Quick Questions - Quick Answers

[Starcraftmazter]

Thanks

Another thing, is it normal (and not suboptimal?) to have air and naval units attached directly to the theatre HQ - or should they go to lower HQs?

 

[unmerged(143223)]

Thanks

Another thing, is it normal (and not suboptimal?) to have air and naval units attached directly to the theatre HQ - or should they go to lower HQs?

I think it's more common to have them under army groups to benefit from the supply reduction.

However having air and/or naval units under theatre command might be reasonable, depending on the situation. Very large distances (say, the Pacific) might make even the army group radio length insufficient. And with a logistics wizard trait on your theatre commander, you still get a nice supply reduction.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

How important are corps leaders as opposed to divisional - which should get the higher skill?

 

[Alex_brunius]

How important are corps leaders as opposed to divisional - which should get the higher skill?

Dependent on situation.

Corps leaders help your reinforcement chance so they are more important if you don't have the doctrine/minister that help you raise this.
They are also more important in situations where you are are not starting the battles with most your units (both in defence/offence) since reinforce chance helps the late divisions join quicker.

Division leader skill directly effect combat, so you want high skill for the critical divisions like marines/paratroopers and those tasked with breaking through forts/river defences.

 

[juv95hrn]

How much do the current "share leadership" function add to the recieving nation atm? Fx. If Germany shares a land doctrine category with Hungary (costing 1 LS) how much faster will Hungary research that?

 

[unmerged(185688)]

How much do the current "share leadership" function add to the recieving nation atm? Fx. If Germany shares a land doctrine category with Hungary (costing 1 LS) how much faster will Hungary research that?

All things being equal, at the same rate you would research the same tech/doctrine. But, since Hungary lacks the Census Tabulating tech(+2%), Mechanical Computing tech(+2%/lvl) and the Electronic Computing tech(+5%/lvl), their research speed will be slower.

Theres only one problem with tech(theory) sharing, for it to be of any use to your allies they have to be researching a tech/doctrine that benefits from it, it's a waste of LS otherwise.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

What's with the air stack penalty on port strikes?

2 CAGs was 20%
4 CAGS was 40%
6 CAGs was 60%

And so on. So basically even one CAG I presume would be a 10% stacking penalty. Is this a bug or something?

Edit: Now I am noticing the same in normal air combat, every 1 air wing (say interceptors) gives a 10% penalty - starting from 1 (but the penalty only begins from having 2 together).
Here is an example: http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/8661/hoi3airstackpenalty.jpg

 

[unmerged(247071)]

What's with the air stack penalty on port strikes?

2 CAGs was 20%
4 CAGS was 40%
6 CAGs was 60%

And so on. So basically even one CAG I presume would be a 10% stacking penalty. Is this a bug or something?

Edit: Now I am noticing the same in normal air combat, every 1 air wing (say interceptors) gives a 10% penalty - starting from 1 (but the penalty only begins from having 2 together).
Here is an example: http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/8661/hoi3airstackpenalty.jpg

Check the Wiki, it's sometimes correct!

Air-to-air stacking penalties begin at 2 planes (on a side, not total, obv.); air-to-ground penalties start at 1.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Nevermind, I remembered incorrectly - thanks.

 

[juv95hrn]

All things being equal, at the same rate you would research the same tech/doctrine. But, since Hungary lacks the Census Tabulating tech(+2%), Mechanical Computing tech(+2%/lvl) and the Electronic Computing tech(+5%/lvl), their research speed will be slower.

Theres only one problem with tech(theory) sharing, for it to be of any use to your allies they have to be researching a tech/doctrine that benefits from it, it's a waste of LS otherwise.

Wait a minute. What are you saying here? How much Hungary gain from Germany sharing a tech? (ignore the computers) Are you saying that if Germany shares and Hungary researches Hungary would research as fast as Germany would (that is what your wording actually implies). I don't think this is what you meant and how it is so do you mind trying to explain again how much Hungary would actually gain by 2 nations spending 1 LS each instead of Hungary just spending 1 LS on that tech on its own.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Wait a minute. What are you saying here? How much Hungary gain from Germany sharing a tech? (ignore the computers) Are you saying that if Germany shares and Hungary researches Hungary would research as fast as Germany would (that is what your wording actually implies). I don't think this is what you meant and how it is so do you mind trying to explain again how much Hungary would actually gain by 2 nations spending 1 LS each instead of Hungary just spending 1 LS on that tech on its own.

Hungary would research the theory portion of the tech at the same speed Germany does. that is the point of Tech/Theory sharing as far as I understand it.

