List of Wishes for AoD

[Denniss]

Do not forget the option to remove a strengthcap in-game. That would be useful. Locking and unlocking per name is not really possible as duplicate names are possible - which one of the two or more divs with the same name should be locked/unlocked then ?

 

[unmerged(159798)]

Do not forget the option to remove a strengthcap in-game. That would be useful. Locking and unlocking per name is not really possible as duplicate names are possible - which one of the two or more divs with the same name should be locked/unlocked then ?

There are no problems with it when done properly...when its possible to give experience and do other things by name its possible to lock or unlock..there is no difference...the little chance to have a double name (within the same country) is practically irrelevant as this mostly will be used by event to spawn forces (their names probably will be unique anyways) and to lock them at the same time...and later to unlock them when the time comes...
and btw as far as I have observed it the engine avoids to create double names within the same country during the game by slightly altering unit names 1. Infantry Division or 1st. Infantry-Division etc etc..as long as the player does not mess the thing up there are literally no double names but anyway ...this can easily be neglected while the unit id makes all commands useless for in-game event usage.So the double name danger is just a very little concern in comparison to the value such script command has.
people clever enough to do scripting will not have problems to use this in the right way for creating the setting they want without running into the double name problem..I can only speak for myself but it would not cause me the slightest headache...

And regarding removing the strength limit: SETTING unit strength_limit by name would work in any way as it sets a strength_limit regardless of the old value or if its more or less than before. so it can be used by limiting a units strength after its creation or remove a limit of a unit at a later stage...important always...commands must be valuable with unit name or they are useless for in-game event use
the double name problem is always present but its as I said before...scripting the right way will practically eliminate the danger of having an issue with it.

 

[ADukes]

btw as far as I have observed it the engine avoids to create double names within the same country during the game by slightly altering unit names 1. Infantry Division or 1st. Infantry-Division etc etc..as long as the player does not mess the thing up there are literally no double names but anyway

But the engine is also the reason why duplicate names appear, because the game doesn't check the name of units on SR and new built units can get names of those.

 

[unmerged(159798)]

But the engine is also the reason why duplicate names appear, because the game doesn't check the name of units on SR and new built units can get names of those.

sighh....fair enough but still its nothing which would/should prevent the implementation of the functions I mentioned
All commands using a unit name can run into the double name problem but as there are already commands using unit names:

- type = remove_division which = "[COLOR="Yellow"]Exact Name[/COLOR]" value = [country tag]	# Remove a named division from the scenario (for a certain country.)
- type = change_unit_xp which = "[COLOR="Yellow"]Unit Name[/COLOR]" value = X # change named unit experience by specified amount
- type = set_unit_xp which = "[COLOR="Yellow"]Unit Name[/COLOR]" value = X # set named unit experience to specified amount

I dont see why not expanding the script language anyways...

- type = lock_unit which = "[COLOR="Yellow"]Exact Name[/COLOR]" value = [country tag]	# Lock division (for a certain country.)
- type = unlock_unit which = "[COLOR="Yellow"]Exact Name[/COLOR]" value = [country tag]	# Unlock division (for a certain country.)

- type = set_max_strength which = "[COLOR="Yellow"]Exact Name[/COLOR]" where= X (strength from 1-100) value = [country tag]	# sets max strength for division (for a certain country.)

these simple commands would open a whole lot of new possibilities and while messing with the exe I would change all commands who use unit id into "Exact Name" to make them more accessable for ingame usage by event.

Scripters who know what they do will know how to prevent problems with the known issue and most others dont understand how this works anyways...
I have written about 25.000 script lines for Roma Surrectum II (a very big and popular Rome Total War total conversion mod) so one can say Iam not totally ignorant on possible syntax errors and what can and what can not be done with scripting and Iam pretty sure the double name issue wont cause any trouble when the commands are used for creating certain situations/events/settings within the grand campaigns.

 

[unmerged(159798)]

add the necessary strings to the exe to be able to show brigade pictures for the new added brigades like assault gun, lorry etc
while doin this I would re-arrange the whole setting and convert it into generic strings which always work in the same pattern so that additional or different brigades can be modded including their pictures...it just looks provisional and unprofessional to have land-brigades in the game without proper picture

 

[Jarno]

the only thing i need is speed and a better map, beside that aod is the best.

 

[RogueLeprechaun]

the only thing i need is speed and a better map, beside that aod is the best.

Agreed. The game functions fairly well and whilst there are a multitude of cosmetic changes I feel there are only a handful of larger changes required.

Both HOI3 and DH offer many interesting ideas/functions but I keep coming back to AoD for the right mix of complexity, historical accuracy/plausability and functionality . Big ideas/changes often mean big bugs/problems as I have noticed with HOI 3. Whilst DH offers some great ideas but seems to fall down a little on historical accuracy and a couple of niggling issues (eg. brief looks at starting OOBs, seems to need some modding).

That said much work needs to be done on scenario and AI files in particular. I know a number of people on this forum are working on improving this area of the game. Hopefully when this busy couple of weeks is over I can put forward a number of tested and improved AI and scenario (36) files.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Add the possibility of choosing "Extremely fast" speed from menu. My laptop lacks the buttons to do it, so I'm stuck in "Very Fast".

 

[Affenklaus]

Add the possibility of choosing "Extremely fast" speed from menu. My laptop lacks the buttons to do it, so I'm stuck in "Very Fast".

Right-click on the date bar. There you can choose game-speed and switch between counter and sprites.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Right-click on the date bar. There you can choose game-speed and switch between counter and sprites.

