-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hi,
I'm in the middle of adjusting a number of Naval files to try and get units to return to base prior to running out of Oil. This is going to take another day or so before I'm ready for a full test. Otherwise I haven't done alot.
mm
I'm in the middle of adjusting a number of Naval files to try and get units to return to base prior to running out of Oil. This is going to take another day or so before I'm ready for a full test. Otherwise I haven't done alot.
mm
That´s fine since incoporating Hagar´s event pic references has changed a number of event files in many places (SOV, GER, ITA, USA, ENG IIRC).
It´s one of those classic Hagar picture packs, e.g. with different pictures for each German oil/Buna plant.
I plan to push out a new version with minor changes as soon as all contributions have been posted to get back on a common fileset.
If somebody needs "new" event files for the above countries earlier, please contact me.
It´s one of those classic Hagar picture packs, e.g. with different pictures for each German oil/Buna plant.
I plan to push out a new version with minor changes as soon as all contributions have been posted to get back on a common fileset.
If somebody needs "new" event files for the above countries earlier, please contact me.
Link to Thread in old forum with posts lost during forum software transition
http://oldforum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?846722-Download-CORE-0.70.4
http://oldforum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?846722-Download-CORE-0.70.4
Is this line in the misc file perhaps the one that causes the ships to run out of fuel ? I noticed the fuel problem several weeks ago while first playing CORE.
"# Supply Usage Naval Moving (value below * normal supply consumtion)
1.3 # was 1.1"
I tried changing this back to 1.1 and it seemed to help. I am new to CORE so I don't know how long this has been changed.
Just trying to help.
"# Supply Usage Naval Moving (value below * normal supply consumtion)
1.3 # was 1.1"
I tried changing this back to 1.1 and it seemed to help. I am new to CORE so I don't know how long this has been changed.
Just trying to help.
Is the CORE Team aware of the following , what I shall call a "game cheat", that can be used by an American player?
At 1936 game start Chrysler researches 1936 Light Industry and US Steel researches 1936 Economic Recovery.
When Chrysler finishes it now researches 1938 Light Industry.
When Chrysler finishes in Dec 1936 it now researches 1938 Economic Recovery.
Although in Jan 1937 when the relapse into depression fires for the USA, it can still remain researching 1938 Econ Recovery although it is now in RED and not researchable.
When it finishes, it gets full credit for 1938 Econ Recovery nonetheless in early 1937.
I somehow don't think that this was intended to happen.
This relapse into depression at that time was a historic fact caused by Roosevelt's socialistic "Social Security Tax" being implemented causing employers not to hire and the unemployment rate to rise to ~15% in 1938.
At 1936 game start Chrysler researches 1936 Light Industry and US Steel researches 1936 Economic Recovery.
When Chrysler finishes it now researches 1938 Light Industry.
When Chrysler finishes in Dec 1936 it now researches 1938 Economic Recovery.
Although in Jan 1937 when the relapse into depression fires for the USA, it can still remain researching 1938 Econ Recovery although it is now in RED and not researchable.
When it finishes, it gets full credit for 1938 Econ Recovery nonetheless in early 1937.
I somehow don't think that this was intended to happen.
This relapse into depression at that time was a historic fact caused by Roosevelt's socialistic "Social Security Tax" being implemented causing employers not to hire and the unemployment rate to rise to ~15% in 1938.
Last edited:
Hi,
Naval Oil: The issue here is that ships return to port based on Supplies rather than Oil. So the burn rate does play into the issue. But the main issue is the onboard storage capacity. This was not WAD for CORE WRT to Brigades and some of the Tech commands. So I'm having to fix a lot of entries in the Unit files. I also did adjust that Misc entry. but actually in the other direction. Since we need supplies to run out faster.
USA Cheat: I'd never considered that option. It is obviously a player only thing. It would seem to be very inefficient from a research perspective. but pretty powerful from an economic one. Is it plausible that USA could take a more economically friendly policy at that time? MAybe. But there would have been other trade offs I suspect. Since there is no policy choice in the Roosevelt's Recession event I'd think the best course would be Deactivating 1938 Recovery in the Great Depression event and then adding a Activation for 38 Recovery to the RI Event. This would back up the normal path of getting access to 38 Recovery and would mainly apply to war starting earlier than normal. Opinions?
mm
Naval Oil: The issue here is that ships return to port based on Supplies rather than Oil. So the burn rate does play into the issue. But the main issue is the onboard storage capacity. This was not WAD for CORE WRT to Brigades and some of the Tech commands. So I'm having to fix a lot of entries in the Unit files. I also did adjust that Misc entry. but actually in the other direction. Since we need supplies to run out faster.
USA Cheat: I'd never considered that option. It is obviously a player only thing. It would seem to be very inefficient from a research perspective. but pretty powerful from an economic one. Is it plausible that USA could take a more economically friendly policy at that time? MAybe. But there would have been other trade offs I suspect. Since there is no policy choice in the Roosevelt's Recession event I'd think the best course would be Deactivating 1938 Recovery in the Great Depression event and then adding a Activation for 38 Recovery to the RI Event. This would back up the normal path of getting access to 38 Recovery and would mainly apply to war starting earlier than normal. Opinions?
mm
You are assuming that although the entry in the misc file says "supply usage" it refers to supply usage and not oil usage as well. Is that really true? All I am saying is that returning to the original value causes the ships NOT to run out of oil like they did with the other value. My 40 years experience in R&D taught me to always believe the observed fact rather than the theoretical opinion. What does the corresponding line of code in the exe file say? -- Now, that is the real issue required to resolve this and I have no clue what how it reads.
Last edited:
Hi,
Swapping that code might have "fixed" the symptom as you are describing. But the total package still wasn't WAD in other ways d2 some other related issues that needed to be addressed. I have initially tested the fix and I think it is going to work once it is fully coded. But if there is any further tweaking to do I'll make sure I retest in this area first. Thanks!
mm
Swapping that code might have "fixed" the symptom as you are describing. But the total package still wasn't WAD in other ways d2 some other related issues that needed to be addressed. I have initially tested the fix and I think it is going to work once it is fully coded. But if there is any further tweaking to do I'll make sure I retest in this area first. Thanks!
mm
Let me name the observed problem/mystery the "Rogue Wave Ship Loss Observation".
I am new to CORE but have played and tweaked HOI2 games since 2005. What struck me as odd was the Rogue Wave Ship Loss observed. These were major ship losses not attributed to any enemy action.
I came upon the following unusual changed code, again in the misc file:
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_CHANCE_, in % for each shot that hit!
2 # 10
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_EFFECT_, STR damage * below
50 # 10
I changed this to the following:
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_CHANCE_, in % for each shot that hit!
5 ##2 # 10
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_EFFECT_, STR damage * below
20 ##50 # 10
And the Rogue Wave Ship Loss vanished in my observed games.
Why was this changed so dramatically??? Are you guys really that naïve? -- Sorry!
I am new to CORE but have played and tweaked HOI2 games since 2005. What struck me as odd was the Rogue Wave Ship Loss observed. These were major ship losses not attributed to any enemy action.
I came upon the following unusual changed code, again in the misc file:
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_CHANCE_, in % for each shot that hit!
2 # 10
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_EFFECT_, STR damage * below
50 # 10
I changed this to the following:
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_CHANCE_, in % for each shot that hit!
5 ##2 # 10
# _CV_NAVAL_CRITICAL_HIT_EFFECT_, STR damage * below
20 ##50 # 10
And the Rogue Wave Ship Loss vanished in my observed games.
Why was this changed so dramatically??? Are you guys really that naïve? -- Sorry!
Well, since this is one of my changes, I might as well reply.
Think of HMS Hood and British battlecruisers at Jutland as historical examples.
And consider that "shot" in terms of the code refers to one hour of combat.
The critical hit concept makes no sense unless it is both rare and disastrous in its consequences. And the critical hit requires combat to take place, so it is no "rogue wave". But the beautiful thing here is: if you like a differenc setting, just put it in.
Think of HMS Hood and British battlecruisers at Jutland as historical examples.
And consider that "shot" in terms of the code refers to one hour of combat.
The critical hit concept makes no sense unless it is both rare and disastrous in its consequences. And the critical hit requires combat to take place, so it is no "rogue wave". But the beautiful thing here is: if you like a differenc setting, just put it in.
Teg, what you describe are catastrohpic hits, caused by design faults and/or one-in-a-million-hits, causing an immediate ship loss. There were extremely rare-
Critical hits were far mor ecommon than the examples above. I'd consider critical hits to be something causing a loss of speed (hit in machinery space or lots of water pouring-in) , disabling/destroying main armament or disabling c&c. Those hits do not immediatly cause a ship loss but make them easier targets if the enemy is still present.
Scharnhorst was close to escaping the pursuiers but had an unlucky hit in machinery space, reducing speed, and was catched/sunk.
PoW was hit in prop or prop shaft and the resulting major vibrations caused major leaks and loss of propulsion and power, Bismarck was also crippled by such a hit (loss of steering, spees halved)
SMS Lützow had a torpedo hit in the forward torpedo station which caused a major influx of water. It tried to limp home bud had to be given up. SMS Seydlitz was hit in a similar area but was able to limp home, had to steam rearwards to reduce pressure on forward bulkheads.
