-
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.
- Status
Steel said:
Erhmm.. Don´t remember newest I guess..
With 0.63 patch.
Anyway it workded out, I clicked the "Ignore" button about 20 times and then it gave up,
Off-the-cuff question regarding some C.O.R.E. features....
I fired up a 'quick' game of HOI using the 1939 scenario (sadly, no C.O.R.E.). I like playing the 39/41 scenarios for a change. However, I found myself seriously missing Phil K's excellent graphic changes to the HOI map (i.e., the colors) and his excellent military counters.
Is there a quick and dirty way to get those C.O.R.E. graphic features into 'vanilla' HOI? What files would I have to copy over? Any hints would be greatly appreciated!
I fired up a 'quick' game of HOI using the 1939 scenario (sadly, no C.O.R.E.). I like playing the 39/41 scenarios for a change. However, I found myself seriously missing Phil K's excellent graphic changes to the HOI map (i.e., the colors) and his excellent military counters.
Is there a quick and dirty way to get those C.O.R.E. graphic features into 'vanilla' HOI? What files would I have to copy over? Any hints would be greatly appreciated!
mergified w/ discussionPapylon said:Erhmm.. Don´t remember newest I guess..
With 0.63 patch.
Anyway it workded out, I clicked the "Ignore" button about 20 times and then it gave up,
Papylon said:Erhmm.. Don´t remember newest I guess..
With 0.63 patch.
Anyway it workded out, I clicked the "Ignore" button about 20 times and then it gave up,
Recommend you upgrade to v0.64 which contains specific fixes for this.
Check the ..\mod-CORE\CCM_Readme.txt file. It identifies the changes Phil K made. Move those files from the ..\mod-CORE\ sub-directory structure into the corresponding directories directly under ..\Hearts of Iron\ and it will probably work okDrVonCool said:
Well, on the south american thread I posted that I'm working on events for Brazil. I have even started to code them. Since I'm not at home now - will be back on the weekend - I don't have the list with myself right here.
But I have a question that maybe could be answered here: is there room for changes on the province.csv file? If yes, then I can compile a list with changes for brazilian provinces, because Brazil suffers from a big ahistorical lack of raw materials... you simply can't improve your IC without conquering territory, and it is historicaly and "resourcely" wrong regarding to Brazil. Then, if we still have room for changes, I'm happy to synthetise a list with changes.
Thank you.
But I have a question that maybe could be answered here: is there room for changes on the province.csv file? If yes, then I can compile a list with changes for brazilian provinces, because Brazil suffers from a big ahistorical lack of raw materials... you simply can't improve your IC without conquering territory, and it is historicaly and "resourcely" wrong regarding to Brazil. Then, if we still have room for changes, I'm happy to synthetise a list with changes.
Thank you.
Yes, just post a list of the resource changes (with province name and ID) in the South America thread and I'll integrate the changes.Anibal said:
removing leaders
Hi ArmdChair,
With regards to your last comment on a penalty for removing leaders; after having recently read some of the volumes of Winston Churchill's memoirs it's interesting to note the changes of leadership of the Eighth Army in Egypt. Surely the most obvious thing to do would be a reduction of organisation?
The change from Auchinleck to Alexander for example. The new general has to come in, assess the situation, fire or keep subordinate officers, and make or change plans.
It would be too damn hard, i imagine, to simulate the travel time for a leader to move from one command to another (to use Churchill as an example it took a couple of days i think to arrange flying from London to Cairo for conferences). But this could be represented generally in a loss of organisation that would reflect the travel time and situation assessing, etc.
In short, it should take maybe a week perhaps for a unit that has changed leadership to regain the organisation level it had at the time of the change. I'm not suggesting reducing organisation to zero, but say perhaps a 10% loss to represent that week? (i.e. unit with org 80 reduced by 8 to 72 ). Perhaps the length of time the unit takes to 'recover'( and therefore the percentage of organisation "lost" could be affected by the incoming generals skill level - i.e the higher the skill the quicker the unit is back where it was - in game terms this might mean the percentage loss is less than 10% say. Perhaps take off 1% off loss for each skill point ) Those percentage numbers are so arbitrary i know but maybe it's a discussion starting point for someone.
Being a total non coding type i don't know how you'd go about implementing the organisation loss on change of command though.
ArmdChair said:Hey smark74,
I agree that the vanilla HoI leader methodology has set the tone for the way leaders work in C.O.R.E. For the vanilla game, I'm sure it was a balance between R&D cost limitations and game balance. It's great idea to consider revamping the leader structure system.
It would take quite a bit of time and effort to bring something like what you envison to fruition. If you've got the time, I would be willing to try to add whatever I can to the mix. Most of the info I could be able to drag forth would deal with USA officers. But, if this was going to be done, out of fairness, all of the countries would have to be revised.
The only point you make that I would like more explanation of is limiting the total number of officers. Sure, many players are going to use a certain subset of the available officers, but why would you want to delineate a limit on those who might like to go down alternative paths?
One thing I would add, if possible, would be a penalty for removing officers from command, without promotion or transfer. The only problem is, what kind of penalty could be assessed within the exisiting game framework? Just something to stir the pot...
Hi ArmdChair,
With regards to your last comment on a penalty for removing leaders; after having recently read some of the volumes of Winston Churchill's memoirs it's interesting to note the changes of leadership of the Eighth Army in Egypt. Surely the most obvious thing to do would be a reduction of organisation?
The change from Auchinleck to Alexander for example. The new general has to come in, assess the situation, fire or keep subordinate officers, and make or change plans.
It would be too damn hard, i imagine, to simulate the travel time for a leader to move from one command to another (to use Churchill as an example it took a couple of days i think to arrange flying from London to Cairo for conferences). But this could be represented generally in a loss of organisation that would reflect the travel time and situation assessing, etc.