Ah, that did it, thanks

 

[Pioniere]

Portugal

Portugal should have events involving the Spanish civil war and it should lean towards the allies or the eventually the Axis if they seems to be wining the war. They should t be to interested to join the Axis unless UK loses control of London or N.Spain is in the Axis. As strangely as it seems I even have so new ministers for Portugal he he.

 

[kchickenlord]

If there was an AOD 2 all I could really ask for with regards to land combat would be more provinces and a heirarchy (but one organised through a tree and a drag and drop menu). It never ceases to amaze me how the new paradox titles still stick to buttons over drag and drop and drop down menus. Imagine being able to play on a large multitouch screen, it's not that far off. Zooming, reassigning units within the heirarchy through hand gestures.

 

[elbasto]

Is there an ETA on the patch? Just wondering so I don't need to constantly check the forums.

 

[elbasto]

Also, how come that peace negotiations with major alliance members are hardcoded to be rejected? If I have 100% warscore with any member (from the USSR or USA, to New Zeland or Luxembourg) they won't even accept a white pace.

 

[UltimateTobi]

I posted it in the DH forum and I'll post it here too, because I would like to see it implemented in both games.

Basic Commands

Hey guys,

I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to see something like a basic commands tab. With basic commands I mean orders you can give your allies.

First: You can choose an allied country, then these options come:

For example: - Attack enemy:[list to choose whith whom you're at war: country name]
- Defend country:[list to choose whith whom you're allied: country name]
- Relinquish

Explanation of "Attack enemy [country name]": If you choose this, the specific country you gave that order will attack/try to attack (if possible, and effective) the chosen enemy country.

Explanation of "Defend country [country name]": The specific country you gave that order will defend/try to defend (if possible, and effective) the chosen allied country. (NOT expeditionary forces.)

Explanation of "Relinquish": That will relinquish all orders of the specific country and will act on its own again. Orders can be given again afterwards.

I find this would give you more control over your allies and would improve gaming experience as a leader of an alliance.
Ofcourse, if you're not, but the AI, the AI could give these orders, then it's up to you if you follow their order, or continue on your own. (But I guess that would include much AI coding [if possible at all], but I find that this would be a great improvement.)

Sorry for my bad English and thanks in advance for reading, liking/disliking my idea.

 

[Pioniere]

[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

When you scroll down names of provinces you control I suggest your allies should have red color on the national provinces that belongs to them.
*
The picture is not from aod but IC but the point would be the same: different color on the names on the core provinces that your allies claims.

 

[ADukes]

Since it is possible to move leaders and tech team with the giveleader/giveteam command to other countries, how about an extended 'leader' and 'tech_team' trigger to check where they are.

leader = { which = [leader id] value = [country]/-1 }
tech_team = { which = [team id] value = [country]/-1 }

Extend the garrison trigger with the same functionality as the owned/control triggers where you can replace the country tag with "-1 for country receiving event/-2 is enemy/-3 is allied or event receiver".


A must have is the possibility to attach multiple brigades to ships with the add_division command.

Also a must have would be the "event actions triggers" and unlimited actions as DH has it implemented.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I ABSOLUTELY agree with UltimateTobi's wish of being able to tell the allied AI what to do as some form of co-operation bar military control. I always end up military controlling most if not all of my allies as Germany as the AI always messes up.

 

[Count of Reval]

In addition to a whole country, a human player might be able also to define just an area or even a province that needs to be attacked or defended by some particular ally. There might be an option to attach timetable and priorities to different goals (priority would influence a number of units committed by an ally and their dedication to reach the goal). To increase a realism, maybe there might be some factors that affect how accurately - and if at all - the order is followed (those modifiers might be: relations with an ally, personalities of the Head of State, Chief of the Army etc of both countries, relative size of the countries/armies, level of intelligence tech and relative number of spies infiltrated etc).

I don't know and am just speculating, but technically, can't the "light version" of a military co-ordination be done simply as in-game editing of an AI ally's AI files? As basically just changing AI file values like province_priorities, target, passivity etc (via nice and functional user interface, of course)? Game remembers which particular AI file is currently in use and reloads it after a human player has altered some of its variable values through giving certain military co-ordination orders in enhanced diplomacy folder. If the AI file is switched during a game, human defined values are carried forward and new AI file is updated to reflect the order that has been given before. Would it be feasible?

 

[UltimateTobi]

In addition to a whole country, a human player might be able also to define just an area or even a province that needs to be attacked or defended by some particular ally. There might be an option to attach timetable and priorities to different goals (priority would influence a number of units committed by an ally and their dedication to reach the goal). To increase a realism, maybe there might be some factors that affect how accurately - and if at all - the order is followed (those modifiers might be: relations with an ally, personalities of the Head of State, Chief of the Army etc of both countries, relative size of the countries/armies, level of intelligence tech and relative number of spies infiltrated etc).

I don't know and am just speculating, but technically, can't the "light version" of a military co-ordination be done simply as in-game editing of an AI ally's AI files? As basically just changing AI file values like province_priorities, target, passivity etc (via nice and functional user interface, of course)? Game remembers which particular AI file is currently in use and reloads it after a human player has altered some of its variable values through giving certain military co-ordination orders in enhanced diplomacy folder. If the AI file is switched during a game, human defined values are carried forward and new AI file is updated to reflect the order that has been given before. Would it be feasible?

The problem would be for example when you play Germany, you don't know for sure WHO will be your ally. If you change the AI file of Italy, but Italy doesn't joing the Axis, it was useless. And it could happen, that Italy doesn't act usual or even weird.

Or if you get the USA into the Axis, which is possible, you surely didn't think about editing their AI file.

I think at all, that they should implement these commands into the game. Changing AI files could result in a mess.