C.O.R.E HOI - Far East (Japan-Nationalist China-ChiCom-Siam-Phillipines)

[Steel]

Ok, I think I've sorted the last problems with japan_central.ai. I've made some event updates and .ai updates as well, run a few test games and let me know what you think. It looked solid to me

EDIT: Removed screenshots.

The final annexation of NatChi was 18/7 1942, the Kiri Project never happened.

Japan lost Khalkin Ghol, didn't go for the Opportunism vs USSR and never had the North vs South event. They fought with the wrong AI vs the USA and allies but still managed to take some of Philippines and put up a good fight against US navy and airforce. I stopped the test game in 1945 with a massive Axis victory (approx 525 vs 125 vs 25 VP).

Japan never joined the Axis, I'm thinking about adding an event that has Japan joining the Axis after the Bitter Peace if there is an Axis vs Allies war and a Japan vs Allies war. Same thing could be done for USA.


EDIT: I should add that Japan had the world's third largest navy and army, with it's airforce coming in at 6th place. It had about 15 armor/mech divs

 

[unmerged(2826)]

Did you check my previous post? Maybe that's helpful to you

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by emperor dennis
Did you check my previous post? Maybe that's helpful to you

I think we are approaching the same problem from opposite directions You've got Japan leaving the Axis if there's a GER vs SOV war but in my handsoff games I've never seen JAP as part of the Axis. My approach instead is that if JAP is not yet at war with USA when the GER vs SOV war starts, then Japan does join the Axis (95%).

If Japan defeats China (through Kiri Project or annexation) before getting into any war with USA, Allies or ComIntern then the AI is switched to japan_south.ai which so far has proven quite aggressive in DOW'ing the US etc. Actually scripting a DOW on the US is basically not needed and I don't want to force Germany into a war against US either (historically this was Hitler's choice, not a treaty obligation).

 

[unmerged(2826)]

This is actually what I wanted to achieve:
- Anti-Commintern Pact; Japan joins the Axis; maybe some economical benefits
-After Molotow-Ribbentorp (historical choices) Japan would leave Axis again (as in real life)
-When Japan has Pearl Harbour event it joins the Axis (I don't think Germany would have any options as US would join the Allies so it would be at war with them allready)
-A Ruso-Japanese non-agression pact with choices for both nations
-If Japan ever turns out to be atwar with USSR or vice-versa it gets the option to honour the pact or to dishonour it, however if Germany would be defeated USSR gets an event in wich it promises Allies to help out in the East(war vs. Japan in 3 months or so)

I think this would ensure Japan to get in Axis and US in allies wich is currently lacking sometimes.

 

[Steel]

There appears to be a CTD or game hang problem in mid-1941. If anybody is using the latest version of the nomonhan.zip I'd recommend monthly auto-saves during 1941 and if you get a crash send me the zipped save-game. I'll try and identify the source of the problem today.

 

[Generalisimo]

have you checked this thread?
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68144
maybe you find some info...

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Generalisimo
have you checked this thread?
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68144
maybe you find some info...

Thanks but yeah, I follow it. I don't want to go into leader or unit name mods right now, we'll see what Paradox adds to 1.04 and then I'll work on that basis.

 

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Steel
Thanks but yeah, I follow it. I don't want to go into leader or unit name mods right now, we'll see what Paradox adds to 1.04 and then I'll work on that basis.

he modified not only leaders, he added a lot of nations too to represent the situation of china...
he tweak a lot of things...
and seeing that he is from Taiwan and he can read russian and chinese, well, he must have good sources
we can leave the work on leaders/ministers to him, i am suggesting that thread to you, so you can look at the events/configuration for more new things to add to CORE.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Generalisimo
he modified not only leaders, he added a lot of nations too to represent the situation of china...
he tweak a lot of things...
and seeing that he is from Taiwan and he can read russian and chinese, well, he must have good sources
we can leave the work on leaders/ministers to him, i am suggesting that thread to you, so you can look at the events/configuration for more new things to add to CORE.

