CORE questions

[unmerged(62347)]

When I first played HOI2 Doomsday, I played with CORE but moved on to DAIM etc.. I'm now curious as to when, roughly, your next AI-enhanced version will come out.

 

[Hagar]

When I first played HOI2 Doomsday, I played with CORE but moved on to DAIM etc.. I'm now curious as to when, roughly, your next AI-enhanced version will come out.

Not for a couple of months... We still have to move towards Alpha phase, and given the changes to the AI and naval techs the Beta would take some time to complete I reckon. Ah well, more time to spend on the graphics for 0.40.

 

[Tanesis]

How will the CORE improved AI compare with DAIM AI? Will the two be simimlar or will there be funadament differences due to events/tech tree etc.

Tanesis,

 

[Hagar]

How will the CORE improved AI compare with DAIM AI? Will the two be simimlar or will there be funadament differences due to events/tech tree etc.

Tanesis,

They are and will be fundamently different... For the upcoming release we're migrating to an AI for CORE which is based on that of TRP. So do expect a more challenging AI in 0.40.

 

[Beagá]

Since this topic is about questions regarding CORE, I have one as well

I´ve recently started playing the mod; which techs I must research as Japan to get purpose-designed CAGS? The tech is disabled at the start... Do I need to research an air doctrine first?

Another question, regarding modding... which file do I need to edit to change the rate of organization regain of planes ships etc?

Thanks in advance!

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

You need to research either Battleline Support Doctrine or Independent Carrier Doctrine. Both of these are Naval Doctrines.

I don't believe there is any single parameter that adjusts the rate of Organization regain.

mm

 

[Beagá]

Hmm thanks... but there´s ought to be some way to change it. In TRP it increases a lot faster, and I would like to change it in my CORE game. After all, one of the reasons why the AI uses its airforce so poorly is due to constant shuffling around the map, never allowing an air wing to have enough org to do anything.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I'd suspect that TRP is using higher Morale values. But these are set individually by unit type and they are set to generate certain effects so adjusting them across the board will cause some issues.

mm

 

[Beagá]

Damn, well guess I´ll have to live with it

Following my game as Japan... Looking at the events for Japan I´ve noticed that if you had some land doctrines the outcome of Lake Chasan would be different (and aparently, Nomonhan´s too). So I´ve researched the techs. Ok... now it´s 1939, and I´ve had the increased tension event... followed always by a Sov DOW! The soviets get the increased tension event too.

There´s no Nomonhan victory (or defeat) event triggered, "Zhukov leads the attack" etc that I got while playing as Sov... Not that I really mind because I´m looking forward to kick the bolsheviks out of Vladivostock, but I was curious to know if this is the natural chain of events of a Japanese victory at Chasan.

 

[Hagar]

Damn, well guess I´ll have to live with it

Following my game as Japan... Looking at the events for Japan I´ve noticed that if you had some land doctrines the outcome of Lake Chasan would be different (and aparently, Nomonhan´s too). So I´ve researched the techs. Ok... now it´s 1939, and I´ve had the increased tension event... followed always by a Sov DOW! The soviets get the increased tension event too.

There´s no Nomonhan victory (or defeat) event triggered, "Zhukov leads the attack" etc that I got while playing as Sov... Not that I really mind because I´m looking forward to kick the bolsheviks out of Vladivostock, but I was curious to know if this is the natural chain of events of a Japanese victory at Chasan.

There is an ahistoric chance that Nomonhan won't occur, but instead SOV will go for a more total war.

 

[zeekater]

Some questions and remarks:

1. I read somewhere that the torpedoboats would be removed, but they haven't yet?

2. can version 0.3.2 be installed over 0.3.0.14?

3. Why don't the naval unit techs make previous models obselete? This clutters up the build screen and makes it difficult to choose what to build. You only build the good ones anyway.

4. Why do you already get a better BB model then the bismarck-class from the start of the game as germany? (treaty BB) And why is the bismarck-class a 1940 tech, while the treaty BB is a 1936 tech which is better?

5. The APCR and APDS (which don't make much sense if you don't know the abbreviation o ) are basically upgrades to the projectiles, so perhaps they shouldn't represent new models but changes in the stats of the existing models (if that's possible to do).
Also, because of the way they are regarded now, all techs need to follow each other, while the APCR and APDS 'upgrades' shouldn't be necessairy to get to a newer model (you don't need '41 APCR to get to '42 AT).
(I have an idea on how to fix that, that the APCR and APDS are still real models, but aren't necessairy to research, I'll post it if you want to)

6. tech 2790 ('44 APDS AT) requires 2770 ('42 AT) instead of the more logical 2780, WAD?

