Someone should put a bounty on those pesky advertiser and spammers..bAng..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iwl33WbVGI&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iwl33WbVGI&feature=fvwrel
Last edited:
-
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.
WOW! What happened? Spam attack? It's hard just getting BACK to Pang's last post, never mind replying!
Time to switch and watch some CCN. Nite, guys!
Thanks for cleaning up the thread. But it hasn't helped my ability to reply to that last post of Pang's at all. I think I'll wisely just refrain.
Where did it go anyway? Or was it accidentally cleaned out with the spam? :rofl:
Last edited:
It seems I accidentally deleted it sadly. Unfortunately things deleted as spam seems really hard to recover (its the first time I made this mistake so I don't have any previous experience trying to do so). I'll continue to see what I can do but it might be lost for good
Here is a summary: I made some math that proved that under some conditions the upkeep saved by drafted army over 720 days exceeds the saved costs of upgrading 300 unbrigaded inf by ~5000 ICD. Therefore under those ideal conditions drafted army give a mediocre advantage of 7 IC. Under most circumstances upgrading costs are much more relevant than upkeep, therefore standing army is the better choice under almost all circumstances. If you have full free markets and full freedom the difference is small, if you have full central planning standing army is a must have.
Well, that is much easier to relate to.
Back to my initial judgement that standing army is pretty much a free ride. All other suggestions regarding the Standing-Drafted slider were also good.
But I would really like Devs considering changing things so players who pay their full standing armies nothing for 2 years are surprised with having nothing but empty counters somehow displaying full ORG, but ZERO strength! And adjust that for the different levels of Standing-Drafted as I earlier detailed. That should nicely balance the many advantages with going more and more standing army, and start making players pay much more to maintain their standing armies in peactime (if they want to keep them).
Last edited:
Why am I starting to dislike Algeria? There is no "recruit" level, is there? It starts with private, doesn't it?
Anyway, what's after Captain? Guess that gets awared with 500 posts, so I need to really slow down and enjoy this lovely Captain rank (my favorite as I can spell it and don't get confused by 1st, 2nd, or just what General is it anyway) as long as possible.
Besides penalizing players who don't pay their armies in peacetime, I also have another negatively applied suggestion for this simple additive way of posting oneself to next rank. If posts could be judged, some are worth much more than others, while certain ones deserve nearly a stripping of any rank obtained. Would that help me insure I never need worry about making it past captain!
Anyway, what's after Captain? Guess that gets awared with 500 posts, so I need to really slow down and enjoy this lovely Captain rank (my favorite as I can spell it and don't get confused by 1st, 2nd, or just what General is it anyway) as long as possible.
Besides penalizing players who don't pay their armies in peacetime, I also have another negatively applied suggestion for this simple additive way of posting oneself to next rank. If posts could be judged, some are worth much more than others, while certain ones deserve nearly a stripping of any rank obtained. Would that help me insure I never need worry about making it past captain!
Last edited:
How about allowing drafted army to partially disband units? Depending on the slider setting one could reduce max strength to 90% or even 10%. The freed manpower could be used for civil purposes and be mobilized when needed. The slider setting may also increase the speed of reinforcements. As there is little need for training this appears plausible.
Yes you have good indea there pang perhapes that slider could get an effect to this minister postions too: School of Mass Combat, Manpower growth +25%, Infantry construction bonus -5%, This Chief of Staff believes in the People's War and teaches that mass formations and guerrilla tactics are the essence of modern warfare.
Partial thread necromancy spell cast!
Truth to be told part of the whole standing vs drafted army could be easily made less one-sided by having factors to account how do you run your army in the first place, or alternatively make it clear both sides actually have their own penalties. If you increase military salaries over the default value within reason in misc.txt, standing army actually becomes pretty expensive in large numbers. On very abstract scale logically it would take more effort for high quality army to keep its quality intact on internal affairs, like logistics, organisation, and whatnot. If nothing else it from gameplay's point of view it at least would serve a purpose compared to drafted army. Try for a change to increase the default manpower salary cost in misc.txt up a notch and notice how suddenly large standing army is pretty expensive. This would have also serve to have bit more justification (from gameplay's perspective, at least) for the upgrade cost reduction, as they invest more money to pay for the better technology in larger numbers early on, and depending what country you play as it may be your only real advantage to keep things up to date and in good quality. Of course that has its own problems, but in all honesty another thing that affects the whole thing quite a lot is how the doctrines are right now. Either they should have bit more organisation or alternatively more diverse tree that would serve similar purpose in the long run, as drafted army's organisation penalty hits pretty hard thanks to AoD's combat system where the early vs late bloomer doctrine thing becomes a lot more apparent, and the steps between doctrine's own tree are not exactly that gradual.
