• Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

    Subscribe to the CK II Expansion and enjoy unlimited access to 13 major expansions and more!


  • Paradox Space Exploration Sale has arrived! Up to 75% off

    How's the space on your hard drive? Paradox wants to challenge your galaxy brain with a great selection of space exploration games - and they're all on sale for some very down-to-earth prices! The sale runs from May 4th until May 10th at 17:00 CEST / 08:00 PDT.


    May 4th - May 10th
  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

Ghost_dk

Chief of all Ghost Divisions
5 Badges
Feb 6, 2003
2.353
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Chaplain said:
That is a terrible idea (IMO) - the sharing of techs should be decreased, not increased. It's not just a matter of handing over some schematics - you've got to teach people, retool factories, reorganize tactics - I would increase the tech-sharing to no more than once per month, personally.

I have to agree with Chaplain. most MP groups are moving towards fewer shares. fx. one share/3 or even 6 months, and only to allies. Its more realistic that way.

Also we dont really have a way of changing this from the one week standard. If we did time would be increased not decreased, but then you would be able to adjust it yourself for your group.

Ghost_dk
 

boromir

Colonel
Oct 3, 2002
1.176
0
Imo, its best to play with no tech sharing at all between human players, regardless of whether they are in an alliance and with tech sharing to allied minor AI nations + assume military control of them, which actually makes them useful in an MP game.
 

unmerged(27197)

Recruit
Mar 26, 2004
9
0
I dont have any experience in MP games against human player the only times i played MP it was with a friend beeing on the same side like playing Germany/Japan or Germany/Italy so in case that the UDSSR is indeed overpowered i would like to have a look at history.

When Germany attacked the Soviets the setup of the red army was not prepared for an attack. The setup was designed for an offensiv operation not a defensiv one. This enabled the german army to surround big parts of the red army, gaining a lot of land in a relativ short time, destroying large parts of the red army and capturing massiv amounts of war material. (As an example nearly as much russian tanks as the complete german army had but they were of no use do to the fact that german and russian tanks used different kinds of fuel)

In Hoi you as a human player knows history so there is no way to implement it in the game.
Just see it from a different point of view.
The german policy in russia was cruel and this way they lost every support from the people living there helping the russian gouverment to stabilize the land and to create underground activities who themselfs delayed or destroyed supply and made it neccessary to deploy divisions to secure the supply lines.
The german human player knows this and so he can choose not to be that cruel
(In part it is allready seen in events, but there could be more events who will show this)

Something that can be modded in HOI is how the command structure of armies in the world worked.
There are two principles of how an army worked. You could think this is a doctrine but it is much more then that.
I dont know if i am able to translate it correctly so i am first using the german word then how it could be translated into english.

"Befehlstaktik" :"order-tactic"

"Auftragstaktik" :"instruction-tactic"


I am sure the translation is wrong just from reading it it simply sounds wrong
:rolleyes:

"Befehlstaktik" was the "basic doctrin" of nearly every army in the world with one exception ..the german army.
Trying to explain it now:
"Befehlstaktik" is when every war plan made was fully developed and then orders where given to every part of the army who was involved in the plan with full and complete instructions what to do when to do and whith how much material and man power to do.
positiv: Everyone knows what to do even single minded soldiers could perform tasks.
negativ: what happend when something unexpected happend ? (absolutly normal in a war as you all know)----- the whole plan simply failed
(to give a rather absurd example but it really happend---a tank task force was given the task to drive to position A then position B and there they should disable the "3" bunker there. So this task force drove to A then B and faced "4" fortifications...what has the task force done? they disabled 3 bunkers the last one was left intact.)
Yes this example sounds crazy but it really happend and it should only show what i mean.

"Auftragstaktik" on the other hand was a bit different. Lets say there is a war plan. Instructions are only given in the way what should be achieved and the general plan on how the different army components should work together to achieve the common goal. But every commander in charge had to decide how many material and how many manpower he wants to use for what part of the misssion.
An example:
Division A has the mission to take objectiv A,B,C and the create a bridgehead at objectiv D.
The commander of Division A looks at what kind of enemy he has to expect where and what kind of his troops could be used best.
Ok he chooses Brigade 1 to take point A
Brigade 2 to take point B
He splits Brigade 3 in two halfs, the first half takes C and the other hald is hold in reserve.
The engenieer bataillion attached to this division has to build the bridgehead and when secured the reserve will hold the position.
Division artillery will cover the engeneers and so on and so on....
Now every Brigade commander makes his decisions ....

