Took the liberty to update the title...another "What is CORE" thread in the main forum has been sufficiently answered by this one 
-
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 "WHAT IS CORE" looks much better...Originally posted by SykoNurse
Took the liberty to update the title...another "What is CORE" thread in the main forum has been sufficiently answered by this one
Simce rubber must be "more than just rubber" the coal-oil-rubber conversion chain should be very poor even at the best tech levels.
Also, many minors such as Hati have no predefined trades and a lot of resources never get on the market--this needs to be fixed.
Excellent point Kevin. While it is clear to me that Paradox had rubber designed as it's "catch-all" strategic resource, as you pointed out the conversion of oil to rubber contradicts and dilutes that. Using supplies as the strategic resource doesn't work any better as they can be manufactured.
I think we just have to face that with the current HOI economic model, we will not achieve perfection. Clearly what we need is a resource, limited, that can be tied to high end tech's tied to high end production, and that would create a very useful tool. But, we don't have that. OK, i can live with that. So let's just move on.
Having said that, i think we just have to largely ignore the strategic materials issue. The current economic model isn't that bad, it provides a strategic dimension to the game that is highly enjoyable, and cannot be ignored. This separates HOI from a great many other military games. Zerli's proposed definitions related to the resource definitions are certainly plausible and supportable within in the context of HOI.
There are a lot of excellent economic ideas that have been looked at and thought through, but without significant time from Johan they cannot happen, and i would NOT propose that we attempt anything in CORE requiring Johan as a resource until he has already done it. He is simply too busy.
No slams intended to anyone in this thread, but I suggest that we support the resource definitions as proposed and move on ...
Just my thoughts.
Excellent point Kevin. While it is clear to me that Paradox had rubber designed as it's "catch-all" strategic resource, as you pointed out the conversion of oil to rubber contradicts and dilutes that. Using supplies as the strategic resource doesn't work any better as they can be manufactured.
I think we just have to face that with the current HOI economic model, we will not achieve perfection. Clearly what we need is a resource, limited, that can be tied to high end tech's tied to high end production, and that would create a very useful tool. But, we don't have that. OK, i can live with that. So let's just move on.
Having said that, i think we just have to largely ignore the strategic materials issue. The current economic model isn't that bad, it provides a strategic dimension to the game that is highly enjoyable, and cannot be ignored. This separates HOI from a great many other military games. Zerli's proposed definitions related to the resource definitions are certainly plausible and supportable within in the context of HOI.
There are a lot of excellent economic ideas that have been looked at and thought through, but without significant time from Johan they cannot happen, and i would NOT propose that we attempt anything in CORE requiring Johan as a resource until he has already done it. He is simply too busy.
No slams intended to anyone in this thread, but I suggest that we support the resource definitions as proposed and move on ...
Just my thoughts.
Edited Basic Framework. Added a short list of basic definitions, including stuff like initial GDP, IC, strategic materials, etc. Modified 2.1. to add level of difficulty we are aiming with basic CORE (Normal/Normal).
I will try and monitor the various forums where the economic basic and basic definitions are discussed, and use those as starting points for our definitions. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on some starting figures, and use those to build stuff. For example, I'd really like to determine the value of 1 IC, so that we can use that as a reference for everything else.
In a related vein, one thread in the AI Enhancement Project has a very interesting discussion of industrial modifiers. It appears there are two kinds - one for efficiency and one for total output. Judicious use of those two, plus fiddling with amount of consume goods and WE should allow us to model majors with their historical economies, using historical GDP figures.
I'll see if I can also dig around for some more dates for the WWII timeline, particularly in the Pacific theater.
Zerli
I will try and monitor the various forums where the economic basic and basic definitions are discussed, and use those as starting points for our definitions. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on some starting figures, and use those to build stuff. For example, I'd really like to determine the value of 1 IC, so that we can use that as a reference for everything else.
In a related vein, one thread in the AI Enhancement Project has a very interesting discussion of industrial modifiers. It appears there are two kinds - one for efficiency and one for total output. Judicious use of those two, plus fiddling with amount of consume goods and WE should allow us to model majors with their historical economies, using historical GDP figures.
