Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. : HARD C.O.R.E. - ideas, suggestions, solutions...

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.
Originally posted by saintsup
Are CORE AI's on par with the best efforts in the AI enhancement project forum ?
Click to expand...

Since C.O.R.E. differs in many aspects from the vanilla HoI (techs, new countries, stats of units), AI enhancement project elements can't be implemented in the C.O.R.E. directly, but we use info posted there as the reference for our own AI files system. :D
 
I've got some questions about the new "general/admiral dies" events. What exactly triggers this event? Second, how does the event decide who dies? Playing the USA, I have now lost four generals and one admiral by the spring of 1943. Only the admiral was actually in play, and he wasn't actively in combat. Just curious, because the generals were four I didn't recognize, but the admiral was Chester Nimitz - ouch!
Otherwise, I'm still wading through my first v0.62 game and I like it. Keep up the great work!
 
Originally posted by ArmdChair
I've got some questions about the new "general/admiral dies" events. What exactly triggers this event? Second, how does the event decide who dies? Playing the USA, I have now lost four generals and one admiral by the spring of 1943. Only the admiral was actually in play, and he wasn't actively in combat. Just curious, because the generals were four I didn't recognize, but the admiral was Chester Nimitz - ouch!
Otherwise, I'm still wading through my first v0.62 game and I like it. Keep up the great work!
Click to expand...

Nimitz?! Sweet! Only Patton's death would be more annoing... :D

Those events got simple triggers - USA (or Germany, they also got similar events...) got to be at war to have small chance (3-5%) for death of random leader. As it's impossible to check, if leader is actually commanding or fighting, random trigger is the only way to implement that.

And 5 leaders killed up to date means that you are extremely unlucky with those events - chance for those is rather like 1 leader per year.

As far as I know, Birch (leader of minister/leader project) discussed some events that kill leaders/ministers that died historically from natural causes.
 
Thanks for the info. Wouldn't have minded losing Patton as much because their are so many replacements. I guess I would prefer that the USA had more admirals in the game (no matter their leadership skills). I'm working on that one right now, but it looks like I'm going to have to use non-digital sources. Oh, the pain!
 
Copying and pasting a post here, from one i made in the Modifications forum.

It's not all entirely relevant, but hey... you guys should have a look.

----------------------------

This, is completely a wish, and most likely impossible.

Though, its a great idea, and should be looked into, if not here, and now, then possibly for mods, and if thats not possible, then HoI2, or some precursor.

Anyways, my idea is basic.

It stem's from British actions during the war.

I believe that commanders should get negative penalties to attack efficiency. The way they could do this could be simple.

If a commander loses a battle, maybe they could take a large hit to their experience/skill.

This would put a lot of emphasis into continuing those costly battles that did happen. (We wouldn't want to make our General's worse, and they wouldn't of wanted to lose)

Another way this could happen, would be if it were possible to make temporary traits, for individual units/Armies.

Say we have Auchinleck in charge of the Eighth Army. He loses, two battles to Rommel, and his attack/defense efficency could be lowered by 10-20% with the Eighth Army, or any of the divisions there. (Because they lose confidence in him)


Therefore, you would need to replace him, withsomeone else, and move Auchinleck to another Army and other divisions.

These traits could also be temporary, lets say, 5% efficency hurt for every battle lost with a Mg, and 5% for a Lt. Gen, 10% for a General, and 15% for a Field Marshal. However, these penalties would only last with the divisions for... say a month (starting at defeat).


On the same note, an efficency modifier could be added on the opposite effect, for a General that does well and wins.

(Same numbers and everything)

I'm, getting excited just thinking about it!

That would throw a very, VERY, interesting (and realistic) twist into the game.

I know that this is probably impossible to use now, but I think Paradox should dearly consider this for future games, WW2 or not.




=) What do you guys think?
 
Originally posted by Renown
Copying and pasting a post here, from one i made in the Modifications forum.