I hope you know what i mean now.

And it is not a single doctrine it is something like a "basic" doctrine.
In game therms it would affect more or less every doctrine.
The manuever artillery doctrine would be more effectiv because it would be easier to co-operate and so on.

Another thing is the speed of the army. Tank armies could operate more independantly and be more flexible to different situations therefore they could have an increased speed rating.

I am no modder and so these are only some thoughts of mine.

Wish you all a good day and happy modding :)

really love your mod :D :eek:o
 

unmerged(25355)

Second Lieutenant
Feb 2, 2004
198
0
Chaplain said:
That is a terrible idea (IMO) - the sharing of techs should be decreased, not increased. It's not just a matter of handing over some schematics - you've got to teach people, retool factories, reorganize tactics - I would increase the tech-sharing to no more than once per month, personally.

The tech sharing system that HoI has now just does not work well. The idea was to replicate the tech sharing that historically occured between allies and friends (UK-USA, Germany-Japan). Perhaps tech sharing should be event driven and not a diplomatic function. Example, then a nation enters the war, an event triggers to allow the nation to give its puppets some "basic" techs (low level doctrines, rifles, etc.) Some events of this type are already in CORE, so the frame work is already there.

I agree that giving all the tech you want in a single day is not a good idea from a historical perspective, but from a MP game play perspective, it would eliminate the desire, especially amoungst the Allies, to pause the game to share tech, thus improving game play. I see where he is coming from, but I am not endorsing the idea.
 

unmerged(25898)

Sergeant
Feb 18, 2004
82
0
Our current 4-player multiplayer game (brits, ussr, germany, italy) we only allow sharing techs with allies. Brits got Canada, South Afrika, New Zealand and even France/Belgium as allies. Those allies are very important for britain and without tech sharing, britain would be severaly handicapped, when their allies would be useless with obsolote equipment.

Point just is that I like to play well every game I play. If currently I wanted to compete with britain, I would pretty much have to pause game every week. I have option to share tech to my allies once per week, so it's really hard for me not to use it.

Everyone hates my first suggestion, so I try to invent new one. It was 3AM when I wrote the first one, so that might explain it :)

One option would be the tech sharing events, but it would be pretty hard, when different people research different things. I would think that only very basic techs that britain got from the start, could be shared with events.

Other option would be giving british allies (New zealand, Australia, South Afrika and Canada) all the techs brits got from the start. Allies of the brits used pretty much the same kind of equipment than brits, so it wouldn't be historically incorrect to give them the same tech level. If this was done, tech sharing could be limited to once per 1 or two months or just increasing it's diplomatic costs to something like 5 per tech.

I am open to all suggestions, but I just don't like the current situation :)
 

unmerged(23025)

Private
Dec 3, 2003
20
0
Visit site
Multiplayer Difficulty Settings?

I am fotrunate enough to have 5 friends that join me for MP games, hosted over a LAN, each Friday evening. We play the three Axis majors, as well as USA, UK, and USSR. We are playing C.O.R.E., version .71 MP, HOI difficulty / aggressiveness settings, normal / normal, C.O.R.E. difficulty setting, Basic.

We like to keep the game historical, but one could probably guess that since we play with the C.O.R.E. mod.

We are considering changes to the various game options, when we begin the next game. Unfortunately, none of us completely understand the implications. I will attempt to ask a set of questions below in an organized format.

HOI Difficulty Setting:

Increasing the HOI difficulty setting appears to decrease the IC given to a player nation, but resources are not particulary difficult to obtain, so resource management actually seems to be easier, at least during peacetime. Does a higher difficulty setting increase R&D costs?

How about combat modifiers for the AI nations, are AI countries given any advantages at the higher difficulty settings?

HOI Aggressiveness Setting:

After scanning these discussion groups, I've concluded most experienced players choose the Normal setting, reducing the chance that AI nations will make poorly chosen attacks. Which setting most accurately simulates historical behavior by the AI nations?