I'm sure I could use up half the nation tags just to model China differently, but I'm not sure it would add all that much to the game If somebody else wants to integrate this stuff that's fine

IMHO I think the leaders and unit names are the best stuff there, that's why I mentioned it specifically. That stuff should be easy to integrate at a later stage. AFAIK the only event he's got is the modified Sian Incident (with the added sleep_leader) but maybe I've missed something.

As far as the German-trained divisions (one of the scenarios focuses on this) are concerned I've got that on my to-do list, basically I think I'll do rubber from NatChi to represent tungsten shipments in return for supplies, tech and/or new divisions. It could lead to a very different war if Germany doesn't break it's links with NatChi and actively assists them against Japan.

 

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Steel
I'm sure I could use up half the nation tags just to model China differently, but I'm not sure it would add all that much to the game If somebody else wants to integrate this stuff that's fine

IMHO I think the leaders and unit names are the best stuff there, that's why I mentioned it specifically. That stuff should be easy to integrate at a later stage. AFAIK the only event he's got is the modified Sian Incident (with the added sleep_leader) but maybe I've missed something.

As far as the German-trained divisions (one of the scenarios focuses on this) are concerned I've got that on my to-do list, basically I think I'll do rubber from NatChi to represent tungsten shipments in return for supplies, tech and/or new divisions. It could lead to a very different war if Germany doesn't break it's links with NatChi and actively assists them against Japan.

i don't think adding all that nations will add much to the game, because you can easilly annex them at the beggining, so they will last just two months...
but, it will be good to add something to represent what would had happened if Germany continued their relationship with NatCHi...

 

[unmerged(13601)]

Japan AI

OK, I'm going slightly off topic here, but bear me out. Steel, you've been messing around with the Japan file and in the suggestions forum you mentioned giving Japan an area modifier of 2.0 for korea, meaning it will attempt to have twice the amount of troops in mainland asia as are needed to have a division count of 1 per province (if I read the files right). Well, I've been tweaking the Italian AI files, after Albanian annexation (39 scenario). I used an area modifier of 1.5 for albania, home was 0.9 and africa was also 0.9. The astonishing result was that Italy stationed all bomber squads and 11 army divisions in Tirana. This was not the result of the country priorities, as at the time of stationing there were no Greek or Yugoslav troops bordering albania. This made conquest of Greece simple of course (Italy declared war on its own before joining Axis), but in the process of conquering greece it stripped north africa of all troops and mainland Italy of all troops with the exception of fighter squadrons and 8 divisions guarding Rome, Napels, messina and syracuse (provinces with a province priority).
To put it simple, how come the 1.5 area modifier has this effect? And how come North Africa and Venice were completely stripped although I had country priorities of 200 for Yug and UK? Italy garrisoned the borders well during peacetime, but why strip them to feed the war in greece (I know I'm complaining that the AI was too effective, as Greece was subdued in no time and Italy even conquered Crete by itself without an invasion AI and sunk 3/4 of the UK mediteranean fleet in the process and I should be happy to have succeeded in creating an effective AI, but it was not what I intended)? How did you succeed with Japan having an area modifier of 2 for Korea but still having garrisons in the japanese islands? Especially after the war starts in mainland china. Is the only way to counter the area priority to implement province priorities so those provinces at least won't be stripped completely? I wasn't able to test this as when I changed the AI Italy didn't attack Greece. And by the way, how does the AI reach a decision to attack a country and is the only modifier to that the aggressiveness?

p.s. Other question: is there a way to have different retreat values for navy and army? This because when addding an admiral section to the German AI they lose the greater part of their fleet in no time after war with the allies starts because the fleets don't retreat when facing overwhelming odds. after outbreak of war UK, France and Australia (what are they doing in Europe in 39) race into the south north sea and Helgoland bight with 30+ fleets and wipe out the German fleet as the Germans don't retreat against those odds.