It's not all entirely relevant, but hey... you guys should have a look.
(...)
Click to expand...

Interesting idea... but for HoI 2. Sorry, but with current game engine it is impossible to to rise/lower commander experience (and the command rising/lowering skill of the commander was buggy and is not used since HoI 1.04). :(

Besides, there is no possibility to check, if the battle is conducted/won/lost.
 
Any thoughts of 'expanding' the tech tree to advance up through the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc...??

I have added a "No Time Limit" to the CORE 6.2 mod and LOVE it! :) Though it would be nice to be able to advance even farther in tech. I could see advancing to F15s and M1A1 tanks! :)


Wishful thinking....I guess I could help with this if anyone wants me to :)
 
Regarding expansion of tech tree

Originally posted by Indiana
Any thoughts of 'expanding' the tech tree to advance up through the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc...??

I have added a "No Time Limit" to the CORE 6.2 mod and LOVE it! :) Though it would be nice to be able to advance even farther in tech. I could see advancing to F15s and M1A1 tanks! :)


Wishful thinking....I guess I could help with this if anyone wants me to :)
Click to expand...

Well this is not as easy as it may seem. Expanding in to later era's is not just a matter of adding techs to the tech tree. C.O.R.E. tries not only to improve the tech tree but also the historical feel of the game through events and doing soo for the later periods is not really possible with the current game engine because there are too many things that cant be portraided like the UN fx and tons of other stuff that just doesnt fit the game.

Ghost_dk
 
Hey Copper,

Are you absolutely, positively sure that the "leader dies" events only fires on a 5% chance. I don't think I've missed one yet. Where is the randomizer that the event is using?
I also don't quite understand how the leader is picked out by looking at the event coding. Know who might be able to answer that?
C.O.R.E. v0.63 is looking good so far. But that's for another thread! Thanks in advance for whatever info you can pass on.
 
Im not Copper, but i think i can answer you ArmdChair. ;)

The leader dies events have a random = 5 trigger, that doesnt exactly mean that it has an overall 5% chance to happen., it has 5% chance to happen EACH time the triggers are checked (offset). IIRC those events have 30 days offset, so that 5% is checked each 30 days. Also there are several of those events, one per year at war, i think, so the real chance of getting at least 1 of your leaders kiled is very, very high.

About how the killed leader is picked its quite simple... its ABSOLUTELLY RANDOM. Sorry, but theres no way to make the event check for a specific kind of leader or make it only search between active or inactive leaders.
 
Thanks for the quick answer Nachinus! So far, I'm pretty sure that I lose a leader a year. Not bad by combat status, for sure, but my second or third loss one game was Chester Nimitz (which I boo-hooed about earlier). If the USA had more Grand Admirals, I suppose I would feel the loss less. I wasn't interested in changing the event (it's fine by me), but was just wondering why it seemed to hit me so much.
 
To clear things up...

After the lecture of this thread so far I've noticed, that the topic is probably not clear enough for the other readers. It mostly my fault, since I didn't explain what "HARD C.O.R.E." is. :D


HARD C.O.R.E. is the name of project aiming for more challenging game of CORE, without mayor changes in the basic game scenario (so the game should still be playable for ANY nation).

So far you HARD C.O.R.E. consist of:

1) event allowing player to weaken his starting position (triggered at the start of the game,

2) series of the events for GER and USA creating various problems (dissent, resources drop, research sabotaged and so on), triggered by the higher levels of difficulty from event (1).

3) in case of the highest level of difficulty chosen in the event (1), main adversaries of the chosen country get some "boost" in doctrines.

3) in 0.7 - special technology given to the player, rising the cost of R&D, units and supply use.
 
Thanks for the clarification Copper.

By the way, what happens in the HARD C.O.R.E. events when a player's research is sabotaged? Playing the USA in v0.62, I have received an event about Congress cutting funding as militaristic. The event says that one (or more?) research projects have been sabotaged, but I don't notice any real result. Does this mean a project has lost its progress up to the event date. or something else? I may just not be watching my research progress closely enough. Thanks in advance.
 