C.O.R.E. Difficulty Setting:

To date, we have played our games at the Basic C.O.R.E. difficulty level. The increasing difficulty levels seem to promise additional resource management issues, as well as higher research costs, both desired by our group. However, the Hard C.O.R.E. setting appears to hand numerous technologies to the various nations we play, a good idea if the nation in question were AI controlled, not attractive when the recipient is a human.
Are the increased R&D costs, combined with the various challenging events, more than enough to negate the benefits of the tech gifts, or will we find the game more challenging at the moderate C.O.R.E. setting?

There are several additional issues, specifically relative to the MP game, that I would like to discuss, after obtaining a clearer understanding of these settings.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!
 
Last edited:

unmerged(14683)

HoI2 Shtrafnik
Feb 12, 2003
5.432
0
Visit site
Terhune said:
Increasing the HOI difficulty setting appears to decrease the IC given to a player nation, but resources are not particulary difficult to obtain, so resource management actually seems to be easier, at least during peacetime. Does a higher difficulty setting increase R&D costs?

Yes, it does. On the Hard level it rises your R&D cost/time by 10%, on V. Hard - 20% (while AI controlled nations get 10/20% bonus).

HARD C.O.R.E. highest level of difficulty also modifies R&D cost, rising it by 20% (time is not changed there).

Terhune said:
How about combat modifiers for the AI nations, are AI countries given any advantages at the higher difficulty settings?

In HoI AI countries get +10% combat modifier on the Hard level and 2-% on V. Hard.

In CORE, if you choose Hard C.O.R.E. highest level, mayor historical enemies of the human player get 3-4 land/air doctrines for free (this option is not suited for multiplayer games, as it will result in "free tech exchange").

Terhune said:
HOI Aggressiveness Setting:

After scanning these discussion groups, I've concluded most experienced players choose the Normal setting, reducing the chance that AI nations will make poorly chosen attacks. Which setting most accurately simulates historical behavior by the AI nations?

Normal level is probably the best, if you want to avoid AI reckless diplomatic actions, like DOWing you when not ready and so on. In general, I've never seen any hard proof that "Agressive AI" setting overrides settings in AI configuration files.

Terhune said:
C.O.R.E. Difficulty Setting:

To date, we have played our games at the Basic C.O.R.E. difficulty level. The increasing difficulty levels seem to promise additional resource management issues, as well as higher research costs, both desired by our group. However, the Hard C.O.R.E. setting appears to hand numerous technologies to the various nations we play, a good idea if the nation in question were AI controlled, not attractive when the recipient is a human.
Are the increased R&D costs, combined with the various challenging events, more than enough to negate the benefits of the tech gifts, or will we find the game more challenging at the moderate C.O.R.E. setting?

Some of the questions are answered above...
About the final question... I see Hard C.O.R.E. as totally focused on the single player games. Since AI uses same files on all the difficulty levels, adjusting difficulty is based on:

- minimalizing human player advantages (by reducing resouces, IC, R&D ability, rising cost of units, dissent, random events with various challeneges),

- giving some advantages to the AI in critical fields (costly and time-consuming doctrines).

Those changes are not very useful in multiplayer.

To summarize:

HoI difficulty levels - Hard/V. Hard are playable in MP,
HoI AI levels - playable, but no one really knows what it affects, ;)
HARD C.O.R.E. levels - prefered level is basic one (option A), option B is playable (it includes IC/resources reduction and random events), option C is not (due to the tech advantages system).

PS. Sorry for late answer. :)

There are several additional issues, specifically relative to the MP game, that I would like to discuss, after obtaining a clearer understanding of these settings.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help![/QUOTE]
 

unmerged(23025)

Private
Dec 3, 2003
20
0
Visit site
Copper Nicus said:
To summarize:

HoI difficulty levels - Hard/V. Hard are playable in MP,
HoI AI levels - playable, but no one really knows what it affects, ;)
HARD C.O.R.E. levels - prefered level is basic one (option A), option B is playable (it includes IC/resources reduction and random events), option C is not (due to the tech advantages system).

Thanks for the thorough response.

