CDCP-mod

[unmerged(58571)]

But Zhukov will then occupy different minister posts in a left-wing and a right-wing government, which seems a bit odd. I believe the intention was to have him available for both posts at the same time (which he might be under a SD government).

 

[Gormadoc]

Hotfix v.035a uploaded to Modhoi & Moddir. ​

Will most likely first be ready for dl tomorrow CET​

But Zhukov will then occupy different minister posts in a left-wing and a right-wing government, which seems a bit odd. I believe the intention was to have him available for both posts at the same time (which he might be under a SD government).

Hmm you might be on to something here.

4018;Chief of Army;Vitaly Maltsev;36; PA;Decisive Battle Doctrine
4028;Chief of Army;Georgiy K. Zhukov;36;PA;Decisive Battle Doctrine

4053;Chief of Staff;Georgiy K. Zhukov;41;ST;School of Fire Support

4020;Chief of Air Force;S.A. Chernykh;36;PA;Army Aviation Doctrine
4030;Chief of Air Force;Pavel V. Rychagov;36;PA;Army Aviation Doctrine
4065;Chief of Air Force;Pavel V. Rychagov;38;ST;Naval Aviation Doctrine

The above PA ministers are the only PA ministers for that cabinet post, why have two with same trait. Why is Pavel V. Rychagov Naval doct. when stalinist & Army doct. when PA.

There seems to be some inconsistencies here. The PA version of Pavel Should be changed to Navel doct. i think. & Perhaps be moved to 38.

As it is now you are correct Zhukov cant be chief of Army under a stalinist government, and we have the only two PA COA wih same trait. There are more than one solution to this. A ST copy of PA Zhukov & change Vitaly Maltsev trait or just change Zhukov to ST and only have one PA COA. Keep Zhukov PA & change his trait. keep all as is, there are probably other possibilities.

 

[Andrew EAGLE]

Omfg. o I have sucked so bad this last week modding HOI. I have made error upon error in my MP mod and now also a stupid mistake like that in this mod. I will have to make a hotfix for that event.... sigh.... I need a beer.

You´re doing a great job ! Sometimes small bugs just crawl around
I very much appreciate the work put into this cleaning process. The huge amount of bugs, typos and errors you cleared definitely shows that there is still very much room for improvement for paradox. Especially as some bugs can be traced back to files from HOI 1 ! :wacko:

Keep up the excellent work !!!

oh, nearly forgot, -> have another beer

 

[Gormadoc]

You´re doing a great job ! Sometimes small bugs just crawl around
I very much appreciate the work put into this cleaning process. The huge amount of bugs, typos and errors you cleared definitely shows that there is still very much room for improvement for paradox. Especially as some bugs can be traced back to files from HOI 1 ! :wacko:

Keep up the excellent work !!!

oh, nearly forgot, -> have another beer

Thx, and i did.

Iam quite amased that Paradox never got around to fix the wrong Brigade combat modifiers in landdoctrine and Airdoctrine three's. Especially when they altered the brigade combat modifier for the new Engineer unit, and clearly stated that brigades cant have combat modifiers. I mean they where not that hard to spot.

 

[Gormadoc]

Slight error in SCW

Hey

There is a slight error in the SCW event chain. Now that event 3100 no longer triggers 3107 directly but indirectly the SPA event 3001 will not fire if either SPR or SPA is human controlled. As long as SPR & SPA are AI controlled all events works as intended.

This is because of different timing/speed of event resolving between AI and Human. The AI/game engine resolves the events on a shoestring so indirect event triggers will work with event triggering the same day. But a humans are not that fast, so when the human presses OK the game engine has already moved on and controlled the next event for that day.

The fix is to remove event = 3107 from the trigger conditions from event 3001. Then the cede colonies and fascist nation event will trigger correctly also with a human SPR or for a Human SPA.

This fix will be in next version.

 

[BritNavFan]

A couple more scenario details that have been bugging me since I noticed them:

In (all the Greek files), the cruiser 'BEN Georgios Averoff' should be a heavy_cruiser, not a light_cruiser. It had 9.2" guns (similar to the Italian San Giorgio's 10" guns), whereas light cruisers carried 6" guns at most.

In the 1941 scenario, the Nationalist Chinese should get techs 5080 5090 5100 that they have in the 1939 scenario. This will enable their troops to entrench.

 

[Gormadoc]

In (all the Greek files), the cruiser 'BEN Georgios Averoff' should be a heavy_cruiser, not a light_cruiser. It had 9.2" guns (similar to the Italian San Giorgio's 10" guns), whereas light cruisers carried 6" guns at most.

I dont know much about ships classifications. But you cant look on gun size alone, there are more to it. You must also look on number of guns, displacement, speed, armour. I looked on the TRP mod they also has this cruiser as a light cruiser. So i wont change this.

In the 1941 scenario, the Nationalist Chinese should get techs 5080 5090 5100 that they have in the 1939 scenario. This will enable their troops to entrench.

This looks like an oversight from Paradox. So i will probably add these techs to nat. Chi. 1941 scenario. thx

@Wobbler, I have decided to let the Zhukov thing be as is, for now. Since i cant really decide what i want to do about it.

 

[BritNavFan]

Actually, when it comes to classifying ships as light cruisers vs heavy cruisers, it did just come down to the size of the guns, for the very simple reason that according to the interwar Naval Treaties "light cruisers" were defined as ships with guns no larger than 6"/150mm, and that definition had the force of law for the world's 5 main naval powers. There was little to distinguish a large light cruiser, such as HMS Belfast, from a heavy cruiser like Kent or Suffolk except that the Belfast had 4 triple 6" gun turrets and the heavy cruisers had 4 twin 8" gun turrets - they had roughly the same armor, the same tonnage, the same speed. As an extreme example, the Japanese Mogami class as built with 5 triple 6" turrets was classified as a light cruiser (and was similar to the American Brooklyn class light cruisers), but in the late 30's the triple 6" turrets were replaced with twin 8" turrets and after that it was classified as a heavy cruiser (and had similar properties to, say, the Nachi class heavy cruisers).

But that's all really an aside. All serious references give the ship similar tonnage (10200 tons), armour, and speed to other pre-WWI armoured cruisers. If you don't have any print sources, I suggest Google. I've only once seen anybody except Paradox call it a "light cruiser;" they are more likely to refer to it as a "battleship", which is fair enough for non-jargon-using people. With respect to TRP, they're not really focused on the details of individual ships, especially model 0 ships belonging to micropowers, and I doubt they've ever thought about it.

 

[Gormadoc]

Actually, when it comes to classifying ships as light cruisers vs heavy cruisers, it did just come down to the size of the guns, for the very simple reason that according to the interwar Naval Treaties "light cruisers" were defined as ships with guns no larger than 6"/150mm, and that definition had the force of law for the world's 5 main naval powers. There was little to distinguish a large light cruiser, such as HMS Belfast, from a heavy cruiser like Kent or Suffolk except that the Belfast had 4 triple 6" gun turrets and the heavy cruisers had 4 twin 8" gun turrets - they had roughly the same armor, the same tonnage, the same speed. As an extreme example, the Japanese Mogami class as built with 5 triple 6" turrets was classified as a light cruiser (and was similar to the American Brooklyn class light cruisers), but in the late 30's the triple 6" turrets were replaced with twin 8" turrets and after that it was classified as a heavy cruiser (and had similar properties to, say, the Nachi class heavy cruisers).

But that's all really an aside. All serious references give the ship similar tonnage (10200 tons), armour, and speed to other pre-WWI armoured cruisers. If you don't have any print sources, I suggest Google. I've only once seen anybody except Paradox call it a "light cruiser;" they are more likely to refer to it as a "battleship", which is fair enough for non-jargon-using people. With respect to TRP, they're not really focused on the details of individual ships, especially model 0 ships belonging to micropowers, and I doubt they've ever thought about it.

You are probably right. I will reconsider this. Iam not saying i will add it. It boils down to if i want to go into models/units changes.

Edit:Core has it classified as a Heavy_cruiser

 

[Gormadoc]

Question regarding Minister traits

Hey i have looked on some minister files and there is one thing that puzzles me a bit.

take for eksampel the minister of armament trait, NPERSONALITY_LAISSEZ_FAIRES_CAPITALIST;Laissez-Faire Capitalist;;;;;

In the varies minister files it is spelled in several different ways. Including different spellings in same file. I looked into the hoi2.exe file and it seems the game recognises the following spellings

laissez-faire capitalist
laissez fairez capitalist
laissez-faires capitalist
laissez faire capitalist
laissez faires capitalist

It seems to me, to be a rather troublesome way to do it like this. Would't it be much simpler programming wise to adopt one spelling and just make sure it was spelled correctly in all files ?

Would cleaning the ministerfiles up and adobt one spelling for all minister traits, help with the notorius instability and chrashing when closing down of this game ?

I would gues it is most likely a waste of time, but perhaps worth a shot, for nothing else then just for consistency sake.

Just as with the type id's not being unike for every country.

 

[unmerged(64836)]

Sorry- posted in this thread and forgot how to delete
Carry on

 

[CSABadass]

I'm fairly certain the USA naval leader Benson (ID #60383) is WWI veteran Admiral William S. Benson, who died in 1932. If you concur with my identification, he should be deleted from the US leaders file.

 

[Gormadoc]

I'm fairly certain the USA naval leader Benson (ID #60383) is WWI veteran Admiral William S. Benson, who died in 1932. If you concur with my identification, he should be deleted from the US leaders file.

I dont concur.

Was close to making same mistake when looking into this matter. I think Benson is referring to either:

Vice Admiral Glen Benson Davis, http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/gbdavis.htm

or

Rear Admiral. Roy S. Benson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_S._Benson

Giving the start & Enddate it is most likely Glen Benson. He retired in 1953 though and not 1945 as the enddate suggest.

Rear admiral Roy S. Benson should perhaps be added with startdate 1944 as a Seawolf commander. Since he was commander of a 3 sub wolfpack in mid 1944 and 1945

Benson led a wolfpack consisting of Razorback, Trepang (SS-412), and Segundo (SS-398) that set sail on November 5, 1944. Operating in the Luzon Strait and the South China Sea, a convoy of seven escorted merchant ships was sighted and the three submarines made night attacks, sinking all of the merchant vessels, on December 6.

Benson led a wolfpack consisting of Razorback, Segundo, and Seacat (SS-399) that set out for the East China Sea on February 1, 1945. Razorback sank four wooden ships in three separate surface gun actions and deposited three Japanese prisoners at Guam. Segundo attacked Japanese shipping off the Korean coast, sinking a cargo ship on March 11. Seacat attacked Japanese shipping off the coast of Kyūshū.

For outstanding services while in commanded Submarine Division 43, Benson was awarded the Legion of Merit.

He was only promoted to rear admiral in 1955 though.

We should probably move the enddate from 1945 to 1953. Unless its a completely different Benson.

Admiral Benson: [after his cap blew off and landed in the sea] Holy Cow! My cap blew off! Swing her round. We'll pick it up.
Officer: But, sir, we're on the mission.
Admiral Benson: Good thinking. We'll pick it up on the way back. We gotta mark the spot, though. Put Robinowitz in a life raft. Have him row in circles until we return.
Officer: It could be days.
Admiral Benson: Then put some food in the life raft, for god's sake, man. Do I have to think of everything? We'll tape his favourite shows, he won't miss anything.

Edit: almost sure that the picture used is of W. S. Benson. Cant find a picture of Glen Benson Davies.
Edit2: I posted this in Community leader & Minister Improvement Project thread. Since this subject are probably better handled by them. The Picture should be changed though. I will change it if i can find any Non-copyrighted pictures of Glen B. Davis.

 

[CSABadass]

Edit: almost sure that the picture used is of W. S. Benson. Cant find a picture of Glen Benson Davies.

Since the HoI Benson lacks the Sea Wolf trait, I don't think he's meant to be Roy S.

IIRC, the HoI Benson also starts the game at a higher rank than G.B. Davis ever attained. If so, I still think the HoI Benson is William S., but I am no longer 100% sure.

Thanks for looking into this!

 

[Gormadoc]

Since the HoI Benson lacks the Sea Wolf trait, I don't think he's meant to be Roy S.

IIRC, the HoI Benson also starts the game at a higher rank than G.B. Davis ever attained. If so, I still think the HoI Benson is William S., but I am no longer 100% sure.

Thanks for looking into this!

You are correct on the rank he has 1930 as Admiral Rank. Which do imply they where thinking of William S. Benson.

 

[Wolfbat Borgia]

db/airnames

In db/airnames the JAP;9. Hikoutai is missing... It is the ONLY missing up to the 100. Hikoutai.

I can't see a reason why the Japanese Airforce didnt want to name a unit the 9. Hikoutai.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Has anyone mentioned that there are two Changde (1260, Hunan and 1397, Rehe)?

 

[Gormadoc]

Has anyone mentioned that there are two Changde (1260, Hunan and 1397, Rehe)?

Its a spelling mistake by Paradox i think. The Northern Changde is really named Chengde. Not much to do about it, Map is hardcoded. Could change province name so it reflected the real name but then it would not be consistent with map or perhaps just add a (Chengde) after the name. so in tooltip it will be shown as Changde (Chengde)
or perhaps change province name to Chengde (Plz correct the map Paradox).

 

[CSABadass]

Just noticed this:

On the Air Doctrine tech tree page, there should be an arrow linking the Operational Destruction branch to the Perimeter Defense branch.

 

[Gormadoc]

Just noticed this:

On the Air Doctrine tech tree page, there should be an arrow linking the Operational Destruction branch to the Perimeter Defense branch.

You are correct. I wonder why i missed that. The tricky part is to draw that line so people dont think they also need the Battlefield destruction. thx

EDIT: Made an attempt i am not sure i like it though.