• 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.

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
This thread will contain the list of items that will be in the 1.14 release. The list is informal and can change due to many factors.

Please add your suggestions for 1.14 in this thread and if it's accepted into the 1.14 release, it will be added to the list in this post. Please understand that most of the 1.14 release time is dedicated to the map update, Decisions (similar to DH), and pushed/undone items from 1.13.

  1. Map Update - If an agreement can't be made between AoD and the EU3 folks, then this will not be a map imported from another Paradox game but done from scratch. It will contain many more provinces (sea and land) to help define borders (states, provinces, territories, country, and historical borders).
  2. Decision Events - Similar to Darkest Hour's Decisions
  3. Tech Teams Locations (currently in an undetermined status due to enough players not wanting it. Team needs to discuss.) - Some tech teams are individuals but many are companies, corporations, or province dependent teams. These types of teams should be linked to the provinces they operate out of. Think of how the Soviets had to relocate their factories during Germany's advance, tank production factories, shipyards, etc. or the factories that Germany used in occupied territories (like tank production in Prague).
    • A tech team that is one of these types have a percentage to become a tech team for the occupier. This percentage could be affected by the occupier's government type and ministers.
    • If it does become a tech team for the occupier then again the government type and minister along with a new parameter/modifier called assimilatedteammodifier or occupiedteammodifier would modify the occupied team's skill level.
  4. River Crossing difficulty - Currently there already exists river crossing but they are all set to 100. We need to edit the difficulties.
  5. Build/fund infrastructure in an allied country - Just as it says, the ability for an allied nation to build infrastructure in another allied nation's provinces. Think of Germany, Japan, and others after WW2 and the different Allied plans to help these countries recover.
  6. Fortification Directions (Status is in review. Players have concerns about game performance)- The coastal fortifications only work as a multiplier against forces attacking from the sea but land fortifications have 360 degree multiplier. The Maginot line only pointed towards Germany, not France, but it has 360 degree protection/modifier.
  7. Earlier Technologies (To Be Determined) - Add technologies to all screens for the years 1890 - 1925/28.
  8. 5 player/user definable divisions
  9. 5 player/user definable research types
  10. New Research Types:
    • Medical Science
    • Biological Science
    • Computer Science
    • Intelligence Focus
    • Prototype Testing
    • Vehicle Engineering
    • Army Engineering
    • Munitions
    • Individual Weapons
    • Crew Serve Weapons
    • Carrier Design
    • Ship Design
    • Large Ships Design
    • Submarine Design
    • Fighter Design
    • Bomber Design
    • Naval Aviation
    • Rotary Wing Aviation
    • Avionics
    • Logistics
    • Armor Focus
More to come later
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:

adfs

Captain
7 Badges
Sep 20, 2009
412
30
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • For The Glory
  • 500k Club
Sounds promising.
Given there will be a new map in the 1.14 release, a lot of work will be involved. Is there an estimated completion timeline?
 

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Sounds promising.
Given there will be a new map in the 1.14 release, a lot of work will be involved. Is there an estimated completion timeline?
For the 1.14 release? None. I'll take a 1-2 month break after the 1.13 release and then work on the map first (need the provinces, areas, and regions defined and set in stone before proceeding on any other coding).
 

adfs

Captain
7 Badges
Sep 20, 2009
412
30
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • For The Glory
  • 500k Club
For the 1.14 release? None. I'll take a 1-2 month break after the 1.13 release and then work on the map first (need the provinces, areas, and regions defined and set in stone before proceeding on any other coding).
Thanks for the reply.
Changing the map will be a long way in development, especially for AI and balance. Maybe the AI and balance in 1.14 will not be as good as in 1.13, may take another 2-3 releases to reach maturity.
 

stevep

Major
2 Badges
Apr 24, 2009
650
59
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • 500k Club
A completely new map, fabfeingolds map or some 3rd possibility?

As CJ said in the 1st post
  • Map Update - If an agreement can't be made between AoD and the EU3 folks, then this will not be a map imported from another Paradox game but done from scratch. It will contain many more provinces (sea and land) to help define borders (states, provinces, territories, country, and historical borders).

so that's rather dependent on events outside the developers team control. Sounds like there's definitely going to be a lot of changes and as adfs point out as well as developing a new map - 0r adapting an existing one from elsewhere - it would require a lot of work to get balance.,
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

DarkWolffer56

Private
Apr 11, 2022
11
2
  • Decision Events - Similar to Darkest Hour's Decisions
For this section, more decisions will be added than in the Darkest Hour?.
I mean decisions for the population and war machine, and without bother more historical decisions.
 

