Obviously only show units on the map if you have an idea where they are (even if the info is inaccurate!). If the spies only report that a division exists but they don't know where, then don't show anything on the map of course.
-
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.
Obviously only show units on the map if you have an idea where they are (even if the info is inaccurate!). If the spies only report that a division exists but they don't know where, then don't show anything on the map of course.
I would like to point out that the information seen on the map is provided in the Intelligence tab as well, but the reserve is not true. It would be nice if it was
Yes, this is what I was referring to.
You can't be certain that it isn't done already. Again you spy knows a division exists but not sure what province. That means in the spy tab it show they have 3 brigades. But none appear on the map. Totally works.
But there are cases when the Spy tab will tell you (what it thinks) where they are but won't show it on the map.
So should the map then place ficticious units? What I mean is since the spies report very inaccurate information they may report a unit in province A. But in reality there is no unit there as the spies made a mistake. So does that ficticious unit appear on the map? With radar we lift fog of war to show real units. Spies sometimes do this but also report that a unit exists where none actually are. I think this is the problem.
I don't see a problem with inaccurate information. It could make "Intelligence map mode" actually useful (you would be able to check which information can be considered to be more or less accurate) and in fact, it could represent the realities of war quite well.
Why not? And they may be quite real units. It's your choice if you believe your intel or not. Don't you feel the thrill of that?
That's not actually true. They are serving as listening stations, which means they intercept enemy communication. The amount of communication a unit has depends on its Radio Strength value, so HQs are much more prone to this. So it is entirely possible that you see as far as Dover and can only spot a handful of Army Corps HQs, but in reality there are like 50 Divisions there, too. Or your crafty enemy may create empty HQs only to decieve you
Why not? And they may be quite real units. It's your choice if you believe your intel or not. Don't you feel the thrill of that?
That's not actually true. They are serving as listening stations, which means they intercept enemy communication. The amount of communication a unit has depends on its Radio Strength value, so HQs are much more prone to this. So it is entirely possible that you see as far as Dover and can only spot a handful of Army Corps HQs, but in reality there are like 50 Divisions there, too. Or your crafty enemy may create empty HQs only to decieve you
Kind of like when the Allies dropped the fake paratrooper dolls in order to throw off the real locations of the D-Day air drops.
Yeah they should take full damage from the AAA in the province there bombing, and take partial damage from AAA in provinces they fly over
In a way. See I never pay attention to units 2 or 3 provinces away from the front anyway. Just how I play I guess. I'll crush them when I get there is my motto.Why not? And they may be quite real units. It's your choice if you believe your intel or not. Don't you feel the thrill of that?
That's not actually true. They are serving as listening stations, which means they intercept enemy communication. The amount of communication a unit has depends on its Radio Strength value, so HQs are much more prone to this. So it is entirely possible that you see as far as Dover and can only spot a handful of Army Corps HQs, but in reality there are like 50 Divisions there, too. Or your crafty enemy may create empty HQs only to decieve you
Yes I know they are really listening stations. I also know that the two techs encryption/decryption determine how accuate they really are. But with level 10 radar It is extremely accurate for all of southern England. It places all the divisions, planes and fleets. I use it for bombing fleets in port and for my Sealion. In Memel I also have 10 and 10 more on the farthest southern province in Poland. Gives me a real nice view of all red army units that I have to surround and crush. And 10 in the southern French province next to Spain even shows the units in Gilbralter for me. Spies have nothing over this in my opinion. So while this might add flavor for some people it offers nothing extra to how I play the game.
These two are probably related. If you only regard the most immediate threats, then it is hardly surprising you can live with simply what your Radars provide. But if you play as the USA and want to know what the Soviets are up to, your Radars in New York and Guam will give you something between nothing and diddly squat.
