• Hello Everyone, Today we've upgraded to the latest version of our forum software, bringing more features and better performance to the community. As always, we appreciate your bug reports and feedback, and you can post all of that here, as well as view the list of new features
  • 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

This thread is more than 5 months old.

It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.

Emmanuel_M

First Lieutenant
47 Badges
Apr 7, 2010
203
1
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Majesty 2
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Magicka
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines
Hi. Here is a feedback about what I liked and disliked in CORE. After 1 long game with Soviet Union.

LOVED :
* the new pictures (from the travel guide)
* reserve divisions. Their historical role in WW2 was very important, as armies definitely used a multiple Tier division system. France had officially Tier A & B infantry, so did (officially or not) most other countries
* The 6/9 battalion system, which reflects the qualitative superiority of Germany against SU
* The tank&artillery tree, more clear, more linked to industry (yes, you wont produce SoTA tanks without a SoTA heavy industry)

LIKED
* The air doctrine tech tree. With different choices of doctrine, some better than others at certain points
* The more complex industrialization tech tree
* The Secret Weapon tree
* Additional interesting events. Events are fun.

NOTICED
* finer tuning of allied minor nations. Not sure I like it, but whatever.
* bigger TC. Which alowed me to field 60 armored division or more as SU. Dunno if the different TC formula (induced by different IC allocation) is something good or not.
* the new flags/shields directory. Players who want to import custom flags have to override those two directories.

DISLIKED
* while this requires confirmation, I feel that Germany, whose job is already extremely difficult in vanilla, has an even harder job. I think this could be improved by having the tech "Political commissioner officers" be downgraded to cause "your units take an additional 20% casualties", to reflects sovietic komissars poor consideration for the survival of their troops. Or, if it's simpler to code, just having this tech give a -5% maxorg penalty to land units
* Some marginal events. Having events giving yiou 2 bonus Submarines or 1 bonus IC is just needless detail that should have been abstracted in etiher original troops or a single events rassembling all "minor improvements" events.
* Infantry improvements augmenting MP cost of infantry, making reinforcmeents too costly end game vs their early game cost.
* Infantry "improvements" reducing infantry effectiveness in bad terrain. Those should at least be compensated by commando troops (all 3) receiving huge bonus in those hard terrains, making late mountainers/paras/marines the undisputed kings of difficult terrains versus low tech infantry.
* The land doctrine tree. Too many micro improvements, too little branches. I think each coutnry should have some different land doctrine branches (say 4 of the 8 possible choices) with choices rebalanced to make sure that each subtree is different but roughly balanced. In vanilla AoD, the german organisation vs soviet morale creates an intersting dynamic.

HATED
* All your naval crap
* Including the bazillion crap ships that you have to manage individually. Fuck micromanagement, and plase reempower detroyer groups instead of individual ships.
* Including the epitome of shit, the naval doctrine tree. From 1942 and later, the carrier is the king of sea yet only a few select nations will ever be able to use them decently. Is the modder who committed that a borderline fascist yankee ? Cause it sounds like arrogant and cocky starstripe flag waving. You can find it "historical" as it ensures that Italy's Marine will be no more than bozos. But that's all what this unbalanced idioticness ensures. Independant air forces tree is superior to integrated air forcestree late game, but this is not a problem as you can switch tree later on (for a reasonnable cost). Carrier tree is too good, as it is a tree specialised in boosting your fleets' main forces whereas other trees boost your patrol or obsolete ships.
* Having exclusive branching trees is cool (like vanilla land/sea doctrines). Having some of them being so vastly superior is moronic. Really moronic. The "america rules against inferior nations" stupid carrier tree is just imbalanced and uninteresting.
* I insisted on CORE naval warfare being some stinking piece of trash when compared to vanilla.

In the end, I think that CORE is slightly worse than vanilla, due to awful changes in naval warfare. Restoring all of vanilla's naval concepts (which could improved, but not by the CORE naval monkeys) would of course make CORE a huge improvement
 

Sturmwrath231

Corporal
10 Badges
Aug 10, 2009
30
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Semper Fi
  • For The Glory
  • Lead and Gold
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Shadowrun Returns
Wow , haven't even played with CORE yet, but I've downloaded and installed it. Those naval "features" sounds like a deal-breaker to me.
 

bestmajor

Field Marshal
40 Badges
Jun 5, 2008
3.003
88
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Semper Fi
  • Majesty 2
  • Iron Cross
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III
  • East India Company
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Achtung Panzer
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Cities: Skylines
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Emmanuel_M said:
while this requires confirmation, I feel that Germany, whose job is already extremely difficult in vanilla, has an even harder job.

are you serious? i mean, a human played germany?
 