 

[Steel]

I've used the min_garrison_prop to maintain area garrisons. As far as I could tell the way it works is that if you set max to 0.8 and min to 0.3 then the AI will assign 80% of army and air units to garrison duty, this is then placed according to the province values, VP multiplier, area multiplier etc. If a Front AI then requests troops the Garrison AI will let go of troops, bringing the number of units under its control down gradually to a minimum of 30%.

Try tweaking it gradually, also look at max_front_ratio and war_zone_odds. Remember the multipliers really change things so use small changes.

Ref. the navy and airforce, it seems we have pretty limited control of them so far. You can tell the navy to patrol sea zones and dock in certain harbors, that's about it AFAIK.

 

[Generalisimo]

how exactly does the war_zone_odds works?

 

[donkeysaint]

Hello everyone!

As this is my first post I'll give you a quick intro. I been hanging around these forums since a couple of months before the realese, and been playing the game since it's been out. I allways use as much moding as possible (do some myself) and especially events (which I only edit/change ). They are IMO one of the most important parts of the game. And these are really good, great work Steel!

To my question: I get a bit annoyed when things (event-chains) that would happen during a few weeks/months historically, happen instantly in the game. Examples:

1. The Winter War took a quite a while to start from the first Soviet threats/claims. There was a lot of talking going on with Finnish ministers (the foreign minister?) flying back and forth to Moscow before the guns took over. A peacefull solution wasn't actually that far from being settled.

2. When Germany gives the Danzig or War ultimatum, the Poles should have at least 24h to think about it. Not two "clicks" (don't know if that was what really happend though, Hitler would probably have invaded anyway...).

3. The Khalkin Ghol incident (I really like this one BTW) took several months of figthing before being finished with Zhukovs tanks running around and over the Japanese. I know this isn't any new info, but I can't help hating it when it all happens at once in the game. I wan't to enjoy it longer .

I suppose there are lots and lots more examples, but I believe I made my point.

So, what can be done? As I hinted before, I'm no-good at writing events myself. When I try to alter to much it allways get f****d up. But I guess that's what we have guys like you for, right Steel .

What I tryed to do was to give a date or delay to the later events in the chain. If we take Khalkin Ghol as an example, the first things should happen somewhere around May, with the chain-of-events getting unfolded during the summer and leading up to the humiliating Japanese defeat somewhere in mid August (historicaly, that is).

What do you say, is it anything to be botherd with?

 

[Steel]

Hey Barrabas, welcome on board and thanks for the feedback I know where you are coming from with the event delay, for example with Nomonhan Incident it would be great if the Japanese and Russians actually had a few weeks to move troops towards the border between the outbreak of the incident and the actual climax of the event.

With the tools available right now, I think I can do it one of two ways:

1 - Historical dates for each step of the event, each triggered on a selected date if a previous event happened (using bridge events where choices determine follow-on events). This becomes very predictable but it does allow the kind of setup you like

2 - Semi-historical start dates with actual dates in game somewhat offset. This is the current method. Once the first event fires, all others follow immediately because I can't code them to fire at +X days

Right now I'm pretty busy with AI files, but perhaps once the main body of work is done I'll be able to duplicate some of the event chains and create an alternate set using the first method or maybe Paradox will provide another trigger set that will help. For some event chains it might be possible to use a hybrid method by controlling the offsets quite tightly.

I'll think more about this and see what I can come up with Thanks again for the feedback, it's very good for my motivation

 

[unmerged(14603)]

Have you considered a chain of events where event 2 has event = 1 as a trigger, event 3 has event = 2, etc. If you put an offset on each dependent event (say 30) then each dependent event will trigger on average 15 days after the previous one. In this example a 3rd event would trigger on average 30 days after the first. The results will vary each time (maybe not a bad thing) but you can achieve reasonable consistency of delay after the first event.

 

[donkeysaint]

Thanks Steel, it feels good to be out of the shadows.

