I wana do another country now. Any suggestions? I wana crank the difficulty up from verey easy to normal.
-
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.
Also i wish there was a way to lease/sell IC and divisions.(Ik you can do this ina trade but i mean like between neutral nations. So i can do a historically accurate switzerland.
Here are some changes i would make to DH
1. More in depth equipment design
2. Half factory build time and IC cost
3. Half the build time for all naval units.
4 3/4ths ic use for everything but ic takes more resources
5. Hoi4 style peace conferences so i dont have to use hax to make borders not cause eye trama.
6. Division design like in hoi4 and combat width.(Now i can do artillary only hoi2). You could also make indiivdual battalions and swap them in a division ont eh fly
7. all minor powers now start with atleast 25-50 ic, and countries with less IC get new decisions to build factories faster at the cost of more resources, or the ability to lease factories from other countries for resources.
8. More sliders(splitting up democratic vs authoritarian into several sliders, libertarian vs authoritarian, democratic vs dictitorial, progressive vs conservative etc)
9. To accompany this more govt types. (Anarchism, right libertarianism, monarchism, trotskyism(maybe), democratic socialism, centrism, maybe a few crazy ideologies just for the memes)
10. smaller provinces like in hoi4. But you can only take states instead of provinces and build infastructure and factories in states instead of provinces as well.
11. Maybe a hoi4 style battle planer but much more simple. I kinda like micro but it can be annoying at times. It would probably just be limited to saying"heres a line, goto the line". No planing bonus or anything. Also this could be used to equally distribute divisions along a frontline or to give bias to some regions so they ahve more or less divisions in the distribution.
12. A new cap for ai divisions so that they will not build new divisions unless they actually need to build divisions(will only build them if there are hostile powers threatning them or they themsevles are a hostile power, otherwise will build fewer divisions. Also the more divisions you have the more TC it would cause them to use following a very flat exponential curve(there would be an option to disable this in the game settings)
This may just sound like hoi4. But hoi4 doesnt have as much depth as i would like. Not enough sliders. Albiet hoi4 does a better job at simulating less centeralized economies, neither game does this well. In a truly decenteralized economy you would have little to no control over industrial sliders which would be hard to impliment.
13. Less scripting and more ahistorical paths.
Anyway Colonizor48 ww2 grand strategy coming whenever i learn how to code lol
Here are some changes i would make to DH
1. More in depth equipment design
2. Half factory build time and IC cost
3. Half the build time for all naval units.
4 3/4ths ic use for everything but ic takes more resources
5. Hoi4 style peace conferences so i dont have to use hax to make borders not cause eye trama.
6. Division design like in hoi4 and combat width.(Now i can do artillary only hoi2). You could also make indiivdual battalions and swap them in a division ont eh fly
7. all minor powers now start with atleast 25-50 ic, and countries with less IC get new decisions to build factories faster at the cost of more resources, or the ability to lease factories from other countries for resources.
8. More sliders(splitting up democratic vs authoritarian into several sliders, libertarian vs authoritarian, democratic vs dictitorial, progressive vs conservative etc)
9. To accompany this more govt types. (Anarchism, right libertarianism, monarchism, trotskyism(maybe), democratic socialism, centrism, maybe a few crazy ideologies just for the memes)
10. smaller provinces like in hoi4. But you can only take states instead of provinces and build infastructure and factories in states instead of provinces as well.
11. Maybe a hoi4 style battle planer but much more simple. I kinda like micro but it can be annoying at times. It would probably just be limited to saying"heres a line, goto the line". No planing bonus or anything. Also this could be used to equally distribute divisions along a frontline or to give bias to some regions so they ahve more or less divisions in the distribution.
12. A new cap for ai divisions so that they will not build new divisions unless they actually need to build divisions(will only build them if there are hostile powers threatning them or they themsevles are a hostile power, otherwise will build fewer divisions. Also the more divisions you have the more TC it would cause them to use following a very flat exponential curve(there would be an option to disable this in the game settings)
This may just sound like hoi4. But hoi4 doesnt have as much depth as i would like. Not enough sliders. Albiet hoi4 does a better job at simulating less centeralized economies, neither game does this well. In a truly decenteralized economy you would have little to no control over industrial sliders which would be hard to impliment.
13. Less scripting and more ahistorical paths.
Anyway Colonizor48 ww2 grand strategy coming whenever i learn how to code lol
Last edited:
Not even then, nukes can be mounted on missiles which in the long run have more range and can't be intercepted by enemy fighters.
By the time you actually develop nukes, missile technology should be advanced enough to do it if you've invested in it.