We just started a new three player game, last night, using HOI settings VH/N for difficulty / aggressiveness, respectively. We are playing on the second CORE setting, and so far, we are progressing nicely.

We have each experienced a number of HARD CORE events, a welcome surprise on this setting.

Our group, normally six, has agreed to use a number of house rules to bring additional balance and history to the game. One of our recent additions centers around the deployment of newly constructed / upgraded units. Our Soviet player routinely sends his army, all but roughly 10 divisions, into the upgrade pool on Jan 1, 1936, remaining unseen for years, and supplied at no cost, until it magically reappears at the Finnish border, equipped with the latest infantry weapons, supported by T-34s and Europe's largest air force. This situation manifested itself while playing on Normal/Normal HOI settings, various CORE settings.

Naturally, at Germany's request, we created a house rule stating all units must be deployed upon completion of construction / upgrade. Now our Soviet player sends his army into the upgrade pool, bringing units to within one day of construction / upgrade completion, and with careful management of his production, he is able to keep his invisible army strategy in play while complying with the house rule.

This situation can be rectified with additional house rules, but before we further tamper with the situation, I would like some input from experienced players.

What historical facet of WWII is being simulated by allowing units to be held in the force pool, without requiring supply?

Is there a way to simply require, through simple modding, that completed units, in the force pool, require supply, similar to units being redeployed?

In broad terms, I see and understand the logic behind most of HOI's basic design, but not the "force pool / no supplies required" element. I'm sure the folks working on CORE have discussed this situation at length, and I am curious if CORE's R&D costs have been calculated with this strategy in mind?

CORE has done an excellent job adjusting manpower and industrial levels for the major participants in the war, so the invisible army strategy inevitably benefits the Soviet Union far more than any other power. In our games, the USSR gets to magically plug along with an ailing economy, run by an oppressive regime, while maintaining the world's largest army, at no cost. Surely, Stalin would never have been secure with an army of ten divisions in the field between 1936 and 1939; he clearly faced perceived and unknown threats, internally, and externally, that do not exist in HOI, primarily because we have the benefit of hindsight. Has thought been given to a set of CORE events that create uprisings, and lots of them, throughout the Soviet Union, in areas that were fairly hostile to Stalin, Ukraine for example, unless armies are present in a given set of provinces?

Our group's overall objective is to allow each participating country considerable flexibility in setting a course of action, tempered by historical constraints. None of us has a problem with the Soviet Union, or any other power, reducing their military deployments in an effort to save resources, but a realistic price must be paid. The UK, and particularly the US, could afford to reduce peacetime armies to a minimum. France, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were caught up in a series of internal and external issues that required considerable forces available, in the field, on an immediate basis. An invisible army, with upgraded capabilities, requiring no supply, should not be able to achieve this goal, at least not in my opinion, based on my understanding of HOI's basic design.

One last question for now, does the AI use the practice of constructing units and holding them in the force pool for long periods, prior to deployment?

Thanks for any advice you are able offer.

Terhune
 

Zerli

Captain
6 Badges
Jul 1, 2003
425
0
www.ecst.csuchico.edu
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Majesty 2
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
What historical facet of WWII is being simulated by allowing units to be held in the force pool, without requiring supply?

No historical facet of WWII alowed units to be held in perpetual readiness, hidden from enemy view, with no supplies or cost associated. IE you couldn't do it in WWII, and you can't do it now either.

However, Soviet Union in WWII did practice the general war strategy of multiple echelons, and very significant reserve armies. Basically, only the first echelon (active army) would be present and visible in peacetime. Reserve units, complete with supplies, officers, and partially or fully trained troops, would be put to work in industry or agriculture. In times of war, such reserve units could be organized into essentially active army units in a very short time. Initial German estimates for the strength of Soviet army facing Germans in the first days of Barbarossa was cca. 150 divisions in the West, 200 divisions total. However, by late summer Germany had overrun the first echelon, and run into the second echelon, which was made up of another 150 divisions or so. This second echelon was only starting to mobilize at the time of the initial attack, and was completely hidden from German eyes.

Furthermore, in the continuing course of war, Soviet Union was able to also mobilize third and fourth echelons, being almost the size of first and second, and it was this continuous wave of fresh troops that finally broke Wehrmacht.

Anyway, this might give some historical justifications for a bonus in mobilizing troops, speeding construction time, reducing costs in IC and supplies, but Soviets already get the effects of GPW in game, so IMHO there is no need to give them extra ability to support large armies.

IMO, keeping units in force pool to hide their true number and reduce supply costs is an exploit. Playing with IC ratios to slow down production of units and essentially keep a bunch of units hidden and almost complete with no supply cost is another exploit, although not as bad as the first one. Second one can be addressed by the simple house rule of a minimum percentage that needs to be invested in each IC category (supplies, new units, research, etc).

Is there a way to simply require, through simple modding, that completed units, in the force pool, require supply, similar to units being redeployed?

Short answer, no. Long answer, no, unless we get Paradox to change hardcode.

I'm sure the folks working on CORE have discussed this situation at length, and I am curious if CORE's R&D costs have been calculated with this strategy in mind?

Copper Nicus would be the man with the answers for this question. I can tell you that we've had some discussion about the potential exploit of holding units in the deployment pool indefinitely. Any potential solution would have to be done in hardcode, however. We mentioned making units in deployment pool cost less in supply, or making deployment from deployment pool take time, say a week, or both these solutions at the same time. These solutions require hardcode changes, which are all up to Paradox.

Has thought been given to a set of CORE events that create uprisings, and lots of them, throughout the Soviet Union, in areas that were fairly hostile to Stalin, Ukraine for example, unless armies are present in a given set of provinces?

I don't know of any plans to create uprising events for Soviet Union ATM. I am sure now that you've raised the point that someone will pick up the discussion.... :)

From my knowledge, such uprisings would have been likely if Soviet military and security apparatus was weakened to the point of 10 divisions altogether. Not only was Red Army large and well-armed, but the NKVD (internal security troops) also had division-size formations, armed almost as well as regular army troops! If these masses of soldiers and policemen were to dissapear overnight, you'd almost certainly face uprisings in Ukraine, Caucasus, and Central Asia, to name a few likely locations.

One last question for now, does the AI use the practice of constructing units and holding them in the force pool for long periods, prior to deployment?

Not to my knowledge, no. As far as I know, AI simply uses units as soon as they are available, putting them somewhere on the map. This IMO indicates the proper, intended way to use units is to drop them onto the map immediately. The force pool is simply a game engine simplification needed for the player to be able to deploy troops (AI can do this instanteously, us poor humans need a few seconds and a reasonable interface to do this manually).

Zerli
 

Ghost_dk

Chief of all Ghost Divisions
5 Badges
Feb 6, 2003
2.353
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
obviously your friend wil try and sneak around the rules no matter what you write in them and believes to be in right to do so because the units are not done building before war starts with his constant delay in the build que.

Personally I would not play with people like that but its probably not as easi as that.

simply add a house rule that no units may be delayed to more then twice the normal build time and that the number of undeployed units in the build que may not exceed 2x the number of strategic redeployment slots availeble to each country. For the USSR that would mean that no more then 24 units may be undeployed in the build que at any time and if your friend does not want to play like that, perhaps he should consider single play. Just my opinion.

Ghost_dk
 

unmerged(23025)

Private
Dec 3, 2003
20
0
Visit site
Ghost_dk said:
obviously your friend wil try and sneak around the rules no matter what you write in them . . .

Ghost_dk

Thanks to you and Zerli for all the input.

I should clarify my earlier post. Our Soviet player is an excellent strategist, and an extremely critical participant in our group, but he follows rules to the letter, strictly. He has never been dishonest, or afraid to discuss his strategy with me. His assumption has been, if the folks at Paradox wanted me to pay for my units in the force pool, they would have designed the costs into the system.

I was actually considering a house rule that required the Soviets to maintain a minimum number of divisions in the field, perhaps 60. A similar rule could be written for the Germans and Italians. Of course, we would maintain the "deploy as you complete" requirement. Perhaps an additional constraint could be created stating "you may not place priority on a unit's production if an identical unit, closer to completion, is in the production / upgrade pool."

My main difficulty is centered around setting the requirement for the number of divisions that must be maintained in the field by the Soviets. Does 60 peacetime divisions sound reasonalble for Stalin, as a minimum?