I'll see if I can also dig around for some more dates for the WWII timeline, particularly in the Pacific theater.
Zerli
Hat's off to all of you. Inmho, this is the most interesting thread about CORE so far.
I know that Mithel was looking for some economical info for South America. I'm trying to get some sources.
I also like the idea of supplies beeing used as the resource that can represent commodities that aren't such in times of war, e.g agricultural products, instead of rubber, but the latter is not a bad idea also. It would be easy to simulate trade agreements in which those countries at war could get supplies from neutral countries "a la Sweden / Germany trade agreement". For example, the income that Argentina generated as one of the majors agricultural producers helped the country to pay for technological developments. For instance, an event could represent the trade of supplies against any other resource or even against a tehcnological advance, where the player could choose not to do the trade if he already has achieved that technology. BUt this leads to the following issue:
I don't know what's the translation of the following in english, "relación de términos de intercambio", but it means more or less "how much wheat a country must sell in order to be able to receive enough money to buy a tractor (or a machine) from the other country". That relation is the key. It is a very valuable data that we could get to ensure to keep proportions in a reasonable and historical way in order not get an Argentina, for exmaple, with nuclear weapons by 1943.
In brief, what i try to say is that i think we should define what data are we looking for in order to recreate a historical but also playable geoeconomics (OOB, IC, manpower, VPs, terrain, resources, etc..). Not just what rubber or supplies represent in CORE, but also what's the key data type we should look into books or sites to be able to create a playable setup. The GDP is a only a good start.
Then we tune up the ai to avoid unrealistic distortions, but that's another issue that cames afterwards, i guess.
That's my 5 cents, for now.
I know that Mithel was looking for some economical info for South America. I'm trying to get some sources.
I also like the idea of supplies beeing used as the resource that can represent commodities that aren't such in times of war, e.g agricultural products, instead of rubber, but the latter is not a bad idea also. It would be easy to simulate trade agreements in which those countries at war could get supplies from neutral countries "a la Sweden / Germany trade agreement". For example, the income that Argentina generated as one of the majors agricultural producers helped the country to pay for technological developments. For instance, an event could represent the trade of supplies against any other resource or even against a tehcnological advance, where the player could choose not to do the trade if he already has achieved that technology. BUt this leads to the following issue:
I don't know what's the translation of the following in english, "relación de términos de intercambio", but it means more or less "how much wheat a country must sell in order to be able to receive enough money to buy a tractor (or a machine) from the other country". That relation is the key. It is a very valuable data that we could get to ensure to keep proportions in a reasonable and historical way in order not get an Argentina, for exmaple, with nuclear weapons by 1943.
In brief, what i try to say is that i think we should define what data are we looking for in order to recreate a historical but also playable geoeconomics (OOB, IC, manpower, VPs, terrain, resources, etc..). Not just what rubber or supplies represent in CORE, but also what's the key data type we should look into books or sites to be able to create a playable setup. The GDP is a only a good start.
Then we tune up the ai to avoid unrealistic distortions, but that's another issue that cames afterwards, i guess.
That's my 5 cents, for now.
Last edited:
Questions about C.O.R.E.
I've been away from HOI since about V1.03. Always played Bolted HOI up through its last release (1.02c).
Bolt is long gone, and Trip caried on with both Bolt's mod & his own after Bolt left, but he seems to be gone now as well.
So much seems to be going on with C.O.R.E. that I'm confused. So here are my top three questrions:
1) I've seen references to Bolted events in C.O.R.E. Does C.O.R.E. include Bolted HOI? If so, the AI, resource & convoy balancing as well as events?
2) How does it get decided what changes go into a C.O.R.E. release?
3) Is there a complete detailed change history showing what I'll get if I install C.O.R.E.?
Edit to add more questions -
4) C.O.R.E. docs reference some non-researchable techs added to represent national charactoristics. Is there a list of these, showing who gets them?
I've been away from HOI since about V1.03. Always played Bolted HOI up through its last release (1.02c).