Yorktown took critical hits during Midway, but damage was somewhat sustainable/repairable. But then a japanese sub came across and sent some torps out.
Critical hits were far mor ecommon than the examples above. I'd consider critical hits to be something causing a loss of speed (hit in machinery space or lots of water pouring-in) , disabling/destroying main armament or disabling c&c. Those hits do not immediatly cause a ship loss but make them easier targets if the enemy is still present.
Scharnhorst was close to escaping the pursuiers but had an unlucky hit in machinery space, reducing speed, and was catched/sunk.
PoW was hit in prop or prop shaft and the resulting major vibrations caused major leaks and loss of propulsion and power, Bismarck was also crippled by such a hit (loss of steering, spees halved)
SMS Lützow had a torpedo hit in the forward torpedo station which caused a major influx of water. It tried to limp home bud had to be given up. SMS Seydlitz was hit in a similar area but was able to limp home, had to steam rearwards to reduce pressure on forward bulkheads.
Yorktown took critical hits during Midway, but damage was somewhat sustainable/repairable. But then a japanese sub came across and sent some torps out.
I lose USA CVs and CLs just sailing around not fighting anybody except enemy convoys and thunderstorms. Sure -- Halsey lost 3 Fletchers in a typhoon in 1945 but so what! I check battle records and none were fought but the ships are gone just the same. I check to see who sunk it and no ship is listed. And -- it is in areas where no enemy aircraft can be present. I am not in the Bermuda Triangle either. Got to be a "Rogue Wave"!
Damage from enemy convoy escorts is relatively small but if multiplied X50 who knows? I lose on average 2 major ships per year at war as USA through the "Rogue Wave" effect. After changing the numbers I do not see it happen.
On another point -- India has NO TECH TEAMS! Is that WAD?
Damage from enemy convoy escorts is relatively small but if multiplied X50 who knows? I lose on average 2 major ships per year at war as USA through the "Rogue Wave" effect. After changing the numbers I do not see it happen.
On another point -- India has NO TECH TEAMS! Is that WAD?
Last edited:
Obviously not. And as I just checked and they are all there as they should be, I would say you managed to corrupt your installation.
Also, socialism: please recapitulate the theory.
Finally, waves: I have a lot of grievances with the naval system, but the effect you describe is unknown to me. But if you do indeed lose ships outside of battles, how would critical hits factor in anyway?
- It would help if you could observe on a fresh fileset (as yours is obviously damaged, see first paragraph) and catch a disappearance as it happens. Make sure to set both kinds of naval combat messages (we [have|are] attacked) to pause - I myself wasted a lot of time by inadvertently missing the first hour of started combats and thence seeing ships "disintegrate".
The critical hit system is obviously controversial. I am half minded to just disable it - but not yet convinced: Denmark Strait, Midway would become impossible.
Also, socialism: please recapitulate the theory.
Finally, waves: I have a lot of grievances with the naval system, but the effect you describe is unknown to me. But if you do indeed lose ships outside of battles, how would critical hits factor in anyway?
- It would help if you could observe on a fresh fileset (as yours is obviously damaged, see first paragraph) and catch a disappearance as it happens. Make sure to set both kinds of naval combat messages (we [have|are] attacked) to pause - I myself wasted a lot of time by inadvertently missing the first hour of started combats and thence seeing ships "disintegrate".
The critical hit system is obviously controversial. I am half minded to just disable it - but not yet convinced: Denmark Strait, Midway would become impossible.
Hi,
Disappearing Ships: I have also never had a ship loss that wan't directly attributable to combat. So disappearing ships seem very odd. While you can take damage from bad weather, the effect is not all that great. So unless you are already heavilly damaged it shouldn't sink anything.
As for the combat loses there are some anomalies in how the system works. For starters, I don't believe the Sunk Ship statistics are accurate in all cases. Sometimes the actual vessel that sinks the ship is not properly recorded. I don't recall exactly what other users have reported on this subject. But I seem to recall it relating to multiple sources of sinking damage. So this may be directly related to the Critical Hit function. Another oddity is that occasionally ships end up sunk by friendly fire. This is WAD up to a point as it definitely did happen in WW2. In this category I'd also include manuvering accidents. But you normally don't even notice this effect unless you catch it in the statistics.
So from my perspective the Critical Hit function is probably behind the observed behavior. The question here is appropriate or not? I personally like some way to replicate abrupt damage like Hood/Taiho/Indianapolis... There were quite a few examples of single hits that resulted in catastrophic damage. Especially true with smaller craft. The heavy damage Denniss is describing would also be nice to model, as it is a bit more than what the normal model generates. But we can't do both. The current stats are designed with this in mind. That is why the attack values are generally substantially higher than the Defense values. That way normal combat tends to inflict damage as long as the ships are actually able to acquire targets.
At this point I'd like more comments on how the current system is working.
mm
Disappearing Ships: I have also never had a ship loss that wan't directly attributable to combat. So disappearing ships seem very odd. While you can take damage from bad weather, the effect is not all that great. So unless you are already heavilly damaged it shouldn't sink anything.
As for the combat loses there are some anomalies in how the system works. For starters, I don't believe the Sunk Ship statistics are accurate in all cases. Sometimes the actual vessel that sinks the ship is not properly recorded. I don't recall exactly what other users have reported on this subject. But I seem to recall it relating to multiple sources of sinking damage. So this may be directly related to the Critical Hit function. Another oddity is that occasionally ships end up sunk by friendly fire. This is WAD up to a point as it definitely did happen in WW2. In this category I'd also include manuvering accidents. But you normally don't even notice this effect unless you catch it in the statistics.
So from my perspective the Critical Hit function is probably behind the observed behavior. The question here is appropriate or not? I personally like some way to replicate abrupt damage like Hood/Taiho/Indianapolis... There were quite a few examples of single hits that resulted in catastrophic damage. Especially true with smaller craft. The heavy damage Denniss is describing would also be nice to model, as it is a bit more than what the normal model generates. But we can't do both. The current stats are designed with this in mind. That is why the attack values are generally substantially higher than the Defense values. That way normal combat tends to inflict damage as long as the ships are actually able to acquire targets.
At this point I'd like more comments on how the current system is working.
mm
If I now have a bad install, it is due to copying the CORD Mod folder into the main game folder so that my game can be played 3 player multi-player. Or, it is because I applied the new patch over top of the old patch instead of going back to 1.08. I will figure out how to fix this myself.
I do not care to spend my time anymore on the wave thing either since I already know how to prevent it in my own games.
The game can and often does recreate Midway since the naval combat system penalizes the CV fighting ability of large fleets versus small fleets because of the -0.015 per ship penalty for added ships in a stack. For instance, 3 CV in 10 ships often will beat 4 CV in 35 ships due to this -0.015 per ship penalty. Although, this really needs to be changed for CV engagements in the game because it makes no sense for carrier warfare while it does for ships in a battle line. I realize that the "-0.015" is a compromise between AODs -0.02 and HOI2s -0.01 values.
I really like CORE and you all have done a fine job. I just wish though that all changes in code, especially in the misc file, were preserved as #xyz so that it can be understood how you all got there -- even if it means a long line of #xyz #abc #def etc.
I do not care to spend my time anymore on the wave thing either since I already know how to prevent it in my own games.
The game can and often does recreate Midway since the naval combat system penalizes the CV fighting ability of large fleets versus small fleets because of the -0.015 per ship penalty for added ships in a stack. For instance, 3 CV in 10 ships often will beat 4 CV in 35 ships due to this -0.015 per ship penalty. Although, this really needs to be changed for CV engagements in the game because it makes no sense for carrier warfare while it does for ships in a battle line. I realize that the "-0.015" is a compromise between AODs -0.02 and HOI2s -0.01 values.
I really like CORE and you all have done a fine job. I just wish though that all changes in code, especially in the misc file, were preserved as #xyz so that it can be understood how you all got there -- even if it means a long line of #xyz #abc #def etc.
Last edited:
Field Marshall Amallric posted the following in the old CORE forum under Multiplayer on May 21, 2013:
"What's the problem? CORE works perfectly in multiplayer, just paste all the contents of the mod-CORE folder into the main AoD folder."
This is exactly what I did and just re-did again. When you do this, India has no Tech teams. By this I mean that when you load as India, no teams are present. The tech team file for India is in db/tech/teams though. By the way -- Egypt has tech teams!
However, before copying the CORE folder into the game folder so that I could play multiplayer, India did in fact have tech teams in the normal single player game played from the Modir Icon.
So -- the bottom line here is that correct instructions are needed so as to be able to play CORE multiplayer.
Any suggestions?
108 -- SUBR
CORE 70_4 with latest graphics -- ZMXM
"What's the problem? CORE works perfectly in multiplayer, just paste all the contents of the mod-CORE folder into the main AoD folder."
This is exactly what I did and just re-did again. When you do this, India has no Tech teams. By this I mean that when you load as India, no teams are present. The tech team file for India is in db/tech/teams though. By the way -- Egypt has tech teams!
However, before copying the CORE folder into the game folder so that I could play multiplayer, India did in fact have tech teams in the normal single player game played from the Modir Icon.
So -- the bottom line here is that correct instructions are needed so as to be able to play CORE multiplayer.
Any suggestions?
108 -- SUBR
CORE 70_4 with latest graphics -- ZMXM
Last edited: