-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
I have stuck this in as an enhancement becuase at the moment the days are supposed to be like this. If you can come up with an easy way to get the day lengths being different I will stick it in as an enhancement.
Couple things on strategic re-deployment:
When you decide to strategically re-deploy, you should select a province you want to send it to, and you'll get an ETA for how long it would take to move it there based upon distance (balances out Estonia to Mongolia issue). Should that province be occupied then the destination will be moved to the closest unoccupied province and the time adjusted accordingly.
Other things:
Units should only be 'auto-upgraded' when in supply. Otherwise this leads to the infamous '6th Army in Stalingrad recieving new Marder TDs out of the blue' discrepancy.
Bombing missions should reduce the organization of the units conducting the strike by a fair amount (20-30% of max organization), and they shouldn't be allowed to conduct another bombing run unless their organization is at a certain level (50% of max). Otherwise, this leads to the infamous 'bomb units until they have no organization' tactic. I'm sure this is being worked on, just wanted to give my input.
I'm sure this is a bit of a challenge and probably just a drone from a fan with ideas, but AI priority (besides fixing obvious loopholes) should be to establish and maintain a front at all costs. As I said in a thread in the main discussion forum, any time a country's front broke, disaster ensued (Soviets at Kiev, NEARLY the Germans after Stalingrad, Falaise, the aftermath of the Battle of the Bulge... the list goes on). This may seem obvious, but it's pivotal that the AI try to do this, otherwise it's fairly easy to push enough forces to roll their entire front up and punch a hole right through it (without Zhukov's brilliant re-establishing of the Soviet front before Moscow in '41, some people speculate that Moscow might have fallen).
Probably have more later.
~ The endless rants of the comp sci-history major HOI programmer wannabe...
When you decide to strategically re-deploy, you should select a province you want to send it to, and you'll get an ETA for how long it would take to move it there based upon distance (balances out Estonia to Mongolia issue). Should that province be occupied then the destination will be moved to the closest unoccupied province and the time adjusted accordingly.
Other things:
Units should only be 'auto-upgraded' when in supply. Otherwise this leads to the infamous '6th Army in Stalingrad recieving new Marder TDs out of the blue' discrepancy.
Bombing missions should reduce the organization of the units conducting the strike by a fair amount (20-30% of max organization), and they shouldn't be allowed to conduct another bombing run unless their organization is at a certain level (50% of max). Otherwise, this leads to the infamous 'bomb units until they have no organization' tactic. I'm sure this is being worked on, just wanted to give my input.
I'm sure this is a bit of a challenge and probably just a drone from a fan with ideas, but AI priority (besides fixing obvious loopholes) should be to establish and maintain a front at all costs. As I said in a thread in the main discussion forum, any time a country's front broke, disaster ensued (Soviets at Kiev, NEARLY the Germans after Stalingrad, Falaise, the aftermath of the Battle of the Bulge... the list goes on). This may seem obvious, but it's pivotal that the AI try to do this, otherwise it's fairly easy to push enough forces to roll their entire front up and punch a hole right through it (without Zhukov's brilliant re-establishing of the Soviet front before Moscow in '41, some people speculate that Moscow might have fallen).
Probably have more later.
~ The endless rants of the comp sci-history major HOI programmer wannabe...
Originally posted by Trip
Units should only be 'auto-upgraded' when in supply. Otherwise this leads to the infamous '6th Army in Stalingrad recieving new Marder TDs out of the blue' discrepancy.
[/i]
I do not devote as much attention to this as I should but his one caught my eye. It is a beautiful idea in theory but a nightmare to do in practice. The game would need to keep track of all the units that have not been upgraded and what level they have been upgraded too. Then it would need to keep checking when it was in supply and upgrade. A lot of work. The other problem is of course how long does a unit need to be in supply for it qualify for an upgrade (1 hour, 1 day, etc.) . The current system may produce strange results but it does have the virtue of being simple. Simple things don't crash as often as complicated ones.
I can exclusively reveal that Paradox is working on imporving the AI. If you have suggestions on the AI the please feel free to discuss them here. However I need a very clear focussed idea to pass up the line as an enhancement. The try to maintain a front is not really focussed enough. The AI does try to do that anyway and the AI is being tweeked to make it better at it. IF you suggest something like Country X is declaring war at the worng time and the triggers shoudl be Y & Z then this is soemthing I can work with.
Yes and no, it does keep track of the units but only those who require manual upgrades. Auto upgrades are just done and that's it. It would add complications to the code.
I'll move this over to the enhancement thread because this is not a bug. Please wait.
Good suggestions from everyone on this page.
I suppose suggesting that the AI "maintain a front by all means necassary" is a bit vague and hard to work with.
A few other suggestions for the AI: (some more vauge-ish than others)
AI should protect its capital better... sometimes you'll see a large force there, but then as your units approach they'll head off to somewhere else.
