As you can see Canada was able to form in 7 years (from 1939 – to 1945, I include 1939 and 1945) 8 divisions i.e. the average of 1.14 divisions per year.
1.14 divisions a year? Dear god they must have had horribly low practicals..
As you can see Canada was able to form in 7 years (from 1939 – to 1945, I include 1939 and 1945) 8 divisions i.e. the average of 1.14 divisions per year.
I don't know about practicals but without Canada for UK, WWII would have looked very grim. This is to show that a contribution to the war is not only with divisions. This is to show that a contribution to the war could be very substantial without forming divisions.1.14 divisions a year? Dear god they must have had horribly low practicals..
To my quote above I like to add this from the beta-patch thread:
podcat said:its basically my opinion that with the current combat rules its almost impossible to get a historical bogging down in china, because someone always win a given combat and one side always retreats rather than both sides being so low org they cant move for example. changing this was too big for this patch.Darkrenown said:China is a fair mix between beating Japan and getting annexed, we have ran many, many games in the last few weeks. They rarely have the historical stalemate just because of how the game works.
No,Wasn`t that mostly because of the nature of US soldiers wounds(afaik mostly shrapnel wounds)?
170 pages is not long?No,
and if your read it you will know much more, it is not that long and good to read. Really!
The writer marks all problems the US had in ETO, from high losses, overall combat performace, morale, attrition, medic.. Very good overview
Cheers,
Chromos
No, far less than an hour read, no?170 pages is not long?
Well also some Polish or Czech pilots gave a good contribution to the air battle over England but this is a minor fact for a strategy game. The real issue that cannot be ignored in my opinion it that manpower and manifacturing are not the same stuff. Let's split them!
Metz: Will you guys be addressing the unit naming for each respective country instead of having all new units appear with English names
lobosrul: Optimize the interface for widescreen monitors. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
Paglia: new Spying/OPS interface
Tankist/45: Will the timeline be expanded?
mrsmith00: Can we put in a request for a horizontal scroll bar in the units page in the statistics tab?
pivokrevnik: any chance on improving the air combat, which is horrible, disbalanced and confusing, naval combat....still not good enough
Niewitch: My number one wish is to have AI to do numerous things we allready have, as also new possibilities and effective AI. As chain of command, AI coordinated attacks, tech licensing, upgrade units..etc
obren: Can you compile the executive file to enable 4GB memory addressing? The current 2GB addressing limit is causing problems for running some mods with 64-bit Windows systems, and patching the .exe is necessary to get around the HOI3.exe limits to ensure a stable game....Is there any possibility of introducing (convoy) escort techs,
Saint-Exupéry: I am realy worried that even after 3 expansions HOI III airforce and navy in strategic operations will be commanded by ground army generals.I am beging Paradox to at least try to solve this issue to give us a chain of command with airforce and navy HQ-s for strategic utilisation of airforce and navy,like strategic bombardment, fight for air-superiority(example BATTLE FOR BRITAIN),submarine warfare,naval fleets operations..
lolladin: PLEEEEAASE, make the operational-planning-screen-arrow-thingy so that it actually affects your own army AI and your allies. It would be so awesome!
LPCrash: I would like to bring back the idea of filtering leaders by traits for the next expension.
First let me echo and reinforce the following suggestions:
My top 10 list:
1. 64-bit version with a larger (unlimited?) memory footprint!!!! I would guess that good portion of users are on 64-bit or soon will be. Can it be that hard to recompile a 64-bit version? Maybe a memory size choice in Game Options like resolution? A dropdown for 2GB, 4GB, 6GB, 8GB total system memory?
2. With the 64-bit version, move to the newer direct-X version for graphics too.
First let me echo and reinforce the following suggestions:
My top 10 list:
1. 64-bit version with a larger (unlimited?) memory footprint!!!! I would guess that good portion of users are on 64 bit or soon will be. Can it be that hard to recompile a 64-bit version? Maybe a memory size choice in Game Options like resolution? A dropdown for 2, 4, 6, 8+ total system memory?
2. With the 64-bit version, move to the newer direct-X version for graphics too.
3. Wide screen is a must. Multi-screen should be target! I'd love to have one monitor with the map, one with the production or tech screen!
4. Multi-processor compatible! My guess is that dual core is the minimum being used by most users. I'd love to have the hex-core crunching on all available threads!
5. It would be nice to have unit organization tool. I'm going to invade and want to move units form one HQ to another without having to click on each sub-command unit and reassigning the HQ. The process is time consuming, awkward and it is too easy to miss units.
6. Smaller unit icons on the map when zoomed out. When working at the macro level they cover up too much, especially the HQs.
7. A better way to control selection of units when they are stacked. Window the stack and select then units you want to move, reorganize, etc. Currently you can only reorganize two at one time
8. Sandbox mode (HUGE): If I'm playing as the Vaterland, building Plan Z, keeping to the original target date of 1942, at the earliest, the UK should not DOW me in 1940 regardless of what I do (no Danzig or war, no invading Poland, etc)!
9. Better intelligence control.. Allow spy assignments with multiple goals? Have them assigned to get military and tech intel or counterespionage and disrupt production? What about a specific stealing tech assignment?
10. Upgrade priority screen? I want all my capitol ships upgraded first, fighters next, then bombers, light tanks next. Even prioritize based on HQ? I'm planning an offensive on the Western front, upgrade only those units to expedite them to be ready for the planned offensive?
I would imagine having a different EXE would produce a different checksum.
directX 10/11 would outrule XP
The Tragically Hip said:"You can't be fond of living in the past 'Cause if you are then there's no way that you're going to last"
True on both counts! When are we going to give up supporting Windows 3.11 on a 486?
Is there a 32-bit processor being made today? Has one been made in the last two years?
Any PC sold in the last two years has a 64-bit OS on it unless it was downgraded. Windows 8 will ONLY BE 64-bit!
At some point there needs to be forward movement. Most gamers pride themselves on their machine.
a wargame without war?
Understood, cross that off the list. Any time line on that engine version increment? HOI4?yes but certainly not as long as the clausewitz engine is used
One of the biggest MP point that should me noted here is the combat pilots in the RAF from Canada. It is well know the shortage of man power was uk major problem in 1939 beating the lufftwaffa, to the point where planes couldn't be flown due to lack of trained pilots. In this case as little as 100 helped win a vital battle of Britain that could of turned the war. So I would like to say that its not so much as how much but when and how well trained that matters overall. But good discussion.
1.14 divisions a year? Dear god they must have had horribly low practicals..
To my quote above I like to add this from the beta-patch thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...Beta-Patch&p=13833818&viewfull=1#post13833818