As a general rule, Nukes aren't really worth it. Too expensive to develop, too slow to build in large numbers until the War is probably over. Their main value comes in tactical use against a province highly populated by enemy armies, or as a strategic weapon to destroy IC hubs and cause mass dissent in enemy states.
Have you done Germany yet? That's the traditional coming of age ceremony for a DH player.
Last edited:
Nukes seem to be worth it to break a stalemate. Or to start ww3 for fun lol.
Knowing my skills if i tired germany and to do barbarossa the USSR would probably barbarossa me instead lol. I would try the USA but the USA starts WAAAAY to behind in tech. But ik they can tech rush well. Thinking about doing a communist/socialist USA game(you can actually get that in vanilla via an event if you have high dissent) and trying to take over south america with B L I T Z K R E I G
Generally the latter, I've never run into a stalemate that required nuclear weapons to deal with. I could imagine creating one artificially as the Union of Britain in KR if I purposely lose on the continent, but even then, I could probably beat Germany via conventional means. I guess I've just gotten too used to the game and that mod in particular to the point I don't really think in terms of doing things just for fun; sure, I challenge myself, but I still end up playing very efficiently most of the time.
I guess a nuclear option would serve Germany as a fallback for a failed Barbarosa or as a means to De-IC the US. Then again, the resources invested in a nuclear program are just as likely to be the cause of a failed Barbarosa. DH is at its heart a cost alternative game. The only power that can really experiment is the USA. Yes, their starting research isn't great but their top-notch research teams quickly make up for it. In the hands of a starting player, you might end up with a mess, but the US IC alone is liable to beat any enemy by sheer weight of numbers. In the hands of an experienced player, it really isn't much of a challenge at all.
I'd still recommend you give Germany a try because losing is half the fun. That's why the 1944 and 1945 scenarios exist
The most fun I have is when I lose; seeing the manpower losses stack up, my once-vaunted elite army reduced to pieces, oil running dry, militia formations taking up the slack not by choice but due to the lack of any other alternative. I find those types of last stands to be the fullest exercise of managing the game and the most effective way of learning the ins and outs of it in the sense that its no longer down to planning the perfect army, who has the more IC, but how to do the best with limited means. My most fun games with the Commune of France have been the ones the war happened in 36 or 38 or when my initial invasion plan failed.
Nowadays, I try to avoid playing with a panzer army simply because I am too familiar with the inns and outs of it.
I would not recommend this. NAVS used to be brutal in a prior patch of the game, but they've been nerfed a fair bit since then; still powerful, but not quite as all decisive as they used to be. It would be more efficient, and cheaper, to invest in a light carrier navy that in the long term will let you branch out into full carriers after continental hegemony is established. Light carriers are also the best escort for transport ships. Leaving transports with nothing but NAVS overhead for protection is very likely to get them all killed. If you end up in a situation you need to use transports as the USSR, it probably means you need a navy by then.
I personally used a limited number of NAVS mostly for scouting and less so for actual attacks that my carrier fleets are better suited for. That said, land-based powers such as Germany and the USSR really don't have much IC to waste outside of the land battle so it often means that you should either settle for cheap options such as submarines or just ignoring that field entirely until continental hegemony over the world island is assured. The USSR is under no immediate pressure to develop any naval capabilities, Germany on the other hand needs to deal with the UK sooner than it needs to deal with the USSR for an effective game.
Hmm, come to think of it, perhaps Italy would be a good 2nd country for you to play; limited resources but a lot of possibilities.
Last edited:
- 1
Ight. I just wish ships didnt take half of the age of the known universe to build lol.Generally the latter, I've never run into a stalemate that required nuclear weapons to deal with. I could imagine creating one artificially as the Union of Britain in KR if I purposely lose on the continent, but even then, I could probably beat Germany via conventional means. I guess I've just gotten too used to the game and that mod in particular to the point I don't really think in terms of doing things just for fun; sure, I challenge myself, but I still end up playing very efficiently most of the time.
I guess a nuclear option would serve Germany as a fallback for a failed Barbarosa or as a means to De-IC the US. Then again, the resources invested in a nuclear program are just as likely to be the cause of a failed Barbarosa. DH is at its heart a cost alternative game. The only power that can really experiment is the USA. Yes, their starting research isn't great but their top-notch research teams quickly make up for it. In the hands of a starting player, you might end up with a mess, but the US IC alone is liable to beat any enemy by sheer weight of numbers. In the hands of an experienced player, it really isn't much of a challenge at all.
