CORE 0.60 Dev Diary

[Tegetthoff]

There are two sides to this:

1.) Soviet susceptivility to attack in case of no M-R pact:
As far as I know this behaviour is already coded, either via vanilla or via CORE.

2.) German deployment / Barbarossa Ai:
As far as I know this is a potential problem, since there are very refined events that deploy Germany along the M-R line and attack Russia when deployment is sufficient, but none that cause similar behaviour along the former Polish/Soviet border.
That´s actually the first thing I have to check when I come around to doing this.

T.

[Dichromate]

There are two sides to this:

1.) Soviet susceptivility to attack in case of no M-R pact:
As far as I know this behaviour is already coded, either via vanilla or via CORE.

2.) German deployment / Barbarossa Ai:
As far as I know this is a potential problem, since there are very refined events that deploy Germany along the M-R line and attack Russia when deployment is sufficient, but none that cause similar behaviour along the former Polish/Soviet border.
That´s actually the first thing I have to check when I come around to doing this.

T.

Well tbh 'no M-R pact' is a major deviation, far more so than the west abandoning Poland, since it all but ensures an early Soviet-German war.

[Dichromate]

Also just wanted to ask:

are you keeping the 6 battalion/9 battalion divisions? I really hope not personally because the way AOD deals with concentration of firepower (stacking penalty based on number of *divisions*) means having slightly more numerous but weaker infantry divisions really hurts compared to ARMA where it was mostly flavor, since as far as the stacking penalty is concerned, a division is a division.

Also you might want to look at revising some of the beach provinces in North Africa - at the moment there are way too many places along the Libyan/Egyptian coasts that can be invaded, which tends to result in some really stupid things happening when the AI fails to garison them. Third Reich Mod ended up getting rid of most of them, keeping beaches only at the port provinces - Triopoli, Benghazi, ect. Italy as an AI *should* fail in North Africa, but not because the British land without resistance 300 km behind their lines.

[Tegetthoff]

The 6bat / 9bat divisions are just too deeply imbedded in the mod to change them. Getting rid of single ships already was hellish.

But you may put your finger on one of the remaining problems: while we now have the initial phase of Barbarossa under control and the Germans penetrate a fair distance and are then stopped in an ai/ai confrontation, they currently have a tendency to suddenly break through in 1943. That is a phase when both sides are moving 20-30 division stacks around the map and where the AoD combat logic might cut in.

[Serenissima]

Also you might want to look at revising some of the beach provinces in North Africa - at the moment there are way too many places along the Libyan/Egyptian coasts that can be invaded, which tends to result in some really stupid things happening when the AI fails to garison them. Third Reich Mod ended up getting rid of most of them, keeping beaches only at the port provinces - Triopoli, Benghazi, ect. Italy as an AI *should* fail in North Africa, but not because the British land without resistance 300 km behind their lines.

Agreed. I also see this in the reverse: British initial success in North Africa tends to be crushed when Italy lands on the coast of Libya or Egypt and takes Alexandria when nobody's watching...

[Emmanuel_M]

The 6bat / 9bat divisions are just too deeply imbedded in the mod to change them. Getting rid of single ships already was hellish.

Hellish ... but worthwhile
To be honest I am pretty impatient to try the new CORE, especially as my main gripe with CORE will be gone away.

But you may put your finger on one of the remaining problems: while we now have the initial phase of Barbarossa under control and the Germans penetrate a fair distance and are then stopped in an ai/ai confrontation, they currently have a tendency to suddenly break through in 1943. That is a phase when both sides are moving 20-30 division stacks around the map and where the AoD combat logic might cut in.

Good luck on it.

[Tegetthoff]

The whole purpose of writing Dev Diaries is to make you impatient! ;-)

[The-Doc]

The 6bat / 9bat divisions are just too deeply imbedded in the mod to change them. Getting rid of single ships already was hellish.

So how did you guys resolve this and have you had a chance to see how it impacts naval AI? Did you go for something like 4 ship divisions/flotillas for destroyers and submarines, stack the IC and time costs and take something like the median of the combined ship values for combat roles? Curious because I've wondered myself how to transition them. 1:1 ship representation sounds like a much better way of modeling the naval aspect of the time, just a shame that it hampered the AI.

[Tegetthoff]

The naval AI now handles flottillas a lot better. With single ships, there were huge super-stacks sitting in reserve for any nation.

Flottillas are now 3 - 4 ships, with new unit icons and symbols that show how many ships are represented by the unit.

Stats are along the lines you mention above, but Dec152000 did the details.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Dichromate]

The naval AI now handles flottillas a lot better. With single ships, there were huge super-stacks sitting in reserve for any nation.

Flottillas are now 3 - 4 ships, with new unit icons and symbols that show how many ships are represented by the unit.

Stats are along the lines you mention above, but Dec152000 did the details.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

noice.