On another note, I want to be sure you received my modified English leader / pic file, sent last week via e-mail. I posted a follow up in the CORE 7 general discussion area, but you probably haven't seen it yet.

Thanks,

Terhune
 

Ghost_dk

Chief of all Ghost Divisions
5 Badges
Feb 6, 2003
2.353
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Terhune said:
On another note, I want to be sure you received my modified English leader / pic file, sent last week via e-mail. I posted a follow up in the CORE 7 general discussion area, but you probably haven't seen it yet.

Thanks,

Terhune

Yep Its recieved and will be included in the next release.

Should it be Mr. & Mrs. Terhune on the credit list? :p :D

Ghost_dk
 

unmerged(23025)

Private
Dec 3, 2003
20
0
Visit site
Ghost_dk said:
Yep Its recieved and will be included in the next release.

Should it be Mr. & Mrs. Terhune on the credit list? :p :D

Ghost_dk

Yes, Mr. & Mrs. Terhune would be great.

Mrs. Terhune will be very excited. Our six man group has nearly convinced her to jump into the fray as the US, allowing us to include a human controlled France. She is an excellent, and avid, EU2 player, same group.

Like everyone else, I anxiously await the 1.06 / CORE release.

Terhune :D :cool:
 

Alikchi

Captain
95 Badges
Jun 21, 2003
317
6
steamcommunity.com
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
This may be slightly OT, but where can I hook up with other CORE players? Am interested in playing a game or two..

Also, will there be any changes effecting MP in 0.8?
 

unmerged(5892)

Fourth Internationalist
Sep 27, 2001
2.122
0
Visit site
Any news on an MP CORE version for .08?

A few of us tried playing with the new CORE, and even after copying files over the vanilla directory's, met with no success.

Each and every time we attempted to load the CORE start scenario, the game would CTD.

If someone can point me in the right direction to actually getting the latest CORE mod to work in MP, or say when the MP version will be out, I'd be most appreciative!
 

Steel

Field Marshal
53 Badges
May 4, 2001
7.689
0
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
Cross-post from the v0.8 discussion thread as it's very relevant to this thread.

Terhune said:
In CORE 71 MP, AI nations appeared to receive bonuses on naval unit endurance, to the tune of 100k kilometers additional range. The additional range seemed to eliminate the problem of AI navies running at sea for months on end with no fuel, a great improvement, in my opinion, for single player games, not necessarily so in all MP circumstances, for example, when a human player assumes control of allied AI naval forces.

With the improved naval AI included in HOI 1.06, will CORE 80 MP continue to grant the range bonus to AI naval units?

Our group plays six man campaigns, via LAN, so we rely on an honor system when a human assumes control of an AI nation's forces. We simply refuel at intervals required historically for a given vessel. If the bonus is applied to AI naval range in CORE 80 MP, is there a relatively easy way to disable it for a single nation, say France?

Another issue with MP arises when an additional player joins an ongoing campaign. The nation he chooses, controlled previously by the AI, seems to retain the naval range bonus, even though the nation is now being played by a human. We haven't fully examined this situation, but I wonder if that nation also has access to AI only technology? (In fact, this issue might have importance in SP campaigns where the human player changes nations while the game is in progress.) Does CORE 80 MP address this situation?

I'm wondering if there is a way that CORE could be designed so that when a human player joins an ongoing campaign, the AI only techs, and bonuses normally reserved for AI nations, could be reset to levels appropriate for a human player? Perhaps CORE 80 MP addresses these issues.

So far, I have been extremely impressed with CORE 80 SP, more outstanding work by the CORE team.

Thanks again!

Terhune
 

Steel

Field Marshal
53 Badges
May 4, 2001
7.689
0
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
I'm pleased to announce the availability of C.O.R.E. v0.8 MP version, available for download from the official UK site (click here to initiate download).
 

unmerged(14054)

Sergeant
Jan 24, 2003
89
0
Visit site
If I install CORE 0.8 MP it will play in the same way for single player as normal CORE does? Also if I have allready installed normal CORE, should I delete it before installing CORE MP? Reinstall HoI (avoid if possible) or what?

Thanks in advance.