I haven't done any math on it, but my crude estimate is that in order for it to break even in terms of leadership cost, there needs to be a large gap in theory (20-0) and Hungary has to research about 6 techs effected by that theory value.

Because normally only 30% of the tech time is composed of theory, and that portion is reduced from 1.5 cost (0 theory) to 0.7 (20, max theory) or to about half.

 

[nimrod123]

Hungary would research the theory portion of the tech at the same speed Germany does. that is the point of Tech/Theory sharing as far as I understand it.

I haven't done any math on it, but my crude estimate is that in order for it to break even in terms of leadership cost, there needs to be a large gap in theory (20-0) and Hungary has to research about 6 techs effected by that theory value.

Because normally only 30% of the tech time is composed of theory, and that portion is reduced from 1.5 cost (0 theory) to 0.7 (20, max theory) or to about half.

which means that its useless for unit research? i assume that for a nation to have the theory high enough to be worth it you would have to be fairly far up the tree while the partner is fairly low. you have to be allied to tech share so why not just license the units in the first place?

maybe for stuff like industrial efficiency or agri it might be worth it but i can't see how its good for the alliance to research something that can be brought from one member and the other just worry about doctrine and non transferable techs

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes I never use tech sharing, I did however like and use the share (and steal) blueprint mechanics in HoI2. Wish there was something similar.

 

[nimrod123]

it seems like it would be far more usefully for a multiplayer game where people use the features that the AI dosn't, or TAG switching in a single player game

 

[cusumano]

Is there a way to make HQ motorized? So they can keep up with Panzer Div's.

Thank you.

 

[unmerged(247071)]

Is there a way to make HQ motorized? So they can keep up with Panzer Div's.

Thank you.

There's a tech in the Spearhead Doctrine that increases HQ top speed by +0.5kph per level, and I think it's required (level 3) for the tech that reduces Armour frontage to 1 (from 2), so if you like Panzers, you'll want that tech. Oh, AND it boosts the chances of getting a Breakthrough combat event!

...alternatively, you could ignore engine upgrades and only buff your armour plating... soon your tanks will be as slow as their HQs! ;D

(Oops, and don't forget you can order units to Strategically Redeploy by ctrl+clicking on a destination... they'll move faster, but consume more supplies(?) and become "disorganised" as if they just launched an attack)

 

[Alex_brunius]

There's a tech in the Spearhead Doctrine that increases HQ top speed by +0.5kph per level, and I think it's required (level 3) for the tech that reduces Armour frontage to 1 (from 2), so if you like Panzers, you'll want that tech. Oh, AND it boosts the chances of getting a Breakthrough combat event!

It doesn't help a lot though since HQs start at speed 3.

 

[Shammah175]

In the Effects for the Anschluss of Austria decision, i have two entries for neutrality for Germany. Is this a typo?

effect = {
set_country_flag = annexation_of_austria
dissent = 5
neutrality = -10
relation = { who = FRA value = -5 }
relation = { who = ENG value = -5 }
relation = { who = ITA value = -10 }
relation = { who = CZE value = -10 }
relation = { who = HUN value = -5 }
threat = { who = all value = 20 }
neutrality = -5
AUS_3220 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3358 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_2955 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3291 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3429 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3092 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3361 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_2957 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3026 = { add_core = GER }
AUS_3227 = { add_core = GER }
AUS = { country_event = 1101 }
ENG = { neutrality = -5 }
FRA = { neutrality = -5 }
ITA = { neutrality = -30 }
}

 

[unmerged(180647)]

I expected that. What do the expansions for II offer that III simply doesn't have?

I never played Armaggeddon or Doomsday, but from time to time I still play HoI2 1.3b on an old laptop that does not support the graphics requirements of HoI3 (pixel shader 2). Apart from that reason, I would not go back to HoI2, and from what I remember from reading in the forum, the expansions for HoI2 are still not as good as HoI3.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Was thinking about getting Hearts of Iron II (I've played HOI3 for a while now) for some of the options in the expansions and the additional mods available for that one and not III. I've never played II before and I'd like a basic rundown of the major differences between the games, both advantages and disadvantages.

I would suggest you try out either Arsenal of Democracy or Iron Cross instead then (standalone games made by fans, based on HoI2 code).

They both have improved HoI2 a lot on different areas.

In essence Hoi2 based games are quite different compared to HoI3. The scale is not only a good thing for HoI3, it's easy to get overwhelmed and very time consuming to deal with all the brigades/techs/provinces and HQs of HoI3 and thus the HoI2 based games run much quicker. I would also say that when it comes to naval and air battles HoI3 is still not close to the HoI2 based games.