[Titan79]

Flottillas are now 3 - 4 ships, with new unit icons and symbols that show how many ships are represented by the unit.

That's a nice addition, Tegetthoff, but - before you start making all the models - wouldn't it be more eye-saving (especially for us astigmatics ) to write that figure in arabic numbers (maybe in brackets, in order not to mistake it with the tier level of the unit) while the tier level itself would be written in roman numbers?

An example of what I mean:

[Tegetthoff]

That´s a good suggestion, but the model icons are already done. Of course any alternative download is welcome, as an add-on to CORE.

[Titan79]

That´s a good suggestion, but the model icons are already done. Of course any alternative download is welcome, as an add-on to CORE.

Of course . We'll see. Currently it would be too time consuming for me, but maybe later...

[Zsumi]

Well have to see them in game to tell witch one is better, but the titan's one look better initialy especialy the roman tier numbering, but thats just me.

[Tegetthoff]

March 28, 2012 Dev Diary

Ok, I guess you guys want a dev diary. Much of the changes made were to brigades, and since Dec made them I am still just beginning to understand them. So maybe writing up the naval brigade changes will help you and me ....


naval_antiair_l ... AA Cruiser Conversion (this used to be a separate tech if I am not mistaken)
naval_antiar_s ... AAW Destroyer
naval_asw ... ASW Escort Carrier air group
naval_fire_control_l ... BC fire control
naval_fire_control_s ... Fleet destroyer optimisation
naval_improved_hull_l ... Cruiser fire control
naval_improved_hull_s ... Scout destroyer
naval_mines ... Heavy submarine
naval_radar_l ... BB Fire control
naval_radar_s ... ASuW destroyer
naval_sa_l ... BC and BB secondary batteries
naval_spotter_l ... Light AAA batteries (BB/BC/CA/CV/TP)
naval_spotter_s ... ASW destroyer
naval_torpedoes_l ... Submarine Euqipment
naval_torpedoes_s ... Torpedo Destroyer
b_u1 ... Escort Carrier Air Group
b_u2 ... Capital Ship Design (enables certain Capital Ship features for existing/dormant units)
b_u3 ... Cruiser Design (like b_u2, just for cruisers)
b_u16 ... Large Submarine Equipment
b_u17 ... 610 mm Torpedo Destroyer

You can guess that b_u4 to b_u15 are used for other brigades we´ll cover later, though some of them are the air brigades already covered.

So you see that now you can build seven types of destroyer:
AAW, Fleet, Scout, ASuW, ASW, Torpedo and 610 mm Torpedo (JAP only)
And you can attach AA batteries to Carriers and Transports
And you have two different specialisations for Escort Carrier Air Groups
And a battleship can have four attachments in CORE

You may also realise why Dec has spent several weeks modifying the attachment preference and research AI, because also the AI should know when to build and how to use those attachments.

As an extra, let´s work through b_u2 (BB/BC systems):

models 0 to 2 are 1910, 1920 and 1930 type BB/BC (non buildable, but for existing units)
model 6 is "Commerce Raider"
model 8 is "Large Battleship" (ITA: Vittorio Veneto)
model 10 is "Fast Batthelship" (ENG: Queen Elisabeth)
model 12 is "Heavy Armour" (GER: Scharnhorst)
model 16 is "Heavy Armament" (USA: New York)
model 20 is "Improved Fast Battleship" ( USA: Iowa )
model 24 is "Improved Heavy Armament" ( USA: Montana )

And here is a screenshot of the naval tech tree. No basic changes, just some rearrangement and clarification:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Blecky]

There are so many possibilities to add AA guns, even to TP However, will CV attacks still count as "long range guns" thus ignoring the AA value?

[The-Doc]

Are those all the naval brigades? Sounds simple and sensible.

Could you tell me, in general terms, what the difference is between the destroyer types? Most of them sound pretty self explanatory, but what about the torpedo, scout and fleet destroyers?

[Hister]

This is going to be awesome!

It's a shame we can't have in-game descriptions of those techs - it can get quite confusing for all of us who are not WW2 savy. Thus I would ask if you plan to implement simple descriptions of all the techs and models in the manual - that would be so much more helpful...

[Tegetthoff]

Well, modding is a lot more fun than manual-writing, believe me. Which sort of explains the state of the manual.

T.

[Cakes]

Any planned changes to whether a country can change it's economy type?

For example, no matter how many IC Finland builds or captures, it never is considered for an upgrade to Semi-Industrial economy.
Should this be able to change depending on the number of IC a country can produce? Maybe with earliest potential upgrade years etc.
Depending on other factors, this may also be able to work in reverse (province captures, strategic bombing etc).

IMHO, there should be a potential upgrade path from Agricultural > Pre-Industrial > Semi-Industrial > Industrial.

#C