• 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.
Hi, haven't really read anything about it so i'm asking here:
CORE over AOD, does it change the mechanics of AOD combat-wise? IC over AOD, for example, plays completely different (less combat casualties, no stacking penalty, infrasturcture irrelevant, province repair supercheap->stratbombers useless)

So while I like IC for its techtree and map, i prefer AOD in terms of combat. Will CORE give me the best of both worlds?
Well we haven't done much regarding the map, despite some map tweaks in certain areas. I wasn't aware IC changed anything there at all, by the way, though DH certainly has a new map. And we've COREd AoD somewhat in game mechanics, but rather to improve on them instead of dropping them. We do have our own tech tree, and try to make CORE the most realistic, historical simulator possible, rather than focusing on the more gamey-side of things. And, based on user feedback, we by-and-large have succeeded in that respect. :)
 
Thank you! Mod is very good.
I have a questions about 6bat / 9bat divisions system.
As far as I understand it, a 9bat and a half times stronger than the 6bat. This means that the two 9bat are approximately equal to three 6bat. But, for example, three 6bat have a greater stacking penalty than two 9bat.
Thus, the 9bat is always better than a 6bat? (when I can choose the tech). Or am I wrong, and the 6bat has real advantages in a some situation?
 
Thank you! Mod is very good.
I have a questions about 6bat / 9bat divisions system.
As far as I understand it, a 9bat and a half times stronger than the 6bat. This means that the two 9bat are approximately equal to three 6bat. But, for example, three 6bat have a greater stacking penalty than two 9bat.
Thus, the 9bat is always better than a 6bat? (when I can choose the tech). Or am I wrong, and the 6bat has real advantages in a some situation?

6-bat requires less IC and MP (not sure about research), but in combat situations you´re right, I´d always prefer 9-bat units. Playing as SOV, however, you have no choice but to use 6-bat units.
 
6-bat requires less IC and MP (not sure about research), but in combat situations you´re right, I´d always prefer 9-bat units. Playing as SOV, however, you have no choice but to use 6-bat units.

IC and MP but also proportional to the power.
I do not think that IC and MP are an advantage.
For example, 1930 Infantry Division (IC/MP):
6bat = 3.5 / 9.9
9bat = 5 / 14.1

=> 3 x 6bat = 10.5 / 29.7
2 x 9bat = 10 / 28.2

... approximately equal.
 
Thank you! Mod is very good.
I have a questions about 6bat / 9bat divisions system.
As far as I understand it, a 9bat and a half times stronger than the 6bat. This means that the two 9bat are approximately equal to three 6bat. But, for example, three 6bat have a greater stacking penalty than two 9bat.
Thus, the 9bat is always better than a 6bat? (when I can choose the tech). Or am I wrong, and the 6bat has real advantages in a some situation?

Pretty much, AOD's combat mechanics favor concentration of force into as few units as possible from as many directions as possible - though the last bit bares remembering, since there are circumstances as some countries and in some parts of the world where you may only have one or two divisions in a province along your line, so theoretically you might be better off with 3 divisions in three provinces than 2 in 2, since multiple directions will more than compensate for the stacking penalty. But generally yes, 6 divisions are worse overall.
You'll pretty much never get to chose though, except maybe for armor.
 
What's the deal with Croatia not getting it's northern provinces? I didn't think there was any need for Germany to have a direct land corridor to Serbia, ect - pretty sure the supply issue was fixed in Arma, let alone AOD.
 
Supply issue might have been fixed, AI issues not. In certaint situations German units may be trapped in Yugo or Greece and the AI is not able to move/transport it back if there's no direct connection.

Would it make more sense to just leave Croatia with Zagreb alone then, and give Italy the Dalmatian coast? It just looks really bizarre at the moment as Croatia gets land that was partially annexed by Italy IRL, but doesn't get land that was in theory part of the independent state of croatia. (That would also help Italy garrison Greece as well, since it'd give them a continuous land connection).

In a way it would make more sense than Croatia controlling any significant area of land, since Germany and Italy had to keep large numbers of troops in Croatia as well as in Serbia to maintain control. Croatia wasn't in any way a stable co-belligerent state like Hungary or Romania.


Oh - and I mentioned it in another thread, but please, please can the controller province of Suez be changed to Port Said so you don't have to launch an amphibious invasion of Palestine to take the Canal?
- and maybe have the handing over of the Egyptian coastal provinces brought forward to prior to Danzig or War?
 
Last edited:
AFAIR channel control provs are hardcoded.
Damn.... I didn't realize that. I'd assumed not, but that was based on V2 and EU3, not the europa engine. It would be possible to have an event that hands control of Suez over to whoever controls port said though, even if it was made such that it would only fire if Suez was empty of units. HOI2/AOD would have the hooks for that at least right? cause you can do the Rheinland stuff based on units being present.
 
i have played many times as Germany trying out various tactics and plans..but this time i had a unusual event that i never saw before...it was July 1940 and i just defeated France but the Spanish civil war was still raging. then the republicans joined the allies...i check the nationalists and with just 60 on the diplomatic rating there was a 70% chance for them to join the axis.. well i rushed German panzer and motor infantry and captured the rock..i that point i just started a new game because it just seemed like a cheat..is this a common thing if the Spanish civil war continues past a certain time frame.
 
The SCW is usually too short in CORE 0.60, ending in mid 37. Whenever it takes longer, it tends to end in a permanent stand-off.

When Republican Spain joins the Allies, it is quite obvious that Nationalist Spain want to join the Axis and need not be considered an exploit.
 
That might be worth checking. I'm going back quite a way, but I think TRP changed channel and canal control provinces in one of their versions.

Even if it is hard-coded, it'd probably be linked to the province ID, which can be reassigned through pretty simple map editing (though it'd still be a pain to do).
ie: you could swap Suez and Port-Said's province ID's.
 
Regarding SCW: maybe MP should be more limited. Right now, if no side succeeds in trapping and destroying large parts of the enemy army early on, both build up (too) large armies. They continue piling up their divisions along the borders at almost the same rate. Since you usually need twice as much divisions as the defender for a successful assault, neither side will do much until allied with any major. Sending home the international brigades doesn´t make any difference when you have 50+ divisions.
 
We passed 1000 downloads sometimes last week

As of today, March 12, 2013, we have 1144 downloads, so at the moment interest seems to be rising rather than declining.

This gives us devs motivation to continue our work! Thank you all for your interest and support!
 
I disgaree. Limiting MP will change only amount of divisions so You`ll get stalemate just earlier (for me it`s not a problem, it rarely happend in my games). Also with less MP it would be impossible to build garrison divisions. Not to mention that playing Germany I`m usually out of MP at the beginning of 1940 (province improvements and especialy those infantry divisions eats up lot of MP ;))