Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

List of Wishes for AoD

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
(Easy, Medium Importance) Allow a puppet to be released as soon as 2/3 of the victory points of the nation is controlled. For a nation without victory points, 2/3 of the territory. (This way, one won't be prevented from releasing a puppet because one or two provinces are not under control.)

(Medium, High Importance) Members of an alliance should not be able to be annexed while the alliance is still fighting. They should go into exile and if they are liberated, they shouldn't become owned by a liberating former alliance member.

(Medium, High Importance) Fleets which are losing a battle should only be able to retreat back the way they came. This would prevent weak forces from impossibly breaking a blockade. It would add a new strategic element in naval warfare, with the new and realistic possibility of being able to corner a fleet and destroy it. A historical example of this would be the blockading of the Spanish fleet in Santiago during the Spanish American war, where Americans first blockaded the port, then captured the town, forcing the fleet to try to break the blockade and subsequently be destroyed. This would allow a fleet to be completely destroyed if its port is blockaded and the province is captured.

(Hard, Medium Importance) The game developers completely laid an egg in designing the alliance diplomacy system. It is completely unrealistic to have an alliance fight to the last province instead of accepting a negotiated peace when the odds are stacked against them. Separate peaces should be accepted if there is 50% War Score extra, unused on the negotiating table.

(Hard, Medium Importance) The Sue for Peace negotiation feature should be available even in peacetime as "Send an ultimatum". This is when they should succeed: If Nation A is k times the strength of Nation B plus the strength of all of the nations guaranteeing Nation B, the enemies nation A is currently fighting, and allies of Nation B. K must be equal to 2(100%+War Score of demands). Thus, if I had 10% warscore demands, I have to be 220% stronger than the nation and all of its allies, guarantors, and my enemies combined. If the ultimatum is rejected, immediate war is declared by Nation A.

Some of these would be pretty revolutionary.
 
Jeanpaul II said:
(Easy, Medium Importance) Allow a puppet to be released as soon as 2/3 of the victory points of the nation is controlled. For a nation without victory points, 2/3 of the territory. (This way, one won't be prevented from releasing a puppet because one or two provinces are not under control.)

(Medium, High Importance) Members of an alliance should not be able to be annexed while the alliance is still fighting. They should go into exile and if they are liberated, they shouldn't become owned by a liberating former alliance member.

(Medium, High Importance) Fleets which are losing a battle should only be able to retreat back the way they came. This would prevent weak forces from impossibly breaking a blockade. It would add a new strategic element in naval warfare, with the new and realistic possibility of being able to corner a fleet and destroy it. A historical example of this would be the blockading of the Spanish fleet in Santiago during the Spanish American war, where Americans first blockaded the port, then captured the town, forcing the fleet to try to break the blockade and subsequently be destroyed. This would allow a fleet to be completely destroyed if its port is blockaded and the province is captured.

(Hard, Medium Importance) The game developers completely laid an egg in designing the alliance diplomacy system. It is completely unrealistic to have an alliance fight to the last province instead of accepting a negotiated peace when the odds are stacked against them. Separate peaces should be accepted if there is 50% War Score extra, unused on the negotiating table.

(Hard, Medium Importance) The Sue for Peace negotiation feature should be available even in peacetime as "Send an ultimatum". This is when they should succeed: If Nation A is k times the strength of Nation B plus the strength of all of the nations guaranteeing Nation B, the enemies nation A is currently fighting, and allies of Nation B. K must be equal to 2(100%+War Score of demands). Thus, if I had 10% warscore demands, I have to be 220% stronger than the nation and all of its allies, guarantors, and my enemies combined. If the ultimatum is rejected, immediate war is declared by Nation A.