7. Ever thought about making a 1935 mod? (start of Germany openly disobeying the Versailles treaty)

8. Also, because of the torpedoboats there's no room left for more modern destroyers. All DD models are 1936, then one for 1939 and one for 1942. The same goes for the rest of the ships.

9. How about giving the player some more control over events, like you already did for the mobilisation events;

but also note that stationing troops on a potential enemy‟s border might cause them to mobilize…

For example; have the event chains for Anschluss and Munich start when Germany has influenced Austria ('influence' would then mean 'armed the austrian nazis') enough, this way you can start it earlier instead of just having it at a certain date (earlier might also mean the italians are more likely to intervene).
This would obviously only be for the human player, and difficult to implement correctly.
Just an idea I had, no idea how 'fun' it would be though.

10. How's the work on the longer battles going?

11. Have you guys had a look at the experience of WW2 mod? The battles last longer and units move faster, which makes for a totally different experience (although it's a bit overdone IMO).

That was a lot, but I've been stockpiling my questions for a few weeks now

EDIT;

12. some more arrows and text on the tech screens would be nice, to make things a bit easier to understand
(especially some of the earlier pre-1936 techs)

13. What's the difference between '34 MG or Gun Tank (P)? One gives bonus, the other does nothing.

 

[dublish]

For the upcoming release we're migrating to an AI for CORE which is based on that of TRP. So do expect a more challenging AI in 0.40.

If you're basing the AI off TRP's, please make sure Britain and Japan garrison their beaches.

 

[Hagar]

1. I read somewhere that the torpedoboats would be removed, but they haven't yet?

If you really want to know MateDow's 'not work-related' 24-7 internet block of our forums while out on the rig threw a spanner in those works... They will be scrapped in 0.40 though, with a new naval and naval doctrine tech tree.

2. can version 0.3.2 be installed over 0.3.0.14?

The only downside I can come up with is the fact that the old install will still be listed in the 'add/remove programs' list, to be honest.

3. Why don't the naval unit techs make previous models obselete? This clutters up the build screen and makes it difficult to choose what to build. You only build the good ones anyway.

Though MateDow is the one to answer this one in depth, not all the 'old' models are necessarily the lesser choice. That depends on what you're aiming for.

5. The APCR and APDS (which don't make much sense if you don't know the abbreviation o ) are basically upgrades to the projectiles, so perhaps they shouldn't represent new models but changes in the stats of the existing models (if that's possible to do).
Also, because of the way they are regarded now, all techs need to follow each other, while the APCR and APDS 'upgrades' shouldn't be necessairy to get to a newer model (you don't need '41 APCR to get to '42 AT).
(I have an idea on how to fix that, that the APCR and APDS are still real models, but aren't necessairy to research, I'll post it if you want to)

Well post it, I'd say. In any case the model names are listing the same AT-gun, with different projectile. Dec is the one who can answer you as to the how and why.

7. Ever thought about making a 1935 mod? (start of Germany openly disobeying the Versailles treaty)

No, as that would require changes to the EXE, which we consider as being 'off-limits'. Besides the amount of rework needed to realign to the 1935 OOB isn't worth the hassle IMHO.

8. Also, because of the torpedoboats there's no room left for more modern destroyers. All DD models are 1936, then one for 1939 and one for 1942. The same goes for the rest of the ships.

Will be revamped in 0.40.

10. How's the work on the longer battles going?

A little too good actually. The last test results had some major gridlocks - obviously we do need to scale it down a bit.

11. Have you guys had a look at the experience of WW2 mod? The battles last longer and units move faster, which makes for a totally different experience (although it's a bit overdone IMO).

Well I certainly haven't... We are working on prolonged battles, but would opt for slower pace rather than faster to be honest. Vanilla unit speeds are already way over the top compared to real life.

12. some more arrows and text on the tech screens would be nice, to make things a bit easier to understand
(especially some of the earlier pre-1936 techs)

Do you imply we actually have room to spare for those?

 

[Hagar]

If you're basing the AI off TRP's, please make sure Britain and Japan garrison their beaches.

