim Jim".Young General.Distinguished himself during Market Garden.He was faced with a proper army.The German Army.
The only threat the US ever faced after Korea is that of embarrassment,because it sure as hell didn't face armies that were its equal in the wars it fought.Most of the time it didn't even face armies at all.
So spare me the "Petraeus the Spartan" sermonizing.Petraeus faced but 1% of the odds faced by others that fully deserved their in-game skills of 4 and 5.The odds between the hyper-teched US and the insurgents are so lopsided it's off the scales.
Most nations will have "top" generals,and since Petraeus has made it in the history books he'll be among them,but I sure as hell won't manufacture true field commanders like Steiner or "Panzer" Meyer out of thin air just cause some froth-at-the-mouth american looks cross-eyed at me.
Last edited: