Download CORE 0.70.3

[dec152000]

Hi,

Expeditionary Forces: What we are trying to do is mirror the RW limitations that GER dealt with. And from that perspective they didn't get anywhere near 80% of the available forces from Hungary. And I think Slovakia initially contributed 2 divisions and quickly dropped to 1 as they were not mobile enough to keep up with the front. The advantage here is it dooes mean these nations still have some forces left when the SOV roll west. So there is more resistance than if all of them were sent out.

mm

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

ITA: unfortunately my OOB site is down. However.

Libiyan Division: I doubt it merits 9 Bn. This site shows it with 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Libyan_Colonial_Division

In any case, I'm not a fan of giving them a non-standard unit. And I see no game play reason to strengthen the southern front. IMO this is counter productive as it contributes to ITA winning even faster. I'm ok with disbanding it after the campaign. But it should probably immediately reform in Libia as separate units to keep things simple in case things happen off schedule. These units should not have LART. There should be roughly 25 artillery pieces in every RES unit as well as 15-20 AT and AA guns for the more modern formations. I don't see any indications that any additional artillery was attached to this Corps and I doubt they had more organic assets. What try might merit would be either Infantry/Police/Cavalry as there were some truck mobile forces attached.

mm

 

[froglegs]

Hi,

Expeditionary Forces: What we are trying to do is mirror the RW limitations that GER dealt with. And from that perspective they didn't get anywhere near 80% of the available forces from Hungary. And I think Slovakia initially contributed 2 divisions and quickly dropped to 1 as they were not mobile enough to keep up with the front. The advantage here is it dooes mean these nations still have some forces left when the SOV roll west. So there is more resistance than if all of them were sent out.

mm

I understand the following taken from the statement concerning the purpose of CORE:

"What is CORE exactly?

CORE, or Community Open Resource Exchange, aims at recreating the period 1936-1952 in the most historically accurate manner possible while still allowing the player as much freedom of choice and direction as is plausible."

But does that really mean that while the human player may do as he wishes, the AI with the same resources, should be limited to the same historical mistakes?

I understand that this is your MOD and not mine and I thank you for it. But I come from a point of view where I have been playing HOI2/AOD for the last ten years with 2 other human opponents. And as such, I don't believe that you yourself would force your human opponents to constantly make game-play mistakes because of historical precedent. Yet, you seem to be advocating that the AI should be forced to do so. Whereas, I have always thought that the AI should try to play more like a human opponent.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I definitely agree that the AI should generally play like a human when it is plausible. OTOH, sometimes this just makes it easier for the human. In this case, GER is probably one of the most frequently played nations. So giving a GER player more EF than historical just makes it easier. And from a gameplay perspective it's important not to strip minors of forces to the point where they are too easy to attack. HUN is rather "protected" for most of the game. But to high of an EF ratio can leave some others sitting ducks for a quick invasion. Especially ROM and SIA come to mind. Ideally we could code these ratios to vary based on the Human/AI status of the major partner. That wouldn't be too hard. Might be helpful as we see how play balance turns out in this version.

On that note we've generally had to tone down GER more often than not. So some of the settings have been set at the historical in a specific attempt to limit GER. I don't think we've got GER over modeled. however, I do think it's AI does relatively better than the Allied ones as it doesn't have to pull off a major amphibious invasion to outperform it's historical high water mark. That seems to be hard to do for the AI.

mm

 

[Zsar1]

Libiyan Division: I doubt it merits 9 Bn. This site shows it with 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Libyan_Colonial_Division

As soon as you switch the language to italian, it shows eight. I am probably going to remove the brigade, though.

... Or:

In any case, I'm not a fan of giving them a non-standard unit.

We could make it 6-bn + attached Infantry. That would probably be appropriate as well.
... Actually I feel a bit dumbstruck that this solution has eluded me until just now.

--

These units should not have LART. [...] What try might merit would be either Infantry/Police/Cavalry as there were some truck mobile forces attached.

Fair enough on the artillery, but I have neither found any indication for those mobile forces you mention.
Checked the Nafziger collection and they are pretty comparable to a standard division.
- So, going to remove the brigades.

... Also almost had a heart attack when I noticed that the collection spells "Lybia". With all the 'y'-less italian text I have been handling recently, I just cannot memorise which 'i' it should be.
But this time, according to Dictionary.com, I got it right and they are wrong. What relief.