Bolt is long gone, and Trip caried on with both Bolt's mod & his own after Bolt left, but he seems to be gone now as well.
So much seems to be going on with C.O.R.E. that I'm confused. So here are my top three questrions:
1) I've seen references to Bolted events in C.O.R.E. Does C.O.R.E. include Bolted HOI? If so, the AI, resource & convoy balancing as well as events?
2) How does it get decided what changes go into a C.O.R.E. release?
3) Is there a complete detailed change history showing what I'll get if I install C.O.R.E.?
Edit to add more questions -
4) C.O.R.E. docs reference some non-researchable techs added to represent national charactoristics. Is there a list of these, showing who gets them?
Last edited:
This should probably be merged with the What is CORE thread, but I'll post a repsonse anyway...
Ans: I believe that the Bolted events are in, but may have gone through some changes. AI, resource, and convoys have been revamped several times, and probably will be again, so this is probably not as Bolted had them.
Ans: Generally by group consensus. If there is a good deal of opposition to an idea, it generally won't make it. Otherwise, post away in the appropriate thread.
Ans: Not as yet. This is one of those projects that is being worked on. Of course trying to remember what all has been changed, and when in over 6 different releases is a bit probelmatic. Documentation is one of the projects being handled, albeit in a slow, but thorough, fashion.
Ans: Not per se. The list is in the tech tree txt file, and is also scattered through out the various region threads. See answer to #3 as well.
Ans: I believe that the Bolted events are in, but may have gone through some changes. AI, resource, and convoys have been revamped several times, and probably will be again, so this is probably not as Bolted had them.
Ans: Generally by group consensus. If there is a good deal of opposition to an idea, it generally won't make it. Otherwise, post away in the appropriate thread.
Ans: Not as yet. This is one of those projects that is being worked on. Of course trying to remember what all has been changed, and when in over 6 different releases is a bit probelmatic. Documentation is one of the projects being handled, albeit in a slow, but thorough, fashion.
Ans: Not per se. The list is in the tech tree txt file, and is also scattered through out the various region threads. See answer to #3 as well.
Having pondered this for a while I think the following should be discussed and agreed upon.
- Manpower definition. According to Maximilian I, 1 MP is 750 men and represents the combat services of a division. Math Guy's position is that it is 1000 men which makes a lot of sense if you look at the save game format.
Clearly this has a major impact, for example the difference between 10 or 13 divisions for a country with 100.000 men. It affects manpower pools, events, OOBs, unit definitions etc.
- Division organisation. The most common divisional organisation during the conflict was the triangular (3 regiments), with Japan and China using the square (4 regiments) organisation for most of the war and Italy using a two-regiment structure.
Again this has a major impact on MP costs, OOBs and unit stats. Since the max strength of a unit is non-moddable at 100 and the damage inflicted per hit is also non-moddable, any changes to represent the divisional organisation has to be considered very carefully. Changing MP/IC cost and units stats is trivial via tech, but it will still take X hits to wipe out a stronger/weaker division.
- Terrain definitions. What makes the difference between hill and mountain?
- Manpower definition. According to Maximilian I, 1 MP is 750 men and represents the combat services of a division. Math Guy's position is that it is 1000 men which makes a lot of sense if you look at the save game format.
Clearly this has a major impact, for example the difference between 10 or 13 divisions for a country with 100.000 men. It affects manpower pools, events, OOBs, unit definitions etc.
- Division organisation. The most common divisional organisation during the conflict was the triangular (3 regiments), with Japan and China using the square (4 regiments) organisation for most of the war and Italy using a two-regiment structure.
Again this has a major impact on MP costs, OOBs and unit stats. Since the max strength of a unit is non-moddable at 100 and the damage inflicted per hit is also non-moddable, any changes to represent the divisional organisation has to be considered very carefully. Changing MP/IC cost and units stats is trivial via tech, but it will still take X hits to wipe out a stronger/weaker division.
- Terrain definitions. What makes the difference between hill and mountain?
Re: Manpower
Manpower definition
I think that manpower is a perpetual problem in HoI (not just a CORE thing!). For one, you look at mobilization numbers, and see how many divisions some major nations put in the field, and it seems like the 1 MP = 750 is true (notably for Germany).