In short, it should take maybe a week perhaps for a unit that has changed leadership to regain the organisation level it had at the time of the change. I'm not suggesting reducing organisation to zero, but say perhaps a 10% loss to represent that week? (i.e. unit with org 80 reduced by 8 to 72 ). Perhaps the length of time the unit takes to 'recover'( and therefore the percentage of organisation "lost" could be affected by the incoming generals skill level - i.e the higher the skill the quicker the unit is back where it was - in game terms this might mean the percentage loss is less than 10% say. Perhaps take off 1% off loss for each skill point ) Those percentage numbers are so arbitrary i know but maybe it's a discussion starting point for someone.
Being a total non coding type i don't know how you'd go about implementing the organisation loss on change of command though.
I posted org loss on commander change as an improvement suggestion about a year ago... don't think it will happen.
What i don't like in HOI is that soviet, us and german army use quipement of the same quality. Being more accurate - that the producing powers of country are equal with it's 'inventing' powers. This way, becouse soviet and us industry is more powerfull then german, soviet and us army will be better equiped. This is ahistorical.
Is it possible to make the same classes of tanks/aircrafts/etc.. different for different nations? Not for all the nations but for example 3 files with equipement characteristics (weak/average/great + attributions).
This is my idea for HOI 2, but i consider would it be possible just moding HOI
Is it possible to make the same classes of tanks/aircrafts/etc.. different for different nations? Not for all the nations but for example 3 files with equipement characteristics (weak/average/great + attributions).
This is my idea for HOI 2, but i consider would it be possible just moding HOI
There seems to be a fairly major problem in the New Order East events when the German player chooses the Ribbentrop-Schulenberg plan. The peace event fires, right enough, returning control of European Russia to the Soviets. However, the events giving independence to the various German puppets do not fire. I checked their triggers. Let's take Latvia as an example : It requires the "offer peace" event, which I had; the non-existence of Latvia, which I also had, and that the Soviets do not control the Latvian provinces. Oops. Surely it should require that the Soviets do control the Latvian provinces? Otherwise, there's not much point to them granting indepence! I fixed the problem by moving the "owned =" lines outside the "not = {" clause, where they probably belong. I suggest the next version of CORE does the same. Otherwise, the R-S plan is going to lead to what happened in my game : The Germans offer peace on the independence of the republics, the Soviets accept, renege on their promise, ally with Turkey, and declare war again...
I could probably have dealt with them again, it's not as though they had their army back, but it was a touch annoying. Fortunately I had an old save. Now the Red East is a shadow of its old self, while Axis armies are attacking India and Egypt from Persia.
If this is a known problem, I apologise.
I could probably have dealt with them again, it's not as though they had their army back, but it was a touch annoying. Fortunately I had an old save. Now the Red East is a shadow of its old self, while Axis armies are attacking India and Egypt from Persia.
If this is a known problem, I apologise.
superhero said:
It's possible (see Stony Road forum), but it requires serious changes in the technology tech tree, as well as can cause some problems with sprites. Overall, I'm not sure if it's worth it, as we operate on the divisional level, not the tactical one - maybe I will be considered heretic here, but IMO there was no serious difference in effectiveness of the US tank division armed mainly with Shermans M4A1 and German panzer division armed mainly with Pz.IVG/H, or Soviet 1943' Tank Corps armed with T-34m.42 except obvious different experience/training level. (blasphemy!)
The difference was on the tactical level - when Germans employed advanced tanks (read - Panther D/G) earlier, Allies didn't. In HoI (and CORE) T-34/85's and Sherman Firefly models are counted as advanced, while in reality they were "a bit less advanced". But that's only models representation...
Real problem is of course making game more historical by giving Germany smaller, but "hi-tech" army, while in case of Allies it should be a bit less advanced, but seriously larger. And in case of the USSR - HUGE army.
So far we achieved the third goal - SOV are building huge army.
Now, do we really want GER always small and R&D strong? I'm pretty sure USA player want GER BOTH numerous and advanced, while when human player plays GER, he should be advanced only.
Wait for 0.7...
Papylon said:
Interesting, I just got to that point in my Core .63 game and it didn't freeze on me. Sounds like an anomoly.
Please post the change log
Please post the change log alone. I can't install .64 at work, but I do have time to look at the changes. Or is there a way to extract the file from the .exe file?
Thanks.
Badbonez
Please post the change log alone. I can't install .64 at work, but I do have time to look at the changes. Or is there a way to extract the file from the .exe file?
Thanks.
Badbonez
Is this event included in C.O.R.E. .64MP, or is it proposed?Steel said:Event 322030
Code:action_a = { name = "Western democracies needs help!" command = { type = war which = GER } # USA declares war command = { type = dissent value = -20 } # To lower dissent from DoWing GER... }
I haven't played the U.S. Is this event triggered by a request from the Allies? If so, what timing, or event, allows the Allies to invite the U.S.?
Terhune
King of Men said:
Seems like we are using different versions of the CORE - since 0.62 all the New Order events were changed to work with reprogrammed "independence" command of the 1.05c patch.Until this patch, independence was granted by the country that "owned" territory - if for example Germany wanted to create Flanders, while Belgium still existed, the event granting the independence was BEL one.
Right now independence is granted by actual contoller of the territory - so in our example, the event granting independence will be the GER one, as long as GER occupies european part of Belgium.
It was also tested in game - the events fire, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Bieloruss, Caucasus States and Russia are created. In fact, the only problem with New Order now is post-Bitter Peace unit deployment (sometimes they can't return home from USSR), but that is solved in 0.7.
Changelog was posted a couple of pages back (when .64MP was released).Badbonez said:
- Status