Although IMHO the biggest culprit so far is pretty much the way divisions are handled in Hoi2 engine, as much as it's necessary weasel. CORE has some ideas to get around it, but one idea I almost wanted to experiment on is to abolish (almost) every brigade as they are in the game, and replace them with different "types" of divisions in terms actual type of battalions, fire support, type (reservists vs active or whatever you want to call them) and other things which research could be influenced by doctrines, so a "raw" division would be somewhat more akin to militia with better base stats. I doubt AI would probably like it too much without heavy alterations, and how much it would require tinkering to become functional in the long run would be another question. When was the last time anyone actually had fairly outdated army on global scale that was still supplied with sufficient number of up-to-date artillery and other forms of support, and for the same reason could actually still give a bloody nose to a "proper" army with the help of air force and other things?
Truth to be told part of the whole standing vs drafted army could be easily made less one-sided by having factors to account how do you run your army in the first place, or alternatively make it clear both sides actually have their own penalties. If you increase military salaries over the default value within reason in misc.txt, standing army actually becomes pretty expensive in large numbers. On very abstract scale logically it would take more effort for high quality army to keep its quality intact on internal affairs, like logistics, organisation, and whatnot. If nothing else it from gameplay's point of view it at least would serve a purpose compared to drafted army. Try for a change to increase the default manpower salary cost in misc.txt up a notch and notice how suddenly large standing army is pretty expensive. This would have also serve to have bit more justification (from gameplay's perspective, at least) for the upgrade cost reduction, as they invest more money to pay for the better technology in larger numbers early on, and depending what country you play as it may be your only real advantage to keep things up to date and in good quality. Of course that has its own problems, but in all honesty another thing that affects the whole thing quite a lot is how the doctrines are right now. Either they should have bit more organisation or alternatively more diverse tree that would serve similar purpose in the long run, as drafted army's organisation penalty hits pretty hard thanks to AoD's combat system where the early vs late bloomer doctrine thing becomes a lot more apparent, and the steps between doctrine's own tree are not exactly that gradual.
Although IMHO the biggest culprit so far is pretty much the way divisions are handled in Hoi2 engine, as much as it's necessary weasel. CORE has some ideas to get around it, but one idea I almost wanted to experiment on is to abolish (almost) every brigade as they are in the game, and replace them with different "types" of divisions in terms actual type of battalions, fire support, type (reservists vs active or whatever you want to call them) and other things which research could be influenced by doctrines, so a "raw" division would be somewhat more akin to militia with better base stats. I doubt AI would probably like it too much without heavy alterations, and how much it would require tinkering to become functional in the long run would be another question. When was the last time anyone actually had fairly outdated army on global scale that was still supplied with sufficient number of up-to-date artillery and other forms of support, and for the same reason could actually still give a bloody nose to a "proper" army with the help of air force and other things?
These are great ideas mates!
Is there anyone who makes notes of good ideas and has them ready for 1.9 devs to evaluate? Do you do this Pang? If not many good ideas can get lost in the deep forum and all the tinkering would be for nothing...
Edit:
Is there anyone who makes notes of good ideas and has them ready for 1.9 devs to evaluate? Do you do this Pang? If not many good ideas can get lost in the deep forum and all the tinkering would be for nothing...
Edit:
No, I didn't meant you - it was more of a general across the forum remark.
Heh, I forgot I actually already asked you to be more polite. I completely forgot about this thread so sorry for not replying sooner. I find your ability to acknowledge being wrong and saying sorry as very refreshing and nice. I might not like your ways of dealing with people but I do like the other side of your persona. So you are a CEO eh? Figures. :happy:
Last edited:
I am not aware that some is doing notes on a professional level. A sorted list of possible improvements in one post would help.
There is one already but I do believe you should be the OP since you are the one who lurks on the forums and engages in debates the most of all the other devs. Then you would be updating the first post with reasonable suggestions for 1.9. Everything would be gahered on one spot then and would mean gunman_would have everything at his fingertips. Much more rational that way huh?