Some of these would be pretty revolutionary.
Click to expand...

agree, the whole puppeting, annexing peace negotiation thing is a bit off. hate it when there are some rioting provinces i can't get rid off by liberating, aka that mass just north of Vichy-france or former polish provinces that went to SU. There's sometimes a possibility of giving it to an ally manually but w/o knowing who considers a province a national it's a guessing game.
And a nation should never reject a request to become a puppet @ 100% warscore and the possibility to annex-> "no, we don't agree. got to annex us and release the next day so you gotta take that dissent hit, nänänänä"
 
Now that you mention National provinces, it would be nice to have a button in diplomacy to give a country (ally) its national provinces that you own.
Because I find it irritating to see that they have claims on me, but I don't know exactly which provinces :)
 
Marshall18 said:
Now that you mention National provinces, it would be nice to have a button in diplomacy to give a country (ally) its national provinces that you own.
Because I find it irritating to see that they have claims on me, but I don't know exactly which provinces :)
Click to expand...
To find out which are the claimed national provinces of the other country, use the diplomatic map and click on that country, the claimed territory should be in dark green.
 
It would be nice to set up a way to prioritize manpower.

Convoy routes need to be rethought. For example, from Western Europe to Vladivostok, the route chosen is from a Yugoslav port, the geographically closest one to Vladivostok. Instead, it should be the one with the closest route by sea.
 
Last edited:
Is there a way to cancel repair provinces from a specific province? This would be a nice feature for certain tactics.
 
Marshall18 said:
Is there a way to cancel repair provinces from a specific province? This would be a nice feature for certain tactics.
Click to expand...
No there isn't, but I wish there was! It is annoying to see a province being repaired that I know it will be captured by the enemy.
 
Last edited:
Marshall18 said:
Is there a way to cancel repair provinces from a specific province? This would be a nice feature for certain tactics.
Click to expand...
Mr_B0narpte said:
No there isn't, put I wish there was! It is annoying to see a province being repaired that I know it will be captured by the enemy.
Click to expand...
+1

Just the same as "don't reinforce" for troops -> a "don't repair" button for provinces.
 
I suppose the main application of this feature would be to prevent provinces which will surely be taken by the enemy from being repaired, thus helping the enemy. Better yet would be a function to destroy a province's infrastructure and resources. Right now, the scorched earth feature only work partially, since retreating units often don't retreat for a long enough time to destroy the province, or are interrupted by invaders. There should be a way to destroy the infrastructure BEFORE the enemy units are about to take the province, not while. It could be sort of anti-repair function, which could possibly use the same resources as repair, but destroy everything instead of repairing. It would be in the form of the button, like the prioritize button.

Also, there seems to be room for improvement regarding AIs and defense of their allies. They do not seem to realize any merit in helping their allies defend their borders. For example, Great Britain guards its own shore instead of sending expeditionary forces to help France in 1940. In a scenario where Poland allied with Germany, it took the USSR to conquer Poland before Germany would allocate any of its troops sitting on the Siegfried line to attack the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Fuzzy Leader skills

Presently though the skills are implemented in a binary yes you got it no you don't mode.

What would be better is if all skills were carried as a numerical value (%) of the benefit of that skill. This way some leaders would be better at (for example) hill fighting than others.

This would make for a more interesting experience on the battle field.

Leaders can also have an attribute called 'old guard' which detracts from their learning abilities. What would be interesting is to have learning ability and affinity indicators that promote or retard learning in general or specific areas. For generating new leaders this could be bell curved.
 
Fuzzy Ships

Presently ships are pretty much treated like infantry, they atrit under fire.

But a ship is really an enclosed system suspended in an environment that is trying to kill it. When a vital system is hit, it can become non functional or even sink. Infantry doesn't sink.

What is needed is to identify the different ship functions and vulnerabilities and allow them to be destroyed or rendered non functional. Then there is the hull and crew.

In AoD the systems are mostly represented by brigades.

This brings up another issue, the current limits on brigades by ship class. Some brigades should be allowed for all ships as basic components.

Propulsion (Oil, Coal, Nuclear)
Control
Radar
Main Weapon
Optional (# by class)

Why don't submarines have torpedoes as an upgradable brigade? Only the Japanese were innovative/insane enough to build sub carriers.

Etc:

Formations are important and the ability to accomplish things like "crossing the T" are not represented as far as I can see.

Not all naval battles occur on the high seas, some, many, occur near land features. As example the battle at the straits of Luzon. Land features had a direct influence on the battle, that and a crazy indian.

