Download CORE 0.70.3

[dec152000]

Hi,

MTN: If we need the current MTN settings to get acceptable results with the JAP AI that is saying that CHI is too strong. JAP should not need to build a bunch of "elite" type troops to deal with CHI. I'd suggest looking at toning down CHI before the war breaks out as I suspect way too many units are getting built before the war even starts.

SIA: If the setting is staying in place that is good. 21 units seems to be really a lot for SIA. For starters they go TM immediately when at war with any major. This is OTT considering the RW contribution. I'd suggest we hold them at FM when allied with JAP. On top of that, I'd suggest we do something like HUN 430080/1 for SIA. This would back them off a lot on forces. Which would then make the Exp Ratio about right.

mm

 

[Tegetthoff]

Other observations:

GER has a tendency to run out of rare materials - possibly the efficiency settings of the synthetic oil and rare material plants have to be adjusted upwards.
ENG is madly switching around their naval ais - if somebody wants to have a look there, it would be a field worthy of study.

Edit: I have SIA at 15 units in mid 1941 - unpuppeted and not at war - so there may be different reasons than the total war setting.

Edit: Siam went for Partial Mobilisation in January 1939 - unsure why, maybe ist slider Settings
Siam also goes for Mobilisation when Japan aquires Indochina - this may be a notch too much

China is heavily into building MTN, too. Reduced this, but probably still too strong.

 

[Tegetthoff]

My suggestion for Siam mobilisation would be:

Partial Mobilisation is caused by changes in ownership of a neighbouring province, but not by Indochina being controlled by VIC (means moving the FM Indochina trigger up to PM)
Full mobilisations happens when at war and is independent of ownership of neighbouring provinces.

This shifts FM back by more than a year.

 

[Tegetthoff]

Is it possible that some combinations of Selective Service Act + SSA extension cause USA to have -15 MP growth?
Is it possible that the "Mobilisation Forces" Events with their -25 MP growth weaken US Manpower unduly?

 

[Denniss]

SSA gets +15 MP, cancellation of SSA extension eliminates this gain so a net -15 shouldn't be possible
The -25 may be intended for this time but I'd expect this to be released later. May be included in mobilization events though.

 

[Tegetthoff]

SSA gets +15 MP, cancellation of SSA extension eliminates this gain so a net -15 shouldn't be possible
The -25 may be intended for this time but I'd expect this to be released later. May be included in mobilization events though.

But the +15 are subtracted from partial mobilisation (there is a note to this effect in the event text)

 

[ArmdChair]

I am going to have to walk number 3 back a little bit, but there is a discrepancy.

I opened the 10 Feb 1943 game up as JAP, then as SIA. While the stats totals said there were 18 units (15 MIL, 2 GAR, and 1 MTN), in reality there were 17 MIL, 2 GAR, and 1 MTN instead. Of these, 5 MIL and the MTN unit were EXP forces to JAP. Using the game statistics by not counting the "extra" two units, that indeed is only a 22% EXP percentage. But counting ALL the units which were REALLY SIA, it was 33% instead. I posit that the game does not count GAR when determining EXP ratios. Still, that does not account for the "extra" two MIL divisions that had been EXP'd over to JAP. And, it was quite interesting that the MTN division was an EXP force. I wonder if the game doesn't utilize as many non-infantry units for EXP before anything else? That would not be illogical from the developer's PoV, IMO.

So, not counting GAR, it appears that the EXP level is what dec expected. But, I found "extra" units and cannot explain their origin, nor how that increases the EXP ratio.

The SIA military was campaigning down towards Singapore, while JAP, with all the SIA EXP forces was campaigning in Burma and western China.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Considering that our RES units are taking the MIL slot from Vanilla I'd think that it's quite possible that the engine tries to send anything else as an Expeditionary force first. Or that it counts them "differently" than normal units.

WRT to USA, I'm pretty sure the total MP Growth is always WAD. USA may be a bit lower than other nations when mobilized as it seldomly goes to TM. But I just checked the save and USA was at 120 and ENG was at 121. Where USA is losing out is the daily gain from 1936 until the FM. This is of course somewhat variable. But if we stick to the normal time frame it's on the order of 700 MP. Or 130 MP per year. WE could add that in to compensate USA at the FM.

WRT SIA, IMO it's completely appropriate for SIA to go PM after VIC. Historically there was the unmodeled conflict between them in late 1940. OTOH, Having them go to FM is a bit more debateable. Though for SIA this may have been a full scale war. The problem is it ended rather rapidly. So maybe just hold them at PM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War

mm

 

[Denniss]

So SSA is a side event of PM with additional dissent due to the rather isolationalistic/neutral nature of the US.
Should a player be able to deny act and/or extension, especially if at war?
Should the US really get dissent from the act if at war?
Should there be a mobilization correction if at war and neither act nor extension passed, sleeping both events in this correction?

Suggestion - create a SSA variant with just PM and atwar as trigger, blocked by ssactextension flag, only option to pass but without dissent, sleeping original and extension. Atwar trigger from original event removed, variant slept by passing Extension.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I'd think a player could deny the Act or Extension. OTOH, it's a stupid thing to do so I doubt it happens at all. But the option should be there for the peace time variant. If you want to code an improvement with no Dissent for being at war that is fine. Just give the MP effects without the Slider adjust as the conflict negates the ability to plus up the professional army. And the Extension can be slept for being at war as well for the same logic.

mm

 

[Zsar1]

When I package new events, should I

• add the text into the respective config files and send those
• send config files with only the relevant text and name of the file into which they should be merged
• leave the text inside the event definitions for now

and while I am at it

• add events into their respective event files and send those
• send event files with only the added (and changed) events and name of the file into which they should be merged

?

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I normally submit the full files with the text embeded in the events. That way if there is only one person changing the file it is just a drop in replace.

mm

 

[Zsar1]

Problem is that some of the longer event descriptions create errors when embedded into event files, while being perfectly fine in a csv file.
- The description for the Fourth Shore event I posted is a good example: The game does not load with that in the event file - once embedded into event_text.csv all is fine.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Well then I'd add it to the Event Text file and submit that as well. Either that or cut down on the text enough to make it work embeded. That's normally what I do. At one point I definitely did not know the csv version could be longer.

mm

 

[ArmdChair]

All files have a limit. Some are shorter than others.

Zsar1, just how much text are you talking about? 100 words? 500? 1000?

Probably best to put it into the csv file if it is causing a problem.

 

[Zsar1]

The description for Fourth Shore has 720 characters in 110 words.

 

[froglegs]

USA research team Adna Chaffee is a zombie. He was born in 1842 and died in 1914.

 

[Denniss]

USA research team Adna Chaffee is a zombie. He was born in 1842 and died in 1914.

It's his son: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adna_R._Chaffee,_Jr.

 

[Tegetthoff]

Submissions:

Please always submit complete files and a changelog. If two files have been worked, I can do a file compare.
What I really hate is having to drop single events into the right places, especially having to find the right places myself.

I have a pretty good picture what I changed myself (and I touched the config event text file) so as long as I am not getting material from four or five persons at the same time, this is manageable.

I am planning to make a build over the weekend and will not be able to do any work before Saturday, so this gives you a time schedule.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I'll have a few files for you. I've also worked some new icons for Aircraft that have a custom image for each model. Not quite complete just yet. But enough to try out.

mm