Core Beginner Questions

Auxilary cruisers are indeed raiders. Check this link to read about auxilary merchant raiders.

Sloop is a poor mans way to rebuild navy escorts. historical reasons.

So many carrier techs because there were so many ways to project airforce power over the sea. They have different IC cost, and different stats. You can deside if you want to build more smaller carriers.

Monitors are basicly other class of ships, obsolete like dreadnoughts but present in time period. Old navies still has them. Historical reasons.

Large seaplane tenders are necesary step in carrier development. And they were historicaly used by british navy to transport aircrafts to bases like Gibraltar, Malta etc. Also historical reasons.

Some of the points you are raising will be addressed in 0.60, especially regarding the naval aspects.

Seaplane tenders, monitors etc. were added to provide flavour or in the hope to achieve historical accuracy by putting in every ship in the naval OOBs. The added problem was that they replaced the nuclear sub and thus had the hard-coded stats of nuclear subs. They never really fulfilled their intended role in the game. So all those units are out and the nuclear sub is replaced by the long range sub. Ignore them while playing 0.50.

Also, the carrier tree is very historical, but a bit confusing. The new one in 0.60 has somewhat less models but is much clearer and a player, novice or adept, will know much better where to go. For the moment, find a research path that quickly takes you to the "real" carriers. The main design decision in the later 30s/early 40s was armoured flight deck vs. open hangar design, so you should take this as an either/or path.

IIRC you cannot upgrade your production line from CV 5 to CV 7 without having researched CV 6 before (and losing additional gearing bonus btw.). Will this be changed in 0.60?

As far as I can see from the files, this will remain the same (and cannot really be solved differently). I believe we have discussed this before: the ability to upgrade ships "on the stocks" is not something that has a realistic background and I´d personally prefer to have the possibility to delete this possibility completely for ships.

Tegetthoff said:

As far as I can see from the files, this will remain the same (and cannot really be solved differently). I believe we have discussed this before: the ability to upgrade ships "on the stocks" is not something that has a realistic background and I´d personally prefer to have the possibility to delete this possibility completely for ships.

Click to expand...

I didn´t really want to upgrade ships under construction, but I thought it odd, that you have to completely abandon your production line and start a new one (not only losing any gearing bonus but also having a retooling time of 40 days) if you don´t want to research the tech "in between", which is not really related to the other models. But I agree that this would be difficult to work around and it´s only a minor problem anyway.

The-Doc said:

Okay another question, this time regarding air models.

You have branches for interceptors (presumably representing air superiority fighters) and multi-role fighters (fighter bombers like the Typhoon and P-47). Despite the name though the stats and models indicate a superior air fighter role vs. the interceptor. Is the name of the tech just a hold over not reflecting the design intention? IRC in the English model list at least they are all Spitfire variants, while the Typhoon and Tempest are in the interceptor line.

Also the manual mentions and stats lead me to think that the naval bombers are now representing naval reconnaissance aircraft (great!). Does the AI use its CAS or TAC in a naval attack role now though? I haven't noticed, but that would be awesome, historical and would give a purpose to ship AA and AD abilities.

Click to expand...

INT are mainly useful in bringing down bombers as they get some bonus there. FGT on the other hand are more versatile and pretty good at dealing with INT. The model names are somewhat mixed up, esp. with the British branch, but this is a takeover from HOI 2.

NAVs have been nerfed down so they can´t sink a whole fleet within a few hours; CAS are much better at sinking ships right now, but due to their limited range can do so only close to their airfield (which is reflecting the danger of operations in coastal regions pretty good). As for the AI I´ve noticed that it uses NAVs and TACs to attack shipping (military and merchant) but less frequently CAS (only GER does so in Danish regions).

The-Doc said:

You have branches for interceptors (presumably representing air superiority fighters) and multi-role fighters (fighter bombers like the Typhoon and P-47). Despite the name though the stats and models indicate a superior air fighter role vs. the interceptor. Is the name of the tech just a hold over not reflecting the design intention? IRC in the English model list at least they are all Spitfire variants, while the Typhoon and Tempest are in the interceptor line.

Click to expand...

I always switch them around; personally, so that the Spitfires are interceptors and the Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest are multi-role.

I can give you the swapped entries in the models.csv and the corrected pictures, if you like.

I'm lending your thread for a bit.

Playing as Japan, I find that the models for Mountineers and Reserve are missing and replaced with a cross. I recall this being the case the last time I installed and played CORE as well. (I'm using my own GFX homebrew and only the CORE base game)

Well, this already explains it. CORE has a model setup that differs quite strongly from vanilla, so you may have mixed something up. With standard CORE gfx, we have no reports of any missing icons or counters.

Tegetthoff said:

Well, this already explains it. CORE has a model setup that differs quite strongly from vanilla, so you may have mixed something up. With standard CORE gfx, we have no reports of any missing icons or counters.

Click to expand...

I realise this. How would I go about to replace these missing pictures with CORE versions?

EDIT: NVM, figured it out.

The-Doc said:

Going through the scenario files I see most nations have very detailed entries for naval reserves. Are these in play or are they just there for reference? Either way it is pleasant to see such attention paid to OOB intricacies.

Click to expand...

They are mostly commented out for possible later inclusion. If I remember correctly, Dec has activated some of the naval reserves for ENG in 0.60, but I´m not sure.

I feel the need to awaken this thread... Being a complete n00b at CORE I'm currently playing a campaign as Japan. I took a look at the tech trees and was thoroughly confused. Since I couldn't really grasp everything at once and wanted to get started I largely copied what Hister did at the beginning in his AAR, including starting 2 serials of INF and 1 MTN. But I have some rather pressing concerns that I could use some help with;

1. There are a large number of divisions that are locked in place along the Soviet border. Will they be unlocked when I DoW Shanxi/Nat.China?
2. Since it will take a loooong time to move those divisions to the front against China I am worried about the number of divisions I will be able to muster for the start of the war. I'm now in may 1937 and will probably be able to amass 25-27 divisions of INF, RES, CAV, MTN for the offensive south into Shanxi (Manchukuo forces included). Will that be enough? As soon as my next batch of 3 divisions are ready I will send them and 1 MAR to seize one of the key coastal provinces and open up a second front.

The reason I'm asking this is because I'm used to having a much larger number of divisions for the start of the war in vanilla AoD 1.07. That, plus my intelligence tells me that Nat.China and Shanxi have over 150 divisions of infantry at the ready... (6 spies in both countries).

Are there any other important considerations I should take into account during a Japan CORE-campaign? Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

You cannot spam INF in CORE like you do in vanilla, it simply takes much longer to build your units.

JAP will not be able (and that´s okay for me) to crush CHI in two years. You have to deal with the fact that you have to allocate IC to more areas than just ground units. Use your CAS and TAC to reduce your enemies org.

Like you said it´s useful to open up several new fronts. Look for opportunities to encircle and destroy CHI forces. But I suppose that´s nothing new for you