A couple of times, now, when Congress cut my funding, a project was picked twice by the event. Its time went to more than it would have been if I just started afresh. I don't think this is a bug with the event scripting, but doesn't seem like a very good thing to be happening - if I notice it, I cancel the project and restart, but if I don't, I'm getting excessive handicap in that research path.

What I think is going on is that HOI does its random picks, figures out how many days it will have to add to the project time remaining, and then applies them when you "Ok" the event. So, if it picks a project twice, you end up with the total time of the project from scratch, PLUS the number of day equivalents you'd been researching it for.


In any case, I suggest that Congress funding cuts (and other tech "sabotage" in HARD C.O.R.E.) be spread out into more events so that this particular bug won't occur.
 
This is a compilation of a post that I made on roadtowar.com and some responses. I'm posting it here on the suggestion of JRaup over there.
-----------------------------------
I've been thinking that a nice addition to HoI and/or CORE would be additional historically based nation-specific techs. I know that some have already been added by CORE, such as Bushido Code and Kamikaze for Japan, and SS troopers and Blitzkrieg for Germany. So I've been trying to come up with a list of other relevant techs. Below is a description of some that I've thought about, followed by a suggestion of how each might be implemented in HoI. They're all US-centric, but I could see them being available to a few other countries as well. Obviously my knowledge of specialized equipment and tactics is limited to a few cases in only one country (I had a few others on my original post, but JRaup shot them to pieces). So please chime in with ideas from other countries as well. I think this entire scheme would be best implemented if all countries had at least one specialized tech.
_______________________________________________

Tech 1: Commerce Raiders (US)
Idea
What started me thinking along these lines is an article I just read about how the US converted B-25 and A-20 tactical bombers into naval attack gunships in the Pacific Theater. I believe the architect of the conversion was Major Paul "Pappy" Gunn. Each bomber had up to eight 50-cal guns added, and the bombers were used to attack Japanese shipping through the use of skip bombing tactics and strafing. In fact, it was stated in the article that each modified bomber had the firepower equivalent of an infantry company (or was it battalion... ArmdChair can help me here). These "commerce raiders" succeeded in sinking a large number of Japanese transports, destroyers, and capital ships.

Implementation
Tactical bomber units could be upgraded to Gunships. This would give them increased Naval Attack and Tactical Attack ratings, which would represent the vastly increased firepower of the 50-cal guns for strafing of ships and infantry on the ground. But I think this tech should have a Skip Bombing (see #2) tech as a prerequisite.
____________________

Tech 2: Skip Bombing(US)
Idea
A tactic implemented by the US Army and Navy for attacking Japanese ships. Bombers, both strat (B-17s and B-24s) and tac (B-25s and A-20s), would fly at very low altitudes towards a ship and drop bombs. The bombs would skip across the water, like a stone on a pond, and strike the ship in the side. This tactic provided the bombers with a larger target than usual (a ship's side from eye-level vs. its deck from high altitude) and made themselves a smaller target because of their smaller profile from head-on.

Implementation
Skip bombing would be one of the attack choices for tac bombers and naval bombers, and maybe even strat bombers. It would provide a bonus for the bombers' Naval Attack rating, and maybe even a damage bonus, but should have some negative value attached to it as well just so it's not used exclusively in place of standard Naval Attacks. I can't think of a good negative off-hand. Anyone?
____________________

Tech 3: Parafrag Bombs (US)
Idea
Another tactic that was devised by the same group was the use of parachute fragmentation ("parafrag") bombs for low-level bombing runs. I think someone other than Gunn came up with this idea. This allowed the bombers to fly at a very low altitude over the target, minimizing AA fire and often surprising the Japanese, and drop the bombs without getting caught in the blast.

Implementation
I don't think that this type of bomb necessarily did more damage than other types. So the only implementation that I can think of is: Increased chance of avoiding detection by the enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back