Epaminondas

Who?
9 Badges
Mar 20, 2005
2.762
97
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
Hi Emmanuel, a few points in response from a long-time CORE player.

I think this could be improved by having the tech "Political commissioner officers" be downgraded to cause "your units take an additional 20% casualties", to reflects sovietic komissars poor consideration for the survival of their troops. Or, if it's simpler to code, just having this tech give a -5% maxorg penalty to land units
Don't want to comment on the specifics here so much as applaud the idea of having such tech advances (indeed techs advances in general) deliver both an upside and a downside. Though the detailed outcomes can certainly be challenged, I think CORE does a pretty good job in ensuring that there is no single tech path that guarantees any nation stealing a march on the opposition. I think the idea that to get something you have to give something is a wonderful design principle.

Having events giving yiou 2 bonus Submarines or 1 bonus IC is just needless detail that should have been abstracted in etiher original troops or a single events rassembling all "minor improvements" events.
But doing that would violate the historical timeframe. CORE makes a fetish of aligning things as closely as possible to the historical situation (not the historical outcome - the historical situation) and then turning that situation over to the player to see what he/she can do with it. Yes there are more individual events but, c'mon, the increase to the player's workload is hardly crippling.

Infantry improvements augmenting MP cost of infantry, making reinforcmeents too costly end game vs their early game cost.
You can always choose not to make them - that is, decide to field more divisions of less effective infantry rather than fewer divisions of better performing troops. The manpower requirements of 'improved' divisions did increase very significantly over the course of the war, largely as the result of the expanding logistical tail needed to service the improvements made. The German 1943 infantry division is the only case I'm aware of that countered this trend and this didn't so much provide a 'better' division structure in terms of outcome, as it did a structure that delivered roughly equivalent outcomes with fewer personnel.

Infantry "improvements" reducing infantry effectiveness in bad terrain. Those should at least be compensated by commando troops (all 3) receiving huge bonus in those hard terrains, making late mountainers/paras/marines the undisputed kings of difficult terrains versus low tech infantry.
I'd argue almost the reverse. High tech (during this historical period at least) was in large part a detriment to a force's ability to perform effectively in extreme terrain - more stuff to lug about, more things to go wrong, and an encouragement to rely on technical rather than tactical solutions. The 'commando' troops should definitely receive bonuses for operating in this terrain, but those bonuses shouldn't be overwhelming - the very low tech Yugoslav partisans did quite well for themselves against 'improved' German infantry. What's more, I'd argue that such bonuses should come from specialised technical and doctrinal improvments rather than broader infantry advances - and that's pretty much exactly what CORE provides.

I think each coutnry should have some different land doctrine branches (say 4 of the 8 possible choices) with choices rebalanced to make sure that each subtree is different but roughly balanced. In vanilla AoD, the german organisation vs soviet morale creates an intersting dynamic.
I agree with the thrust of your point here, but maybe you're not yet sufficiently familiar with the situation of different nations to have picked up on how CORE responds to this. Essentially, CORE structures up the Tech Teams, Minister Traits, starting Techs, and event support to give different nations differential access to the land doctrine trees. Thus, instead of providing different branches for different countries, it 'encourages' different countries to climb out onto the branch that best represents it's doctrinal thinking at this time. In a variation on an earlier point, countries can deviate from this historical 'imperative' but not easily and without cost.

HATED
All your naval crap
Including the bazillion crap ships that you have to manage individually. Fuck micromanagement, and plase reempower detroyer groups instead of individual ships.
I grant that there can be an awful lot more micro-management in running CORE's naval system, but there doesn't have to be. Group the lighter forces into flotillas and you're back in the vanilla world. I'll also grant that this does take some time and more than a few keystrokes, but once done it's done. As an unabashed micro-manager, however, I recognise that this might still not be to the taste of others.

