Download CORE 0.70.3

[Tegetthoff]

New Version:

Download link:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/24839750/CORE2_0_7_0_3.exe

Experimental alternate link:
http://www.filehosting.org/file/details/476123/CORE2_0_7_0_3.exe

Checksum:
TCVM

New Graphics Pack link as of Mar. 1, 2015:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/24839764/CORE_B&W_Graphics_070.exe

Changelog:

More gfx from Hagar:
* 23 new or improved province pics
* 64 new or improved minister/TT pics
* assoicated TT files (HOL, IND, JAP, SAU) 
* 26 colour TT pics


Notes on Zsar´s dynamic trade ai:
Trade values are calculated from the following resource_values.csv:

Resource;Value Multiplier;x
oil;3;x
energy;1;x
metal;2;x
rare_materials;4;x
money;15;x
supplies;10;x
EOF;;x

If these base values differ, the values within AI files have to be adjusted as follows:

*_Sell.ai    : 0.8 * <base value>
*_Neutral.ai : 1.0 * <base value>
*_Buy1.ai    : 1.5 * <base value>
*_Buy2.ai    : 2.0 * <base value>

The dummy AI files in the vanilla folder are necessary for the program to recognise the proper files in the mod folder.

Notes on Zsar´s multiplayer fixes:
Added empty commands to inherit-only actions to ensure proper execution in multiplayer.
(for details refer to http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?832698-Can-anyone-find-the-events-ID-numbers-3836-3408-3729-3831)


Notes on Zsar´s world names and other formal fixes:
Fixes:
At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\events\other\CORE2_naval_construction_events.txt [event[26]\action_b\command[5]\which] (1102, 34):
 "8171" is not a valid -1 or LeaderID
-> Leader is 8218 now

At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\leaders\usa.csv [Entry[714]\1] (715, 6):
 "605846" is not a valid LeaderID
-> ID still wrong, should be 60846


Incorrect CSV column count
At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\config\world_names.csv
 Expected columns: 12
 Original error: Expected 12 columns, but actually 11 columns at line 554.
-> Line 553 lacks the terminating 'X' character. Line 554 is short one "Dahomey_Togo;".

Also removes USA leaders Ely (60147) and Foulois (60513).

Notes on Zsar´s formal tech file fixes:
Replaced all instances of " when = now" with "" via Search&Replace.

Fixed the following:

Duplicate IDs
 ID: TECH_APP_ARMOR_47_DESC
 [1]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\armor_tech.txt (6468, 2)
 [2]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\armor_tech.txt (2455, 2)

 ID: TECH_CMP_INFANTRY_53_5_NAME
 [1]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\infantry_tech.txt (5688, 26)
 [2]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\infantry_tech.txt (5624, 26)

 ID: TECH_CMP_ND_80_5_NAME
 [1]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\naval_doctrines_tech.txt (4267, 3)
 [2]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\naval_doctrines_tech.txt (4255, 3)

 ID: TECH_APP_SW_49_DESC
 [1]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\secret_weapons_tech.txt (1099, 2)
 [2]: E:\_Downloads\_AoD\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\tech\secret_weapons_tech.txt (1051, 2) 


Dec´s micro fix:
Some ai file triggers and changes to election events


Teg´s changes:
Corrected event 2801 (Vichy France for new Sedan and Verdun provinces)
Added Sedan and Verdun also to the "release nations" events of the GER surrender event series
Added Sedan and Verdun to the trigger conditions for Belgiums mobilisation events (FRA not controlling the border provs)
Removed Reims (64) from the trigger conditions for Belgiums mobilisation events (no longer a border province)

Belgian scenario description (finally)

China:
Operation Zet gives China 14 supplies instead of 12, 2 oil instead of 1 and 2 money instead of 1
Haiphong RR gives China 10 supplies instead of 11 but costs only 5 money instead of 6 (part of operation ZET supplies came via Haiphong)
Lowered the chance of CHI refusing operation Zet from 5 to 4%

Japan:
Shifted JAP build AI towards GAR and shifted the MTN/RES balance towards RES
Deleted a second AI beach guard GAR unit for Pusan (there is already a standard GAR there)

2015-03-01
**********************************
-> CORE 0.70.3 for AoD
**********************************

 

[Tegetthoff]

There are a few installer changes to accomodate the dynamic trade AI. Please check that I did everything right and that it really installs correctly on you Computers (you will notice within a game day or two if there is a problem with the dummy file Installation).

CHI/JAP: will require a lot of testing and I appreciate any feedback and reports. The current AI setup definitely builds more RES than MTN and the one test run I had gave a slightly under-historical performance of Japan - but a far cry from the Problems we had in 0.62. Well within the range of possible outcomes. Only ran it to 1942 but Japan held the Chinese East Coast plus Hainan and was pushing up a bit from Indochina. JAP placed 15 divisions in Hainan, though, which more or less explains the underperformance. I could not yet get the JAP AI to build a single GAR, so this is WIP.

Please note the new b/w graphics pack link, Hagar has been very busy.

 

[ArmdChair]

Seemingly, no problem with the new dummy files.

As the USA, the JAP AI annexes CHI on 3 May, 1942. Had no trouble advancing. Some other items to consider.

1) JAP Demands Indochina. This event should be split into two. JAP demanded a presence in Haiphong when FRA became VIC, not the whole country. That came in mid-1941. JAP was still trying not to push the USA and ENG too far. Plus, the current event assumes local MP being used for whatever JAP troops are created. This is not occur at all. MP should come from the JAP pool and the unit(s) should be either GAR, "locked", or both.

2) When JAP does "defeat" CHI, there should never be any annexations, save for specific (and limited) provinces, like Shanghai and Canton, for example. JAP always preferred to work through proxies, which the game depicts as puppets. Plus, any Puppet contributions to further JAP military advances outside of China should be very limited, or non-existent. This would have been the preference of all involved. JAP would likely continue to garrison major industrial, urban areas and transport corridors for JAP security purposes. The JAP armies could not easily just pick up and move on to India, for example. Plus, serious consideration would have to be depicted where the JAP Army would have really wanted to move north against the Soviets, had they defeated CHI and the SOV were at war with the (European) Axis forces.

 

[Tegetthoff]

My JAP/CHI observations so far (three DOM hands-off games):

The RES/MTN balance seems to be a very sensitive tool. We are now far from the maximum settings discusses previously (the de-facto result is a ratio MTN/RES of about 4:6), but still early game (= pre 1940) Japan performance is down significantly.

All three games gave a Japanese occupation that was below historical in the center and above historical in the North (Japan alway knocks out Communist China 38/39ish, but should rather push up to Wuchang along the Yangtse by later 1938).

CHI was holding nicely until about 1942 and then collapsed within about a year in all three games. The collapse is no longer economical (they earn money, the can do research, the upgrade their units and do a bit of infrastructure repair). CHI units are at fairly high strength right up to the end (used to be below 50% previously).

The CHI problem currently seems to be more a problem of the AI doing suddenly very badly. A 40+ unit stack in Golmud (annexed Xibei San Ma) is not a smart move, for example. On the other hand, JAP seems to go on the offensive in China together with the Pacific offensive (possibly the sudden IC boost emboldens the JAP AI to go on the offensive in China - since they win it is actually a smart move, in a way).

A lot of work has been spent on JAP AI in the Pacific (including downgrading the priority of everything Chinese), so ATM I would like to concentrate on CHI defensive AI around 1942. CHI AI has not been worked for a long time, at least not by me.

On a completely different note: I get the impression that USA AI is overbuilding land units prior to Dec. 1941, but I have neither studies the correct target figures nor US pre-war AI coding so far. But 70 divisions in early 41, even if half of them are pre-placed garrisons seems a bit high for me. Still in the order of 40 combat ready divisions. Anybody else seeing this?

 

[Denniss]

Is there any intention to merge the two 6bn/9bn infantry/armor division trees into a sigle one, using only a doctrine tech to enable the valid division type?

 

[Tegetthoff]

Not from my side, but I wouldn´t know how to do it. So this is very much Dec´s field of Expertise.

 

[ArmdChair]

The USA was in the process of filling out and training all of their War Plans divisions, including all of the Organized Reserve infantry divisions that we don't let them have without building them. Still, 40 combat ready divisions is too high. In reality, I doubt any of the divisions were "ready", save for the Philippine and Hawaiian Divisions and the Panama Mobile Force. And they were woefully unprepared at the top echelons, apparently. This is where the game and reality don't meet very well, no matter which country we are talking about.

We have been tweaking away at GER, so that country is in better condition, game-wise, but the USA and FRA had quite a few cadre units that could be filled with reservists and draftees in the USA case. On the other hand, JAP and ITA seem to overbuild, as well as ROM, HUN, SLO, FIN and BUL.

As to CHI, maybe a review of the triggers for the CHI annexations might prove fruitful? Unscientifically, I feel that CHI absorbs its puppet states as it loses ground in the east. It is an indicator to me that the war is going poorly for CHI. Plus, CHI annexes CHC too quickly and too often, in my opinion.

