• 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.
Titan 79, can you resubmit that icon in lossless bmp or png format? Then I might be able to use it.

Damn, I thought it already was .bmp! Somehow I must have converted it (very odd though; maybe when I uploaded it). I'll have to redo it since I've trashed the original .bmp. Do you hurry?
 
Cool stuff, I'm looking forward to this.

The aircraft tech tree got me thinking: is it possible for aircraft escorts to increase the range of the aircraft you attach them to? It would be cool if you could research fuel tankers and build them as brigade attachments to bombers. It would make more sense than attaching escorts/tail guns to modern bombers. :)
 
Last edited:
Will leave it like it is for now but was thinking that a better idea would be to have one class of tail guns plus the option of air-launched stand-off cruise missiles as another. I'll have to do some playing around to see how range works to see if your range idea is workable.
 
other ideas:

- brigade attachment or sub tech tree for air units:
tanker aircraft extending range
AWACS/AEW improving organization
these could be upgradeable throughout decades to increase stats; for example 1960s tanker= range of all air units x1.1, 70s x1.2, 80s, x1.3 etc - this would reflect the average boost to airforce with addition of tanker craft, another option would be an attachment.

AWACS/AEW in the same fashion to boost organization

- new oilfields/gas field discoveries, as events probably
- oil shale tech? possibly as a building???
 
AWACS will probably be in one of the doctrines trees, giving the next level of HQ and other bonuses yet to be determined. Probably some computer technology will be a prerequisite, and it will probably be linked to C3I somehow. I plan on having the doctrines transition from a cold-war philosophical thing to a technological thing reminiscent of MDS somewhere between 1970 and 1980.

Whether or not the tanker idea gets implemented depends on whether it works. I might play around with the user-definable attachments.
 
Whether or not the tanker idea gets implemented depends on whether it works. I might play around with the user-definable attachments.

yeah im actually curious about that... for example:
command = { type = supply_consumption which = infantry value = 0.03 }
would boost supply consumption by 3% but would multipliers work??

from HOI2wiki:
NOTE: For "build_time" and "build_cost", it is possible to add the field "where = relative".
This means that the value is parsed as a relative modifier (%) instead of an absolute addition.

If this can be applied to range than tankers wouldnt be a problem. Im just a newb modder so no Idea however.

ps & as for resource discoveries:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Discoveries_and_Volume_Per_Decade.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_fields
 
Last edited:
other ideas:

- brigade attachment or sub tech tree for air units:
tanker aircraft extending range
AWACS/AEW improving organization
these could be upgradeable throughout decades to increase stats; for example 1960s tanker= range of all air units x1.1, 70s x1.2, 80s, x1.3 etc - this would reflect the average boost to airforce with addition of tanker craft, another option would be an attachment.

AWACS/AEW in the same fashion to boost organization

I like the idea of having tanker attachments because it simulates the cost of building a fleet of tankers and tankers have historically been widely used as a force multiplier. Hundreds and hundreds were built.

I think concepts like AWACS and electronic warfare would be best simulated as techs rather than attachments. They provide benefits to all forces in the field, fewer aircraft are required, and in the case of electronic warfare aircraft their range is significantly less than bombers.
 
Are you going to have Hospitals/Medical tech like in the Vanilla AoD techtree?

I will for the most part preserve what is in vanilla, or use the same numbers for equivalent technologies, and simply add to it to extend the timeline. There may be differences in the historical year, though. One of the few exceptions is the Volksturm doctrine. That will be axed, as it was in the DDA version of the mod, because the AI of German puppets researches this even if Germany is winning the war.

Take a look at a preview of the navy tree. I still have to do destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, and amphibious assault vehicles. The blank space at the right is reserved for aircraft upgrades. After the 1960s, carriers were built for a 40-50 year service life with only aircraft upgrades.
 

Attachments

  • navy_proto.png
    navy_proto.png
    40,7 KB · Views: 400
Last edited:
I will for the most part preserve what is in vanilla, or use the same numbers for equivalent technologies, and simply add to it to extend the timeline. There may be differences in the historical year, though. One of the few exceptions is the Volksturm doctrine. That will be axed, as it was in the DDA version of the mod, because the AI of German puppets researches this even if Germany is winning the war.

Take a look at a preview of the navy tree. I still have to do destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, and amphibious assault vehicles. The blank space at the right is reserved for aircraft upgrades. After the 1960s, carriers were built for a 40-50 year service life with only aircraft upgrades.
Nice, that Naval techtree looks good.
 
tuore, I'm not done with naval yet. When I am, I'll put out a "prototype" which you can use. While not final it should be close enough.
Would look forward to a two-way exchange of information on ministers, especially for important countries like the US, USSR, Germany, UK, etc. Are you interested in developing minister files?
 