Including the epitome of shit, the naval doctrine tree. From 1942 and later, the carrier is the king of sea yet only a few select nations will ever be able to use them decently.
As I noted earlier, CORE goes to great pains to emulate the historical situation confronting leaders of the time. That's it. You might not like the consequences and if you don't there are plenty of less historical mods around to divert you. It is unbalanced, and it does cripple the long-term development of most navies in the game, but as I said - that's it. As someone who regularly plays the Axis nations I see it as a very powerful incentive to get the war won before this particular feature of the tech-tree does knock me out of the ring altogether. I suspect Yamamoto might have been similarly driven.
 

bestmajor

Field Marshal
40 Badges
Jun 5, 2008
3.003
88
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Semper Fi
  • Majesty 2
  • Iron Cross
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III
  • East India Company
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Achtung Panzer
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Cities: Skylines
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Epaminondas said:
I grant that there can be an awful lot more micro-management in running CORE's naval system, but there doesn't have to be. Group the lighter forces into flotillas and you're back in the vanilla world. I'll also grant that this does take some time and more than a few keystrokes, but once done it's done. As an unabashed micro-manager, however, I recognise that this might still not be to the taste of others.

the major issue for me is that this system doesnt match with the leaders system, some naval leaders appear on their promorion to rear admiral, others come far to early - its just a real mess there (but thats probably only me ;) ).
 

Epaminondas

Who?
9 Badges
Mar 20, 2005
2.762
97
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
I read your argument on this in another thread, major, and I have to say I agree with you on that point. On the other hand, we both know someone who is beavering away at a naval csv that will do a lot to remedy this deficiency.

I also thought your point on ports and naval IC allocation (if I'm interpreting you correctly) was worth developing further. Care to elaborate?
 

Emmanuel_M

First Lieutenant
47 Badges
Apr 7, 2010
203
1
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Majesty 2
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Magicka
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines
Hi Epaminondas.

Thanks for he time you took to explain some of the interesting and thought out design choices. While I may disagree with some (especially concerning naval warfare), I respect the work and reflexion that went into it.

As for offering a french translation to CORE, I still think about it, starting with the 8 csv files I have to translate.

You can always choose not to make them - that is, decide to field more divisions of less effective infantry rather than fewer divisions of better performing troops. The manpower requirements of 'improved' divisions did increase very significantly over the course of the war, largely as the result of the expanding logistical tail needed to service the improvements made. The German 1943 infantry division is the only case I'm aware of that countered this trend and this didn't so much provide a 'better' division structure in terms of outcome, as it did a structure that delivered roughly equivalent outcomes with fewer personnel.

I agree with the choice made. It's just that it has implication on MP management for the player. Basically, you cannot field as many 43 divisions as you can field early war divisions. It may have some perverse side effects on reinforcements though.

I'd argue almost the reverse. High tech (during this historical period at least) was in large part a detriment to a force's ability to perform effectively in extreme terrain - more stuff to lug about, more things to go wrong, and an encouragement to rely on technical rather than tactical solutions. The 'commando' troops should definitely receive bonuses for operating in this terrain, but those bonuses shouldn't be overwhelming - the very low tech Yugoslav partisans did quite well for themselves against 'improved' German infantry. What's more, I'd argue that such bonuses should come from specialised technical and doctrinal improvments rather than broader infantry advances - and that's pretty much exactly what CORE provides.

What you say is true for regular infantry. But in my opinion it is completely wrong for commando troops. Paratroopers, Alpine and Marine commandos are troops that are designed and trained to operate without their logistical tail, or at least without close logistical support. So late game Mountainers (for example) should crush anyone on hard terrain : they should severely outgun low tech infantry, outadapt to advanced infantry and ambush armor.

Concerning paratroopers, Soviet's liberation of Mandchouria (end of war) made an heavy and extremely effective use of paratrropers, even in a mountain environment. Which reinforces my point that latewar commando troops are not further limited by bad terrain. Ont he opposite, I consider that lategame commandos should get even bigger bonuses on bad terrain as tech teams design lighter survival equipement, more effective portable systems, better emergency medical equipment, improved commando tactics, ...

As for Yougoslavia, you have to take into account the fact that they confronted essentially reserve divsions while german leet troops where mobilized on the eastern theater. We can agree to consider that germany's "mountain" divisions as deployed on the eastern front.