Japan really only was interested in the parts of China it could extract resources from until late in the war. The Army's lack of logistics acumen repeatedly doomed them to very short bursts of campaigning, followed by a long period of recuperation and refit (at least in comparison to the other major powers). Too much of their successes on the field were due as much to incompetent, poorly trained and supplied opponents, or completely outclassed opponents. They had some brilliant generals, but they were the exception, not the rule. But then, the Chinese had some really good defensive generals as well.

Perhaps turning "up" the JAP backoff AIs is a short term solution to test out?

 

[Tegetthoff]

Puppet absorption:
Guangxi is now completely absorbed by event in the second half of 1936, as was the case historically (we have some low probability cases where Guaongdong survives semi-indepently)
Yunnan is absorbed via the Burma Road events. Again, this historically realistic. Whatever freedom of action the Yunnan warlord had disappeared once the KMT capital was so close and tens of thousands of KMT soldiers/labourers/government officials were building and operating the Burma Road right through his territory.

The other Chinese minors are "protectively annexed", i.e. AI CHI annexes them rather than letting the Japanese annex them and gain the (limited) benefits of annexations.
Of these Shanxi should go as quickly as possible and Xibei should go when the Japanese move into this area.

Communist China should be more resilient. I would like to look at the various Japanese AI settings again, although AI wise they are told in pretty clear terms to steer clear of CHC. I removed some units from CHC when JAP was too weak in 0.62 so might give them back (although removing them was spent on quite a bit of research. But reducing CHC to the actual size of Maos forces in early 1936 would make CHI walk over them long before any Xi´an event can fire. And "Army Groups" and "Armies" in the Communist army were often just a couple of thousand men). Giving an extra landfort to Yanan would stiffen them and giving the third CHC province a VP might also delay either Japanese or Chinese annexation.

JAP backoff AI fires more or less exactly where we want it to fires, a bit after the capture of Nanking.

I am not sure that the Japanese army was doing as badly as you describe. They were on the offensive from mid 1937 right up to late 1938 when they captured Wuchang/Wuhan, although by then the Chinese resistance had stiffened considerably. By then they had run out of interesting territory to conquer and - in my opinion - were at a loss stratgically. They simply had run out of options to conquer territory that could be conquered and defended (and the loss of which would hurt the Chinese government sufficiently to come to the negotiating table) - of course you can reverse the argument and say they were at the end of their logistical tether.

In game terms we may have the problem that both the territory Japan can conquer and the territory they cannot or should not conquer are uninteresting in terms of resources. In my opinion there should be more energy=coal in Northern China than we currently give it credit for.

My hope ATM is finding a weakness in the CHI AI. Or in the JAP Pacific AI, where Japan seems to gain a second breath in China rather than push all it can against the US.

One thing I noticed playing Japan is that British India is a pushover. It is really just a question of having enough units to hold a line (which means 12 to 15 divisions), but I found myself winning every battle easily. The big solution might be eliminating British India completely and handing India back to ENG. It was created in HOI2 since it was not possible to place newly built units there. It is quite possible that British India is backwards technologically (or limited by its agricultural tech level) to make it an easy target for Japanese invasion.

 

[Tegetthoff]

Seemingly, no problem with the new dummy files.

As the USA, the JAP AI annexes CHI on 3 May, 1942. Had no trouble advancing. Some other items to consider.

1) JAP Demands Indochina. This event should be split into two. JAP demanded a presence in Haiphong when FRA became VIC, not the whole country. That came in mid-1941. JAP was still trying not to push the USA and ENG too far. Plus, the current event assumes local MP being used for whatever JAP troops are created. This is not occur at all. MP should come from the JAP pool and the unit(s) should be either GAR, "locked", or both.

2) When JAP does "defeat" CHI, there should never be any annexations, save for specific (and limited) provinces, like Shanghai and Canton, for example. JAP always preferred to work through proxies, which the game depicts as puppets. Plus, any Puppet contributions to further JAP military advances outside of China should be very limited, or non-existent. This would have been the preference of all involved. JAP would likely continue to garrison major industrial, urban areas and transport corridors for JAP security purposes. The JAP armies could not easily just pick up and move on to India, for example. Plus, serious consideration would have to be depicted where the JAP Army would have really wanted to move north against the Soviets, had they defeated CHI and the SOV were at war with the (European) Axis forces.

Split Indochina in two parts: would be historically correct. Triggers may be a bit of a problem, especially for the second part.
MP from Japanese MP pool: we could do this right away
GAR units: would lead to China conquering Indochina unless Japan holds the neighbouring CHI provinces. JAP AI is very slow to reinforce Indochina, Haiphong is usually lost immediately. Of course once Japan puts significant units into Indochina they can sometimes roll up CHI from the South -> one of the possible weaknesses of the CHI AI.