Paradox devs,
about elections:
what about a trigger for governement changes? like in HoI 2 for modding porpuses
about elections:
what about a trigger for governement changes? like in HoI 2 for modding porpuses
Can we PLEASE, for the love of god FINALLY get some improved UI, namely decent handling of leaders?? I honestly don't know why PI can't and so far didn't implement a simple filter system when selecting app. leader for your divisions, so the player would symply select which traits/ranks/skill levels he wants to include/exclude in leaders list (f.e., exclude all old guards and show only mj. generals with offensive and trickster traits). It really wouldn't take a lot of effrt and work on your side, but it would improve the UI (and thus the game) immensely. While we are in 2011 the game still uses leader select system from HOI1, which is a 2002 game.
Oh, a button to unassign ALL curently assigned leaders would be nice+ some tooltips on theater, army, ag and corps commanders bonuses (i'm always confused how much bonus my theater commander grants to divisions under his control. It would be nice if hoovering over a division name ir subunit or hq status would give you some info on all bonuses that are given to that division by its superior command structures
Oh, a button to unassign ALL curently assigned leaders would be nice+ some tooltips on theater, army, ag and corps commanders bonuses (i'm always confused how much bonus my theater commander grants to divisions under his control. It would be nice if hoovering over a division name ir subunit or hq status would give you some info on all bonuses that are given to that division by its superior command structures
I would like to suggest some improvements for the air command menus, at the moment it requires too much micromanagement.
Made a thread a few weeks ago going over what I think would make it so much easier to use: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?532106
Made a thread a few weeks ago going over what I think would make it so much easier to use: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?532106
please please devs, add a slight bonus to Industry grouped together in a single region. This would incentivise building all of one's factories in a single region rather than the current spreading them around everywhere. Perhaps an extra 10% bonus for regions where the factory level is 10. this also makes sense for one to group his IC together in urban areas.
To those requesting AA to fore all along the flightpath I want to chip into the no thankyou pack. Even with a maxed out level of AAA I cannot believe this is supposed to represent guns scattered across the entire zone. It reflects guns concentrated on and around likely targets. To my knowledge bomber raids did not pass over static concentrations of enemy cannon they were not targetting on a level that would have any impact on such large fomations as we ues in the game.
What might make a lot more sense would be if bomber raids took attrition for travelling into enemy territory based on the AA levels thus making missions deeper into enemy territory more painful. The losses on bomber streams in transit was important but I do not think AA levels of provinces reflect the way it worked if they 'attack' passing bombers. I also have very grave doubts about the ability of the AI pathfinding to avoid concentrations of provincial AAA in the way actually raids would in the planning.
What might make a lot more sense would be if bomber raids took attrition for travelling into enemy territory based on the AA levels thus making missions deeper into enemy territory more painful. The losses on bomber streams in transit was important but I do not think AA levels of provinces reflect the way it worked if they 'attack' passing bombers. I also have very grave doubts about the ability of the AI pathfinding to avoid concentrations of provincial AAA in the way actually raids would in the planning.
That's exactly what people are asking for. The HoI2 AI was annoyingly effective at bypassing lines of high AAA provinces, flying via the English Channel to hit my HQ units without needing to cross my extended Maginot Line. It should be doable, especially if a level 10 AAA only does about 1-10% attritional damage to a unit passing over. That's enough to be painful for sustained operations, without affecting key one-off attacks. The real question is what sort of sysem resources and how many coding hours it would take.
Well, here's my suggestion:
The supply system will also apply to industrial resources. The supply system will attempt to move resources to stockpiles where there is IC. The infra bonus to supply throughput would be reduced. Each IC allows for greater stockpiles at each industrial site.
Concentrating industry through fewer provinces will allow you to defend fewer provinces from bombing raids. Strategic bombing will obviously also attack resource stocks.
This might add a little computational demand, but computers have advanced since HoI3 released. And there could be an arcade mode type toggle to remove the industrial resource calculations.
While we're talking about improvements to elections etc, what's everyone's thoughts on changing the head of state of England from the King to the Prime Minister?