I'd still recommend you give Germany a try because losing is half the fun. That's why the 1944 and 1945 scenarios exist
The most fun I have is when I lose; seeing the manpower losses stack up, my once-vaunted elite army reduced to pieces, oil running dry, militia formations taking up the slack not by choice but due to the lack of any other alternative. I find those types of last stands to be the fullest exercise of managing the game and the most effective way of learning the ins and outs of it in the sense that its no longer down to planning the perfect army, who has the more IC, but how to do the best with limited means. My most fun games with the Commune of France have been the ones the war happened in 36 or 38 or when my initial invasion plan failed.
Nowadays, I try to avoid playing with a panzer army simply because I am too familiar with the inns and outs of it.
I would not recommend this. NAVS used to be brutal in a prior patch of the game, but they've been nerfed a fair bit since then; still powerful, but not quite as all decisive as they used to be. It would be more efficient, and cheaper, to invest in a light carrier navy that in the long term will let you branch out into full carriers after continental hegemony is established. Light carriers are also the best escort for transport ships. Leaving transports with nothing but NAVS overhead for protection is very likely to get them all killed. If you end up in a situation you need to use transports as the USSR, it probably means you need a navy by then.
I personally used a limited number of NAVS mostly for scouting and less so for actual attacks that my carrier fleets are better suited for. That said, land-based powers such as Germany and the USSR really don't have much IC to waste outside of the land battle so it often means that you should either settle for cheap options such as submarines or just ignoring that field entirely until continental hegemony over the world island is assured. The USSR is under no immediate pressure to develop any naval capabilities, Germany on the other hand needs to deal with the UK sooner than it needs to deal with the USSR for an effective game.
Hmm, come to think of it, perhaps Italy would be a good 2nd country for you to play; limited resources but a lot of possibilities.
Serial runs are a useful way to get production bonuses for stuff like destroyers and transports you always need. As for bigger ships, I just commission several ships from each class I develop (CV-3, 4, 5, etc) so I can always have replacements when they get damaged or sunk. Don't bother with battleships, battlecruisers, and heavy cruisers; yes, they can be used, but carriers are the more effective war wagon for the most part. Stick to the simple formula of 1 Carrier per 1 destroyer in fleets of about 6-8 of each. If you are playing America, you have more than enough IC to build full carriers which means you can use light carriers to escort your transports. If submarines are pissing you off, Escort Carriers with destroyers in small formations of 3 each are an effective remedy. Use your existing battleship formations for shore bombardment to back up marine landings. Naval bombers are pretty good at spotting stuff but don't count on them to finish off enemy fleets.
Ideally, the goal should be to try and limit your research goals so they remain focused. Carriers, destroyers, ASWs, transports, and the carrier air group in the aviation tree are a must for naval supremacy with light cruisers, naval bombers, light carriers, and submarines + torpedos an optional but not required line to follow. Considering the range of operation you are liable to operate I'm and the US IC potential, fighters instead of interceptors and strategic bombers make more sense for the US player to contemplate though tacticals still do the land air support role better than strategic bombers can. Don't forget to build serial runs for escorts and convoys from day one to pile them on slowly so you don't end up with a shortage of them come wartime. Converting older ships is another viable means of getting them. US is also where you can go to town with stuff like paratroopers, just don't forget to research the transports you need and the doctrine to actually jump.
When you build up a fleet, look at the ship stats. Older ships have inferior firing range, speed, and operational range that can undermine the abilities of newer ships. For battleships and heavy cruisers, always try to pair them up on the basis of a similar firing range. The same applies to your screens which means it's often best to keep destroyers assigned by types so they all have the same firing range. Destroyers and transports are easily the most important ships to keep up to date because their range improves with every version giving you greater reach for landings and squeezing more out of the already impressive range of even your older carriers. Carriers should ideally be armoured for greater survivability (just upgrade them with everything you can) but older carriers can be set back by a lot of speed compared to the newer carriers with an armour upgrade thus slowing down the entire fleet so you might decide to give them a miss on that front.
Last tip, don't keep damaged ships near the frontlines. As the US, you are pretty far away from your potential enemies, use that to your advantage (NAVS love going for already bleeding prey for easy kills) Also, it's worth noting that each port has a maximum ship capacity, even the level 10 ones, of how many ships it can fix at any given time (I don't know exactly how big that is) As the US, you have tons of ports to fix damaged ships in safety, use them. Always have a reserve of ships to keep your fleets in force, at the very least to maintain the 1-1 ratio between screens and capitals (capitals with less screens suffer serious debuffs) Sometimes it's a good idea to give fleets one or two more screens to offset immediate combat losses if they are far away from replenishment. Your main goal is not to nurse your fleets but to keep them operational, which sometimes means combining the undamaged ships of two fleets into a new one while the others are fixed.
