Does AI upgrade infantry units? Does AI upgrade infantry units all together leaving defenseless her regions?
-
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.
No Tigers
In my Core 0.7 there is no technique for inventing the TigerI and II tank.
In Core 0.64 I also had no Tiger I+II...
So I looked in models.csv: but there were no Tiger, only Panther, Panther II and the Maus and all the smaller tanks.
But where are the Tigers?
Does anybody know of this?
In my Core 0.7 there is no technique for inventing the TigerI and II tank.
In Core 0.64 I also had no Tiger I+II...
So I looked in models.csv: but there were no Tiger, only Panther, Panther II and the Maus and all the smaller tanks.
But where are the Tigers?
Does anybody know of this?
Skeletor24 said:
The heavy tanks divisions were replaced by heavy tank battallion becuase their were no heavy tank divisions in WW2
indirect approch of IA behaviour
I have think a little about the ai behaviour, why can't we create dedicated IA unit (trought IA only tech) that should be easier for it to use. Say only one unit for each category (say IA Inf Gen DIV, Pz Gen DIV) and throught IA tech give them the bonus without passing throught the upgrade process.
Perharps two of each one for the minors one for the majors
Lets say 1936 Major Inf Div
with a tech that will be given each year this Inf Div will follow an historical slope of evolution in accordance with their country.
Firing with the 01/01/1937 one event will give for exemple
HA +X SA +Z GD +Y in accordance to an historical progression.
and so on
With this sort of trigger all the IA units will be up to date without delay.
I suggest also that IA will be given an org bonus +50 ? even on basic core game to counter the tactical advantage of human managed bombers.
Summary :
Full use of models for human player
Unique models for IA with automatics upgrade following a convenient time table
Bonus in org for IA so a better standing should be achieve.
Coming with that it should be the same for naval units (inspired by the IA tech dedicated in the air mod)
Generic IA Surface TF unit in place of BB CA DD
Generic IA CV TF in place of CV CA DD
Generic IA Troops TF in place of TP CA DD
Generic IA sub unit
this big unit should represent a 9 human counters units ?
I think than by desabling the normal units for the IA this could easier the trip.
What do you think of that ?
bests regards
Ghost_dk said:
I have think a little about the ai behaviour, why can't we create dedicated IA unit (trought IA only tech) that should be easier for it to use. Say only one unit for each category (say IA Inf Gen DIV, Pz Gen DIV) and throught IA tech give them the bonus without passing throught the upgrade process.
Perharps two of each one for the minors one for the majors
Lets say 1936 Major Inf Div
with a tech that will be given each year this Inf Div will follow an historical slope of evolution in accordance with their country.
Firing with the 01/01/1937 one event will give for exemple
HA +X SA +Z GD +Y in accordance to an historical progression.
and so on
With this sort of trigger all the IA units will be up to date without delay.
I suggest also that IA will be given an org bonus +50 ? even on basic core game to counter the tactical advantage of human managed bombers.
Summary :
Full use of models for human player
Unique models for IA with automatics upgrade following a convenient time table
Bonus in org for IA so a better standing should be achieve.
Coming with that it should be the same for naval units (inspired by the IA tech dedicated in the air mod)
Generic IA Surface TF unit in place of BB CA DD
Generic IA CV TF in place of CV CA DD
Generic IA Troops TF in place of TP CA DD
Generic IA sub unit
this big unit should represent a 9 human counters units ?
I think than by desabling the normal units for the IA this could easier the trip.
What do you think of that ?
bests regards
Your idea, above all the one to make tank units advance without upgrading, is very interesting.
The only thing, but this is a my personal point of view, is that we should try to improve AI without without making it cheating...
Currently AI have to spend IC for research the tech that allows bomber units to have escort inside (and IIRC after that the bomber units will cost more).
The only thing, but this is a my personal point of view, is that we should try to improve AI without without making it cheating...
Currently AI have to spend IC for research the tech that allows bomber units to have escort inside (and IIRC after that the bomber units will cost more).
Ss
@h345: thx!
Another question:
when i build ss-divisions, why don`t they have ss-div-names?
@h345: thx!
Another question:
when i build ss-divisions, why don`t they have ss-div-names?
Skeletor24 said:
unfortunately we are unable to link unit names to models so they are assigned by the ai who just picks the next available name on the list.
Ghost_dk
If Agrarian economy deactivates synthtic oil and rubber plants- then I would suggest also deactivating Styrene and Butadene processing procedures so that the A.I. doesn't research these techs and waste its resources.
Tech Tree Problems
Hi Guys
Ths new core version has done a great job with the OOB, like with the german navy but the trouble I have found is with the tech tree, it is taking too long get the technology for new warships.
For example the German H class battleships were laid down in july and august
1939 which I could realistically achieve with the last version of core but with this new one it will take me into 1941/42 untill I can have them laid down it takes untill june/July1937 for advanced shipbuilding, a further 12 months for
specialised naval equipement than a further 18 months for refined maritime technology the another year for advanced naval designs.
Also along with this I cannot build the improved Admiral Hipper class cruiser
"Prinz Eugen", I beleive she was laid down in the late 30's and completed in 1940 so this time taking with the tech tree has really disapointed me
apart from this the new version seems great, but I am reverting back to core Version 6.3 untill a newer version comes out.
Cheers
Easty
Hi Guys
Ths new core version has done a great job with the OOB, like with the german navy but the trouble I have found is with the tech tree, it is taking too long get the technology for new warships.
For example the German H class battleships were laid down in july and august
1939 which I could realistically achieve with the last version of core but with this new one it will take me into 1941/42 untill I can have them laid down it takes untill june/July1937 for advanced shipbuilding, a further 12 months for
specialised naval equipement than a further 18 months for refined maritime technology the another year for advanced naval designs.
Also along with this I cannot build the improved Admiral Hipper class cruiser
"Prinz Eugen", I beleive she was laid down in the late 30's and completed in 1940 so this time taking with the tech tree has really disapointed me
apart from this the new version seems great, but I am reverting back to core Version 6.3 untill a newer version comes out.
Cheers
Easty
easty76 said:
I saw this in "New Beta C.O.R.E. v0.7 ***Discussion Thread***", and even though it is up to you which version to use, I do think that this is a fairly minor issue to totally scrap the use of this mod and revert back to an older version. The improvements to the entire game vastly outweigh a possible delay of ship type arrivals. It isn't like one nation is specifically handicapped over the others, they all research at the same rate, and Germany really isn't a major naval nation, so not being able to get some ship types (some which weren't even built) isn't, rather shouldn't, be a game wrecker.
The naval tech tree may require tweaks, I am sure MateDow will be more then happy to listen to your observations, but it is far from broken to the point that 0.7 is unplayable.
Pkunzipper said:
What i have in mind is to give the IA the minimum vital to put a good fight without cheating, it could be achieve with a single big IA tech by field of research where the cost should be the sum of what should the IA have researched if it has been efficient. We could for example create a
1937 inf ia improvement lasting one year that will cost say 10IC for 365day
= 1365IC, and with this budget we should choose between several field for inf div improvement and the bonus will be applied directly to IA unit not throught a lenghty rebuild process. the budget should take eventually a small account for simulating the upgrade. (pb how many upgrade to take into account ? we would have to run tests to keep an account of how many divisions each country field, and we have to distinguish between minors and majors say the mean number of Inf div for majors in 1937 is 30 and minors is 10 etc. etc. (it will give a bonus to urss that should be compensate throught diminution of is IC revenue by events)
Another thing : i think that country's in war are not stupid, if they are behind in research i suppose that they will analysis ennemy vehicules arms etc., so they will upgrade naturally at slower pace but will upgrade nevertheless, so we come to the annual event that will give to every country at war minimal techs (you remember the neighbourg bonus in EU2)
to avoid testing during game play i think we should make some sort of standart progression for majors and minors based on historical survey and give the tech to the IA.
Exemple :
England should have at least be able to field the historic models that where fielded, same for other country
All this is finally to make the IA challenging historical and not cheating.
bests regards
This seems to me a great solution to improve AI effectivness on researching tech. It surely deserves a try (maybe not for 0.71). 
easty76 said:
This is a balance correction. The difficulty with the 0.63 tree was the quickness that the designs were developed. If you look at most of the countries, those ships in the same design generation were started around then. If we make it too easy to get to that level of the tech tree, it makes it too easy to get nuclear warships and such.
We can look at the times for the tech levels and see if there is some refinement that can be accomplished. We have to be careful with making the advanced technology at the end of the tree too accessable.
The Prinz Eugen wasn't an improved Hipper-class cruiser in game terms. The only difference between her and her sisters was about 20 feet (6 meters) of additional length. This resulted in a slightly higher displacement. Her armor, armament, and speed were identical. The post-treaty cruisers are larger and have better armor than their predessesors. The Improved Hipper-class cruisers in the game are a hypothetical post-treaty design to have a model name in the game.
I hope that this answers your questions and concerns. If you want to discuss improvements to the naval portion of the game, join us at the Naval Forum. MDow
Haven't actually checked out Amphibious invasions
but perhaps if the tree was just a bit more complex. I just want to prevent a re-run of an unrealistic Sealion invasion. Naval amphibious invasions, particularly by nations with extremely limited naval background should be nearly impossible except perhaps unopposed landings. The allies had at least the experience of Gallipoli under their belts, plus Britain and America had centuries of seafaring experience (this should be taken into account for both naval combat and naval landings) and maintained long-standing elite Marine units (though the use of division size Marine units seems to me a waste of unit type). Then during the war the Allies, Britain notably staged hundreds of 'mini-invasions' with Commando type units which culminated in the abortive Dieppe raid. This was hard earned, hard learned experience and it was only after that, that they could begin to 'research' the Normandy Invasion of a MAXIMUM of 8 divisions (including 3 airlanded ones!) Could we tweak this too? (perhaps something I could work on along with my 'more complex airborne tech tree')
Just a thought,
Richmond
but perhaps if the tree was just a bit more complex. I just want to prevent a re-run of an unrealistic Sealion invasion. Naval amphibious invasions, particularly by nations with extremely limited naval background should be nearly impossible except perhaps unopposed landings. The allies had at least the experience of Gallipoli under their belts, plus Britain and America had centuries of seafaring experience (this should be taken into account for both naval combat and naval landings) and maintained long-standing elite Marine units (though the use of division size Marine units seems to me a waste of unit type). Then during the war the Allies, Britain notably staged hundreds of 'mini-invasions' with Commando type units which culminated in the abortive Dieppe raid. This was hard earned, hard learned experience and it was only after that, that they could begin to 'research' the Normandy Invasion of a MAXIMUM of 8 divisions (including 3 airlanded ones!) Could we tweak this too? (perhaps something I could work on along with my 'more complex airborne tech tree')
Just a thought,
Richmond
Richmond,
IMO there are so many doctrines and techs in the naval tree that represent it...
More of them a country research and better its unit will perform during a landing...
IMO there are so many doctrines and techs in the naval tree that represent it...
More of them a country research and better its unit will perform during a landing...
"We can look at the times for the tech levels and see if there is some refinement that can be accomplished. We have to be careful with making the advanced technology at the end of the tree too accessable."
Why can you not simply adjust the time/IC requirements between the early and the later parts of the tree to favor the early? That is, instead of all theoretical research taking one year, the first theoretical step can instead take 3 months or so, the second six months, the fifth 24 months.
I mean, if you feel it is all balanced according to the end result, yet unhistorical or "boring" in the beginning or center, then that sort of tweaking could alleviate that situation.
Why can you not simply adjust the time/IC requirements between the early and the later parts of the tree to favor the early? That is, instead of all theoretical research taking one year, the first theoretical step can instead take 3 months or so, the second six months, the fifth 24 months.
I mean, if you feel it is all balanced according to the end result, yet unhistorical or "boring" in the beginning or center, then that sort of tweaking could alleviate that situation.
Yushal Al Dai said:
IMO, the exact opposite may be possible. That is, the early techs take longer, then snowball further down, getting reduced time (but maybe higher cost). Once you get going down a path, it should, for somethings, get easier to advance (like art't sizes), while others may remain static (some doctrines, anything "new").
I noticed this in a USA game, so it may very well be specific to them, but I wouldn't count on it. Also, it may be HOI-related overall, but I am not sure of that either. This is a bug:
When country begins with completed research, and also with research in the queue (at game start-up), then that country is still able to qeue up techs which are supposed to have been deactivated.
For instance, USA begins with "Distant Carrier Doctrine" completed (yet also this doctrine is qeued and being built, which is some mistake), he is still able to research "Close Blockade Doctrine".
USA also begins with "Battleship Protection Superiority Doctrine" in the qeue, but can still research the other two related techs so long as he qeues one of them before the first has been completed.
Maybe it is a help for the AI or maybe it could be a hinderance, I dont know...
When country begins with completed research, and also with research in the queue (at game start-up), then that country is still able to qeue up techs which are supposed to have been deactivated.
For instance, USA begins with "Distant Carrier Doctrine" completed (yet also this doctrine is qeued and being built, which is some mistake), he is still able to research "Close Blockade Doctrine".
USA also begins with "Battleship Protection Superiority Doctrine" in the qeue, but can still research the other two related techs so long as he qeues one of them before the first has been completed.
Maybe it is a help for the AI or maybe it could be a hinderance, I dont know...
Yushal Al Dai said:
It's actually minor vanilla HoI bug. We are trying to adjust initial R&D projects to get rid of that.