• 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.
two questions.

1. can laws be reversed/undone?
2. can ministers also serve as generals/air marshals? so you could have Goering as both a minister and in command of a bomber group?
 
two questions.

1. can laws be reversed/undone?
2. can ministers also serve as generals/air marshals? so you could have Goering as both a minister and in command of a bomber group?
1) I believe so - another law could be put into place to remove another one. Apparently they're going to be fully moddable, like events, so I'd say this is likely.
2) Well they could in previous versions, so why not this one too!
 
So does anyone have any good guess as to what practical decay is?

If you aren't building a specific unit right now, you will lose momentum on research for that field.

I suspect its gradual, and there will be policy to balance that, and it also replaces serial gearing bonus.

This is the main reason I want to have a variable IC/build time scale so I can build alot of units more slowly - make sure to minimize practical decay.
 
I think the system that shows on the provided screenshot of "threat to us - threat to them" actually has the potential of being a lot more logical then the single badboy score we've in PI games so far. Then again, we'd still need a system to quickly see to whom are the biggest threat so we can easily see if we can expect any DoWs soon.

It'd be interesting if you could threaten a country enough for them to attack you pre-emptively (sparing you any decent increase or whatever).

I think there is a section on this in "World Politics"http://www.amazon.com/World-Politics-Transformation-Charles-Kegley/dp/0534602207 (The book sucks by the way, this one is better: http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-World-Politics-John-Baylis/dp/0199297770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233030927&sr=1-1)

But what I wanted to say is that if two powers are equally powerful (militarily I assume) and one becomes somewhat stronger, then the weaker one might act pre-emptively and strike.
 
It'd be interesting if you could threaten a country enough for them to attack you pre-emptively (sparing you any decent increase or whatever).

I think there is a section on this in "World Politics"http://www.amazon.com/World-Politics-Transformation-Charles-Kegley/dp/0534602207 (The book sucks by the way, this one is better: http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-World-Politics-John-Baylis/dp/0199297770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233030927&sr=1-1)

But what I wanted to say is that if two powers are equally powerful (militarily I assume) and one becomes somewhat stronger, then the weaker one might act pre-emptively and strike.
Yes, like Japan did to the USA. War between them was inevitable giving the USA's reactions to Japanese aggression in Asia. But the US people would never have agreed with a straight up declaration of war so the US government quite smartly kept harassing Japan to the point it had no choice but to attack the USA.

These sorts of dynamics should definitely be in, it'll be fun as hell provoking war with another country ;)
 
I want to say some words about interface. I think the small circles near the portraits looks not very good. Maybe it's better to make color frames:D

For me they are fine, but and your proposition is good.
In fact there are many good interface solutions.
 
If you aren't building a specific unit right now, you will lose momentum on research for that field.
This raises a concern for me. Let's say I'm playing Germany. Before Barbarossa I decide to build maybe 40-45 panzer divisions. Then I stop: that's all the panzer divisions I need, want, or can supply. I continue to replace combat losses, research new tank techs, and upgrade those panzers -- they are a central part of my strategy, after all -- but no new divisions.

In reality, my panzer factories are still producing a lot of panzers: replacements for combat losses and Panthers to replace my old Pz.Kpfw. IVs. But I'm not technically building new "units." Does my practical research ability decay take that into account, or do I lose tank research ability steadily even as I continue to manufacture new tanks? Or do I have to continue assembling whole new panzer divisions I neither need nor want in order to keep my research bonus?
 
This raises a concern for me. Let's say I'm playing Germany. Before Barbarossa I decide to build maybe 40-45 panzer divisions

I would be worrying more about your fuel supplies with 40 - 45 panzer divisions then any bonus you might be losing...

But perhaps its accumalated practical research. IE: more you've built the longer it takes to decay, with ministers effecting this decay.

Think of it like your army tradition in EU3, if you had alot the longer it lasted. I dont think if you suddenly stop building a particular unit for a few months you'll lose all your practical bonus overnight.

AFAIK it decays over time.
 
I would be worrying more about your fuel supplies with 40 - 45 panzer divisions then any bonus you might be losing...
Well, didn't the historical Germany build 41 divisions? ;)

But perhaps its accumalated practical research. IE: more you've built the longer it takes to decay, with ministers effecting this decay.

Think of it like your army tradition in EU3, if you had alot the longer it lasted. I dont think if you suddenly stop building a particular unit for a few months you'll lose all your practical bonus overnight.

AFAIK it decays over time.
Sure, I understand that. But should I (in this specific example) experience any decay at all? The explanation for practical decay is that you need to keep building panzers in order to get practical experience with panzer technology and keep your research rate up; the US can't just spend the '30s researching carrier techs while keeping naval production at zero, then suddenly drop incredibly advanced carriers into the water without going through the prototype phase. That makes sense.

But for anything smaller than a carrier, you don't necessarily have to build a whole new division in order to do prototypes. The historical German army didn't say, "Oh, we're thinking about developing the Panther tank, and in order to do that we need to field an entirely new division composed entirely of Panthers." It gradually replaced the existing panzers in the field with Panthers. I don't see why (apart, maybe, from technical programming or game-balance considerations) deciding to create a new panzer division would give you a bonus to research, but deciding to replace the panzers in a current division with the latest model wouldn't grant such a bonus.