HOWEVER, take a look at other nations, mainly the minor ones (such as Canada, Australia, etc..) and you see their mobilization numbers, and the total military units fielded historically, and the 1 MP = 1000 feels true.
Maybe MP should not be considered fixed, but we should relate national manpower not based on figures and facts promoted as to how many were fully mobilized, but rather suit manpower to the numbers of units mobilized.
Using Canada, for example. Of the 750 000-1 000 000 mobilized, only a small amount actually served overseas. My Grandfather never left Ontario, even though he was considered a member of the Canadian military. Canada fielded 8 Divisions (plus supporting Corps troops and independent Brigades and Batallions, possibly numbering another 4 or so divisions).
Then, replacements come into the factor. Realistically, how many times were the total number of troops in a division replaced due to attrition? Very few soldiers were able to meet TV standards and fight from D-Day to VE-Day. Most divisions were full of almost completely different troops by the end of hostilities.
I think that the solution is to playtest to see what is going wrong, and what is going right for certain nations. If Canada plays best with 1 MP = 1000, and Germany with 1 MP = 750, then we should keep these different.
However, if we REALLY think about it, we can see that Canada's 1 000 000 mobilized were used differently than Germany's 10 000 000. Canada's mobilized were used differently. For example, 105 000 (in Canada) were used for the Pilot Training Program, and especially by the end of the war, the German ratio of troops : rear area was very different. Also, a German division of 1940 was different than the 1944 version (technically weaker in MP), while the Allied formations remained relatively the same in MP.
Division organisation.
Italian Divisions.
Looking at basic divisional structure to determine active force is a good start, but I don't think that it necessarily represents the fighting strength of certain nations.
While looking at a lot of Italian OOBs, I have noticed the following:
"Along with its divisions, the Italian order of battle also contained a number of independent battalions of artillery, anti-tank, ainti-aircraft, infantry, recon and armour. These units were assigned to the corps headquarters and then usually attached to divisions located in the most important secors, or those involved in the heaviest fighting."
While each Division technically was 3 battalions short, each division had a CCNN Battalion, so it was only 2 battalions short. Plus, each corps usually had about 4-8 Battalions attached, mainly of MG, engineer and infantry (There was also lavish Artillery). In theory, Italian divisions where weaker, but in practice, when they were engaged in combat, they were generally equals in quantity (due to Corps attachments which are not represented in HoI).
Looking at other OOB's, it does not appear like other nations used this system as much, and tended to keep their Infantry, MG and Engineer battalions attached to Divisions, with Corps units primarily being artillery. Since HoI does not represent Corps units, we must assume that they are already deployed to Divisions, so Italian forces are not necessarily 3 battalions short when you take into account the Divisional CCNN battalion and Corps troops.
Comparing the MP of a 2 division Italian Corps and a 2 division British Corps and you will generally have the same value of fighting troops, even though divisionally the British will come out ahead (if no forces are attached).
Japanese Divisions.
The Japanese were phasing out the Square divisions from 1937-1942. They found that the addition of that extra regiment did not give the division a 1/4 extra firepower rating than a 3 regiment division, and proved to be clumsy in combat.
The triangle division proved to be just as powerful, but more efficient (which also allowed for a sudden massive expansion of the Japanese army by combining split off regiments and brigades to make new divisions).
HOWEVER, Japanese battalions were more infantry heavy than western counterparts. Looking at TOE's, the Japanese battalion had 5 Companies (4 companies infantry, 1 company MG). Most nations had 600-800 man Batallions, but Japan had 1000 man Batallions. So, an increase in MP per division and soft attack is warranted even though they were moving from 4 regiments to 3.
Manpower definition
I think that manpower is a perpetual problem in HoI (not just a CORE thing!). For one, you look at mobilization numbers, and see how many divisions some major nations put in the field, and it seems like the 1 MP = 750 is true (notably for Germany).
HOWEVER, take a look at other nations, mainly the minor ones (such as Canada, Australia, etc..) and you see their mobilization numbers, and the total military units fielded historically, and the 1 MP = 1000 feels true.
