Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

BASIC FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL or WHAT IS C.O.R.E.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Re: So why should I choose this?

Originally posted by Perkele
What are the big diffrences between CORE and basic HoI?
More events, I know. But stuff like technology, manpowers etc. how have they changed?

I mean C.O.R.E doesn't exactly "say" as much as Improved Grand Campaign for EU1 does...
Click to expand...

  • 89 new AI files including highly developed research paths.
  • New countries including Euskadi, Catalunya, South Korea, North Korea, Ukraine, Inner Mongolia, Burma, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
  • New tech tree with completely revised naval and armor techs, national doctrines and added machine guns and cannons for aircraft...
  • Over 1500 events including C.O.R.E. events, the Bolted event pack and New Order events from Yogi.
  • New graphics for interface buttons, forts and more...
  • Uses mod-dir feature for compatibility with other mods and vanilla game.
  • Additonal difficulty setup for easier or harder game, with the highest option triggering additional events throughout the game.

Documenting every change in the mod would take a few weeks, so I suggest you download and try it out. If you don't like it there's always an option to uninstall :)
 
Re: So why should I choose this?

Originally posted by Perkele
What are the big diffrences between CORE and basic HoI?
More events, I know. But stuff like technology, manpowers etc. how have they changed?

I mean C.O.R.E doesn't exactly "say" as much as Improved Grand Campaign for EU1 does...
Click to expand...

looks like What Is CORE to me...
 
Originally posted by smark74
Also I would suggest that Each Nation (the main Players) should get a "Tec" but a little different. Like for Italy: Infantry -1IC, -15 Build Time, -5 Org. Armor +3IC, -30 BT, -10 Org. etc.. Italy built Bad Infantry and Worse Tanks (didn’t want to spend fuel on training = Too little recourses). We could also have –1MP for Italy… I dont see ANYTHIG wrong with making a Tec for each of the MAJOR nations, to tweak the stats for troops, tec or anything that makes them more realistc (like in my Rommel & Guderian Events).
Click to expand...

I do not think this is necessary. If the economic stats are right the Italians and Japanese troops will properly represented. Both countries had were poorly equipped. The Japanese were using colonial war weapons not suited for WWII warfare. However, this just means they lack technologies like the basic service rifle or basic GPMG. Also a lot can be accreddited to lack of communications. The Germans had modern radios and spent a lot of effort on the signal corps. Japan and Italy did not. Also these countries are behind on land doctrines. If the economy is set they will not catch up without giving up something they actually had. So their units will be cheaper, they will not have the extra techs. that add cost and time, and they will probably take longer to build due to not having mass production techs. for veicheles and infantry. I think the country system can do this without the need for country specific cheats.
 
Originally posted by McNaughton
....
Thinking back to France in 1940, I remember reading about the post Dunkirk evacuations that over 100 000 British soldiers remained in the rest of France after Dunkirk and had to be evacuated. These were signalmen, workers, RAF personell, etc. In HoI, these 100 000 don't really exist.
.....
Click to expand...

AFAIK major combat units were still deployed in the rest of France, I even think a Canadian division was landed, only to have to re-embark a few days latter. The withdrawl of these troops even had a codename, during which the Lancastrian disaster happened.
 
armyknife said:
AFAIK major combat units were still deployed in the rest of France, I even think a Canadian division was landed, only to have to re-embark a few days latter. The withdrawl of these troops even had a codename, during which the Lancastrian disaster happened.
Click to expand...

Can the AI be made to rush Allied units into Belgium when Germany attacks west (in '39 or whenever they get around to it)?
 
You should normally see a fairly high number of expeditionary forces in France. That's how the AI handles fighting on territory it does not control.
 
I find it odd that France never send expeditionary forces to Belgium. The entire idea of the Maginot Line was to hide behind it while doing the fighting in Belgium. I think if Germany should falter a bit France should sent exp. forces to Belgium and there they would do the usual French AI strategy of just sitting there.
 