Basically, I'm arguing that spending IC on upgrades and reinforcements for panzer divisions should have the same bonus to research as IC spent building panzer divisions. I hope King or somebody takes a look at this and considers it. Maybe it's a bad idea for reasons I'm not seeing right now, but I would like them to reject it after giving it some consideration rather than have it not occur to them.
 
Well, didn't the historical Germany build 41 divisions? ;)

By the end of the war yes, and many of them were well below "on paper" strength at this point. They went through 3 reforms in their panzer divisions with each one reducing the total number on tanks IIRC.

Anyway.. I know it was just an example so lets continue...

Sure, I understand that. But should I (in this specific example) experience any decay at all? The explanation for practical decay is that you need to keep building panzers in order to get practical experience with panzer technology and keep your research rate up; the US can't just spend the '30s researching carrier techs while keeping naval production at zero, then suddenly drop incredibly advanced carriers into the water without going through the prototype phase. That makes sense.

But for anything smaller than a carrier, you don't necessarily have to build a whole new division in order to do prototypes. The historical German army didn't say, "Oh, we're thinking about developing the Panther tank, and in order to do that we need to field an entirely new division composed entirely of Panthers." It gradually replaced the existing panzers in the field with Panthers. I don't see why (apart, maybe, from technical programming or game-balance considerations) deciding to create a new panzer division would give you a bonus to research, but deciding to replace the panzers in a current division with the latest model wouldn't grant such a bonus.

Basically, I'm arguing that spending IC on upgrades and reinforcements for panzer divisions should have the same bonus to research as IC spent building panzer divisions. I hope King or somebody takes a look at this and considers it. Maybe it's a bad idea for reasons I'm not seeing right now, but I would like them to reject it after giving it some consideration rather than have it not occur to them.

I think in your example you're amount of practicle bonus would be quite high from building 41 panzer divisions by 1941 that it would last you quite a while. We dont know how fast it decays so we can only guess, but my guess is that it would last you more then a year, maybe 2....

However, I do agree with you that upgrades and possibly reinforcements should count towards practicle experience, because you would still be building tanks even though you're not actually producing "new" numbered divisions.

Not sure if this is going to be the case though, but I agree it should.

Lets not forget that you also get a bonus from using them in battle as well, not just from building them. (at least thats how I read the DD)
 
Lets not forget that you also get a bonus from using them in battle as well, not just from building them. (at least thats how I read the DD)
I think that's only true of doctrine research.
Johan said:
There are of course exceptions to the theoretical and practical rules. One of these is land doctrine’s. Here the theory is focuses in on specific doctrine paths, while the practical, which is gained from more general combat, covers all of them. So in the pre-war countries will be at the more efficient researching inside their area of doctrine expertise but you gain new experience from combat continues will able to ‘steal’ doctrine ideas from other countries.
Land doctrines are described as an "exception" to the ordinary rules. While I like the idea that combat experience lends bonuses to research for units as well, I don't think that's the case. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.
 
I think that you will gain research exp. even when you are allocating resources not for building, but for upgrading (which is too building of new equipment).
At the end, the divisions aren't and equipment depot, but rather an organization.
 
I think that's only true of doctrine research.

Land doctrines are described as an "exception" to the ordinary rules. While I like the idea that combat experience lends bonuses to research for units as well, I don't think that's the case. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.

Hmmm, seems I misread that DD.

One would think that combat experience would also lead to better ideas/designs as you figure out (the hard way) what works well and what doesnt.
 
One would think that combat experience would also lead to better ideas/designs as you figure out (the hard way) what works well and what doesnt.
As Johan has indicated, technologies are moddable. Since land doctrines (at least) gain efficiency from combat experience, presumably there's some field to measure total combat experience acquired and that field can be used in the tech speed calculation. I presume it would be fairly easy to mod other techs to be like land doctrine and acquire efficiency from combat as well.

The only problem would be that there probably won't be separate values for combat involving each type of unit -- either panzer technology doesn't benefit from combat experience, or it benefits from all combat experience irrespective of whether that combat involved any tanks. Still, that might be better than nothing.
 
There might be a "threat_level_score" or something though

Well, either way it comes down to a matter of quantity. But how that quantity is interpreted in the game...
 
two questions.

1. can laws be reversed/undone?
2. can ministers also serve as generals/air marshals? so you could have Goering as both a minister and in command of a bomber group?

1) I believe so - another law could be put into place to remove another one. Apparently they're going to be fully moddable, like events, so I'd say this is likely.
2) Well they could in previous versions, so why not this one too!

1. Laws were introduced into EU:Rome in the VV expansion, and in the Dev Diary for that Paradox said:

Vae Victis features Decisions and Missions very similar to the ones seen in In Nomine, with the addition of special decisions called Laws, which, unlike regular decisions, can be more or less easily revoked.

So you will definitely be able to revoke Laws in HOI3. "More or less easily" might mean there are some penalties from revoking a law.

This is different to the Decisions made on the Diplomacy screen. Germany can't decide to implement the Anschluss, then just click on a button later to "revoke" it.

2. I hope that there is one set of Characters, as in EUIII and EU:Rome. Then Goering can be the Chief of the Airforce in Berlin OR an operational commander in the field, not both. You should have to make a difficult decision on whether you give one of your top commanders an operational job, or a Minister/Staff position. Not that I'm saying Goering was, but maybe Raeder. If you put someone else in as Chief of the Navy then you use him as a Fleet Commander.