Maybe MP should not be considered fixed, but we should relate national manpower not based on figures and facts promoted as to how many were fully mobilized, but rather suit manpower to the numbers of units mobilized.
Using Canada, for example. Of the 750 000-1 000 000 mobilized, only a small amount actually served overseas. My Grandfather never left Ontario, even though he was considered a member of the Canadian military. Canada fielded 8 Divisions (plus supporting Corps troops and independent Brigades and Batallions, possibly numbering another 4 or so divisions).
Then, replacements come into the factor. Realistically, how many times were the total number of troops in a division replaced due to attrition? Very few soldiers were able to meet TV standards and fight from D-Day to VE-Day. Most divisions were full of almost completely different troops by the end of hostilities.
I think that the solution is to playtest to see what is going wrong, and what is going right for certain nations. If Canada plays best with 1 MP = 1000, and Germany with 1 MP = 750, then we should keep these different.
However, if we REALLY think about it, we can see that Canada's 1 000 000 mobilized were used differently than Germany's 10 000 000. Canada's mobilized were used differently. For example, 105 000 (in Canada) were used for the Pilot Training Program, and especially by the end of the war, the German ratio of troops : rear area was very different. Also, a German division of 1940 was different than the 1944 version (technically weaker in MP), while the Allied formations remained relatively the same in MP.
Division organisation.
Italian Divisions.
Looking at basic divisional structure to determine active force is a good start, but I don't think that it necessarily represents the fighting strength of certain nations.
While looking at a lot of Italian OOBs, I have noticed the following:
"Along with its divisions, the Italian order of battle also contained a number of independent battalions of artillery, anti-tank, ainti-aircraft, infantry, recon and armour. These units were assigned to the corps headquarters and then usually attached to divisions located in the most important secors, or those involved in the heaviest fighting."
While each Division technically was 3 battalions short, each division had a CCNN Battalion, so it was only 2 battalions short. Plus, each corps usually had about 4-8 Battalions attached, mainly of MG, engineer and infantry (There was also lavish Artillery). In theory, Italian divisions where weaker, but in practice, when they were engaged in combat, they were generally equals in quantity (due to Corps attachments which are not represented in HoI).
Looking at other OOB's, it does not appear like other nations used this system as much, and tended to keep their Infantry, MG and Engineer battalions attached to Divisions, with Corps units primarily being artillery. Since HoI does not represent Corps units, we must assume that they are already deployed to Divisions, so Italian forces are not necessarily 3 battalions short when you take into account the Divisional CCNN battalion and Corps troops.
Comparing the MP of a 2 division Italian Corps and a 2 division British Corps and you will generally have the same value of fighting troops, even though divisionally the British will come out ahead (if no forces are attached).
Japanese Divisions.
The Japanese were phasing out the Square divisions from 1937-1942. They found that the addition of that extra regiment did not give the division a 1/4 extra firepower rating than a 3 regiment division, and proved to be clumsy in combat.
The triangle division proved to be just as powerful, but more efficient (which also allowed for a sudden massive expansion of the Japanese army by combining split off regiments and brigades to make new divisions).
HOWEVER, Japanese battalions were more infantry heavy than western counterparts. Looking at TOE's, the Japanese battalion had 5 Companies (4 companies infantry, 1 company MG). Most nations had 600-800 man Batallions, but Japan had 1000 man Batallions. So, an increase in MP per division and soft attack is warranted even though they were moving from 4 regiments to 3.
This has a significant impact depending on how 1 MP is defined. As I stated elsewhere, Combat MP strengths of "divisions" varied from nation to nation, with differences between 5-10,000 troops. Add to this those nations with out any sort of divisional structure (many of the smaller neutrals), and this gets even more sticky. The biggest issue is the standardization of divisional strengths. It is a lfat uniform number for all nations, irregardless of what actually was. The engine and basic techs seem to be built on the early war German norm (@15,000 troops per division). This makes it more difficult to represent the larger US and Soviet divisional strengths, as well as the smaller British and Italian, forget about the non-divisional nations.