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
As CJ said in the 1st post
  • Map Update - If an agreement can't be made between AoD and the EU3 folks, then this will not be a map imported from another Paradox game but done from scratch. It will contain many more provinces (sea and land) to help define borders (states, provinces, territories, country, and historical borders).

so that's rather dependent on events outside the developers team control. Sounds like there's definitely going to be a lot of changes and as adfs point out as well as developing a new map - 0r adapting an existing one from elsewhere - it would require a lot of work to get balance.,
The easier route is to use someone's or another game's map, but the major issue with that is licensing. There are AoD mods out there that use the DH map, but the players must own both games for licensing purposes. Definitely a lot of changes whether we use an existing map or create one from scratch since the province IDs will change. Personally, I'm leaning towards a native made map for AoD.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Decision Events - Similar to Darkest Hour's Decisions
For this section, more decisions will be added than in the Darkest Hour?.
I mean decisions for the population and war machine, and without bother more historical decisions.
The team hasn't discussed much about the 1.14 release, just trying to get the 1.13 release out. I could see many 1.13 current events becoming Decisions but we haven't even started a list of Decisions.
 

KostasL

Dead already!
6 Badges
Jan 17, 2005
999
44
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
The team hasn't discussed much about the 1.14 release, just trying to get the 1.13 release out. I could see many 1.13 current events becoming Decisions but we haven't even started a list of Decisions.
Well...we just need the decisions system and not really a list of decisions...if you know what i mean!

Everyone can add, remove and edit events and decisions...Thats the easy part!
 

Kaije

Recruit
4 Badges
Dec 29, 2010
5
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sengoku
  • 500k Club
So I just updated to 1.12 and found two minor inconsistencies with the current map that go back to at least 1.08 and probably further. Cincinnati (Ohio USA) is map labelled as Columbus and Grand Rapids (Michigan USA) is labelled as Great Rapids.

1.) A map update has potential, but if you decide to go with creating your own new map, then a simple editing tool developed and released along with it would be even better!

3.) I've considered doing something like this through events in the past. Points of consideration though, what happens if the province is continuously contested and switches hands often? And I don't believe many nations in the current patch have a tech team shortage for their IC level, so wouldn't it mostly just create clutter on the teams list as time goes on? Perhaps an alternative could be, instead of picking up the new team, there can be a chance of gaining a skill point or even a new skill type for one of your teams of comparable or worse skill. Instead of poaching, think partially incorporating.


Now a humble request for this eventual 1.4 would be a simple "campaign" ai. Basically just flag x number of units to be allocated and solely used by a seperate ai in conjuction with the nation's default. Think two or more countries in one from an ai standpoint. This should give better operational focus without having to extensively rewrite the ai.

Another idea is to have a "Drill" or "Training" mission for all unit types to slowly build up some unit exp at the expense of increased supply consumption. Soft cap it to around 10 after a year or so of training and maybe have the exp gain rate influenced by the Standing/Drafted slider. Anywho, a potential alternative to just min maxing IC through the early years...


Now for some vanilla 1.12 criticism. Yay! What happened to the 1936 scenario? I've only fiddled with it for a little bit, but it seems to have lost it's soul. Pure infrastucture spam and IC builds? It seems the intent is to maximize the late war, but why not just further develop the ever neglected '38, '39, and later scenarios then? What should a new player or an oldie that hasn't touched an HoI2 based game think when they try to play in the old '36 WWII sandbox scenario of yours?
 

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
So I just updated to 1.12 and found two minor inconsistencies with the current map that go back to at least 1.08 and probably further. Cincinnati (Ohio USA) is map labelled as Columbus and Grand Rapids (Michigan USA) is labelled as Great Rapids.
Ah, good catch and this I can update during the 1.14 map update. I'm guessing that whoever drew the provinces, for any nation outside of Europe, were just guessing which city to use that laid within the province boundaries. Since the population of Cincinnati in 1940 is about 150,000 more than Columbus in 1940, Cincinnati should be the name of the province. If you put your mouse over the province, it does show the province's name as Cincinnati. Same goes for Grand Rapids.

1.) A map update has potential, but if you decide to go with creating your own new map, then a simple editing tool developed and released along with it would be even better!
Many people have said this but I just don't see it happening soon. Since I'll be doing the map, I would love a simple map making application, but who would do it? We currently have only 1 C++ developer (the other is working on another project). It's not about wanting or needing a tool but do we have the human resources (time) to do one. Maybe after the 1.13 release I'll look into developing one but no guarantees. I need to look at the map code and see what it would take to develop a tool/app plus make the new map or just make a new make.

3.) I've considered doing something like this through events in the past. Points of consideration though, what happens if the province is continuously contested and switches hands often? And I don't believe many nations in the current patch have a tech team shortage for their IC level, so wouldn't it mostly just create clutter on the teams list as time goes on? Perhaps an alternative could be, instead of picking up the new team, there can be a chance of gaining a skill point or even a new skill type for one of your teams of comparable or worse skill. Instead of poaching, think partially incorporating.
We could do a gain skill level for a team but it would have to be a random team, not one with the same capabilities. A good example would be Krupp in Germany, then Czechoslovakia is annexed by Germany, then a random team would get bumped a level. That random team could be a level 2 with only 2 or 3 skills. Not worth much when Skoda is a Czech team with high numbers for Armor and Artillery. It would take too much code to compare the gaining/new team to the occupying country's current teams to see if there's a tech team with similar skills and add a level to it.

We have a 2nd option instead of just adding a random skill level to an existing team. We could impose a 1 or 2 month wait period before the occupying country could gain the tech team.

Now a humble request for this eventual 1.4 would be a simple "campaign" ai. Basically just flag x number of units to be allocated and solely used by a seperate ai in conjuction with the nation's default. Think two or more countries in one from an ai standpoint. This should give better operational focus without having to extensively rewrite the ai.
Let me see if I understand your point. So a country would have units that are always controlled by the ai, regardless if the country is being played by a human?

Another idea is to have a "Drill" or "Training" mission for all unit types to slowly build up some unit exp at the expense of increased supply consumption. Soft cap it to around 10 after a year or so of training and maybe have the exp gain rate influenced by the Standing/Drafted slider. Anywho, a potential alternative to just min maxing IC through the early years...
I've talked about this just recently here:
I really couldn't see this one happening from a coding effort and slower game play. It would be a huge coding effort. I even thought of limiting these by having naval, land, and air depots but I would still be concerned about gameplay.
Additionally:
  • Part of the manpower used to create the unit, is the manpower of the unit itself. When a new unit has been produced and is goes to the deployment queue, it is already at 100% (manpower).
  • Part of the manpower is allocated to creating the TO&E (equipment, weapons, clothing, etc.).
  • The time it takes to create a unit, is their training period.
Let's take a 1936 Infantry Division as an example. It has a cost of 7 (IC), build time of 95 days, and uses 10 manpower. If we break it down:
  • The cost pays for the equipment, weapons, clothing, miscellaneous items, and training.
  • The 95 days is the time it takes to train (civilians into soldiers). Many US Army units do a OSUT (One Station Unit Training) where basic training and AIT (Advance Individual Training) happen concurrently. Majority of them are 90 days.
  • The 95 days isn't just for training purposes but concurrent work (actually in stocks/warehouses) for the equipment, weapons, clothing, and miscellaneous items.
If a lot of players want to implement training, we could do it, but many changes would need to be made. Each unit, as we have it now, would need to be broken into 2...1 for the TO&E and 1 for the personnel because different units have different TO&E and times for training. Then the entire AODGame logic (code) for production would need to change...way too much work for 1 or 2 developers to do during their free time. We need to work within the restraints of the resources available.

I've only fiddled with it for a little bit, but it seems to have lost it's soul. Pure infrastucture spam and IC builds? It seems the intent is to maximize the late war, but why not just further develop the ever neglected '38, '39, and later scenarios then?
The 1936 scenario is about building, organizing, and preparing for war. There are many players that would like a 1934 or even early scenario so they have more time to build, organize, and prepare for war. There are events that do change this during this game but I'm not as familiar with all the AI files as others on the team. Hopefully, one of them will comment on which countries and what triggers the new AIs.

As for the latter scenarios, that I can address. Once all the technologies are finalized (very close) then I'll be going through each country's .inc (scenario startup) files.
  1. I will start with the 1936 scenario updating the technologies they have researched, have blueprints for, deactivate certain technologies, update their units and brigades to the models they have researched.
  2. I will then start the game and run it to 1 September 1938 (start date for the 1938 scenario).
  3. I will then take each country's stats (production queue, units, brigades, etc. ) and update the 1938 country .inc files.
  4. I'll repeat 2 & 3 for each scenario thereafter.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Kaije

Recruit
4 Badges
Dec 29, 2010
5
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sengoku
  • 500k Club
Thank you for the detailed response!


Let me see if I understand your point. So a country would have units that are always controlled by the ai, regardless if the country is being played by a human?
No. I would like to see ai controlled countries be able to use two or more ai files simultaneously. But since the team only has 1 C++ coder at present, it's kind of a moot point as I'm sure they already have a large enough work load with these next two patches. Without being able to see the code, this may very well be not worth the effort as it is. Twas just something I thought I would through out there.


If a lot of players want to implement training, we could do it, but many changes would need to be made. Each unit, as we have it now, would need to be broken into 2...1 for the TO&E and 1 for the personnel because different units have different TO&E and times for training. Then the entire AODGame logic (code) for production would need to change...way too much work for 1 or 2 developers to do during their free time. We need to work within the restraints of the resources available.
No, this level of training is not what I had in mind... Maybe "military exercise" would've been more accurate? I was thinking larger scale manuevering and combat readiness type of "training".
 

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
No. I would like to see ai controlled countries be able to use two or more ai files simultaneously. But since the team only has 1 C++ coder at present, it's kind of a moot point as I'm sure they already have a large enough work load with these next two patches. Without being able to see the code, this may very well be not worth the effort as it is. Twas just something I thought I would through out there.
If I understand you now, the reason you brought it up was to have an AI ran country have some units use one AI file while other units use another AI file. Since the unit IDs are sequentially assigned across all countries, as they are selected to be produced, how would one determine what unit(s) do what? We could select units by names, but how many times have you played and seen the same unit name used on more than one unit? Also, what about players changing the unit names? But the biggest issue, is that you can have players and modders that can change the AI files, making a mistake that conflicts with the other AI file, and the game becomes unstable or crashes. It would be a massive coding effort just to get the ability to use 2 AI concurrently, not to mention the coding effort to capture and resolve all the AI different conflicts or mistakes in the AI files.

No, this level of training is not what I had in mind... Maybe "military exercise" would've been more accurate? I was thinking larger scale manuevering and combat readiness type of "training".
Ah, I see now. So we have these things in the US Army we call FTX (Field Training Exercise) and CPX (Command Post Exercise). The FTX is what you're looking at, where any military sized unit, from company to army, leaves their nice warm barracks and 3 hot meals a day for the wonderful "camping" experience in the woods, desert, jungle, rain mud, or freezing cold to hone their skills. Something near and dear to my heart, not :) We could do something like this. So what do you think it should add, modify, etc.?

We could also have CPXs for leaders and HQs. The command Post Exercises are why the leaders come together and "board game" tactics, logistics, etc.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Kaije

Recruit
4 Badges
Dec 29, 2010
5
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sengoku
  • 500k Club
Yes, I think we're on the same page now.

If I understand you now, the reason you brought it up was to have an AI ran country have some units use one AI file while other units use another AI file. Since the unit IDs are sequentially assigned across all countries, as they are selected to be produced, how would one determine what unit(s) do what? We could select units by names, but how many times have you played and seen the same unit name used on more than one unit? Also, what about players changing the unit names? But the biggest issue, is that you can have players and modders that can change the AI files, making a mistake that conflicts with the other AI file, and the game becomes unstable or crashes. It would be a massive coding effort just to get the ability to use 2 AI concurrently, not to mention the coding effort to capture and resolve all the AI different conflicts or mistakes in the AI files.
I would hard code for a new variable in units on unit creation and scenario load to default it to 0 if it doesn't exist. For lack of a better name we'll call this variable "Taskforce". And this new Taskforce variable would determine which ai the unit is associated with. 0 = default. Setting the Taskforce variable and the amounts/types of units to be transferred would probably be best as an ai/switch file, but I suppose there could be other alternatives.

Most likely the biggest issue will be actually coding how the ai allocates units to a secondary ai. As for tweaking the current code to acknowledge the secondary ai and preventing overrides by the primary, well that depends on the current code.

Checking for the variable on scenario load should provide backward compatibility and be mod friendly as it would never be required to have been set or even used by outside files.


Ah, I see now. So we have these things in the US Army we call FTX (Field Training Exercise) and CPX (Command Post Exercise). The FTX is what you're looking at, where any military sized unit, from company to army, leaves their nice warm barracks and 3 hot meals a day for the wonderful "camping" experience in the woods, desert, jungle, rain mud, or freezing cold to hone their skills. Something near and dear to my heart, not :) We could do something like this. So what do you think it should add, modify, etc.?
Yes, the FTX was what I was getting at. This should be able to raise division level experience over time along with increased supply and fuel consumption, but have a cap to the max amount of experience that can be maintained. Rough numbers would be up to 10 exp over the course of a year, with 10 being the max that can be obtained. Having an equivalent for Air and Naval units would also be nice. The actual numbers can be at the discretion of the team, but of course having them modable through the misc file would be most appreciated.

As far as the CPX, personally I'd rather not since Leaders in the game don't lose exp, but again, team decision not mine.
 

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
For lack of a better name we'll call this variable "Taskforce".
Nice variable name...There is already a variable called taskforce :)

And this new Taskforce variable would determine which ai the unit is associated with. 0 = default
And this is the problem.

The code has 763 pages and headers. That's not counting any dependencies, resource files, or supporting dll pages and headers. Additionally, the code has to support, as far back as, Windows XP. Throwing a variable into a file (AI or any other file) would definitely slow the game. Imagine 2 land task forces, 2 air task forces, 2 sea task forces for a total of 6 "variables" plus every unit associated with each task for just one country, Germany. Now multiply that by each nation and then calculated all that per every game day. Then factor in the page reads and page writes to a file on a disk (even an SSD). Also, the variable wouldn't be a single variable (as explained) but need to contain multiple columns, rows, and allowed to grow dynamically (it's called a dynamic multiple dimension array), all requiring more memory.

Sorry to say, but I don't believe the gain outweighs the time to code and game performance hit. We only have one C++ developer right now and although she's retired, she wants to enjoy her retirement :) I hope you understand.

Yes, the FTX was what I was getting at. This should be able to raise division level experience over time along with increased supply and fuel consumption
This we could do but I would recommend that it only adds experience up to a certain level, say 33%. There are so many more technologies in the 1.13 release that affect supply and fuel already. The 33% experience cap is there, so one couldn't put a division into continuous training then have 100% experience. There's no experience better than the real thing.
 

Kaije

Recruit
4 Badges
Dec 29, 2010
5
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sengoku
  • 500k Club
Sorry to say, but I don't believe the gain outweighs the time to code and game performance hit. We only have one C++ developer right now and although she's retired, she wants to enjoy her retirement :) I hope you understand.
I do understand! By all means try to make the most of your retirement and enjoy it. You've earned it!


This we could do but I would recommend that it only adds experience up to a certain level, say 33%. There are so many more technologies in the 1.13 release that affect supply and fuel already. The 33% experience cap is there, so one couldn't put a division into continuous training then have 100% experience. There's no experience better than the real thing.
I never interpreted experience as a percent... The 10 I mentioned was my suggested cap, but 33 works if that's what you decide. Odds are there may be further tweaking when the patch gets to alpha & beta testing. But yes, I'm in full agreement that there is no substitute for the "real thng" and there definitely needs to be a cap.

Most importantly, thank you for volunteering your free time to continue development of this old game. And again thanks for sharing your time in forum discussions!
 

Czarina Julie

Major
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
755
330
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
The 10 I mentioned was my suggested cap, but 33 works if that's what you decide.
I used some arbitrary number. Also, it's more up to those on AOD forum voicing their desires. The team wants what the majority of the players want. So if someone is reading this post, they should always voice their preferences.

Odds are there may be further tweaking when the patch gets to alpha & beta testing.
There always is tweaking :)
 

Pioniere

Field Marshal
17 Badges
May 29, 2006
5.224
252
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 500k Club
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Iron Cross
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Arsenal of Democracy
A new model for the regulars in 1920s would be nice. Maybe a 1924 or 25 since 1918 to 1930 is too much time past.
This would help moders for making early scenarios.
1924_model_infantry_png.png

It can keep the great war garrison.