Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - COMMENT THREAD

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Both the Manhattan Project and the V2 program were very expensive. The MP cost ~2 billion $ - definitely more than a couple of Shermans, which cost sth like ~35 t. dollars each. Also, pre-FTM HOI3 doesn't represent lack of proper materials for the development of nukes very well, so even for this reason they should be expensive.

It's still easier to build nukes in HOI3 than IRL. Keep in mind that we are talking about the WWII period, not 21st century.
 
Last edited:
Gensui, I'd rather have our fleets sail out once the AI starts invasions. We're likely to get the upper hand in such engagements and should therefore have fleets out in the pacific. We also need to have them assembled accordings. Furthermore, the thread I linked suggests that hull penalty isn't that much of a concern, at least not to a degree where one has to avoid it at all cost.
 
Bah, wrong post ;)

When it comes to fleet composition, I leave the matter entirely to your hands, although I won't allow some overkill compositions if your only plan is to exploit the deficiencies of the game mechanics. Keep them reasonable.
 
Last edited:
If a Sherman tank cost $35,000, then the Manhatten Project (MP) was worth 57,000 Shermans, about 8,000 more than were historically built. Comparing the IChrs that it would have been spent on an American game for its tanks, would therefore give an indercator for what the MP should cost. With the above, probally what I read on the subject was that the MP cost the same amount as the total production of Shermans (or there abouts) during WWII.

-----------------

Precisely Baltasar, play moustrap. But don't sail around for the sake of it wasting fuel, and possibly ships. I'll take a deeper look later at the threads findings.
 
This is still irrelevant, since in HOI3 SF you can develop nukes even if you shouldn't be able to due to lack of crucial resources. What do you think heavy water or uran were for? HOI3 FTM can deal with it, but HOI3 SF would need custom strategic effects or sth.

Make it too easy and every major country will have nukes in early 1940.

No country besides the USA came close to developing their own nukes. The Soviets did that, but only after the war was over and both with espionage efforts and access to resources from Czechoslovakia etc.

The USA was in a comfortable position, since it was surrounded by two giant oceans and had the largest industrial base on Earth. There was also no real threat of the invasion of the US mainland, so they had much freedom when it came to industrial and technological focus.
 
Cybvep, I do not assume that there is any unrealistic fleet composition possible in this game, since the real fleets tended to act in a much more complex way. We can only try to accomplish something similar in a very crude way. This in turn has nothing to do with exploiting weaknessess, rather putting together fleets we feel reasonable to assemble.
 
Cybvep said:
This is not what I meant. My point is that if I see that you are creating fleets that make no sense but for some reason work in HOI3, then it will not be allowed. I have no complaints so far.
Click to expand...

Actually, I hadn't wasted a thought in that direction. I was merely looking for effective naval setups and stumbled across the thread. If it means we can set up our fleets more effectively, we can easily do it AND create more life like fleets in the process.
 
Unrealistic and unrealistic, if we creat fleets with no hull penalty, then we need 4-5 of those to take out and invasion fleet, if we don't we can't defeat it with a none-HP penalty. On the other hand if we create a fleet big enough to take out an invasion fleet we get so much HP penalty we might have trouble winning.

So take your pick :) use small fleets and combine them on target for zero HP penalty or ...
 
I actually like the fact that you cannot create one super-fleet, as IRL task forces weren't THAT large in most cases.

However, if you are expecting that I will micromanage every fleet and air unit so precisely that we will always manage to bring everything to one spot, then you will be disappointed ;). I won't rebase planes that are 500 km away in order to allow them to take part in a battle which lasts 8 hours, for example. Things like that will be performed on a strategic level.
 
I'd just think that it is mid week, and when I sit down to a game like this, it's at least an evening, and then another to write up a post at least. Appricate it's several hours of work/fun/hoobie? that goes into this...

:)

EDIT:

Also I'm somewhat interested in setting up that custom difficulty for myself in games, to give the AI bonuses when they are at war with me like in this.

Where does;

Code: 
AI_nation_playerwar = {

potential = {
ai = yes
war = yes
}

trigger = {
war_with = JAP
ai = yes

}

global_ic = 0.4
global_manpower_modifier = 0.5
global_resources = 0.4
officer_recruitment = 0.5
supply_throughput = 0.33
unit_recruitment_time = -0.1

icon = 13
}

Go to enact something like this?
 
Last edited:
This AAR is the most time consuming one I have ever written. That's because I have to analyze the plans, execute them, edit the pictures and then write the update in a way that is both informative and entertaining. Considering that I cannot devote all day to this, it can be overwhelming at times, although usually I enjoy it.

Put the modifier in triggered_modifiers. It should work, just check the number of brackets.
 
Ok, I have just finished playing. I will post the update tomorrow. It will contain plenty of naval action and some interesting developments in China. Somehow, the USA didn't like the idea of us capturing Guam ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back