Expansion announced!

[Jazumir]

WANT:

1)[...]provinces worth conquering.
[...]

That´s one of my peeves as well, that i keep forgetting about, while not playing. I think there are way too many provinces with 0-value. Ressources and manpower need to be spread out more evenly. Like in my last NatChi-game: There is no MP, nor resources, between beijing and mukden, IIRC. Zip, nada, zilch. That´s not much, really. Should be more. In fact, almost any province in (eastern) china should yield some MP. Right now, it plays a bit like north-africa everywhere: If you cant take that major city, fall back like 500km, because nothing in between is worth anything.

 

[Cybvep]

That´s one of my peeves as well, that i keep forgetting about, while not playing. I think there are way too many provinces with 0-value. Ressources and manpower need to be spread out more evenly.

That's EXACTLY my problem with current MP distribution (resources are sometimes too stacked in the capital, too - especially in the case of minor countries). I think the devs were a bit lazy with that. 0-MP regions are plausible in Siberia or Central Africa, but not in China, India, Europe etc.

9) A historical game mode.

That would be nice for those who like to replay WWII every time. And for MP purposes, too.

 

[Slan]

I'm not exactly sure what a 'historical game mode' would mean...

 

[Cybvep]

I'm not exactly sure what a 'historical game mode' would mean...

100% AI chance for choosing historical options and DOWing nations historically every time. I wouldn't use it, but I'm sure that there are players who would like to have such an option in the game.

 

[Easo]

Realy nice. Also, WTB MULTITHREADING!!! Its 2011, and game, where AI have to do SOOOOO much calculations without being threaded is just lolz. (even WoW, being so old, got multithreaded)

 

[Slan]

100% AI chance for choosing historical options and DOWing nations historically every time. I wouldn't use it, but I'm sure that there are players who would like to have such an option in the game.

I'm really sorry if I'm hurting someone's feelings now (actually, no, I'm not sorry at all), but that sounds awefull... Always choosing the historical option in events sounds fine, but historical dates?

If you think about it for a moment, it makes no sense. The date is the least important thing when determining when to attack a certain enemy. This would mean that the Germans will always attack the Soviets in '41 June, even if they are still knee deep in France. It would also mean that Japan attacks the USA in December of '41, even if they are kicked out of mainland Asia, and the Allies already destroyed their entire fleet. And army.

Let's assume that these events will only fire if the conditions are met. Ie. Barbarossa will only start in June '41, if the Germans are finished with their tasks up till that point. Sounds fine, right? But if they didn't, then will it never fire at all? Come on...

So, I ask again: what do you mean by a "historical game mode"?

 

[Cybvep]

If you think about it for a moment, it makes no sense. The date is the least important thing when determining when to attack a certain enemy. This would mean that the Germans will always attack the Soviets in '41 June, even if they are still knee deep in France. It would also mean that Japan attacks the USA in December of '41, even if they are kicked out of mainland Asia, and the Allies already destroyed their entire fleet. And army.

Let's assume that these events will only fire if the conditions are met. Ie. Barbarossa will only start in June '41, if the Germans are finished with their tasks up till that point. Sounds fine, right? But if they didn't, then will it never fire at all? Come on...

So, I ask again: what do you mean by a "historical game mode"?

Your criteria are only partially valid, because people who want "historical" gameplay expect France to lose, UK to prevail etc. Some even set some dates for that purpose, for example - historical up to... Dec 1941... or Jun 1941... or whatever. Percentages are used from time to time, too. "I expect Germany to win in France in 9 out of 10 games and get bogged down in Russia in 7 out of 10 games" or sth.

I'm more of a fan of a sandbox approach within reasonable constraints, but hey, that's just me. If they can include a sensible "historical game mode", then it wouldn't hurt.

 

[unmerged(102827)]

The title is "For the Motherland"!
New partisan system.

As a modder I have rebuilt the 1943 scenario in order to obtain a better Balkans campaign, I have added the yugoslav partisans forces and rebuilt the italian oob and these are my considerations on the actual system and the possible improvements:

1) The partisans forces are seen as 'normal' forces, so if a revolt born in a province is created a partisan division linked with the province that is indicated as partisan territory, generally with a single division I can destroy the partisan unit. Personally I think that a better mechanism could be that only if the partisan unit is completely surrounded by enemy forces it can be destroyed otherwise, if defeated, escape in a close province recreating a partisan territory.
2) The infantry or mountain divisions should have a command "garrison the province" in order to increase their suppression value, to be historical this meant break into pieces the division and use the units to garrison the principal towns of the province so if you want move the division tou must wait some days in order to permit the concentration.
3) The dissent should influence the revolt risk of a province, this should be important for country like the RSI in order to obtain partisan activity also in a core province.

I would like to see:

1) Historical names for the regiments;
2) Possibility to turn the reserve units in normal units and vice versa;
3) Possibility to buy/sell weapons, not only licenses;

Wargoals.
Battlescenarios.
Lots more historical decisions.
Deeper politics.
Strategic resource.
Communicative theathres.

And many more features and tweaks we'll announce later.

Good news, fantastic.

 

[Narkaz]

I have one small request for the developers: could you add ships sunk by airplane or attrition in the sunken ship statistic it would make my day

 

[redflag]

I'm really sorry if I'm hurting someone's feelings now (actually, no, I'm not sorry at all), but that sounds awefull... Always choosing the historical option in events sounds fine, but historical dates?

If you think about it for a moment, it makes no sense. The date is the least important thing when determining when to attack a certain enemy. This would mean that the Germans will always attack the Soviets in '41 June, even if they are still knee deep in France. It would also mean that Japan attacks the USA in December of '41, even if they are kicked out of mainland Asia, and the Allies already destroyed their entire fleet. And army.

Let's assume that these events will only fire if the conditions are met. Ie. Barbarossa will only start in June '41, if the Germans are finished with their tasks up till that point. Sounds fine, right? But if they didn't, then will it never fire at all? Come on...

So, I ask again: what do you mean by a "historical game mode"?

In a "historical" multiplayer game why would I as Germany defend my border untill I am ready to attack the Soviet Union? If I don't have to spend resources defending my border why not just invade North America? The following two pictures are an example of a Germany in a multiplayer game who invaded North America and left the border with Mother Russia unguarded.

 

[Danielefc]

The title is "For the Motherland"!

New partisan system.
Wargoals.
Battlescenarios.
Lots more historical decisions.
Deeper politics.
Strategic resource.
Communicative theathres.

And many more features and tweaks we'll announce later.

Hooray! Eastern Front has always been my favorite part . Can't wait to hear more!

 

[unmerged(169768)]

If I am not mistaken, the T2300 is a very, very, very, very, very slow CPU.

Buy a gaming PC instead of a laptop (you already got 1, right?).

the T2300 is a Core 2 duo 1666Mhz cpu.. slow?? I left my gaming rig in Europe, which consisted of a Pentium D 3.0Ghz. The game ran fine on that. Lots of modern day cpus run on a slower speed but just have more instructions which make them comparatively fast to older cpus.


WANT (updated):

- Supply depots! I hate it that the ONE thing in the game that you have no control over, actually breaks it. Sure, in WW2 supply was bad at times, but it was bad because of need for catching up, weather, enemy breakthroughs etc. It wasn't bad because the people in Logistics were idiots (like the AI).

- Working production sliders. When I put 250 IC in Upgrade, I want it to STAY 250. Any extra or lost IC can go in the category that DOESN'T HAVE ITS SLIDER LOCKED. How hard can that be to code? As it is, I spent waaaay to much time adjusting them and hoping that they'll stay in place.

- Capturing ships in port, if you blockade the harbor. Also give Germany some ships in the Med in the scenarios, or give me...

- Control over my allies! Ask them for Exp. Forces, whatever they are, ships (transport ships!!) or units or aircraft.

 

[unmerged(169768)]

I'm not exactly sure what a 'historical game mode' would mean...

It means that, if you play South Africa starting 1936, the events in Europe will happen as they historically did. As it is now, half the time nothing will happen, or things happen differently. If I say historical game mode 1936, I want WW2 to happen the way it did. That might sound boring for some people, but for me, the challenge is in knowing my personal limitations or influence in real world (past) events. I have little interest in 'playing around', or gamey tactics to just achieve world domination. For that reason, I actually only play the scenarios.

 

[silenced]

A historical game would require scripted combat events with a predicted outcome, or to go a step further: if a specific date is reached then the historical 'moment' is set, even if France is occupying Berlin in early 1940. That's BS.

You will never achieve a 100% or even 75% historical game ...

 

[unmerged(161878)]

Cosmetic and and more useful changes!

1. Unit strength.

Why selected values are differ?

It should be like this. We are interested about status of the whole army, corps and divisions and not just brigade hq, which in addition whose not fight.

2. Unit selection.

What if I have 100 divisions and i want to choose only two armored? I must click 98 in exit button.

Secont, what if i have 100 divisions but my monitor has only 1080 height?

It should be like this:

Press 'shift' and select only dwo divisions. And of course scroll, then we do not have worry about size of the monitor.



3. Leaders.

Why? Because all the armies did derogation from the plan. Regular leader of division was officer in rank 'general major'. But some times only 'colonel' was commander of division.

Examples:
USSR
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/39_oob/army/army_07.html
Corps commanders: komdiv and... kombrig.

USSR
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/39_oob/army/_leningrad.html
front commander: komandarm...

USSR
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/39_oob/army/army_07.html
army commander: ...also komandarm

Finland
http://niehorster.orbat.com/024_finland/39_organ/39_div-inf.html#div-01
division commander: major general... second colonel

Britain
http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain/39_org/brig_tank.html#brig_tank
brigade commander: colonel... second brigade general

USA
http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usarmy/army-01/army-001_corps-01.htm
http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usarmy/army-01/army-001_id-008.htm
Corps and division commanded by major general

Enough, more can be found here:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/000oob.htm

Second: What happens if the numbers will be red?
Corps level bonus is: reinforcement chance, if the number is red then chance will be low. Penalties can be varied.




​

 

[aquilarossa]

A historical game would require scripted combat events with a predicted outcome, or to go a step further: if a specific date is reached then the historical 'moment' is set, even if France is occupying Berlin in early 1940. That's BS.

You will never achieve a 100% or even 75% historical game ...

My idea of "historical" would require very little scripted events. If the OOBs, units, combat, resources, production, and diplomacy etc are fine tuned along with how the AI uses them, I would then hope to see a game that loosely mirrors history unless an extrordinary victory of change of alignment happens.
I would think if the game's AI was more dynamic and as many as possibe strengths and weakness of each country are acturately modelled, along with all major strategic factors that influenced the outcome of the war, then it should play out in such a believable way that both historical and sandbox camps would be satisfied. Players who like the historical type of game only really get annoyed when the ahistorical outcomes we see are not at all believable.

I would like to see the next expansion raise the minimum system requirements with the current game engine upgraded to be able to manage more functions and calculations, so that it is capable of having much higher demands placed on it.
Atm, it does not appear to be able to consider everything going on in the game or enable the AI to be capable of responding every situation and parameter present at any given moment as well as it needs to be for a game of this scope. It seems to me that the AI is not monitoring everything it needs to. A more powerful version of this game engine would allow it to calculate this extra workload, at the expense of a few players having to upgrade their computers.

 

[Cybvep]

Owsik's ideas are great! +1!

 

[unmerged(169768)]

Cosmetic and and more useful changes!

It should be like this. We are interested about status of the whole army, corps and divisions and not just brigade hq, which in addition whose not fight.

2. Unit selection.

What if I have 100 divisions and i want to choose only two armored? I must click 98 in exit button.

Secont, what if i have 100 divisions but my monitor has only 1080 height?

It should be like this:

Press 'shift' and select only dwo divisions. And of course scroll, then we do not have worry about size of the monitor.



3. Leaders.

Why? Because all the armies did derogation from the plan. Regular leader of division was officer in rank 'general major'. But some times only 'colonel' was commander of division.

Second: What happens if the numbers will be red?
Corps level bonus is: reinforcement chance, if the number is red then chance will be low. Penalties can be varied.

​

You, Sir, win one free Internet!

Absolutely correct on the interface changes to select multiple divisions.

Also, about the Leaders: Why not limit the amount of promotions to 1 per week? That way a player will have to seriously think about which Generals to promote. Degradations would be free of course. Also, limit the amount of promotions per Leader to 1 or 2 a year. That way, you won't be able to turn a 2 star division leader into a field marshall right away, he has to climb the ranks.

 

[unmerged(169768)]

My idea of "historical" would require very little scripted events. If the OOBs, units, combat, resources, production, and diplomacy etc are fine tuned along with how the AI uses them, I would then hope to see a game that loosely mirrors history unless an extrordinary victory of change of alignment happens.

I agree. and if they script it right, they only have to do it once, and you can have a perfect historical game every time. They should've started this way, instead of working their way back to fix certain historical things. But, as we all know, Paradox does everything backwards Seriously, think about it!

I would think if the game's AI was more dynamic and as many as possibe strengths and weakness of each country are acturately modelled, along with all major strategic factors that influenced the outcome of the war, then it should play out in such a believable way that both historical and sandbox camps would be satisfied. Players who like the historical type of game only really get annoyed when the ahistorical outcomes we see are not at all believable.

I would like to see the next expansion raise the minimum system requirements with the current game engine upgraded to be able to manage more functions and calculations, so that it is capable of having much higher demands placed on it.
Atm, it does not appear to be able to consider everything going on in the game or enable the AI to be capable of responding every situation and parameter present at any given moment as well as it needs to be for a game of this scope. It seems to me that the AI is not monitoring everything it needs to. A more powerful version of this game engine would allow it to calculate this extra workload, at the expense of a few players having to upgrade their computers.

The way Paradox codes, no computer in the world will ever be powerful enough. I guess it's not a big thing for you to upgrade, but for me, it is. I'm not in a really nice financial situation, and I can't even play the game right now. Are you going to buy me a new computer? It sucks when you're one of the people that have to upgrade. Instead of bloating the current engine more, they should focus on making it a lean mean machine, that runs smooth on most PCs. With balanced gameplay. If they would make supply user-controllable, WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS, it would save ALOT of cpu cycles. They just don't want to spend the resource coding it.

 

[juv95hrn]

Sounds great!

Like many others I want to see:

- A fix for current problems that 2.04 wont take care of.
- Weather and terrain on the Eastern Front/China etc to make these campaigns realistic, harder and longer.
- Useful AI allies and puppets (partial Mil Control sounds nice)
- Supply issues fixed.
- Improved UI (select +1 unit from stack/sortable leaders etc etc)
- Improved partisan warfare sounds excellent (no one builds POL bdes now and whack-a-mole partisan hunting was a pain)
- Working pre-war politics (Great! Make MP players choose to go on a rampage in neutral nations or have the US in the war early/late. Change SOV aggression making US enter early to the other way around)
- Steal popular ideas from HOI2 and ICE and other mods etc. (spawn of leader traits, better map, infra, harsher terrain penalties etc)
- Limited leader promotion is a good idea
- ASW ledger overview (who wants to manually count sunk convoys/escorts/subs and calculate IC losses? Make it so that you can see whos winning the tonnage war at a glance from the ledger. Shouldn't be too har do fix.)
- Ship losses overview page would be nice, showing number of sunk/lost ships per type and per nation at a glance. Scorlling and counting manually on the ship losses page (which is great in itself) is awkward in a long war with lots of naval losses.
- Make air base size matter again like in HOI2
- Let betas and modders fix a few OOB errors that's been in since pre-launch. (No, fx 90% of the UK army was not motorized in 1939)

Looking forward to an even better HOI3 where the remaining inconsistencies are finally fixed.