**Suggestion thread:** What would you like to see in a patch 1.3?

  • 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.
Napoleon is something best left for mods.

Franco-Prussian war then again could be a nice one. It was probably the first 'modern' war--Germany mobilised and take advantage from their superior railway network, which both became the main elements for warfare until effective armour and air doctrines were invented. DH engine would fit to that kind of war, it's not that different from the WWI.
 
Franco-Prussian war then again could be a nice one. It was probably the first 'modern' war--Germany mobilised and take advantage from their superior railway network, which both became the main elements for warfare until effective armour and air doctrines were invented. DH engine would fit to that kind of war, it's not that different from the WWI.
It would perhaps be a battlescenario, but then you'd need to make all the tech for that period and otherwise waste precious time on something completely different than what this game is intended to offer. If I had to vote on what, instead of WW1/2 the devs should work on it's early Cold War and WW3.
 
It would perhaps be a battlescenario, but then you'd need to make all the tech for that period and otherwise waste precious time on something completely different than what this game is intended to offer. If I had to vote on what, instead of WW1/2 the devs should work on it's early Cold War and WW3.

Battlescenario was what I meant. I don't think it should had any additional technologies, there's no need for research in scenario that lasts less than a year. National bonuses can be given by events at the very beginning of the scenario.
 
- A tooltip for the land units. If you choose a unit and put the cursor over any (joined) land province, the tooltip tells you how far the province is (just like the tooltips for naval and air units do).

- A small detail: give Mongolia and Mengkukuo cores on each other. Now only Mengkukuo has claims on Mongolia, Mongolia has not even that. As both are populated mainly by ethnic Mongols, they should have cores on each other.
 
- A small detail: give Mongolia and Mengkukuo cores on each other. Now only Mengkukuo has claims on Mongolia, Mongolia has not even that. As both are populated mainly by ethnic Mongols, they should have cores on each other.
Mongolia having cores on Mengukuo means it will annex lots of Chinese provinces when Soviets intervene against Japan, which is bad since it's Communist China that should receive all Soviet conquests in China.
 
Mongolia having cores on Mengukuo means it will annex lots of Chinese provinces when Soviets intervene against Japan, which is bad since it's Communist China that should receive all Soviet conquests in China.

They did have cores on the region though. I think Soviets would've supported Mongolia to be honest, Mao and Stalin had a pretty bad relationship. Stalin supported Jiang Jieshi up until it was obvious that the communists were going to win (aka much larger army and capture of Japanese war materials). Mao was pretty paranoid of a Soviet invasion post PRC.
 
They did have cores on the region though. I think Soviets would've supported Mongolia to be honest, Mao and Stalin had a pretty bad relationship. Stalin supported Jiang Jieshi up until it was obvious that the communists were going to win (aka much larger army and capture of Japanese war materials). Mao was pretty paranoid of a Soviet invasion post PRC.
Didn't their relations shatter not until the 60's? From what I understand the reason Stalin didn't back Mao was because they were so weak at the time. Sponsoring the Nationalist regime made sense since they controlled most of China and thus were the logical alternative if the goal was to keep Japan at bay. Had the Soviets funded Mao it would have had minimal impact on anything.
 
Didn't their relations shatter not until the 60's? From what I understand the reason Stalin didn't back Mao was because they were so weak at the time. Sponsoring the Nationalist regime made sense since they controlled most of China and thus were the logical alternative if the goal was to keep Japan at bay. Had the Soviets funded Mao it would have had minimal impact on anything.

No, not really. Mao never really liked Stalin or the USSR. More like...an understanding.

Economically, Mao distrusted Bureaucracy and felt the Soviet model was stifling.
Militarily, Mao pretty much always ignored his Soviet advisers.
Politically, he focused on the rural population instead of an industrial worker revolt. He also didn't like Stalin that much. Oh, and the communists were forced to give up cores on Mongolia proper as it is, so that's another malus.

Imo, communist funding would have been the better choice at keeping Japan at bay. Sure, funding the nationalists "delayed" Japan from capturing "victory points" (key cities and industries), but the communists pulled off a very strong insurgency that crippled Japanese logistics and occupation which severely tied up their ability to extract anything valuable out of the nation with regard to resources required by the (mostly failing) pacification troops (with basically no industry or support).

Partisans (as we can see in Iraq today) are much more powerful than conventional war machines in terms of bang for your buck.
 
Last edited:
These differences mostly arised from the simple fact that the Chinese and the Russian societies were very different, both culturally and economically, and from the fact that both leaders had grand aspirations and wanted to expand THEIR OWN sphere of influence, not necessarily a common, communist one.
 
I'm modder, so very important to me is create more AI commands in AI files to better control AI navy and air moves ( in now we can control only general moves of this units ), because now we can't create perfect AI invasion moves, so maybe you could do that?
 
These differences mostly arised from the simple fact that the Chinese and the Russian societies were very different, both culturally and economically, and from the fact that both leaders had grand aspirations and wanted to expand THEIR OWN sphere of influence, not necessarily a common, communist one.

No, it resulted from the fact that both Stalin and Mao were dictators and were trying to maximize their power. Mao often acted as a complete ass because he was so paranoid about Soviets 'puppeting' him, and always acted with such thoughts behind his decisions.
 
No, it resulted from the fact that both Stalin and Mao were dictators and were trying to maximize their power. Mao often acted as a complete ass because he was so paranoid about Soviets 'puppeting' him, and always acted with such thoughts behind his decisions.
This is covered by "(...) wanted to expand THEIR OWN sphere of influence, not necessarily a common, communist one."
 
They did have cores on the region though. I think Soviets would've supported Mongolia to be honest, Mao and Stalin had a pretty bad relationship. Stalin supported Jiang Jieshi up until it was obvious that the communists were going to win (aka much larger army and capture of Japanese war materials). Mao was pretty paranoid of a Soviet invasion post PRC.

I agree with the Mongolian claims. It makes perfect sense, given the complex situation. I wish Mengjian was better represented on the map though. (another thing to add is that the nation 'Mengjian' should be called Mengkukuo as they are pretty much a state. Nanjing-China never had any real control over it)

Also, there should be an addition of Tibetan historical claims and a chance for them to ally with Japan if they are close to winning the war in China. The Tibetans and ROC were fighting on and off around that time anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino%E2%80%93Tibetan_War

AND additional claims for Manchukuo in outer-Manchuria.
 
Hi,

Long time AoD player, have avoided DH until now. But AoD seems dead and after a few plays of DH really enjoyed the game! Here are some suggestions and wishes. I know that some of these are pretty large requests not really within the scope of a patch but I thought I would at least mention them.

1.OOB for major nations includes division names. When the Wehrmacht event fired it just created a super stack of numbered divisions. It would really add to the historical realism if they retained their actual division names.

2.
I'm [a] modder, so very important to me is create more AI commands in AI files to better control AI navy and air moves ( in now we can control only general moves of this units ), because now we can't create perfect AI invasion moves, so maybe you could do that?
+1 Would make modding historic events possible. Like a D-Day invasion WITH secondary backup landings.

3. A logistics system closer to AoD. Right now the ESE basically has no effect and it's possible (and silly) to let the panzers roll right across the world, it's like the arcade play style in vanilla HoI2. DH is fast which is great, but there must be a middle ground that would not cause a huge performance hit. Maybe something as simple as a player-built supply dump building that gives a large ESE bonus to units in range; elsewhere ESE values are terribly low. OR - open up building types to modding.

4. Lower div stat values and increase number of brigades to create a system where the player can more completely decide the makeup of divisions by choosing component brigades. Include a significant penalty for adding a 4th brigade.

5. More "decisions" for minor events. Right now the decisions seem to be major historic events (which could just as easily of been actual events using the existing HoI2 events system, and $ for bonus events. How about some secondary decisions that a player can choose that will actively affect gameplay. Like making trade offs between ship or land build times, choosing doctrine paths, resource stockpiling or production bonuses/penalties, premature slider events in exchange for dissent or other penalties. I think there are a bunch of mods that already include events for things like this.

6. It would be fun if some of the more useless domestic sliders had additional benefits or penalties so it isn't always so easy to determine slider moves. Like open society gives a research speed bonus, or even slider positions that favour a middle path.
 
Hi,

Long time AoD player, have avoided DH until now. But AoD seems dead and after a few plays of DH really enjoyed the game! Here are some suggestions and wishes. I know that some of these are pretty large requests not really within the scope of a patch but I thought I would at least mention them.

1.OOB for major nations includes division names. When the Wehrmacht event fired it just created a super stack of numbered divisions. It would really add to the historical realism if they retained their actual division names.

2. +1 Would make modding historic events possible. Like a D-Day invasion WITH secondary backup landings.

3. A logistics system closer to AoD. Right now the ESE basically has no effect and it's possible (and silly) to let the panzers roll right across the world, it's like the arcade play style in vanilla HoI2. DH is fast which is great, but there must be a middle ground that would not cause a huge performance hit. Maybe something as simple as a player-built supply dump building that gives a large ESE bonus to units in range; elsewhere ESE values are terribly low. OR - open up building types to modding.

4. Lower div stat values and increase number of brigades to create a system where the player can more completely decide the makeup of divisions by choosing component brigades. Include a significant penalty for adding a 4th brigade.

5. More "decisions" for minor events. Right now the decisions seem to be major historic events (which could just as easily of been actual events using the existing HoI2 events system, and $ for bonus events. How about some secondary decisions that a player can chose that will actively affect gameplay. Like making trade offs between ship or land build times, choosing doctrine paths, resource stockpiling or production bonuses/penalties, premature slider events in exchange for dissent or other penalties. I think there are a bunch of mods that already do things like this.

6. It would be fun if some of the more useless domestic sliders had additional benefits or penalties so it isn't always so easy to determine slider moves. Like open society gives a research speed bonus, or even slider positions that favour a middle path.

so uh, how's 1.3 coming along, we're all drooling in anticipation
 
Right now you can't.
And honestly I don't think it would be reasonable to promise you that Martin could implement it soon.

It would be nice to have the possibility to add via event or decisions

command = { type = production which = consumer value = x.xxxx }
and
command = {type = dissent_growth value = x-xxxx} I mean dissent growth not istant dissent change

But I think is the same issue about ministers trait question =\