Fighting SOV while still at war in China or at war in the Pacific: Is hard enough ATM even for a human player. Which means it is probably realistic and needs no further restrictions in game terms. AI Japan hardly ever moves against the Soviets, so that should be ok and the player should be free to try it. I tried it in a recent game where I had done very well as Japan previously and had to get in massive help from MAN and a puppeted CHI. Which leads me to your point about puppets: yes, agree completely. AI on AI we can quite simply set those nations no to send expeditionary troops. A player has to limit himself with house rules, since he can always take military control. But very little love has been spent on the design of the China puppets so far.

I did a lot of work on MAN to make them more into a producer of military supplies rather than a builder of units. Since exploitation of raw materials would have been the major raison d´etre for the CHI puppets, their AI would have to be designed to improve infra, build IC and extract and export raw materials rather than build a large army. Also, we should have them move down in mobilisation level, at least from full mobilisation.

 

[Denniss]

Teg, would it be possible for you to convert the Manchurian supply/money delivery events to offmap deliveries in the LL event style? On/Off events could still use MAN pools as trigger.

 

[Tegetthoff]

Yes, but what is the advantage?

 

[Denniss]

It directly influences JAP IC available for producton vs stockpiling money and supplies. It may also discourage MAN from producing too much other stuff.

 

[Tegetthoff]

We can try and see what it changes.

I have been considering to change the Burma Road events to the current "package" method of the MAN supply/money events. Burma Road gets too complicated because we have the basic and the expanded Burma Road, which can be cut militarily or terminated because of lack of money AND I would like to add an option where the supplies are free once China is in the Allies, while it currently pays for a large part of the supplies and this just has to many possible cases.

Ah Denniss: are you in a mood to revisit your Italian surrender / RSI events? I remember we switched them off a year or two ago due to some difficulty and never touched them again.

 

[Denniss]

The events were OK, they were disabled because the german AI was unable to cope with the new situation (wth or without RSI) so Germany was rolled-up from the South.

 

[Tegetthoff]

China AI coding has a few holes, with the most obvious being the Chinese backoff AI, which is tied by event number to the Japanese backoff AI.
Why should China back off when Japan backs off? And obviously with an event trigger CHI would keep backing off even if Japan is back on an aggressive AI...

 

[ArmdChair]

Oh? Then easy-peasey for a guy like you, right?

The Indochina event. The first trigger is fine for the Haiphong part. If necessary, OK to create a "locked" RES or INF unit (depending upon how bad the CHI AI wants Haiphong. Just so long as the MP comes from the JAP pool. The second trigger need on be the ramp up for the southern campaign (I forget that AI name). For a player, the historical date would be mid-1941, but for an aggressive player, a DoW early on Burma (or the Allies) could pop the event up. That would be when the airfields around Saigon should be created too.

Back to the USA AI. It should be concentrating on the navy, not the army. Could be building air units too.

I am just about finished with some general info files that you and dec might find interesting. Kinda stuck on trying to fill out info on JAP tank regiments. Not much specific info out there. May have to stick with generic info across the board. And, as you know, the JAP were nothing if not deviators from a standard when it came to larger units.

There is also a file on JAP governments during the game period, or well into 1946.

Plus short text files on CHI/CHC supply routes using CORE provinces and a list of CORE provinces (more or less, generally more) that JAP controlled at the end of 1940. This includes the provinces with a "major" rail line (though remember rail in China was point -to-point, not a network really).

You guys might find them interesting.

 

[Atreus]

Download link from the first post doesn't work for me Any sollutions?

 

[Yuifuru]

Hi, Im new here, playing 70.1, but this doesnt seem to have changed and looks like a bug to me.

The (AD)CV 8 is just way worse than the CV 7 in every way, both get same CAG aswell. The older (AD)CV from 1936 was also useless.

 

[Zsumi]

Hi, Im new here, playing 70.1, but this doesnt seem to have changed and looks like a bug to me.

The (AD)CV 8 is just way worse than the CV 7 in every way, both get same CAG aswell. The older (AD)CV from 1936 was also useless.

View attachment 125046
View attachment 125047

The CV 8 taiho class is a ARMORED DECK carrier more survival less planes(lower attack)
The CV 7 Is a FLEET lower survival more planes(higher attack values)

It is the same whit CV 5&6

 

[ArmdChair]

Yuifuru,
Taiho wasn't superior to Shokaku in reality. She sailed with aircraft that were no different from any other IJN CV in operation. IIRC, CV7 represents Essex class which were superior in every way possible, moreso than in the game.. The other Armored Deck carrier you mention is based on HMS Illustrious, and Taiho does have better stats. How far have you progressed on the CAG tech path? What exactly are you looking for?

Atreus,

Could you be somewhat more specific? The link worked for me just now.