I have seen very little feedback on the alpha version of the new patch. Is it elsewhere or is it because there just hasn't been much feedback yet?
-
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.
Production and merchant fleets could be rebalanced to improve the game
I have missed a general feed back thread as well - this one should work
IMHO the game still needs some balancing, especially the AI:s build priority's. Germany builds to much armour, witch it can't afford nor supply in terms of TC in the Russian campaign, and I think aircraft-production could be toned down a bit for many nations because of the IC-drain.
The AI also really should allocate much more IC to reinforcements, as it is it spends them on production instead witch is much more expensive.
Last but not least some transports should be added to USA, Canada, Germany and the UK to make the trading system work muck more fluent (and to correctly mirror their historic sizes). A few minors (like Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia and Sweden) should have more transports as well and some nations should have some transports less but this doesn't really affect the game too much. /Mattias
I have missed a general feed back thread as well - this one should work
IMHO the game still needs some balancing, especially the AI:s build priority's. Germany builds to much armour, witch it can't afford nor supply in terms of TC in the Russian campaign, and I think aircraft-production could be toned down a bit for many nations because of the IC-drain.
The AI also really should allocate much more IC to reinforcements, as it is it spends them on production instead witch is much more expensive.
Last but not least some transports should be added to USA, Canada, Germany and the UK to make the trading system work muck more fluent (and to correctly mirror their historic sizes). A few minors (like Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia and Sweden) should have more transports as well and some nations should have some transports less but this doesn't really affect the game too much. /Mattias
Last edited:
re: merchant fleet
We'd also keep in mind what happened to the merchant fleet in the war once their home country was overrun/annexed. In the game all of the convoys and escorts simply vanish if a nation is annexed contrary to the naval forces which are automatically given to another member of your alliance. Since the merchant fleet is organised in coastal shipping and in transoceanic shipping it'd be worthwhile to give the major part of the merchant fleet to its alliance members while the smaller part (one third?) will be the booty of the annexing nation.
We'd also keep in mind what happened to the merchant fleet in the war once their home country was overrun/annexed. In the game all of the convoys and escorts simply vanish if a nation is annexed contrary to the naval forces which are automatically given to another member of your alliance. Since the merchant fleet is organised in coastal shipping and in transoceanic shipping it'd be worthwhile to give the major part of the merchant fleet to its alliance members while the smaller part (one third?) will be the booty of the annexing nation.
Yes Fürstbischof I think Convoys and escorts should be split as well. As it is this has to be done via events (there is one about the Norwegian merchant marine isn't it?)
(My dream would be to have the convoys present at the map as units, with the ability to escort them with units of your choice, recreating the great battles about the convoys to Malta or in the Arctic Ocean) /Mattias
(My dream would be to have the convoys present at the map as units, with the ability to escort them with units of your choice, recreating the great battles about the convoys to Malta or in the Arctic Ocean) /Mattias
Very interesting idea...
(I proposed exactly the same thing to the devs some months ago: convoys physically on map. Let's hope they'll enable this feature)
I've thought about this as well, but it should be avoided (at least, to a great extent) if leaving the AI manage these convoys by default, as it is now. The player would have the choice, not the need, to manage them himself, if he pleases.
If convoy routes could be highlighted to their present situation, you could put fleets in these provinces which could "defend" this convoy route, and sink subs trying to destroy the convoys. Just an idea.
But convoy routes are already highlighted (just click on the supply map mode to see them).
It's a whole different thing, though... currently, convoys are "invisible" and very abstract. Making them "real" as the other ships would make for a much, much more interesting Battle for the Atlantic (but not only).
To know how I exactly see it, please read here.
Last edited:
Have there been some changes to the fall of the Dragon event. China has 2-3 victory points left and they haven't surrendered via event. Beta5
think its a bit early that China annexed all the warlords before the war in 1936? or was is it done becuse of game balance..
think its a bit early that China annexed all the warlords before the war in 1936? or was is it done becuse of game balance..
Last edited:
This happens so early if japan is not an AI. If Japan is an ai than only CXB and CYN are annexed in 1936 as this is needed to build some ic in the interior.
The event has not been changed. But it might have to be changed to take the inherited provinces into account.
What happened in this patch to break all of my add on sprite packs? With this patch if I load any of Puma's sprites the game will not run for more than 2 months.
Perhaps something can be done about the UK in N. Africa? They often get overrun when Italy joins the Axis. In my current game, Italy captures egypt + most of Palestine. Maybe we can add some more garrison troops there to halt the advance, especially now that Iraq is able to declare war.
I am more concerned about italy advancing too far into regions of low ESE while neglecting home defence.
If Iraq joins axis UK has to DoW SYR and IRQ. That makes 20 dissent. Mayby this event should contain dissent -10 or so.
+1, I didn't know this happened and since it does, it should be removed completely. I doubt the British public had any qualms about invading Syria and Iraq at the time
o I'd also like to see Yemen removed from the Allies in the 1936 scenario as it only joined them in early-1945 IRL and therefore it gives Italy an unfair 5 dissent if it goes to war with the Allies as it has a non-aggression pact with Yemen.
Not from what I can see. Maybe Italy gets dissent from not having full interventionism at the time. Either way, Yemen wasn't in the Allies until 1945 so I don't see why it should be in 1936.
I can confirm that even via alliance NAP breakings costs 5 dissent. If YEM is not part of the allies it can no longer be a puppet.
IMO the UK gets little benefit from having Yemen as a puppet anyway. I'd recommend letting the UK still have mil access to Yemen though due to British influence in the region.