Hi, mod sounds really good :)

One thing i wanted to suggest, instead of maybe having an event to enable nukes could you possibly incorporate the same sort of dissent hit from using them as the "fight to the death" (or whatever its called) option in land battles??

Im quite keen to see the ai build and use nukes, though i guess it would change the game quite alot. If there were to be an event, how would you determine who gets the first shot??? Or would that be based on a pure event, say my cores have been invaded, now i will use nuke and take a small dissent hit...............................................

If i knew how to do this, i would have done it myself, but i dont :(
 
tuore, I'm not done with naval yet. When I am, I'll put out a "prototype" which you can use. While not final it should be close enough.
Would look forward to a two-way exchange of information on ministers, especially for important countries like the US, USSR, Germany, UK, etc. Are you interested in developing minister files?

I think prototype version is enough for me, since as I told already, I need only the extended tech "levels".
It must be painful to adjust the coordinates and then moving the other tech file's titles downwards/sidewards. Respect!
 
Re: Nuclear war
Likely I'll carry over the nuclear authorization procedure from the Arma version of this mod. Nuclear authorization is programmable but the standard setting checks to see if you are at war and whether you have a nuclear monopoly. If both are true, you get the authorization. Historically this was the basis of the US use of atomic weapons in 1945. If the nuclear monopoly is broken, you only get authorization if you have either 1) lost territory to an invader or 2) the country you are at war with has authorized nuclear weapons. This is done to prevent the Korean War from becoming WW3.

tuore, you'll have it as soon as it is done. The prototype will of course have only what you want. But I'll have to also make a few adjustments to secret weapons. For one thing, the carriers and carrier air groups are all messed up in vanilla. The later carriers are way ahead of their times while the carrier air groups are behind the times. The solution will be two extra steps in the carrier tree that don't give new carriers but give new carrier air groups instead. Also CAG model #8 is a jet for some nations and a prop plane for some others. So I'm going to make it a prop plane for everyone and bump the jets up by one number which affects secret weapons. Also secret weapons for nuclear ships has changed in AOD--in AOD you don't get a separate class of ships but instead get a nuclear propulsion attachment. This has two negative effects 1) Nuclear propulsion uses up a valuable attachment slot. 2) Setting a negative value for fuel consumption for the attachment doesn't work either because the ships all have different fuel consumption values. So I'm going back to the old system.

On another note--I did some playing around and determined that if a bomber and its escort have different ranges, the program automatically sets the range of the combination at the lesser of the two values. So giving an escort a high range in order to fake a tanker craft does not work. Will search for other options. Likely I'll just assume the intercontinental bomber includes jet tanker technology and might therefore make a certain level of transport plane a prerequisite.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nuclear war
Likely I'll carry over the nuclear authorization procedure from the Arma version of this mod. Nuclear authorization is programmable but the standard setting checks to see if you are at war and whether you have a nuclear monopoly. If both are true, you get the authorization. Historically this was the basis of the US use of atomic weapons in 1945. If the nuclear monopoly is broken, you only get authorization if you have either 1) lost territory to an invader or 2) the country you are at war with has authorized nuclear weapons. This is done to prevent the Korean War from becoming WW3.

I thought you cannot take away the ability to perform a mission (in this case Nuke) once it has been enabled. How would you stop the US from using the bomb at the end of WWII and then going on to use it in the next war?
 
vonSachsen,
Unfortunately the only way to do this is by editing the savegame. That's the limitation of the engine. But this is better than vanilla, and if you've won WW2 without having to use nukes, you don't have to do anything. This is explained fully in the download of the HOI2 version of this mod.

Reversing Nuclear Authorization
This can only be done by editing the save file. You need to do three things:
1- find and eliminate all instances of the string 'nuke = yes' (without the quotes)
2- remove from the event history any authorization events 629001 through 629099
3- find and remove the authorization flags defined by authorization events
This is generally not recommended but may be appropriate if you used nukes during WW2
and wish to clear your good name.

It's bothersome but at least possible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nuclear war
Likely I'll carry over the nuclear authorization procedure from the Arma version of this mod. Nuclear authorization is programmable but the standard setting checks to see if you are at war and whether you have a nuclear monopoly. If both are true, you get the authorization. Historically this was the basis of the US use of atomic weapons in 1945. If the nuclear monopoly is broken, you only get authorization if you have either 1) lost territory to an invader or 2) the country you are at war with has authorized nuclear weapons. This is done to prevent the Korean War from becoming WW3.

Could you tell me how you did the nuclear monoply check, all i saw in trigger event commands was check how many nukes the event player had by going nukes = x?

Can you write nukes = x country_which = x or something?

Why do you need to reverse autorise them? Couldnt you just remove the tech from the tree and only make it available via special event (the actual nuke mission that is, not the ability to produce them...)?