So, at 1 MP= 1000, a typical German division will need 15 MP to create, or 30 at 750/MP. A US division (averaging around 20,000) would need 20 or 40 MP. That's combat strength only, and does not include support services. As the engine really won't support the various differnece between armies (barring creating a tech tree for each nation), it would probably do to have a standard set at the high end of the average (@17,000). That means a division would either be 17MP or 34, depending on the definition of 1 MP.
Hmm, no
It would be 17 or 23. Also the combat services were much smaller than that (only about 25-35% of those 17000-20000 men) although you can debate this for eternity. Here's an article which gives an interesting analysis: Bayonet strength The current HoI cost is 10 MP per infantry division or 7500 men, which I think matches German 1941 strength fairly well if you include both rifles and combat support but not command and logistics.
Bottom line the game breaker is that SA/HA/GD bonus from techs can't be scaled based on the division size, thus the smaller divisions get disproportionate benefits from tech upgrades.
Originally posted by Steel
Hmm, no
The current HoI cost is 10 MP per infantry division or 7500 men, which I think matches German 1941 strength fairly well if you include both rifles and combat support but not command and logistics.
Bottom line the game breaker is that SA/HA/GD bonus from techs can't be scaled based on the division size, thus the smaller divisions get disproportionate benefits from tech upgrades.
Word of advice: Never do mathematics while on cold medicine.
I read over the linked page, and while I disagree with the analysis, it does make several valid points. with the current 10MP per division, I don't think it would be out of order to raise the MP costs, if only to reflect the inclusion and necessity of those non-combat services. Raising the cost to 14MP per division should have the desired effects. It should reduce the total number of divisions, and shouldn't break the minors.
I do agree with you about how the techs interact with the units. It does pose some problems, but we are limited by what can be modded, and the nature of the game engine itself. as all divisions, with nationality irrelevant, it gives more power to the minors, and actually weakens the big powers.
Manpower
It seems we have a thorny problem here. Manpower is not calculated from a single conversion factor, different countries have different organizational structures, and different division strengths (in number of soldiers).
Well, this is what I propose to solve this:
1. Fix 1 MP = 1000 men. It is a round number, allows for easy calculation, and it is easier to work with then 1 MP = 750 men.
2. Set standard division size at 15,000 men and standard MP cost for that division at 15 MP.
2. Recalculate manpower for all majors using the above conversion factor and standard division size compared to actual
division size fo the country.
4. Assume that 3 regiment divisional organization is standard.
Example:
A country X historically mobilized 200,000 soldiers. Its divisions were of standard 3 regiment organization and tipically contained 20,000 soldiers. Standard division size would give it 200 MP. Actual MP needs to be corrected based on the ratio of standard division size and actual division size. Ratio is 15,000 / 20,000 or 0.75. Country X should be given a manpower of 0.75 * 200.
Country X ends up with manpower of 150.
One problem with this approach happens when a country is annexed into another one. Manpower coming from different country pools is not compatible. However, the effects of this on actual gameplay should be very small, since most countries only draw manpower from their core provinces, which reflect their historical sources of conscription anyway.
Another problem might happen with the balancing different organizational structures. As noted on this thread, the two majors with unusual divisional organizational structures were Italy and Japan. However, Italy's approach can be said to simulate 3 regiment approach when corps-attached batallions are taken into effect. Japan on other hand changed its organizational approach during the war, so I don't think it will be such a major issue.
The third thing we need to do is check how those elite unit techs and techs that change organizational structure of divisions affect manpower ('44 units etc).
However, for all this to work, someone has to recalculate all the manpower pools for 1936 OOB, as well as manpower gains during the scenario duration.
Another issue I'd like to raise are standard defitions of just what goes into manpower pools. It seems to me that we tend to use wildly different sources and methodologies to determine manpower figures. Some put in support personnel, some don't. Some count reserve forces, some count mobilization plan figures, other estimate total possible manpower potential from population figures. I'd like to setup a set of guidelines of what is and what isn't considered manpower in CORE. Suggestions, comments, anyone?