That will be something to watch out for during the Beta, I reckon. Thanks for the heads-up!

 

[zeekater]

If you really want to know MateDow's 'not work-related' 24-7 internet block of our forums while out on the rig threw a spanner in those works... They will be scrapped in 0.40 though, with a new naval and naval doctrine tech tree.

0.4 sounds like fun, is there an ETA?

Though MateDow is the one to answer this one in depth, not all the 'old' models are necessarily the lesser choice. That depends on what you're aiming for.

Some models are clearly worse in all ways then others, nobody's going to build any WW1 type battleships or destroyers anymore in 1938.

Well post it, I'd say. In any case the model names are listing the same AT-gun, with different projectile. Dec is the one who can answer you as to the how and why.

You could view the different projectiles as cheap upgrades, which also become available with the next tech, along with the newer model (so you can 'skip' the tech). This means that you get two new models, so you have to upgrade twice, so you can make the upgrade from pak41 to pak41 apdc very cheap.

A little too good actually. The last test results had some major gridlocks - obviously we do need to scale it down a bit.

If implemented correctly it makes the game a lot more fun, but those gridlocks can be a bitch, especially when it's 6 to 1 on plains in clear weather and you're still not winning..

Well I certainly haven't... We are working on prolonged battles, but would opt for slower pace rather than faster to be honest. Vanilla unit speeds are already way over the top compared to real life.

Faster unit speeds mean that the AI can respond better to attacks, too much means breakthroughs are near impossible. Unless you attack the other units on the frontline too, to keep them occupied while you force a breakthrough, which is kinda realistic I guess.

Do you imply we actually have room to spare for those?

For some of the older techs perhaps, which are now considered more as 'given from start', like the bottom of the land doctrine tech tree.

 

[Hagar]

0.4 sounds like fun, is there an ETA?

Unfortunately no... The main problem is that MateDow is (and can be) incommunicado for weeks if not more than a month... All part of having to work on an oil rig. As his naval changes directly interlock with Dec's work on the AI we can set a realistic ETA once Dec actually has the chance to review MateDow's work. We're well advanced for 0.40 though.

If implemented correctly it makes the game a lot more fun, but those gridlocks can be a bitch, especially when it's 6 to 1 on plains in clear weather and you're still not winning..

We were aiming for a 3-1 ratio, actually. But it needs some further tweaking.

Faster unit speeds mean that the AI can respond better to attacks, too much means breakthroughs are near impossible. Unless you attack the other units on the frontline too, to keep them occupied while you force a breakthrough, which is kinda realistic I guess.

Well, units are presented on a division (if not corps) level in-game. Getting those on the move for a counterattack is not something which happens at lightning speed... The current unit speed in Vanilla is more out of gamey aspects than historical accuracy. Increasing this speed makes this imbalance even worse. With an increase in battle duration the AI gains more time to respond, so it shouldn't be a problem. Far from it, based on the initial test results...

 

[zeekater]

Any teaser screens for 0.40?

I'd look on the terranova website but it keeps referring to surftown (apparently something with firefox, cause with IE it works).

 

[dublish]

Well, units are presented on a division (if not corps) level in-game. Getting those on the move for a counterattack is not something which happens at lightning speed... The current unit speed in Vanilla is more out of gamey aspects than historical accuracy. Increasing this speed makes this imbalance even worse. With an increase in battle duration the AI gains more time to respond, so it shouldn't be a problem. Far from it, based on the initial test results...

Just out of curiosity, have you ever played TRP? You seem to be looking for a very different approach to the same solution that they came up with.

 

[Hagar]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever played TRP? You seem to be looking for a very different approach to the same solution that they came up with.

Just a wee bit - and I didn't really liked their overall approach. So in depth the answer is no, but I did get a general impression. Dec knows the ins and outs of HSR though from past experience.
But all development within CORE is debated in debth within the team before implementation, and we tend to have the same mindset as to what's the best approach. I guess that's part of the corner stones of the CORE team - cooperation, maturity, historical accuracy, and not about to shy away from a challenge and yet more (re)work.

 

[Hagar]

Any teaser screens for 0.40?

I'd look on the terranova website but it keeps referring to surftown (apparently something with firefox, cause with IE it works).

Not really, as we haven't reached Alpha stage as of yet. I'll probably do some more 'propaganda postering' once the Beta is rolling though. But do expect the Alpha and Beta stage to last a couple of months...