This looks like a questions thread - I wouldn't want to be posting in the wrong place, as that kind of thing really does annoy me...

Anyway, would you agree that no matter how detailed, clear and straightforward a set of installation instructions are that there will inevitably be someone who will not be able to follow them, go to your subforum and ask 'how do I install the mod?' or even worse, start up a new thread with their plea?

CORE has been knocking around for a while now - do you still get people who do this? Are there still people who don't understand the installation instructions?
 
Allenby said:
CORE has been knocking around for a while now - do you still get people who do this? Are there still people who don't understand the installation instructions?
Click to expand...

With every new release :D

Ghost_dk
 
Allenby said:
Does CORE have less of these 'I cant install mod' questions than before?
Click to expand...

yes fortunately things do seem to have improved. The explanations both here, on the download page and in the FAQ seem to have helped.

Ghost_dk
 
Just Curious - How is the Info Researched.

Hello all,
I am relatively new to this game, but have been involved with many WWII games, and games which have mods;

I am curious - what resources do you use when researching game data, and how do you reach agreement that the info is accurate?

I have seen a ton of arguments over historical info, and it seems that often players will have a bias torwards one side or another - so that the data favors one side, is inaccurate or is just incomplete. Web data can hardly ever be verified unless the original source is referenced, and many reputable books by respectable authors have inaccurate info based on old data. Also, new "declassified" documents are becoming available all the time, which contradict many of the older "established" histories and statistics.

Is there a central repository where this data can be compiled and then reviewed or cross-referenced?

Is there a data rating system? For example a rating for how reliable the data seems based on source(s), dates, cross-reference matches, etc?

What are the main sources overall - and to waht extent are goverment records or national archives utilized?

I am interested in the CORE mod for what it might offer in terms of historical accuracy and more detailed gameplay, but I was deeply concerned when I read the comment "I will do some research and enter the data" or something similar - it made me curious as to how this data is obtained, and what the overall process entails.

Sincerely,
R McD
 
Wow. A post in a thread that hasn;r seen any action in 1.5 years... :p

as for source materials, for CORE1 we used all sorts of stuff. Alot of it was good old fashioned books (either in dev's personal collections or from libraries), "reliable" web sources (mainly university collections on line of documents, maps, etc), and personal research. We used to have a compiled list of all this, by sources available by each developer, but it has passed into Internet heaven.

Any disputes about information, or analysis, would be discussed not only among the dev's, but also in public discusion arenas such as here. We generally already had a general idea about things, so we could reach a consensus about specifics where deemed appropriate. What happened, more or less by default and by "evolution," was that we all had a "working knowledge" not only of history but of game play mechanics, and each developer had his/her own area of specialty (Naval, political, economic, etc) and had the lead for each of those areas. Given our base knowledge, we could fairly quickly and easilly recognize when something was "off" in terms of history.

There was/is no main source per se. We all use a number of various sources, from books and articles to government archives (on line and off line), to well researched web sites (there are a few very good ones out there), to personal investigations (interviews, first hand knowledge -we don't have that AFAIK-, to actually seeing sites in the RW). Some get discounted for one reason or another, but that has only happened with a few sources (3 IIRC).
 
tristam509 said:
I do not think this is necessary. If the economic stats are right the Italians and Japanese troops will properly represented. Both countries had were poorly equipped. The Japanese were using colonial war weapons not suited for WWII warfare. However, this just means they lack technologies like the basic service rifle or basic GPMG. Also a lot can be accreddited to lack of communications. The Germans had modern radios and spent a lot of effort on the signal corps. Japan and Italy did not. Also these countries are behind on land doctrines. If the economy is set they will not catch up without giving up something they actually had. So their units will be cheaper, they will not have the extra techs. that add cost and time, and they will probably take longer to build due to not having mass production techs. for veicheles and infantry. I think the country system can do this without the need for country specific cheats.
Click to expand...

In some of my games Italy and Japan lead in land technologies fairly early!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back