I don't know about setting ESE to be constant for each province, but maybe provide a flat minus and/or bonus to ESE depending on the province terrain type and that affecting the ESE provided by each level of infrastructure.
-
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 don't know about setting ESE to be constant for each province, but maybe provide a flat minus and/or bonus to ESE depending on the province terrain type and that affecting the ESE provided by each level of infrastructure.
Well, my idea was that by allowing an unique ESE value for each province (and as you suggest, use the default for each terrain type if this value is unset) then the world map could be very highly customized... for example, mountains in the hinterland of China could have a much lower ESE than mountains in Western Europe.
Perhaps 'constant' is a poor term for it. These should be base ESE values of course subject to alteration by province improvements, combat, logistical strike, etc. as it is now in the game.
Remember that infrastructure takes longer to build in mountains already, if there were to be a flat penalty on ESE in mountains too infrastructure should be built at the same rate everywhere
Why would this be a contradiction? In mountainious areas there is little infra because it takes so long to build roads etc. Since there are few roads ESE should be low...
Roads are rare in mountains because with the same amount of time you can build less roads than in flat terrains.
It is implemented in game already. So another nerf to infrastructure in mountains is unnecessary. You need more time to build infrastructure in rough terrain already.
It is implemented in game already. So another nerf to infrastructure in mountains is unnecessary. You need more time to build infrastructure in rough terrain already.
+1
Just bought the game and could not believe that in May 40 scenario, France and England are unable to build any armor division at all. Pre-Planned Def in Grand doctrine should be a 1939 tech (not 1940) and given to UK and France in 1940 scenario . How can you explain existence of armored div in the historical OOB that you can't even build ? Division Cuirasse should also be brigaded with heavy B1 bis. France had the first Tank Destroyer brigades seeing action in the world, operationnal in June 40 (too late), while the tech is not yet researched, same for some plane models. Also lot's of stuff to polish for an historical OOB (inf/tank/plane year models, leaders, units type in OOB like the siegfried line or 2nd line/territorial units...).
Well, I say your into something, but I think it would be better to have more terrain types or separate topography and biogeography instead. Thus making ESE values unique to each different terrain type rather than every single province.
sov_1936.ai has province 1194 on the ignored list for garrisons, with a comment saying it is Ocha (top half of Sakhalin). Ocha is actually province 1541; 1194 is on the Manchurian border and should probably be garrisoned.
Reported as #1921
...and Kannon is correct, the proper place for this would be the bug forum
An option like in the beggining of take tech teams for leaders, A new and better map for Mexico (it was in war like in Europe) and
I think that would be a huge mistake. There is a huge amount of players that want to do this kind of thing - its a game and it's fun.
The historical path only has so many options, even if you explore every one, and it will inevitably get dull. The replay value of hoi2 was all about doing implausible things. Look at all the AARs. I'm not saying it should be easy, but allowing the players to go their own path is a good idea and besides, ever since Hoi came out the historical path has always been a choice of the player.
You should not remove choice. That's being pompous and elitist to say the least. Maybe i don't want to be part of world war 2, maybe I want to be part of my own ambitious war in my region with world war 2 as a backdrop. You can still get what you want, it's not hard to relax a few restrictions.
I have to strongly disagree. You can use any mod you like or write one yourself for alternate scenario. There's a lot of people who bought Hoi Series especialy for historical scenario. A the the moment, the "historical" scenarios of DH are still of basic or low quality and need much work (OOB, tech, balance, events..).
I can honestly say that I'd rather have the devs focus on the historic aspects, which is the core of the game that everything else relies on. We have a highly dedicated mod userbase to focus on fantasy.
If they go off in too many directions, we won't get nearly as good patches (and they would take even longer to come out, imagine that!).
If they go off in too many directions, we won't get nearly as good patches (and they would take even longer to come out, imagine that!).
I agree 100 %, that´s the general rule every game designers should abide by. ALWAYS focus primarily (90 %) on the 'main product' before venturing of into 'alternate' directions. In a (semi)historical game such as DH this is especially true.
I'm not really talking about alternate scenarios as a whole. I'm talking about constraints, a lot of which are in the game already.
I've played a game as the USSR before and conquered Iran and Finland with extreme ease and not very many casualties. Guess what? My nation collapsed into rebellion. I should mention that this was around the time of the purge (which shouldn't really increase dissent if you think about it), but is this what a historical response would look like? Stalin successfully spreads socialism, incorporating two republics into the USSR. EVERYONE IN RUSSIA, REBEL NOW!!! For an indoctrinated nationthey sure are hard to please.
Same with Italy. I complete my objectives in the Balkans and I have literally no means of doing anything past that because of the lack of manpower. Some nations are just doomed to fail or simply do nothing in this game and I don't think that should be so.
Then we are talking of the same thing : balance and realism
- Finland conquest should not be easy for USSR (Mannerheim line, Kulik at command till his incompetence was noticable even by his former comrad Stalin)
- dissent is indeed not the better way to simulate the purge of the Red Army. While it is an easy way to hinder combat efficiency of the army it is a very bad solution to simulate bigger political control on the army (and who controled the army controled the people). Purge events should have an effect on doctrine choice (abandonning blitzkrieg) and ground defense efficiency, inflicting massive loss to USSR if it dares to play warmonger style.
- historical constraints on politics, manpower and industry
Italy had a low industrial base and Mussolini made bad choices, even if as a player you should be able to improve the situation.
Still Italy had a significant manpower, with more than 250 000 men in East Africa, 50 000 in Libya and being able to send 62 000 more men in USSR in 41, and later 200 000 in 42, but could not afford to suffer huge losses. Newly annexed land and people can not help as they won't join your nation war effort.
Mussolini war dream was to form a new 'Mare Nostrum' Roman empire, and become a 1st rank regional power, not to conquer the world or win the war alone. This objective should be difficult enough but still possible to have fun in the game.
Each country can achieve differents goals, and gives a different challenge. Only some countries had the real potential to conquer half of the world. If you feel this is not fun, maybe you could change your manpower.
- Finland conquest should not be easy for USSR (Mannerheim line, Kulik at command till his incompetence was noticable even by his former comrad Stalin)
- dissent is indeed not the better way to simulate the purge of the Red Army. While it is an easy way to hinder combat efficiency of the army it is a very bad solution to simulate bigger political control on the army (and who controled the army controled the people). Purge events should have an effect on doctrine choice (abandonning blitzkrieg) and ground defense efficiency, inflicting massive loss to USSR if it dares to play warmonger style.
- historical constraints on politics, manpower and industry
Italy had a low industrial base and Mussolini made bad choices, even if as a player you should be able to improve the situation.
Still Italy had a significant manpower, with more than 250 000 men in East Africa, 50 000 in Libya and being able to send 62 000 more men in USSR in 41, and later 200 000 in 42, but could not afford to suffer huge losses. Newly annexed land and people can not help as they won't join your nation war effort.
Mussolini war dream was to form a new 'Mare Nostrum' Roman empire, and become a 1st rank regional power, not to conquer the world or win the war alone. This objective should be difficult enough but still possible to have fun in the game.
Each country can achieve differents goals, and gives a different challenge. Only some countries had the real potential to conquer half of the world. If you feel this is not fun, maybe you could change your manpower.