Bismark is another example. A shell through it's fuel supply cut it's speed down. A lucky hit by a torpedo bomber nailed the rudder. And a foolish radio report located the ship for the British navy to finish off.

On the one hand, sea battles can be simple functions of speed, endurance, gun range and gun accuracy. But they are also complicated in their own way and very distinct from land and air battle.

A last issue is that ships can do more than support landings, they can do damage to coastal cities, installations, infrastructure and industry, anything in range of cannon and aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Jeanpaul II said:
I suppose the main application of this feature would be to prevent provinces which will surely be taken by the enemy from being repaired, thus helping the enemy. Better yet would be a function to destroy a province's infrastructure and resources. Right now, the scorched earth feature only work partially, since retreating units often don't retreat for a long enough time to destroy the province, or are interrupted by invaders. There should be a way to destroy the infrastructure BEFORE the enemy units are about to take the province, not while. It could be sort of anti-repair function, which could possibly use the same resources as repair, but destroy everything instead of repairing. It would be in the form of the button, like the prioritize button.
Click to expand...
A voluntary scorched earth tactic would be great to see, as well as an anti-repair feature.

Jeanpaul II said:
Also, there seems to be room for improvement regarding AIs and defense of their allies. They do not seem to realize any merit in helping their allies defend their borders. For example, Great Britain guards its own shore instead of sending expeditionary forces to help France in 1940. In a scenario where Poland allied with Germany, it took the USSR to conquer Poland before Germany would allocate any of its troops sitting on the Siegfried line to attack the Soviets.
Click to expand...
There is always room for improvement for the AIs, particularly France and UK after 1.08 focused heavily on Germany and the USSR.

For the meantime there is this great mod, that is really just an extension of 1.08, only with a much better AI in terms of production, research, combat priorities, minister and national idea changes and much much more. This person has spent so much time, what I would call, 'humanising' the AI, trying to make it maximise its efficiency and improve its gameplay. It makes single player more challenging and multi-player that much more interesting as you can MC a country's military, only to be impressed that the AI has built so much and stuff that is completely relevant and useful to its situation.

Here is is: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?673291-Improved-1936
 
My biggest wish for now is an action for land forces (like HoI 1 "feint") which would allow 2 things:
1. Partial reconnaissance with little skirmish
2. Engage enemy forces without big pressure like with standard attack - this would make especially flanking operations more realistic.

How i see this working, to avoid exploiting:
You can select this same as an attack and maybe also choose how long it should last. The longer it lasts the bigger "pressure" it should get and "pressure" would be a degree of engagement, represented by simple modifier: PRESSURE=ATTACK*(HOURS+1)/100

example:
You set an action to last for 36 hours. For first hour this would be 1% of original attack strength, for second 2% and so on till 37 %.
 
I don't know if this is possible to implement, but is it possible to get a "mods" folder as in most paradox games?
So you can have different mods installed...
 
Pang Bingxun said:
That mission would be useless for AI as AI has nofog.
Click to expand...
1. It doesn't need to be useful for AI, but for player in both singleplayer and multiplayer

2. It could be useful for AI. If it can count odds for normal battles, it could potentially use this action to mislead human player. The AI won't indeed get any benefits from reconnaissance, but from altering engagement intensity. Remember, that attacked unit can only defend or retreat. Deciding how many units keep in reserve (BTW not so often used action) in same province for eventual counterattack seems quite challenging, as your flanks can be attacked at the same time :)
 
A lot of the ideas here are for added features or for things that would require greatly increased complexity or detail which really isn't applicable to a strategic game.

How improving the game so that the AI could take advantage of some of the same features that a human player can already use?

1. Adjust spending sliders as needed (research, espionage, salaries).
2. Espionage! Still utterly broken for the AI and useless for the player.
3. Reinforce bridgeheads with follow-on units.
4. Escort transports. Find and sink convoy raiders.
5. Use paratroops.
6. Concentrate air power (INT/Fighters or TAC) as required for major battles/fronts.
7. Use Nav bombers effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back