Invading Switzerland shouldn't really be worthwhile. It's one of the reasons why they weren't invaded IRL - too much effort for too little gain.
-
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.
Yes, you are right about a blueprint for a land doctrine being too much (I was mistaken and thought Germany would get blueprints for tactical bombers + a CAS doctrine
o).I think the UdSSr should get two blueprints for air doctrines as well but in the fighter tree (AFAIK they mainly sent Polikarpov I16s to Spain).
Land doctrine might be appropriate but what is if the soviet tree was abandoned? 2 doctrines for the fighter tree appears to be a good solution, at least it is easy to implement.
Just sticking it out there: What if Germany (AI or human) never researches the CAS doctrine tree? But Germany have the two CAS doctrines blueprints and USSR potentially getting fighter tree blueprints seems good to me.
Maybe this is stretching it too far but, IMO, Germany and USSR should get those blueprints no matter who wins the Spanish Civil War considering their troops/ airman there would've got the experience from fighting and pulled out after it was clear the side they were aiding was going to loose.
That is bad luck. SCW was quite important for CAS. The unit type has proven very effective and later Hitler was a fan of Stukas even after their relative advantages were reduced due to tech progress.
Would it be possible to introduce three dimensions into the combat mechanics of the game? On land the combat works fine (as it is two dimensional) but it has, IMO, always been too simplified for land and air where in particular:
Submarine warfare - finding and staying in contact with a sub in three-dimensions is diificult and becomes more so the faster the target travels; weapons have a limited maximum depth as did submarines themselves. The current solution used for this is visibilty but this really only works in 2D, i.e when submarines are on the surface and assumes that submarines never dive (my game experience is that even with a visibility value of 1, submarines are detected); in 3D you could model how battles took place - where establishing how deep a target is was just as important as how far away and in what direction it was - with depth as an additional soft coded value. This would be effected by the experience, training & weapons that were developed to answer the questions posed by fighting in three dimensions and provide a proper solution for late war & nuclear submarines that do not need to surface.
Air combat - in the same way with subs, so with planes; pressurised bombers that flew too high and too fast for conventional fighters led to experimental rocket powered & specialised interceptors. All planes in game are expected to fly at the same ceiling, by creating a 3D capability then you could fly too high ot too low and would have to work on the solutions to both offensive and defense. A soft coded value for each unit of their respective altitude would allow layers of battles to take place.
The same is also true of static AA that will happily shoot down an Avro Anson or an Avro Vulcan.
I'd expect that these would require a hard code change & might not even be possible.
Submarine warfare - finding and staying in contact with a sub in three-dimensions is diificult and becomes more so the faster the target travels; weapons have a limited maximum depth as did submarines themselves. The current solution used for this is visibilty but this really only works in 2D, i.e when submarines are on the surface and assumes that submarines never dive (my game experience is that even with a visibility value of 1, submarines are detected); in 3D you could model how battles took place - where establishing how deep a target is was just as important as how far away and in what direction it was - with depth as an additional soft coded value. This would be effected by the experience, training & weapons that were developed to answer the questions posed by fighting in three dimensions and provide a proper solution for late war & nuclear submarines that do not need to surface.
Air combat - in the same way with subs, so with planes; pressurised bombers that flew too high and too fast for conventional fighters led to experimental rocket powered & specialised interceptors. All planes in game are expected to fly at the same ceiling, by creating a 3D capability then you could fly too high ot too low and would have to work on the solutions to both offensive and defense. A soft coded value for each unit of their respective altitude would allow layers of battles to take place.
The same is also true of static AA that will happily shoot down an Avro Anson or an Avro Vulcan.
I'd expect that these would require a hard code change & might not even be possible.
Last edited:
I have little doubt that it is possible, but the effort needed would be huge, while the possible gain little.
Submarine combat currently does not work, I'd have thought that adding depth as a factor might well provide the necessary balance; the same could be said for strategic bombing, where for instance the Japanese did not have an answer to the B-29.
Vales used for submarine warware from CORE should really be adopted into vanilla!
Another wish: enable more then one country to invite others into its faction. Maybe allow all majors regardless of what faction they are in to invite neutral countries in or maybe any country in the alliance should have this ability. However the leader of the faction should be the only one with the right to remove others from the alliance IMO.
Yes, this would be nice. Additionally it would be nice if leaders of minor alliances could ask to join one of the three major alliances. It always bugged me that Germany can ask Japan (+ its allies) to join the Axis but Japan can't ask for it herself.
So i play germany and italy invites a nation i would like to annex instead of being their friend?
Ban your allies until you are no longer part of an alliance. Then you can join axis. You might have to wait a day, but in theory this should work.
Well I can only imagine that would happen on multi-player. The two players would have to resolve it themselves, it wouldn't be the problem of the developers it would be the gamers problem IMO.So i play germany and italy invites a nation i would like to annex instead of being their friend?
You should not have to do this in the first place IMO.
It only works if you're not at war at this time and even then you would lose all your former allies because (see Mr_B0narpte's wish) you're not the alliance leader and can't invite them again.
Yes, you are right. Forget the part about being unable to reinvite them. :wacko:
But still, you can't dissolve alliances while at war. And it looks like the mechanics needed for integrating this are already in the game as faction leaders can already invite members of minor alliances into their faction.
But still, you can't dissolve alliances while at war. And it looks like the mechanics needed for integrating this are already in the game as faction leaders can already invite members of minor alliances into their faction.
different rank names for each nation + one default (as we wont get all)
eg
GER: Generalmajor -> ENG: Major General
GER: Generalleutnant -> ENG: Lieutenant General
GER: Generalfeldmarschall -> ENG: Field Marshal
air force
GER: Generalmajor -> ENG: Air Commodore
GER: Generalleutnant -> ENG: Air Vice Marshal
... and so on; would be awesome
eg
GER: Generalmajor -> ENG: Major General
GER: Generalleutnant -> ENG: Lieutenant General
GER: Generalfeldmarschall -> ENG: Field Marshal
air force
GER: Generalmajor -> ENG: Air Commodore
GER: Generalleutnant -> ENG: Air Vice Marshal
... and so on; would be awesome
Awesome. Maybe, also the possibility to manually change the rank's name to one's liking (some countries had different armed forces, like militia-like ones, which had their own special ranks).
yeah, i meant to export these things somewhere in one of the text files, i would like it a lot for Xtra historical feeling.
same could be done with some ministers, eg:
Reichskanzler (GER) -> Prime Minister (ENG)
its just another research madness
same could be done with some ministers, eg:
Reichskanzler (GER) -> Prime Minister (ENG)
its just another research madness