I agree with the thrust of your point here, but maybe you're not yet sufficiently familiar with the situation of different nations to have picked up on how CORE responds to this. Essentially, CORE structures up the Tech Teams, Minister Traits, starting Techs, and event support to give different nations differential access to the land doctrine trees. Thus, instead of providing different branches for different countries, it 'encourages' different countries to climb out onto the branch that best represents it's doctrinal thinking at this time. In a variation on an earlier point, countries can deviate from this historical 'imperative' but not easily and without cost.

Maybe this effect is clouded to me because of the "capture tech teams" option I activate.

On the other hand, while I see what you mean, I would say that the impact of REFERENCE YEAR is so huge in research speed that you'll get a 1 step difference at best between your favored and non favored land warfare doctrine lines. Having all of these techs flags as 1930 to 1944 (to make sure you get max "year" bonus in 1949) while skyrocketing difficulty (to have reserching a 1943 firepower doctrine take the same time in 1943 as it does now) would be a great step in the right direction.

I grant that there can be an awful lot more micro-management in running CORE's naval system, but there doesn't have to be. Group the lighter forces into flotillas and you're back in the vanilla world. I'll also grant that this does take some time and more than a few keystrokes, but once done it's done. As an unabashed micro-manager, however, I recognise that this might still not be to the taste of others.

I particularly hate micro managmeent when it requires very little interesting decisions.

As I noted earlier, CORE goes to great pains to emulate the historical situation confronting leaders of the time. That's it. You might not like the consequences and if you don't there are plenty of less historical mods around to divert you. It is unbalanced, and it does cripple the long-term development of most navies in the game, but as I said - that's it. As someone who regularly plays the Axis nations I see it as a very powerful incentive to get the war won before this particular feature of the tech-tree does knock me out of the ring altogether. I suspect Yamamoto might have been similarly driven.

Yamamoto had to end the war fast because of the huge industrial capacity difference, not because he was too dumb to understand the role of carriers in a modern fleet. If you want to allow for interesting doctrines, you can make countries vary their views on :
* Cruiser roles : Torpedoes (random sinks of capital ships during engagement ) vs Canons (escort, ASW, chasing small ships). Japanese and american battle cruisers, while of similar size, carried extremely different missions
* Night/day cycle, with some fleets (especially japanese) having a clear preference for night combat.
* Carrier airplane : designed for purpose or reconverted? With each branch having advantages (already done, good job ont his btw). Some branch rebalancing might be welcome though (purpose built airgroups should carry heavier IC cost). Later history shown that the choice between purpose built or reconverted is not a clearcut case, and that both approaches are valid.
* Armor : the italian navy was very receptive to a doctrine of less armor/more speed. Having ship designs who would trade some armore for additional speed and positionning could be the source of interesting doctrine trees.

BTW this doctrine trees are about as historical as saying that Barbarossa should fail as it happened historically. Favoring carriers is the consequence of naval superiority : you can design your fleet for naval supremacy, you have far more IC to build a navy, you are ready to step on the toes of uncle Sam, not the cause.


Oh, here is another point I disliked : the disappearanc of the Hospital techs.

I think that a 5 steps hospital line with each step giving :
* -2% attrition, -5% MP cost of reinforcements (representing the fact that more wounded soldiers can either be sent back to the front or to the industrial workforce) would make sense both for historical accuracy and gameplay
 
Last edited:

Epaminondas

Who?
9 Badges
Mar 20, 2005
2.762
97
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
Fair enough, Emmanuel.

I think our only disagreement on 'commandos' is as to the degree of advantage they should receive, and there'll always be room for argument on that.
I think your point on reference year in regard to tech development is well made but is moderated by the change of doctrine delays CORE applies.
And I have great sympathy for the 'big-picture' folk out there trying to come to grips with the naval system. In fact, the chances are that CORE will retreat back to flotilla organisation at some point down the road, but given the other changes required to mate effectively with AoD the devs aren't giving that a high priority at present.

It might also encourage you that Cegorach has argued very strongly for 'night-fighting' techs within the Infantry doctrines as well as the Naval ones. I'm not sure whether he's incorporated these into his 'CORE Improvement Mod', but it might be worth checking out.