When the AI holds a strong force advantage over an adjacent province, it should attack if it doesn't jeopardize the front. There have been quite a few instances where I'll look and see 10 AI divisions in a province next to one of my provinces with 1 (or no) divisions that could easily have cut off my supply or really screwed up my offensive. However, the AI seemed to ignore it.
I know, too vague probably, but they'd be good improvements.
Other improvements:
Somehow China ought to be VERY difficult for Japan to conquer... I'm sure the addition of Partisans will make this much more difficult. Ideally, China should have TONS of troops, always popping up all over the place. This would stretch the Japanese invaders to the limit, as was the case historically.
More stuff, as always, later.
I suppose suggesting that the AI "maintain a front by all means necassary" is a bit vague and hard to work with.
A few other suggestions for the AI: (some more vauge-ish than others)
AI should protect its capital better... sometimes you'll see a large force there, but then as your units approach they'll head off to somewhere else.
When the AI holds a strong force advantage over an adjacent province, it should attack if it doesn't jeopardize the front. There have been quite a few instances where I'll look and see 10 AI divisions in a province next to one of my provinces with 1 (or no) divisions that could easily have cut off my supply or really screwed up my offensive. However, the AI seemed to ignore it.
I know, too vague probably, but they'd be good improvements.
Other improvements:
Somehow China ought to be VERY difficult for Japan to conquer... I'm sure the addition of Partisans will make this much more difficult. Ideally, China should have TONS of troops, always popping up all over the place. This would stretch the Japanese invaders to the limit, as was the case historically.
More stuff, as always, later.
I don't think the calendar is something I'd like Johan and gang spending their time changing instead of some other things. I'm sure they had a reason to to make all the months have 30 days anyways.
I think making certain planes unusable on carriers would be more trouble than it would be worth. Each type of plane and carrier is generic, so saying a "B-29" couldn't take off of a carrier is a moot point.
I like the improvements you suggest for the air missions... binding certain air groups to armies would be very useful, as well as some kind of auto-management for air units (tactical strike on such and such a province as often as possible, etc.).
Another thing that would be useful would be to be able to put planes on transports to move them around. Just make them loadable (very slowly... they don't 'fly' onto the transports), but not usable once on the transports. Then when you unload (slowly, again) their organization starts again at 0 and grows like a new unit. Already suggested I know, but I'm just trying to consoliate ideas for aircraft into one thread.
I'm sure they had a reason to to make all the months have 30 days anyways.I think making certain planes unusable on carriers would be more trouble than it would be worth. Each type of plane and carrier is generic, so saying a "B-29" couldn't take off of a carrier is a moot point.
I like the improvements you suggest for the air missions... binding certain air groups to armies would be very useful, as well as some kind of auto-management for air units (tactical strike on such and such a province as often as possible, etc.).
Another thing that would be useful would be to be able to put planes on transports to move them around. Just make them loadable (very slowly... they don't 'fly' onto the transports), but not usable once on the transports. Then when you unload (slowly, again) their organization starts again at 0 and grows like a new unit.
Already suggested I know, but I'm just trying to consoliate ideas for aircraft into one thread.
Another thing I'd like to see would be the option to reinforce an entire army at the same time... as it stands clicking on each of your 50+ damaged divisions to reinforce them is rather tedious.
Yet another hidden feature that HOI has.
It's like reading a really good mystery novel that never ends!
Also, Cast locked my thread.
That sure seems like a bug to me...
Don't tell me it's WAD? There should simply be a box that says "You can't unload onto this province"... making the troops seeminly unload without actually doing is just ain't right...
It's like reading a really good mystery novel that never ends!
Also, Cast locked my thread.
That sure seems like a bug to me...
Don't tell me it's WAD? There should simply be a box that says "You can't unload onto this province"... making the troops seeminly unload without actually doing is just ain't right...
Reinforcements should take a certain amount of time to take effect, dependant upon the distance from a home province.
This would prevent the former event from occuring, since you could only reinforce the cavalry in a very slow manner, allowing it time to be killed from attrition.
This would prevent the former event from occuring, since you could only reinforce the cavalry in a very slow manner, allowing it time to be killed from attrition.
Just a couple of suggestions here.
There are some fo you talking about reallocating IC's and resources. One example is to up the IC's in Belfast and Glasgow and lower the IC's in Dublin. Now when thining about IC's and resources Histoircal accuracy was no the only consideration there were two others. One is balance you need to blance the number of IC's and resources againsts the cost of things (will increasing the UK may it too strong) and against other nations. The second is playabilty, Saudi Arabia is given some Coal, Iron and IC's (even though it had none of these) just so that someone wanting play that country can at least do something. This is not an absolutly perfect system but balance and playablilty must considered as well as historical accuracy.
That takes me to another suggestion about island chains and invasions. Some of the island chains are linked together to reduce the micro management aspects of invading. Rather that having a new invasion supply convoy ect. ect. for every single island (which would be a real pain for all but the hard core fan) some where linked together to make the game easier to play. Again Historical accuracy must be wieghed against playabilty.
There are some fo you talking about reallocating IC's and resources. One example is to up the IC's in Belfast and Glasgow and lower the IC's in Dublin. Now when thining about IC's and resources Histoircal accuracy was no the only consideration there were two others. One is balance you need to blance the number of IC's and resources againsts the cost of things (will increasing the UK may it too strong) and against other nations. The second is playabilty, Saudi Arabia is given some Coal, Iron and IC's (even though it had none of these) just so that someone wanting play that country can at least do something. This is not an absolutly perfect system but balance and playablilty must considered as well as historical accuracy.
That takes me to another suggestion about island chains and invasions. Some of the island chains are linked together to reduce the micro management aspects of invading. Rather that having a new invasion supply convoy ect. ect. for every single island (which would be a real pain for all but the hard core fan) some where linked together to make the game easier to play. Again Historical accuracy must be wieghed against playabilty.
I have to disagree here. The game claims that all nations are playable, nations without resoruces are unplayable. So I think this has to be done. It might be an imperfect solution, but untill there is a better one I can see no alternative.
If we go back to the Saudi example the artifical engineering gives the Saudis exactly 11 IC's. This is enough to keep it's people happy, supply it's troops and raise a single infantry division. It is not enough to even research properly (although a single project can started and run very slowly). It is not really a artificial as such. I am sure if the Saudi regime had put it's mind to it it could of increased it's army (and 1 division at a time sounds about right). It is more how the game runs. If the Saudi's had been given the historically correct amount of coal (none) and steel (none), then it's army would steadly of wither away to nothing (no supplies). This is also an ahistorical result. I am sure Paradox would be more than happy to take use a simple way of dealling with this problem which allowed the game to be more historical. So put your thinking cap on and be inspired.
Re: Making Playing Germany More Challenging
I'll give you a few thougths here about my feeling about these ideas.
This is a tricky one, especially if a human player is playing the SU. Make the SU more powerful and it will walk over everyone. Perhaps the SU may be a bit weak, but I think it is more the WE entry rules that hold the SU back rather than it's total IC's. Perhaps tweaking that could be the answer.
This again a tricky one. The we want a more "historical game gang" would be outraged as Britian had very very few forces in africa early in the war. Operation Compass was laurnched usign just 2 divisions. Perhaps the answer is to tweek up the British leader file which will strength Britain without going into massive overhauls of the scenarios
Now I agree with you here that it might be better if occupied terrotries supply fewer IC's than normal terrotry (actually I don't know what the rules are for occupied terrotry). Ok now any figure you pick will need to be balanced so we pick 1/4 (say), the only problem you have is what is pro-german? Or pro-anybody for that matter? The idea is good, but what is needed is a nice clear definition of pro and anti.
Now this I am not so happy about. The idea that the US would be more worried if Germany conquered Sweden rather than Norway just doesn't seem right.
I would say that the partisan rules are impeferect at the moment. Any suggestions on how to imporve this will fo course be considered seriously.
The WE entry is another tricky one. In games I have played if Germany behaves historically then the war starts at a resonably historical time. As I see it this is more the Axis AI's being to agressive than a fault with the WE entry system. However AI's are not my strong point.
I have left your AI suggestion at the moment it is all Vodoo to me.
I'll give you a few thougths here about my feeling about these ideas.
This is a tricky one, especially if a human player is playing the SU. Make the SU more powerful and it will walk over everyone. Perhaps the SU may be a bit weak, but I think it is more the WE entry rules that hold the SU back rather than it's total IC's. Perhaps tweaking that could be the answer.
This again a tricky one. The we want a more "historical game gang" would be outraged as Britian had very very few forces in africa early in the war. Operation Compass was laurnched usign just 2 divisions. Perhaps the answer is to tweek up the British leader file which will strength Britain without going into massive overhauls of the scenarios
Now I agree with you here that it might be better if occupied terrotries supply fewer IC's than normal terrotry (actually I don't know what the rules are for occupied terrotry). Ok now any figure you pick will need to be balanced so we pick 1/4 (say), the only problem you have is what is pro-german? Or pro-anybody for that matter? The idea is good, but what is needed is a nice clear definition of pro and anti.
Now this I am not so happy about. The idea that the US would be more worried if Germany conquered Sweden rather than Norway just doesn't seem right.
I would say that the partisan rules are impeferect at the moment. Any suggestions on how to imporve this will fo course be considered seriously.
The WE entry is another tricky one. In games I have played if Germany behaves historically then the war starts at a resonably historical time. As I see it this is more the Axis AI's being to agressive than a fault with the WE entry system. However AI's are not my strong point.
I have left your AI suggestion at the moment it is all Vodoo to me.
I have to say I do not like this idea at all. I think that players will not liek this idea either. Can you immagine the up roar when the game tells them that they cannot invade a country, because the designer feel that this country would not be invaded by you in real life. People will go Bannas.
Italian troop quality needs to be greatly lowered. They can easily beat both France and Britain, which historically wasn't possible.
The AI will eventually be tweaked where Romania will get crushed if it attempts something like that. Just be patient.