Avalanche 1.12.5 OPEN BETA - By Blood Alone - Checksum 18aa - UPDATED

  • 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.
Hello. Respectful of the ongoing discussion, I would like to raise my hand to briefly mention an unrelated issue.

I am a USSR single-player user and my favorite path is to assassinate Stalin. Currently I am totally unable to play my preferred game due to the (listed in 'known issues' thread) political paranoia bug. I have seen no further mention of this issue and I can confirm (see screenshot) that the issue still exists in the current open_beta branch this morning.

I would be delighted to hear any additional information about this, such as whether or not it is expected to be an easy fix, or if it is a priority.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 20221101103744_1.jpg
    20221101103744_1.jpg
    883,4 KB · Views: 0
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This only applies if it was for some reason much better to have only 20 PBYs and actually got worse if you used more. Taking the scenario where you want to only use 20 PBYs but may lose some so need to keep reinforcing them to account for loses which for this scenario you lose on average 1 plane per month and thus keep factories building 1 plane per month.

Old system you make a 20 PBY wing and still produce more to take up loses. Extra production goes into stockpile until a plane is lost then added to wing.

New system you make 20 PBY wing and still produce more to take up loses. Extra production automatically reinforces the wing so occasionally you have a wing with 21 planes until you lose one and then have a wing with 20 planes. You lose nothing by having an extra plane in the wing apart from possibly a completely insignificant amount of fuel flying that 1 extra plane.

Now if it actually caused a significant issue to fly that one extra plane in the new system i could understand the problem but as, if anything, the wing will actually work more effectively for a short period while it has th extra plane the new system is actually better in that respect.

I am really trying to think why the new system would be any worse in regards to production and i really can't sensibly think of one as your going to be producing extra planes anyway to make up for loses so you use exactly the same number of factories either way just the additional planes are either going into stockpile or temporarily reinforcing the wing so you keep the facgtories running, don't lose production and don't lose production efficiency.

20 planes will do. Your only building 20 planes initially and then keeping enough factories running to make up for loses and keeping 20 planes in the air so not shutting down factories or using excessive amounts of factories to build 100 planes...I don't see the issue apart from it is a new system and it has changed how you deal with it.
The US needs to cover dozens of sea zones with naval air patrols for spotting, ASW, and convoy raiding. That's thousands of PBYs and the air base capacity and logistical train to support them if you are forced to create 100-plane units. Your argument is invalid.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I just noticed that the focus "Undermine Il Duce" is not giving the BoP boost of 15% [for His Holiness] that the tooltip claims will happen. "Conspiracies in the Shadows" does do what it claims [10% leftward BoP boost]. Either the tooltip is wrong or the effect is not properly applying to His Holiness. Initially it leans to the Grand Council of Fascism but it isn't needed to get the Convene the Grand Council if one fails in Ethiopia and takes "Absolute Disaster".

I posted a Bug Report

I should note that - if this is an error in code and not just an incorrect tool-tip - having this work properly means one has the choice of keeping the Blackshirts instead of disbanding them which allows someone taking the Papal State path to use the Blackshirt divisions and advisors - the Papal State is devoid of political advisors which seems silly to me. I've found that by the time I am forced to take the focus "Disband the Blackshirts" [for the left BoP boost decision "Condemn Fascism"] there's only 25% Fascism left in Italy.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The US needs to cover dozens of sea zones with naval air patrols for spotting, ASW, and convoy raiding. That's thousands of PBYs and the air base capacity and logistical train to support them if you are forced to create 100-plane units. Your argument is invalid.

100% agree. The problem of assigning planes to sea zones is even worse for nations other than the USA, since they don't have the fuel to operate those oversized airwings.

Before BBA, the solution for nations like Japan, Netherlands, or the UK to run naval strike missions in the Pacific was by creating airwings with a max size of 10 - 30 TACs or NAVs, and allowing them to replace their losses as needed from a modest sized stockpile of surplus planes.

Now in BBA, to run naval strike in 10 different sea zones will require many more planes (and much more fuel). If you don't have the planes or the fuel, you will need to repeatedly merge or split airwings to keep each sea zone at the desired strength. In addition to extra micro, this has the downside of having each sub-100 wing gradually revert to green experience level, as new untrained planes from ongoing production trickle into the airwing.

If you stop production of NAVs once you have enough deployed, and then re-split the wings, that will make your wings gradually understrength as planes are lost to combat or accidents without having any new production to retain their desired strength.

I realize that this use case is a narrow one, as most players don't focus on the Pacific, but I think these are legit criticisms of the one-size-fits-all approach to airwings.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
100% agree. The problem of assigning planes to sea zones is even worse for nations other than the USA, since they don't have the fuel to operate those oversized airwings.

Before BBA, the solution for nations like Japan, Netherlands, or the UK to run naval strike missions in the Pacific was by creating airwings with a max size of 10 - 30 TACs or NAVs, and allowing them to replace their losses as needed from a modest sized stockpile of surplus planes.

Now in BBA, to run naval strike in 10 different sea zones will require many more planes (and much more fuel). If you don't have the planes or the fuel, you will need to repeatedly merge or split airwings to keep each sea zone at the desired strength. In addition to extra micro, this has the downside of having each sub-100 wing gradually revert to green experience level, as new untrained planes from ongoing production trickle into the airwing.

If you stop production of NAVs once you have enough deployed, and then re-split the wings, that will make your wings gradually understrength as planes are lost to combat or accidents without having any new production to retain their desired strength.

I realize that this use case is a narrow one, as most players don't focus on the Pacific, but I think these are legit criticisms of the one-size-fits-all approach to airwing size.
The problem you mentioned can be adressed by splitting a wing in several smaller ones. Whatever the limit is 100, up to you to make as many as smaller ones as you wish.
Now you're afraid that, as time goes by, some wings will deplete faster than others, I don't have this as a problem but ok.
Then, maybe you should ask for a feature update: in same way as carrier wings are 10 max, you could request surveillance planes wings to be also limited. But that means that probably we won't be able to mix that function with, say, a bomber or a fighter.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem you mentioned can be adressed by splitting a wing in several smaller ones. Whatever the limit is 100, up to you to make as many as smaller ones as you wish.

True, but they won't stay that way for very long. If I'm producing more of the planes in those airwings, they will eventually trickle into those airwings, unless I keep splitting the airwings at regular intervals. More planes than needed for the current mission means wasted fuel, manpower, and equipment exposed to un-necessary loss for negligible gain.

I appreciate your suggestion of work-arounds for this situation. However, it's my opinion that those workarounds are a micro headache, with no benefit other than to restore intuitive functionality that was present in prior iterations of the game.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe maritime Patrol bombers should be treated the same as dedicated Recon A/C?! If Maritime Patrol is their primary function [as opposed to tactical bombers that simply have that functionality]
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
With regard to Embargos, I am wondering why a recently puppeted [by Germany] Australia is embargoing me even though I am in the Axis? I understand its a new mechanic and all that but a puppet of the leader of the faction I am in probably shouldn't be able to embargo me. Especially as I am not importing anything from Australia. If anyone is curious Idon't fret about the missing mods - they're just colored icons and the game doesn't need them.
 

Attachments

  • Ironman Italy 3.zip
    4,5 MB · Views: 0
With regard to Embargos, I am wondering why a recently puppeted [by Germany] Australia is embargoing me even though I am in the Axis? I understand its a new mechanic and all that but a puppet of the leader of the faction I am in probably shouldn't be able to embargo me. Especially as I am not importing anything from Australia. If anyone is curious Idon't fret about the missing mods - they're just colored icons and the game doesn't need them.
Ive seen similar things happen before when puppets are not called into war. Like giving military access to the enemy. They also dont seem to cancel any deals like giving garrison manpower to former allies turned enemies.
 
DLC bugs/flaws

ITA: Doing the "Aid for Spanish Republic" focus on the republican side is pointless, because as democracy you are unable to send volunteers without proper flags (solution add flag: can send volunteers)

ITA: Topple Amhara Focus works, but if you actually create the local governors the intended leaders are not placed in charge of the countires and random leaders are chosen.

ITA: Royalist-Democratic path is somewhat lacking. Perhaps it could use a research slot to make it different from the neutral path.

ITA: Anti-fascist fervor temporary idea is missing icon.

ITA: Strenghten Northern Industry vs Modernize the Mezzogiorne is not really a choice, given the lack of "south" designers, the OPness of improved North Designers and even the factory reward is better for North. Suggestion: Just straight factory/dockyard output bonus for "Military Industry", or perhaps even research slot.

ETH: Towards African Unity focus doesn't have requirement of country being independent/not in faction which means that puppet ETH always goes for it and creates a situation in which a puppet ETH is leader of another faction.

ETH: Encourage Local Development focus could be a little more clear, especially when it comes to the requirements of internal politics balance. Also it wouldn'T hurt to add status icons to regions already developed or when all the development are done.

ETH: Scavenging tactic could be little more clear and the effects combined with maintanance company mechanics should be looked upon, The randomess of assigning the trait is also probably poor choice.

ETH: While irregular infantry is not meant to be recruited directly, if you actually release and later annex AFAR, you inherit their templates, including irregular one which you can use without any cap.

ETH: A lot of focuses require 2nd war to be ongoing, so the player is actively punished if he plays well or if the ITA AI does different path. These focuses should be available if ETH won. For example the Lessons of War focus.

//

ITA should also probably start with Inter-war large frame researched, considering it's used for patrol boats and Italy had experience building these. Also it's sad that there was no room to add some lovely floatplane model for ITA (CANT Z.501 Gabbiano, CANT Z.506 Airone)

Also someone should check out the 01_bba_plane_icons.txt file and properly assign the models for frames. I mean the iconic SM.79 model and the gorgeous SM.84 models are only for light frames. I dislike that I have to edit this file for every DLC that adds models, because they are not properly assigned (I'm looking at you Matilda and P39 Lightning).

I still don't understand why someone made the effort to assign certainly models for certain frames, instead allowing all of them used on every frame and let the player pick.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just a friendly reminder of things that bug me appart from all the already mentioned stuff here:

- airfield placements in remote locations can sometimes be...quite bad and atm unchangeable
- i think "2000 max planes capacity fits all" is not the ideal thing for every little island around the pacific. How about a limit there?
- Many and i mean MANY areas of the Map are classified as woodlands even though i strongly suggest changing it to jungle.
- i'd say Manpower out of thin air is quite immersion breaking for me personally. Seeing more and more focuses and decisions introduced for countrys giving u manpower out of the void is not exactly nice. How about we tie it to country specific modifiers again, even when only temporaryly.

Thanks for your time and appreciate the effort!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Oh speaking about the new air wings. You know what screws up the whole "100" wings? The 10 plane wings of dedicated scout planes...Imagine a 200 plane airfield reduced to 110, because of a wing of scout planes. Which again robs me of a choice and I have to put recon equipment on other planes instead refitting older/looted ones.

So I propose airfield actually allowing 220 planes. 2200 on max.

Edit: which brings me to another thing, those large frame naval patrol planes are also in wings of 100. Imagine you actually produce them and have to cover many sea zones....that's thousands of planes... These wings should be reduced to 10 as well.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just a friendly reminder of things that bug me appart from all the already mentioned stuff here:

- airfield placements in remote locations can sometimes be...quite bad and atm unchangeable
- Many and i mean MANY areas of the Map are classified as woodlands even though i strongly suggest changing it to jungle.
Agree. I mostly play in the pacific and the papua new Guinea and sulawesi airfields are very ahistorical placements and impossible to supply. Plus jungles should be more accurate. But it's well down the priority list, but would be super nice to have!
 
ITA: Topple Amhara Focus works, but if you actually create the local governors the intended leaders are not placed in charge of the countires and random leaders are chosen.
That one has been reported as bug here:


and also here:



---


I hope that the balance for war participating factors gets another pass; especially land-lease and sunken convoys don't have a measureable impact anymore at all (and sunken ships are rather undervalued, too), as analyzed here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-deal-as-a-tiny-nation.1552157/#post-28575560
 
Hello. Respectful of the ongoing discussion, I would like to raise my hand to briefly mention an unrelated issue.

I am a USSR single-player user and my favorite path is to assassinate Stalin. Currently I am totally unable to play my preferred game due to the (listed in 'known issues' thread) political paranoia bug. I have seen no further mention of this issue and I can confirm (see screenshot) that the issue still exists in the current open_beta branch this morning.

I would be delighted to hear any additional information about this, such as whether or not it is expected to be an easy fix, or if it is a priority.

Thanks!
I have encountered this bug too; it makes killing Stalin much more difficult. You should create a bug report, maybe devs notice and fix it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Another weird bug - playing the USSR, I've sent 6 mountaineer divisions and 200 planes to Republican Spain as volunteers. For some reason the mountaineers cannot get new equipment as reinforcements. No matter where I put them in Republican Spain (they're currently in Madrid), they can't reinforce - mousing over them just says, "Reinforcement blocked, no supply from capital".

You can also see a much more minor bug in the screenshot where the Field Marshal for the volunteers (Yegorov) has no portrait in this view.
This has come up in multiple MP games I've been in and required a rehost for the Soviet player's troops to start reinforcing. Reloading save might work for you, but would be nice to see it fixed.
 
Another weird bug - playing the USSR, I've sent 6 mountaineer divisions and 200 planes to Republican Spain as volunteers. For some reason the mountaineers cannot get new equipment as reinforcements. No matter where I put them in Republican Spain (they're currently in Madrid), they can't reinforce - mousing over them just says, "Reinforcement blocked, no supply from capital".

You can also see a much more minor bug in the screenshot where the Field Marshal for the volunteers (Yegorov) has no portrait in this view.
Did you have sea lanes blocked for convoys anywhere? I have prematurely blocked off sea zones to convoys so I do not forget when I go to war, but then caused me problems before the war. Also, did you have enough convoys for the supply? Just throwing out things I have run into, before.
 
Ive seen similar things happen before when puppets are not called into war. Like giving military access to the enemy. They also dont seem to cancel any deals like giving garrison manpower to former allies turned enemies.
Frankly its a bit of a laugh. The AI will embargo me almost at random - or maybe the PP cost is set too high. The thing is that I'm pretty much independent of trade - I maintain trade only for the factories my surplus can net me. I import rubber - from a satellite - as that's my only shortage.

Meanwhile, I'm at war with the Soviets alongside Nazi Germany as a member of the Axis and yet because I am "The Papal State" and are Unaligned the US still offers me Lend Lease despite having been one of the first to boycott me [Mexico was the first]. The US was the only one I had any trade history with [back when I was starving for oil].

I've learned a fair bit and I can honestly say that I do like the new Peace-Deal system aside from there still being too much emphasis put on casualties, I like how you can insist on taking certain provinces over and over to get the price up so the AI will back off. I did this to Germany while backing off on lesser states and didn't end up with too much border-gore [the second peace deal - the first was a tad sick but I had to make mistakes to learn something].
 
I actually got to the end of this thread. I could not have done it without everyone's civilized discussions, especially about the air wing sizes. Thank you! It would not surprise me that the developers see discussions like these much better than the ones that turn toxic. I know I cannot read toxic threads for long, before I just log off. What a good discussion! I definitely have a better sense of both sides now.

In the least, the developers got a good discussion here about the change to air wing size and there is a much better chance they actually read it.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: