I understand that these are currently bugged. Have there been any indications from paradox about this being fixed in FTM?
-
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.
Will there also be a fix for Semper Fi, or will we have to wait for an unofficial fix(mod)/buy FTM?
Have to buy FTM. But right now the game is balanced. It just ignores the defensiveness and toughness values. Some have changed the files but this is the WRONG way to go in my opinion.
We don't know if we have to buy FTM for it 
The will be another patch for Semper Fi (unless they decided against it, unlikely) that fixes the supply-mess with Japans invasion of China, and other "crucial" things could as well be included
(I'm buying it anyways, just sayin')
The will be another patch for Semper Fi (unless they decided against it, unlikely) that fixes the supply-mess with Japans invasion of China, and other "crucial" things could as well be included (I'm buying it anyways, just sayin')
We already said elsewhere, but there's no plans to backport the Def/Tough stuff to SF. When we make the SF patch it will pretty much be the last beta with an installer, mainly just waiting for more feedback on the beta as it seems few people are reporting anything about it. Perhaps that means it is perfect
Last edited:
I could be wrong, but if the game was designed with the assumption that def/tough values were working and it turns out that they are not, how can that be balanced?
Ehm, to FTM? To SF I guess. This is mostly disappointing.
Well, there are still at least 2 bugs that cause game crashes...When we make the SF patch it will pretty much be the last beta with an installer, mainly just waiting for more feedback on the beta as it seems few people are reporting anything about it. Perhaps that means it is perfect
Yeah, to SF, sorry.
Are the crashes reported? If so, are they in the patch feedback thread, or could you link me to them? Brain is full of FTM right now, can't recall any active SF crash bugs.
Are the crashes reported? If so, are they in the patch feedback thread, or could you link me to them? Brain is full of FTM right now, can't recall any active SF crash bugs.
Recently I've reported this:http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?539919-Crash-because-of-convoy-issue (I think something is wrong with the map and reachability so game cannot trace a path to the province).
There was also a problem with theatre AI reported by several users (you have to browse through tech support or bug report subforums). Perhaps it was fixed in 2.04f but I couldn't figure this out from the changelog.
And there was an issue with music causing mysteriuous crashes at start (reinstalling codecs does not seem to work). Take a look at
this topic. It seems it hasn't been fixed, see the very end of this post by GCZ.
Thanks, I will check them tomorrow...Or maybe I should prod Artfox to do it...
Cruel!
So when defensiveness a toughness actually work like theyre supposed to, how will they work? Is it just gonna lower the amount of casualties you sustain on the defense/offense or is it going to also effect who the winner/loser of the battle is?
Edit: and since Defensiveness/Toughness dont work currently... does that mean that there is currently no way to lower the amount of casualties you sustain on the offense or defense? Seems really unbalanced to me... this means that who ever has the more manpower has a gigantic advantage over whoever has less manpower.
Edit: and since Defensiveness/Toughness dont work currently... does that mean that there is currently no way to lower the amount of casualties you sustain on the offense or defense? Seems really unbalanced to me... this means that who ever has the more manpower has a gigantic advantage over whoever has less manpower.
Last edited:
Since I assume it works like in HoI2 the answer is probably the same: It depends on the situation.
In a situation where you have alot of numerical advantage having higher def/tough will not do much (if anything at all).
In a situation where you are outnumbered and the enemy have several divisions firing on each one of yours they should be more noticeable (in both casualties taken and win/loss off battle).
Ofcourse there are many ways to lower the amount of casualties. By increasing your attack values the battle will be over quicker lowering your casualties. You can build divisions with lower softness if the enemy employ mostly soft attacks to lower casualties. You can use terrain to your advantage, you can employ an airforce which is very cheap in manpower and so on and so on.
Ive learned that firepower (derived from an IC advantage) can be just as important as manpower in SF.
Yes it was me who had to check it, but, poor podcats face expression made the trouble totally worth it
So, the convoy issue is reproduced, confirmed and set as very high priority.
The theatre AI and some other bugs on the bug forums are still waiting for a decent readthrough (it will be done next week).
The mysterious music crashes are hard to confirm, but are hardware dependent... Which means that they are hard to fix.
Thanks for the reports!
The way they will work is if one side techs up the attack value and you don't tech up def/tough then you suffer higher casualties. Right now the BIG unknown and what will be different from how we play today are two 1942/1944 tech units fighting. Here is the logic. All attacks currently hit right now. As we tech up attack we get more hits whcih means more damage. Two 1944 tech units will destroy themselves FASTER then two 1938 tech units.
Now when def/tough is fixed that means everything should stay about the say. See the def/tough results in misses. Two 1938 tech units may have 80% of their attacks hit. Each hit will do more damage then today but overall they balance it out so the results would be about the same. Now as you tech up to 1944 your attack increases but so does your def. That means the same 80% miss rate should stay about the same.
What this means is early in the war 1938 to 1940 tech levels you won't see much difference from what happens in today's games vs. what happens in FTM. But once you tech 1942/1944 we will see a difference. Today the fights are bloddier. With the fix they will result in about the same damage as the 1938 fights. And here is the strategy change. If I have 1944 attack and defense techs for my units and I'm fighting a 1938 tech unit I'll cream them much faster in the FTM fixed version. They won't be able to hit me much while more of my attacks land. Today that 1938 unit still landed the same number of hits against me and it didn't matter if my unit was 1938 tech or 1944.
Hope this answers your questions.
That's not historical, 44 tech units should waste each other faster too because their weapons have become more deadly.
In reality, the fighting on the Eastern front became more and more savage as the war went on. Neither side surrendered later in the war because they knew their fate would be horrible. Both sides were so completely dissentisized that cruelty was part of their daily lives. On both sides, the amount of artillery and tanks and other weapons of war increased as the war went on. This should really be represented by a strategic tech which lowers loss of org as the war progresses, to reflect the increased number of casualties.
Furthermore I can't believe that all this time Def and Tough have been empty values. Pffff what a mess!
In reality, the fighting on the Eastern front became more and more savage as the war went on. Neither side surrendered later in the war because they knew their fate would be horrible. Both sides were so completely dissentisized that cruelty was part of their daily lives. On both sides, the amount of artillery and tanks and other weapons of war increased as the war went on. This should really be represented by a strategic tech which lowers loss of org as the war progresses, to reflect the increased number of casualties.
Furthermore I can't believe that all this time Def and Tough have been empty values. Pffff what a mess!
I like how we have to point to a two week old crash report three times, before some one get around to reading the bug report forum. Better late then never.