The stealth fighter (Ftr-18) upgrades to the Fifth generation fighter (Ftr-19), and the Fifth generation fighter (Ftr-19) upgrades to the stealth fighter (Ftr-18), which begins the cycle again. The stealth fighter and the Fifth generation fighter are unlocked as secret weapons, but you don't have to discover them in order. I think that, maybe, you aren't supposed to research both of the secret weapons multirole fighter technologies.
-
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.
The stealth fighter (Ftr-18) upgrades to the Fifth generation fighter (Ftr-19), and the Fifth generation fighter (Ftr-19) upgrades to the stealth fighter (Ftr-18), which begins the cycle again. The stealth fighter and the Fifth generation fighter are unlocked as secret weapons, but you don't have to discover them in order. I think that, maybe, you aren't supposed to research both of the secret weapons multirole fighter technologies.
You mean HEAT shells? True! Except everybody with a cannon or rocket pod uses that also... Add a full game time AT brigade or just integrate them, being in the middle is just.. Ruining the game!
The reason of the AT brigade being there is because, unlike in ww2 where every division had AT guns integrated organically at a divisional level, since the 50s those weapons were gradually replaced by more portable AT weapons... except in the soviet (and warsaw pact) armies where AT brigades were kept as such, and using AT guns until late 80s.
Hell yeah! and why not remove also tanks! what make them different from armoured cars? just the caterpillar?
I guess that it would be a... a... i don't know... another airplane model, i guess...
But they are automatically upgraded or they are just upgraded if you decide it? Because if it's the first option it should be normal as the fifth generation fighter does not make stealth fighters obsolete and vice versa.
You have to delete in db/tech/units/divisions/multi_role.txt in the area of "# 18 - Fifth Generation Supersonic Turbojet Multi-Role Fighter" (aka the last Fighter-model) the line "multi_role = 18" and "multi_role = 17". With this line the last model will be forced to upgrade to its one predecessor.
*edit
and you should fix the techs, so that you have to research Fighter-model #17 before #18
and you should fix the techs, so that you have to research Fighter-model #17 before #18
Ok, spotted the error and fixed it.
As not every country developed a pure stealth fighter, but some of them started to design a fifth generation one, without having researched a stealth fighter first, that's why stealth fighter is not required in order to research a fifth generation one.
hello kretoxian!
you will add to the new units the SKIF style icons?
because at present to investigate new technologies that you have done, the icon of the ground unit is an X does not have image ... and that happens with all types of infantry: mountain, marines, paratroopers, cavalry ... etc.
would not be bad to have a continuation of the work of Kazoo's SKIF style icons for DH full regarding images for units referred
you will add to the new units the SKIF style icons?
because at present to investigate new technologies that you have done, the icon of the ground unit is an X does not have image ... and that happens with all types of infantry: mountain, marines, paratroopers, cavalry ... etc.
would not be bad to have a continuation of the work of Kazoo's SKIF style icons for DH full regarding images for units referred
Didnt know that, ok!
What? Tanks have tracks, AFVs tires. My point was infs, mars, mils, mtns, and paras are the same par some specialization, thus remove the techs and merge the models in the inf tree. Could just leave specialization techs parallel to inf techs.
I know.
Unfortunately, i don't know how to create skif icons, but i know how to make Cpack style icons, which, BTW i like them more than skif ones. And yes, they'll be included in the next version.
No, just no. It would bring too much aditional work, specially by adapting .inc scenario files.
Guess what?
New version released!!
Go to the first page of this thread to download it.
New version released!!
Go to the first page of this thread to download it.
I like the secret tech that you censored. very nice.
Glad you liked it.
That's not related with the version, it's related with filesmelt renaming the uploaded files to avoid two files having the same names.
I have an idea i'd like to check wouth you people, all three of them are related with minor countries.
First one: You know, since the late 40s, some countries, most notably Israel, used Brigades instead of divisions as the backbone of their armies. In other terms, as their basic unit.
That's why i'm thinking about duplicating actual land divisions, rename them as brigades and have, this way, a brigademental combat system.
The advantages of such "Brigade divisions" would be a much lower costs in everything (production, upgrade, supply and fuel consumptions - 1/3 or 1/2 compared to a normal division) higher default org and morale (x3 compared to a normal division), higher speed (x3 from a normal division) but, on the downside, their vulnerability would also increase by x3 while their attack values would be divided by 3.
Why those variations in their statistics? Because it's much easier, and faster, to move 3000-5000 persons than 10000-13000 and it's also easier to keep them united, but, on the other hand, it would be harder for them to hold the line against a superior unit in numbers, unless, they count with a higher morale and organisation on their side.
Considering that some countries like USSR also had a partial brigademental combat system (their marine units worked only at autonomous brigade levels) i think that the best would be to have them activated using different techs in the land doctrines tree (where, i guess, i could get some place) and the layout of them would be something like this (each sentence would be a tech to research):
This way, and following a system like the actual DH does with the armoured divisions, you would improve your land units using the normal tech tree (IE, infantry tech tree and armour tech tree) and it would also make your divisions to be obsolete.
Now, what to do with actual brigades in this system? Well, make another duplicates, rename them "(whatever) battalions" (IE, Artillery Battalion, Anti Tank Battalion, Medium Armour Btn and so on) and have them activated using the techs explained above, for instance, infantry level brigademental combat system would activate artillery, anti tank and any other battalion that would fit in this category.
Second one This time would be the same as above but applied to the air forces.
The backbone of many countrie's air forces has been, since the 20s, the squadron (composed of around 20-30 planes) and not the wing (composed of arounr 70-100 planes), take for instance, again, Israel or, in an earlier period, the Chaco war.
That's why i think that duplicating actual air units into squadrons (IE, Interceptor Squadron instead of Interceptor wing, multi role squadron instead of multi role wing...) would be a nice idea and would give the game a touch of realism.
Of course that those squadrons would suffer from the same advantages and disadvantages as their land counterparts, higher organization, speed, lower maintenance costs but also lower attack values and higher vulnerability values.
These air units would be activated like the brigade divisions, using techs, but this time, in the air doctrines tree and would also be arranged by fighters, bombers... and so on, in order to let the player, or the AI, choose which of their air units want to be rearranged as squadrons.
Regarding this, i think also that a new path in the air doctrines field representing the evolution of minor countries air doctrines would be nice.
This tier would boost the interceptor organization (their main preoccupation was/is the defence of their airspace) and in a minor basis, the multi role ones (it's pretty simple, first priority: the defence of their airspace and, second: the counter attack) and would unlock light bombers earlier than the CAS wings, in order to represent units like Breguet Br.19 or Potez 25, among others. IE, by following this path, the player, or AI, would benefit from more CAS models at the cost of them being more vulnerable and being less in numbers than their wing units counterparts, but also, higher organization speed and so on.
Third one This may be the most controversial of the ideas as it implies having individual destroyers, frigates, corvettes and submarines for minors only.
By adding another tier/path in the naval doctrines tree to represent the evolution of minor countries naval doctrines (which i don't think would be much different, at least at the early stages of the doctrines, from their world powers counterpart) those countries would benefit from more historical realism.
And that way could be implied that these countries granted more freedom to their DDs, Frgs, Corvs and Subs, and therefore they acted more like capital ships than like escorts.
Obviously it would imply to make a duplicate of those units and, only because of their doctrine, they would be considered as capital ships, except, i think, corvettes.
These individual DDs, Frg and so on would benefit from higher org, morale, lower costs but also would suffer from lower naval attack, air attack, subattack and so on and their vulnerability would also be higher.
BTW when i mean DDs i mean pre Missile Destroyers as missile DD would also be counted as individual ships.
All these ideas are thought to be applicable for minor countries only and, therefore, i think that an event at the beginning warning the player to only follow those paths if the country their are playing with, has less than 40-50 IC because otherwise, it's much more beneficial for them to use divisions/wings/flotillas instead of brigades/squadrons and individual ships.
Comments? Thoughts? Praises?
First one: You know, since the late 40s, some countries, most notably Israel, used Brigades instead of divisions as the backbone of their armies. In other terms, as their basic unit.
That's why i'm thinking about duplicating actual land divisions, rename them as brigades and have, this way, a brigademental combat system.
The advantages of such "Brigade divisions" would be a much lower costs in everything (production, upgrade, supply and fuel consumptions - 1/3 or 1/2 compared to a normal division) higher default org and morale (x3 compared to a normal division), higher speed (x3 from a normal division) but, on the downside, their vulnerability would also increase by x3 while their attack values would be divided by 3.
Why those variations in their statistics? Because it's much easier, and faster, to move 3000-5000 persons than 10000-13000 and it's also easier to keep them united, but, on the other hand, it would be harder for them to hold the line against a superior unit in numbers, unless, they count with a higher morale and organisation on their side.