I think mikel is on to something here. That was pretty much my idea when I tryed to change them in the first place. And if they trigger a bit randomly that's even better, right? Would it work?

EDIT: I just found this at Yogis New Order thread:

Originally posted by mikel
I ran an experiment with the random = clause. I made 5 events, the second dependent on the first, etc with an offset of 10 days each. Ran the test 10 times. With no random = clause I got an average length of 25 days to trigger the 5th event (just what I would have expected). EDIT I am running the random = 33 tests now (my first test with random = 33 was invalid because I forgot to remove the "#" symbol !)

UPDATE: Finally finished the random = 33 tests. The 5th event triggered on average at 126 days (about when I would expect it).
It appears the random = clause is working as intended and should not be adversely affecting your results Yogi.

 

[unmerged(14603)]

Just in case it’s of use I experimented with the Nomohan events using my suggested trigger sequence. A short summary (skipping obvious lines) of the events follow:

NewEvent1 - Japanese Heads Up
country = JAP
desc = “Trouble on the Mongolian border”
date = {day = 20 month = may year = 1939}
offset = 60 #or whatever you prefer, average interval = ½ offset
command = {trigger = NewEvent2} # No action – just a heads up for JAP/SOV

NewEvent2 – Soviet Heads Up
country = SOV
desc = “Trouble on the Mongolian border”
command = { } # No action – just a heads up

Event 220002
Country = same as now
Desc = same as now
Trigger same as now plus event = NewEvent1
Date = {day = 20 month = may year = 1939}
Offset = 90 #or whatever you prefer, average interval = ½ offset
Deathdate = {day = 30 month = december year = 1939}
Actions same as now – 3 options

All other events – no change

I did 10 trials. The “Main Event” – 220002 triggered (12,1,70,54,23,65,32,36,23,81) days after the “heads up” events with the average = 40 days (with infinite trials the average would have been 45 days). Players will have had anywhere from 0 to 90 days to prepare. If you want the “main event” to trigger closer to the original 20-May-39 to 20-July-39 period then move the warning event up to an earlier date and/or reduce the offset of NewEvent1 and/or Event 220002. To reduce/increase the average time to prepare just change the offset for event 220002.

Hope this is of some use.

 

[unmerged(2826)]

I might know a way to make the Soviet-Japanese non-agression treaty work:
-After Pearl Harbor event Japan would join the Axis and USA the allies; offcourse Germany would have the option not to allow the Japanese.
-Then normally GER would be at war with SOV; so the trigger would be IF JAP=atwar with SOV they can respect the treaty (peace wich=SOV) or to keep fighting. I think peace wich= SOV would make them at peace with the Commintern but they would stay at war with the Allies. Right??? Ofcourse there should be events concerning Japanese reactions on the MR-pact and the creation of the non-agression treaty (linked with Nomohan events somehow). Would this work and if not, how could you make it work???

 

[Steel]

Mikel, looks like good work. I'm looking mainly at Korea and China right now but I'll get around to reviewing the Nomonhan Incident at some point and see if we can get some time between each event. I really wish I could dynamically tell the AI to increase troop levels on a border without switching an entire AI file.

Emperor Dennis, I think I see where you are coming from but I'm not really convinced about having a Pearl Harbour event. Are you using the events I've already written? I quite often see Japan join the Axis and I'm seeing a war against USA and Allies in every game (starts in 1941 or 1942).

- Japan fights SOV when there's an ahistorical Nomonhan Incident outcome...
- or Japan joins the Axis due to the Opportunism event...
- or Japan joins the Axis due to Moscow falling (diplo system)...
- or Japan fights SOV due to Japan's Choice event (ahistorical choice), also typically joins the Axis.

I don't think Japan would have honoured the non-aggression treaty any more than the USSR did (ie if Moscow had fallen and Stalin started peace negotiations with Germany then Japan would have joined the war).

I suppose it really comes down to how deterministic we want the game to be. IMHO the historical outcome was unlikely.