Last edited:
- 1
Would it be a good idea to just 99 serial produce destroyers and transports? Also serial producing carriers is brutal. Its going to take me untill friccin 1945 to just serial produce 2 carriers and by that time they will be obsolete anyway. Which wouldnt be that bad if you could upgrade ships. Which you can't. Which absolutly sucks. Any way to speed that up and fix that?
Last edited:
You are playing a mod now... new rules and abilities.
Look at your naval transports and check out what they can be upgraded to...
You might want to give also your other ship types a look into their upgrade possibilites.
That feature is totally op... you'll love it.
Last edited:
- 1
Convoys and escorts yes, go ahead with 99 serial runs. Destroyers and transports too possibly, though the thing to remember is that serial run bonuses disappear whenever there's a new version of a ship if you set it to auto-upgrade the design (which you should) In that context, I'd limit destroyer and transport runs until you expect to get a new version though you could also keep them to 99 runs, it doesn't make much difference one way or another so long as you check that box mark for auto-upgrades. I will clarify that carriers don't benefit from serial runs at all because by the time one is finished you will have a new design so the serial run won't carry on gearing bonuses. What could benefit from gearing bonuses and serial runs are the carrier add-ons to existing ones (radar, armour, AAs) Escort carriers don't take too long to build so they are another ship that can be built with serial runs, especially since there are fewer immediate light carrier techs to research.
What I meant is that I routinely build new carriers throughout the game so that I always have new ones on the way to completion to replace combat losses instead of having to wait years to build them from scratch every time. I order about 4-6 new ones the moment I get a new carrier version from research. My build order often has the CV-3 carriers I mean to press into service before the war, the CV-4 carriers I plan to replace initial combat losses or form a new fleet, and the CV-5 carriers for the next war with two orders either finishing or starting construction at any given time. It does take a chunk of IC, but I think it's worth it to maintain and expand my offensive naval capacity. As for upgrading ships, I am not familiar with the mods with that capability so I'd follow Altruist's advice on that score and check that out.
Last edited:
Okay so parralel spam carriers. Got it. just wish i had more IC. but as the USA with this mod i am set all the way to dove lobby which means +200% consumer goods demand which is fun.
Early USA can't do much beyond build ships as I recall but it does change fairly quickly. The positive thing is that it's only ships that really take time to build. Come wartime, the US has more than enough industry to order land armies and planes in bulk and its capacity expands as that date draws closer. I haven't played USA in a while though, how many carriers do you start with and what tech levels are they? If IC is really a pain and you have a few CV-3s already, you could start out with a smaller order of those and start building CV-4s in bulk once more IC comes your way. The US has more time to enter the war so the CV-4s should be ready by 41. I personally like spamming CV-3s because generally speaking, I get into war by 39 at the latest which means they are all I can reliably press into service immediately.
To clarify, CV-3s are generally the design you will have available at the game's start (1934) CV-4s are the first design you will have to research (1937, though I start research by 36 to get them as fast as possible) CV-5s are the 1940 design and the main wartime replacement and expansion of the fleet. It's possible that some mods have re-mapped those designs though. As a rule, I time my research according to a calculation of year, need, and requirements. If something has low requirements (skill of tech team) I am more tempted to research it sooner than the historical year. Since ships take longer to build, my need to get them quickly is great enough to suffer the penalty of researching them before the historical year even if requirements are high. I generally research that stuff a year before the recommended date.
A big factor in prioritizing naval research is that unlike land and air units, those can't be upgraded after construction (unless the mod enables it) I often start games with mostly naval related stuff (seaplanes/carrier groups + ship designs) and industrial efficiency research. Ship addons do get upgraded, however.
Last edited:
Holy crap that is op. I allready discovered upgrades dont worry. And they are quite useful. Because as the USA i wen down mobility focus and i could upgrade my infantry to motorized infantry. Most of my force is probably going to be motorized instead of regular. Deploying regular only when and if im on the defensive.
- 1
How did that happen? I thought ships escaped to the open sea, curious.
They were docked in a port and partisans decided to uprise there
Well, that's something I did not know could happen, good to know for reference should I ever play a dissent ridden country I guess. Air units I did know were vulnerable to it, but I didn't realize it applied to naval units. You should probably concentrate both in a few garrisoned provinces until dissent goes down.
They were probably all destroyed due to lack of supplies.
- 1