Zerli
It seems we have a thorny problem here. Manpower is not calculated from a single conversion factor, different countries have different organizational structures, and different division strengths (in number of soldiers).
Well, this is what I propose to solve this:
1. Fix 1 MP = 1000 men. It is a round number, allows for easy calculation, and it is easier to work with then 1 MP = 750 men.
2. Set standard division size at 15,000 men and standard MP cost for that division at 15 MP.
2. Recalculate manpower for all majors using the above conversion factor and standard division size compared to actual
division size fo the country.
4. Assume that 3 regiment divisional organization is standard.
Example:
A country X historically mobilized 200,000 soldiers. Its divisions were of standard 3 regiment organization and tipically contained 20,000 soldiers. Standard division size would give it 200 MP. Actual MP needs to be corrected based on the ratio of standard division size and actual division size. Ratio is 15,000 / 20,000 or 0.75. Country X should be given a manpower of 0.75 * 200.
Country X ends up with manpower of 150.
One problem with this approach happens when a country is annexed into another one. Manpower coming from different country pools is not compatible. However, the effects of this on actual gameplay should be very small, since most countries only draw manpower from their core provinces, which reflect their historical sources of conscription anyway.
Another problem might happen with the balancing different organizational structures. As noted on this thread, the two majors with unusual divisional organizational structures were Italy and Japan. However, Italy's approach can be said to simulate 3 regiment approach when corps-attached batallions are taken into effect. Japan on other hand changed its organizational approach during the war, so I don't think it will be such a major issue.
The third thing we need to do is check how those elite unit techs and techs that change organizational structure of divisions affect manpower ('44 units etc).
However, for all this to work, someone has to recalculate all the manpower pools for 1936 OOB, as well as manpower gains during the scenario duration.
Another issue I'd like to raise are standard defitions of just what goes into manpower pools. It seems to me that we tend to use wildly different sources and methodologies to determine manpower figures. Some put in support personnel, some don't. Some count reserve forces, some count mobilization plan figures, other estimate total possible manpower potential from population figures. I'd like to setup a set of guidelines of what is and what isn't considered manpower in CORE. Suggestions, comments, anyone?
Zerli
C.O.R.E Concerns
New to this forum and the one found at RoadToWar.com.
As a long time player of historical war simulations, I am often impressed by the modifications created by the gaming community. HoI is no exception and I kindly ask for the opportunity to comment on what I have read thus far.
Personally, I enjoy historical accuracy in war simulations; particularly, games that are primarily tactical representations of the Second World War. Nothing more frustrating than having your veteran Panther tank defeated by a crummy 30mm AT gun. However, HoI is a grand strategic representation of the Second World War and I question the supposed need for greater historical accuracy.
One of the charming aspects of the game is that it constantly allows you to reshape the course of history from 1936-1948. You are essentially guaranteed a different outcome every time you play. In my opinion, this is something that ought not to be tampered with even if it means sacrificing historical accuracy. Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor should not be historical triggers. Nor should any other major battle of the Second World War. Otherwise, you risk suffocating imagintive gameplay and simply create a re-enactment of the war.
There is nothing wrong with 'flavour' or triggers that gently push nations to war. All the major powers of this era, as well as a few minor players, were preparing for war; thus, I agree war ought to be inevitable in most circumstances. However, it is important that gamers are free to choose various paths and timetables for war and not be frustrated by the supposed need for certain events to occur. Subsequently, the inclusion of historical outcomes, say the disastorous collapse of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad or the sinking of the Hood or Bismarck , may hinder the gameplay rather than enhance it. Any tweaking in this respect, ought to be handled with the greatest care to avoid upsetting HoI's greatest assest: the ability to reshape history.
Incidentally, I noticed a lack of historical blunders on the list of events. Military blunders were often the hallmark of Allied operations. Perhaps, some of these ought to be considered, e.g. the Bristish Navy sinking French ships in port after the fall of France (not realising many French sailors were still on the ships) or the Slapton Sands disaster (U-Boats find there way into an Allied training exercise off the coast of England and wreak havoc).
