-
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.
I haven't checked, but I think yes.
If you go to war historically, you should have much more leaders Jan/Feb '42
Yeah, I can also give the lower skill leaders some experience when I take Mexico/CA.
It's a small price to pay for getting the US to fight the axis :happy:
As the USA I end up skimping in the war and only having 1 leader per CV fleet for the cags.
Reproducible. However, this doesn't seem wad. Maybe you could post it into the bug section?
I played AoD over HOI3 up until recently and I have a question about HQs and ranks. If I'm attacking with a full corps rather than an individual division do I need to include the corps HQ in the attacking stack or can that sit behind while the 3-5 divs attack? Is there any advantage to having the Lt' General as the attacking general over his subordinates? Same question for Army/AG level.
No, there's no advantage to directly using HQs in attacks. They just need to be in radio range to provide their benefits. You may want to use the corps HQ in attacks, if the leader is more skilled than the division leaders, though, as the overall combat leader is used choosing combat tactics.
You can only gain traits from direct combat. That is the main reason you want to include hq's. Thankfully in the next patch hq's dont count towards the stack so you can just dogpile all of them onto the battle now.
Is there any benefit to acquiring territory?
Example: You are hungary, you DOW Romania. You have the option to take your core provinces. Is there any reason to do that and not just conquer or puppet? Does england get less mad at you? does Romania surrender quicker?
Hungary has cores in Romana, Czech, and Yugo. Can you retake all three and England not DOW you because all you did was retake cores and not conquer?
Example: You are hungary, you DOW Romania. You have the option to take your core provinces. Is there any reason to do that and not just conquer or puppet? Does england get less mad at you? does Romania surrender quicker?
Hungary has cores in Romana, Czech, and Yugo. Can you retake all three and England not DOW you because all you did was retake cores and not conquer?
Just over here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?639898-Hearts-of-Iron-3-Their-Finest-Hour-Post-Mortem-Dev-Diary
Should be out next week.
Im playing as the US and i just entered the war, i want to move planes over to the UK but i cant. The UK is out of range for my bombers and interceptors. How do i move them over there? Thanks in advance!
From playing 1 game and having not 1 single logistics wizard as japan gain any traits whatsoever even though they are all level 7
They started out level 1-3 as the base japan leaders and because I did the original method of top down for logistics, they rarely ever saw any combat at all so 99% of them had no gained traits, only the ones in corps(who I typically use to game the angle of attacks by support attacking from neighboring provinces).
I'm playing as the soviets and I've conquered Japan (TFH), Japan went governement in exile and I'm using collaboration governement as an occupation policy.
I don't understand why all of japans provinces are down to 0 Leadership.
I don't understand why all of japans provinces are down to 0 Leadership.
Partisan support, if left unchecked can become overwhelmingly painful to resource extraction. Combined with UR's(in TFH UR's are in the realm of SPAMARIFIC) you will likely suffer immensely if you cannot annex their land, puppetting would atleast yield some benefits resources wise. You can minimize partisan penalties by stacking suppression units in the provinces. Couping them out of a faction might work too before you annex them.
Code:
overseas = {
local_manpower_modifier = -0.75 #75% penalty on manpower.
local_leadership_modifier = -0.9 #75% on leadership.
}