Land Efficiency FAQ - Demo version

[unmerged(17984)]

Just for reference the application of the seller paying the additional sales tax must be a Canadian thing... so I can't really relate as in the US our sellers do indeed just take off 15% and then apply sales tax. Just FYI

The seller doesn't pay the additional sales tax -- there is no additional sales tax. Tax is applied to the actual sale price, not to the original price before discounts. The price is discounted from $100 to $85, so I only have to pay 15% of $85 = $12.75 tax.

If you have to pay tax on the undiscounted price where you live... well, that sucks.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Checked in demo. Works out just fine.
All units not Pz or mech even HQ will make the CA come into effect. Most effective just after an attack, when the enemy counterattacks you.
But i'm a bit puzzled. My instict was that a combo of Mech and armour should give a CA bonus. Mech was introduced to keep up with the Pz DIVs. A mech unit would mostly be a MOT with 1 regiment in halftracks, the 1 or 2 other regiments in trucks+ some xtra SP AT+ some more assorted vehicles. What use are Mech if they cant support tanks?

Thanks - mechs are counted as HT in the game so you need mot / infantry. Mechs are much cheaper and more effective against soft targets. Add SP to that and they pack a nice punch...

F

 

[unmerged(38211)]

The seller doesn't pay the additional sales tax -- there is no additional sales tax. Tax is applied to the actual sale price, not to the original price before discounts. The price is discounted from $100 to $85, so I only have to pay 15% of $85 = $12.75 tax.

If you have to pay tax on the undiscounted price where you live... well, that sucks.

lol

Ours is the same! ROFL

I NEVER LEARNED TO READ! :wacko:

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Can you go into more detail as to how this fixes this issue? Couldn't this have been fixed by changing the modifiers to make them more realistic if they were giving unrealistic results?

I ask this because if this is the reason why then it doesn't appear to be working as INTENDED. In the example the original poster displayed the player is actually penalized an additional 4% above the stated values. I fail to see how this corrects a player having too many penalties making it impossible to attack.

Multiplying means you do not go to 1% effiecency when you have several small and medium maluses.

In HOI 1, if you had -30, -40 and -30 maluses, you were at 1% effiecency, in HOI 2 you are not. I think this system is better.

 

[unmerged(38211)]

Interesting. So indeed it does fix that issue. Odd that it has the inverse effect in the example used. Gonna have to trust you guys

 

[vimhawk]

Confused person question

This is probably very clear to those that have followed and understood the thread. Unfortunately I'm not one of them. So I understand the numbers of divisions that can be commanded at each level of command (I'd argue that a Lt Gen could command four not three, but thats picky). My question regards multiples of generals who are individually within their command limits. So say I'm attacking from one province with nine divisions, but these are in three corps each commanded by a Lt Gen. Does one of them need to be a General since nine divisions are actually participating in the attack? Is this one stack or three?

(In any reply, could you also anticipate associated questions that I haven't even thought of asking?)

Many thanks!

 

[vimhawk]

This is probably very clear to those that have followed and understood the thread. Unfortunately I'm not one of them. So I understand the numbers of divisions that can be commanded at each level of command (I'd argue that a Lt Gen could command four not three, but thats picky). My question regards multiples of generals who are individually within their command limits. So say I'm attacking from one province with nine divisions, but these are in three corps each commanded by a Lt Gen. Does one of them need to be a General since nine divisions are actually participating in the attack? Is this one stack or three?

(In any reply, could you also anticipate associated questions that I haven't even thought of asking?)

Many thanks!

OK... I re-read the available stuff and think I get it now. In my example, these are counted as three formations but one stack ... therefore a General would need to command the whole attack. Please let me know if this is not correct!

Goodness! I can't believe this is less complex than implementing a proper unit heirarchy!*

*my personal bandwagon... please feel free to ignore this last comment

 

[unmerged(12303)]

OK... I re-read the available stuff and think I get it now. In my example, these are counted as three formations but one stack ... therefore a General would need to command the whole attack. Please let me know if this is not correct!

correct.

F