I certainly agree the economic model lacks depth and would like to see enhancements to the global economy. Again, I caution the need for complete historical accuracy. For me, historical plausibility is more important than historical accuracy (though I recognize one must be reasonably accurate to create plausibility). In other words, let us not limit the imagination of gamers but one must not expect to create a superpower out of Albania in merely a decade.
The concern of equipment, materiel, and technology is a difficult one. Due to the scale, i.e. regiments and divisions, it is not always easy to reflect changes in technology. For example, the introduction of the submachine gun increases infantry's ability to fight in close quarters but is every soldier in the unit equipped with one? And if submachine gun is not an automatic unit upgrade would the tedium of upgrading and redeploying infantry units remove some of the fun from the game?
Consequently, I admire the spirit and enthusiasm of those involved with the HoI C.O.R.E project and hope others do not construe this as an attack. I encourage anything that adds to the appeal of this era in modern history without disrupting HoI's most engaging aspect: the ability to reshape history. Perhaps, I am overstating things; nonetheless, these are my two cents for what it's worth.
New to this forum and the one found at RoadToWar.com.
As a long time player of historical war simulations, I am often impressed by the modifications created by the gaming community. HoI is no exception and I kindly ask for the opportunity to comment on what I have read thus far.
Personally, I enjoy historical accuracy in war simulations; particularly, games that are primarily tactical representations of the Second World War. Nothing more frustrating than having your veteran Panther tank defeated by a crummy 30mm AT gun. However, HoI is a grand strategic representation of the Second World War and I question the supposed need for greater historical accuracy.
One of the charming aspects of the game is that it constantly allows you to reshape the course of history from 1936-1948. You are essentially guaranteed a different outcome every time you play. In my opinion, this is something that ought not to be tampered with even if it means sacrificing historical accuracy. Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor should not be historical triggers. Nor should any other major battle of the Second World War. Otherwise, you risk suffocating imagintive gameplay and simply create a re-enactment of the war.
There is nothing wrong with 'flavour' or triggers that gently push nations to war. All the major powers of this era, as well as a few minor players, were preparing for war; thus, I agree war ought to be inevitable in most circumstances. However, it is important that gamers are free to choose various paths and timetables for war and not be frustrated by the supposed need for certain events to occur. Subsequently, the inclusion of historical outcomes, say the disastorous collapse of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad or the sinking of the Hood or Bismarck , may hinder the gameplay rather than enhance it. Any tweaking in this respect, ought to be handled with the greatest care to avoid upsetting HoI's greatest assest: the ability to reshape history.
Incidentally, I noticed a lack of historical blunders on the list of events. Military blunders were often the hallmark of Allied operations. Perhaps, some of these ought to be considered, e.g. the Bristish Navy sinking French ships in port after the fall of France (not realising many French sailors were still on the ships) or the Slapton Sands disaster (U-Boats find there way into an Allied training exercise off the coast of England and wreak havoc).
I certainly agree the economic model lacks depth and would like to see enhancements to the global economy. Again, I caution the need for complete historical accuracy. For me, historical plausibility is more important than historical accuracy (though I recognize one must be reasonably accurate to create plausibility). In other words, let us not limit the imagination of gamers but one must not expect to create a superpower out of Albania in merely a decade.
The concern of equipment, materiel, and technology is a difficult one. Due to the scale, i.e. regiments and divisions, it is not always easy to reflect changes in technology. For example, the introduction of the submachine gun increases infantry's ability to fight in close quarters but is every soldier in the unit equipped with one? And if submachine gun is not an automatic unit upgrade would the tedium of upgrading and redeploying infantry units remove some of the fun from the game?
Consequently, I admire the spirit and enthusiasm of those involved with the HoI C.O.R.E project and hope others do not construe this as an attack. I encourage anything that adds to the appeal of this era in modern history without disrupting HoI's most engaging aspect: the ability to reshape history. Perhaps, I am overstating things; nonetheless, these are my two cents for what it's worth.
The same logic would say that a division should have 2-4, or even 10 times as much MP to simulate the logistics tail that a combat division needs to operate. Armies don't account for the RAMFs.