I'll still take issue on the question of carriers and naval supremacy, though. If we take your Barbarossa parallel, I think that the CORE devs would argue that if all relevant factors occurred exactly as they did historically then Barbarossa should indeed fail in the game as it did historically - at least in the vast majority of playings. But what they do is attempt to locate the points at which those relevant factors might have been significantly changed and then give the player the opportunity to play around with the consequence of such changes. They don't, however, make those changes cost free, so if you want to go a different route there are other things on which you're going to have to compromise.

I think this is exactly what happens with the carrier techs. The facts are that in this historical time frame the projection of naval power could most easily and powerfully be directed through the assembly of large carrier fleets, and that the U.S. was the only nation actually capable of building those on the scale required. If you're playing someone else the simple consequence is that you're going to get your backside kicked in fleet-to-fleet combat. But fleet-to-fleet combat isn't the only way to fight a naval war, and CORE does give you the chance to pursue alternative strategies by amping up your submarine, missile, and nuclear research. You have to give up the idea of sweeping the seas clean of the red-white-and-blue but these can still be viable war-winning strategies.

Thanks for your observations, Emmanuel, and please keep them coming. It's from such dialogue that we increase our understanding of this complex (and in my view rewarding) mod.
 

Tegetthoff

General
11 Badges
Apr 14, 2006
2.100
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Hi,

Regarding single ships, if we could make them disappear by changing a line in misc.txt they would be gone by now.

Single ships were put in something like 4 years ago and probably seemed like a good idea at the time. They still give immersion to anybody who likes detail.

There are several downsides to single ships, and micromanagement is not the largest of them. Naval stacking rules and hardcoded fleet composition are much more severe problems, adding a couple of hundred units to the late game and slowing down the game is another.

Unfortunately, removing single ships cannot be done at the press of a button. Everything from units stats, via OOBs and techs, event files right down to name csv´s has to be changed. That´s a lot of work and we currently have other problems.
 

Amallric

Field Marshal
4 Badges
May 18, 2008
4.367
8
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
* while this requires confirmation, I feel that Germany, whose job is already extremely difficult in vanilla, has an even harder job. I think this could be improved by having the tech "Political commissioner officers" be downgraded to cause "your units take an additional 20% casualties", to reflects sovietic komissars poor consideration for the survival of their troops. Or, if it's simpler to code, just having this tech give a -5% maxorg penalty to land units

Germany is the easiest country in the game. It is simply impossible for it to have a "difficult job", no matter how bad the player did screw the things up.

* Some marginal events. Having events giving yiou 2 bonus Submarines or 1 bonus IC is just needless detail that should have been abstracted in etiher original troops or a single events rassembling all "minor improvements" events.

Historical events, and besides I don't see how this can be a problem. Sure you can manage to click "ok" in a pop-up every now and then.

* Infantry "improvements" reducing infantry effectiveness in bad terrain. Those should at least be compensated by commando troops (all 3) receiving huge bonus in those hard terrains, making late mountainers/paras/marines the undisputed kings of difficult terrains versus low tech infantry.

Improvements like motorisation, its normal that the unit is less efficient in bad terrain if it's equipped with trucks. It has nothing to do with commando troops, which have their own improvements.

* The land doctrine tree. Too many micro improvements, too little branches. I think each coutnry should have some different land doctrine branches (say 4 of the 8 possible choices) with choices rebalanced to make sure that each subtree is different but roughly balanced. In vanilla AoD, the german organisation vs soviet morale creates an intersting dynamic.

This one is kind of true, the land doctrine tree isn't very interesting.

* Including the bazillion crap ships that you have to manage individually. Fuck micromanagement, and plase reempower detroyer groups instead of individual ships.

Experience shows clearly that this is the typical reaction of a new CORE player. Play a couple of months and you'll start loving single ships.

* Including the epitome of shit, the naval doctrine tree. From 1942 and later, the carrier is the king of sea yet only a few select nations will ever be able to use them decently. Is the modder who committed that a borderline fascist yankee ? Cause it sounds like arrogant and cocky starstripe flag waving. You can find it "historical" as it ensures that Italy's Marine will be no more than bozos. But that's all what this unbalanced idioticness ensures. Independant air forces tree is superior to integrated air forcestree late game, but this is not a problem as you can switch tree later on (for a reasonnable cost). Carrier tree is too good, as it is a tree specialised in boosting your fleets' main forces whereas other trees boost your patrol or obsolete ships.