Considering that some countries like USSR also had a partial brigademental combat system (their marine units worked only at autonomous brigade levels) i think that the best would be to have them activated using different techs in the land doctrines tree (where, i guess, i could get some place) and the layout of them would be something like this (each sentence would be a tech to research):
Code:
Brigademental combat system ----------------------- Infantry level (Enables Infantry, Garrison and Militia Brigades - Deactivates Infantry, Garrison and Militia Divisions)
|------------------------ Armoured level (Enables Armour and Light Armour Brigades - Deactivates Armour and Light ArmourDivisions)
|------------------------ Marine Level (Enables Marine Brigades - Deactivates Marine Divisions)
|------------------------ Elite Level (Enables Bergsjaeger Brigades - Deactivates Bergsjaeger Divisions)
|------------------------ Mobility Level (Enables Motorized, Mechanized and Cavalry Brigades - Deactivates Motorized, Mechanized and Cavalry Divisions)
|------------------------ Airborne Level (Enables Paratrooper and Air Assault Brigades - Deactivates Paratrooper and Air Assault Divisions)[/SPOILER]This way, and following a system like the actual DH does with the armoured divisions, you would improve your land units using the normal tech tree (IE, infantry tech tree and armour tech tree) and it would also make your divisions to be obsolete.
Now, what to do with actual brigades in this system? Well, make another duplicates, rename them "(whatever) battalions" (IE, Artillery Battalion, Anti Tank Battalion, Medium Armour Btn and so on) and have them activated using the techs explained above, for instance, infantry level brigademental combat system would activate artillery, anti tank and any other battalion that would fit in this category.
Second one This time would be the same as above but applied to the air forces.
The backbone of many countrie's air forces has been, since the 20s, the squadron (composed of around 20-30 planes) and not the wing (composed of arounr 70-100 planes), take for instance, again, Israel or, in an earlier period, the Chaco war.
That's why i think that duplicating actual air units into squadrons (IE, Interceptor Squadron instead of Interceptor wing, multi role squadron instead of multi role wing...) would be a nice idea and would give the game a touch of realism.
Of course that those squadrons would suffer from the same advantages and disadvantages as their land counterparts, higher organization, speed, lower maintenance costs but also lower attack values and higher vulnerability values.
These air units would be activated like the brigade divisions, using techs, but this time, in the air doctrines tree and would also be arranged by fighters, bombers... and so on, in order to let the player, or the AI, choose which of their air units want to be rearranged as squadrons.
Regarding this, i think also that a new path in the air doctrines field representing the evolution of minor countries air doctrines would be nice.
This tier would boost the interceptor organization (their main preoccupation was/is the defence of their airspace) and in a minor basis, the multi role ones (it's pretty simple, first priority: the defence of their airspace and, second: the counter attack) and would unlock light bombers earlier than the CAS wings, in order to represent units like Breguet Br.19 or Potez 25, among others. IE, by following this path, the player, or AI, would benefit from more CAS models at the cost of them being more vulnerable and being less in numbers than their wing units counterparts, but also, higher organization speed and so on.
Third one This may be the most controversial of the ideas as it implies having individual destroyers, frigates, corvettes and submarines for minors only.
By adding another tier/path in the naval doctrines tree to represent the evolution of minor countries naval doctrines (which i don't think would be much different, at least at the early stages of the doctrines, from their world powers counterpart) those countries would benefit from more historical realism.
And that way could be implied that these countries granted more freedom to their DDs, Frgs, Corvs and Subs, and therefore they acted more like capital ships than like escorts.
Obviously it would imply to make a duplicate of those units and, only because of their doctrine, they would be considered as capital ships, except, i think, corvettes.
These individual DDs, Frg and so on would benefit from higher org, morale, lower costs but also would suffer from lower naval attack, air attack, subattack and so on and their vulnerability would also be higher.
BTW when i mean DDs i mean pre Missile Destroyers as missile DD would also be counted as individual ships.
All these ideas are thought to be applicable for minor countries only and, therefore, i think that an event at the beginning warning the player to only follow those paths if the country their are playing with, has less than 40-50 IC because otherwise, it's much more beneficial for them to use divisions/wings/flotillas instead of brigades/squadrons and individual ships.
Comments? Thoughts? Praises?
love all the new tech in your mod.
Just wanted to ask if your mod can also be used in Fatherland, which has a bunch of new units to build in it?
I asked cause you say that we can install your mod on top of DH full and NWO.
Just wanted to ask if your mod can also be used in Fatherland, which has a bunch of new units to build in it?
I asked cause you say that we can install your mod on top of DH full and NWO.
I think that yes. However their team are working on an official adaptation.
There was a bug in unitnames.csv which made the custom units names not to appear. Fortunately WarHawk109 fixed it and now you can find the hotfix at the first post of this thread.
I highly recommend you to download it.
I highly recommend you to download it.