Absurd. The tech tree favours carriers, not specific nations. If you build carriers as Italy you'll be able to beat the USA. The mod is about realism, not balance. Carrier warfare effectively made all other ships obsolete by the end of the war, this is a fact and it is reflected in the game.


* Having exclusive branching trees is cool (like vanilla land/sea doctrines). Having some of them being so vastly superior is moronic. Really moronic. The "america rules against inferior nations" stupid carrier tree is just imbalanced and uninteresting.

Again, America isn't the only nation to have carriers. And balance has nothing to do in this mod.

* I insisted on CORE naval warfare being some stinking piece of trash when compared to vanilla.

Unfortunately CORE naval warfare is way superior to vanilla.
 

Mjarr

Lt. General
10 Badges
May 8, 2009
1.251
114
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • Penumbra - Black Plague
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Improvements like motorisation, its normal that the unit is less efficient in bad terrain if it's equipped with trucks. It has nothing to do with commando troops, which have their own improvements.

Motorised infantry has the problem that usually trucks are not (usually) used in direct combat support role, and generally speaking the infantry fights unmounted and moves unmounted also under certain occasions. Mechanised infantry would have more problems with that as they are intended to fight with their vehicles for the most part.

Representing movement issues is a tricky one as adding additional movement penalties can be fairly counterproductive and produces a CTD once in a while in the game. Reducing morale to represent other logistical organisation related issues that comes up with stuff like that is one solution but the question is how well it would fit in with CORE in general.
 

Amallric

Field Marshal
4 Badges
May 18, 2008
4.367
8
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
Trucks are not used on the battlefield but the scale of combat in the game is very large, when you fight for a province of several thousands of km² you'll certainly use trucks to redeploy troops etc during the combat. The unit gets a large movement bonus with this tech, which is compensated by the fact that you can't rely on it in harsh terrain, thus the malus.
 

Mjarr

Lt. General
10 Badges
May 8, 2009
1.251
114
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • Penumbra - Black Plague
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Putting it that way yes, it does make bit more sense relative to the size of provinces in AoD.
 

kiahoga

Major
62 Badges
May 22, 2007
594
4
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Iron Cross
  • Sword of the Stars
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
Its perfectly reasonable to expect more advanced infantry to be not as effective in harsh terrain. You saw it over and over again in WW2, try reading some of the diaries of D-Day veterans who had been trained in this new mobile warfare but had to slog thru hedgerow after hedge row. Or look at how the German 6th army ground to a halt in Stalingrad, where it was eventually killed.

Also about individual ship, I know that they can occasionally be a pain especially when your getting your screens set up but I like it. If for no other reason that 90% of your naval leaders don't sit idle the whole game now.
 

Balesir

AoD's Old Geezer
140 Badges
Dec 23, 2005
2.709
556
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Impire
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Iron Cross
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • 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
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
Single ships were put in something like 4 years ago and probably seemed like a good idea at the time. They still give immersion to anybody who likes detail.

There are several downsides to single ships, and micromanagement is not the largest of them. Naval stacking rules and hardcoded fleet composition are much more severe problems, adding a couple of hundred units to the late game and slowing down the game is another.

Unfortunately, removing single ships cannot be done at the press of a button. Everything from units stats, via OOBs and techs, event files right down to name csv´s has to be changed. That´s a lot of work and we currently have other problems.
No lie changing the naval setup is lots of work!

I think if I was starting again (for vanilla) I would consider handling "individual ships" as brigades. I.e. have DD and SS flotillas with minimal stats (representing a flotilla leader or even just the "HQ") and then add Fleet DDs, Escort DDs, ASW DDs, AA DDs, Coastal SSs, Ocean-going SSs, Resupply SSs, Micro-SSs (?), Minelaying SSs (?) and Large/Long Range SSs as "brigades" added to the flotilla. That would give added immersion and detail with reduced micromanagement (since you could select flotilla composition when you set up the production line.

Unfortunately, this would require the possibility to add multiple brigades of the same type, so would need code modifications rather than just modding changes, now...
 

bestmajor

Field Marshal
40 Badges
Jun 5, 2008
3.003
88
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Semper Fi
  • Majesty 2
  • Iron Cross
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III
  • East India Company
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Achtung Panzer
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Cities: Skylines
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Epaminondas said:
I read your argument on this in another thread, major, and I have to say I agree with you on that point. On the other hand, we both know someone who is beavering away at a naval csv that will do a lot to remedy this deficiency.

I also thought your point on ports and naval IC allocation (if I'm interpreting you correctly) was worth developing further. Care to elaborate?

i would elaborate, if i only knew what you meant exactly? care to elaborate it in BSE (bad simple english)?
 

Epaminondas

Who?
9 Badges
Mar 20, 2005
2.762
97
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
Yeah, well, like, someplace else, dunno where now, youse wuz sayin dat dere wuz free fings yez dint like bout CORE's naval stuff, like. One wuz dat all dat single ship bovver wuz like shite, man, cos dere wernt enuff leaders to, y'know, lead 'em an stuff an anyways da ranks wuz all rong, like, cos youse had admirals commandin like one destroyer, mate. An dat's right on man cos I agree wiv dat.

Den I fink yez said dat wiv all dem single ships, like, all dem modifys fer combat an visible an stuff wuz all rong cos dey like shooda been changed. An I fink maybe youse is rite agin, man, but like I'm not sure, like, cos I dunno if dat wuz real wat yez ment sorta.

Den yez said like industry an stuff an I dint no sorta wat youse wuz gettin at dere but I fort it coodabeen bildin an stuff but I dint real no. So I fort I'd askt yez to laborate, like.

So's ya wanna?

Edit: Drat! Misspelled 'sumplace'.
 
Last edited:

Dichromate

Colonel
31 Badges
Aug 13, 2009
1.143
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
I've been meaning to make a similar thread for a while but I'll just post here:
Frankly, core really really isn't suitable for AoD due to the combat model, and what were interesting features in hoi2/arma now unbalance it.
eg: a division is a division for stacking purposes, which hurts countries with 6 brigade divisions hard. Obviously there's the naval stuff too.
The way AoD rewards concentration of force just breaks these features totally I'm afraid.
I'm also just not autistic enough to appreciate having all those individual destroyers and subs as ships either - I understand some people love the detail, but after a game or two as Italy or Japan it just kills me, the micro management and the sheer clutter. Obviously it'd be a massive pain to remove now of course.

-Features like the German oil/rare plants are actual engine features in AoD too... kinda redundant, though not a real problem or anything.

-I can't help but think that a lot of the balancing still seems kinda off in AoD too, having played and enjoyed the mod under Arma. there was still a tendency for the AI to get stuck in virtual trench warfare sort of stuff last time I played with core in AoD, not just spanish civil war but also even Germany in the Low countries on occasion. (and I don't mean in a cool alt history way either) - partly because the AI seems more generally (not a core thing obviously) doesn't really appreciate its ability to wear an enemy down with repeated or prolonged attack - it decides it's too strong and sits there. But IMO even with rebalancing the unit/doctrine stats just don't work with AoD's different combat system.

To be honest Darkest hour would be a way better prospect for the continuation of the mod - the mobilization system in core could be adapted to DH, with reserve units and everything (the way mobilization works economically in core is WAY better and more realistic than Darkest Hour at the moment too). The events aren't totally redundant and a lot could be re-done as decisions -eg the german plants and whatnot. Most importantly, if the arma mod is ported directly the painstaking balance achieved over years to get the right length of combat is preserved. That's the biggest thing that's been messed up in AoD.
 

Tegetthoff

General
11 Badges
Apr 14, 2006
2.100
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
I can calm you on two counts here:

* The stand-offs in the SCW and in the Low Countries are gone in the latest version (keeping my thumbs crossed for the Belgium hang-up, but haven´t seen it in the last four test runs).
* oil/rare plants will be in a future version

Generally, you all can expect a release candidate "shortly".

Once 0.50 is out I, for one, will certainly have a look at DH. Since Porting CORE to AoD took 8 months of work, I do not think that we will look at a CORE port to DH. The main fear there is different province ids, which means rewriting everthing related to ai and events (taking out single subs or DDs from CORE is peanuts compared to this). But maybe I´ll be pleasantly surprised ...
 

el alamein

CORE for AoD Beta Tester
8 Badges
Jun 20, 2006
319
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Darkest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Semper Fi
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
I believe Fernando Torres offered (has been given permission) to port the Armageddon version of CORE for DH.