-
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.
FrEDa said:
The number of operational airfields perhaps?
Come on Paradox, throw us a bone
rcp7 said:Here, have a femar..
Quite delicious.
I was thinking about the number of operational airfields, as is well known that the Germans tried to take out our airfields during the Battle of Britain. As air power has more flexibility now it made me think that airfield destruction may be an order (or encompassed in a more general order) that you can give to an airgroup.
I must say, this is the graphically best looking Paradox game I have seen so far...
Not that graphics are a success criteria, but still...
Not that graphics are a success criteria, but still...
simply amazing, i was alitllte woried about a more simplistic air combat system.
Seems like my worries where unfounded, great job.
Seems like my worries where unfounded, great job.
.
...what worries me more are the 73 divisions invasion force in one tiny province...
...ok it's an alpha screenshot...
...but megastacks like this are absolutely unrealistic..-...and should be prevented with an improved logistic, INFRA or supply system that the AI can handle...
...one of the worst things in HOI v1.06c is the "human-player only" air unit stacking limit!
...really hope that moronic rules like this won't be needed in HOI2 anymore !
.
...what worries me more are the 73 divisions invasion force in one tiny province...
...ok it's an alpha screenshot...
...but megastacks like this are absolutely unrealistic..-...and should be prevented with an improved logistic, INFRA or supply system that the AI can handle...
...one of the worst things in HOI v1.06c is the "human-player only" air unit stacking limit!
...really hope that moronic rules like this won't be needed in HOI2 anymore !
.
Upon closer inspection, it seems that the the 7 and the 3 (or maybe even actually an 8) may be overlapping there...each number's shading is slightly different.
Scythe said:
...good eyes !
...the "7" (seems to be the 11th air group) could overlap the "18" (?) from the INF units...
...and there seems to be same effect in the channel: the "1" from the air unit that overlaps a "?0" from the naval units
.
SilverDragon 72 said:
well if i had to choose i would rather choose 73 div. naval invasion in one province than meaningless 3 div. landings at Lille and hamburg once every ´six months...
Of course the ultimate would be a coordinated landings by allied forces at the same time at different beach provinces by a realistic and challenging amount of div. But as challenging and realistic not always bring a good game and coordinated landings seems like a hard thing to implement, i rather go for the 73 div. kind.
Except it's not 73 divisions. If you look closely, I think you'll see it's 13 divisions with 7 air wings superimposed over it. Hopefully the game will display better by the time that we actually see it. It's pretty clearly a scenario start position.
As to how combat will actually work, and whether or not 73-division landings will be needed or plausible, that remains to be seen.
As to how combat will actually work, and whether or not 73-division landings will be needed or plausible, that remains to be seen.
Seeing all this new beautifull automatification of air combat, I hope some more things are implemented:
1. Possibility for auto reinforcement of aircraft squadrons after a misson. Having a squadron baerly surviving a mission and then directly taking of for a new mission like it would do if automated in HoI is not good. Constantly having to check your squadrons for casualties is not what you want to do when you have a whole war to run.
2. Min org value for starting a mission. A squadron with 0 org should not be able to take of.
These quite simple things would make the game more easy to administer, both for human and Ai players..
1. Possibility for auto reinforcement of aircraft squadrons after a misson. Having a squadron baerly surviving a mission and then directly taking of for a new mission like it would do if automated in HoI is not good. Constantly having to check your squadrons for casualties is not what you want to do when you have a whole war to run.
2. Min org value for starting a mission. A squadron with 0 org should not be able to take of.
These quite simple things would make the game more easy to administer, both for human and Ai players..
Rivers? What happened to the rivers? I hope they will be implemented at some stage. Anyhow: Great screenshot! I'd love to have airfields that can be built/destroyed...
cheers,
Brentor
cheers,
Brentor
SilverDragon 72 said:
I can guarantee that it´s not 73 divisions.... just a minor graphical glitch..
Maybe the 6/8 means that 6 air units are located at that airfield but the max allowed is 8. If they are using this sort of system for airfields by making you build them and expand it to hold more units ... will they could also be doing this to ports. This would stop the whole German navy from hiding in one port and keep people from building 40 sub units and deploying them in one place. If they could somehow use this system and incorporate the resupply system to only allowing so many ships to enter the port at one time large ports would have a huge value. Various units could also have different capacity values (Carriers, Battleships=2)(Cruisers, etc=1)(Transports,subs, destoyers=0.5) with the same being used for bombers, fighters, etc. This would keep the game realistic in not having 10 carriers in one small port.
fastfreddie said:
Would be cool, but:
Compare Norwich with Sheffield. Both say 10 units, but the symbol was different. Sheffield 10/10 with big symbol (3lines) and Norwich 10/10 with small symbol (2lines)
So what ?
Cpack said:
could be some kind of alpha mistake - but maybe the symbols only define which type of air-units could operate from the airfield - and for what the numbers are good...?
...maybe someone will tell us - when the time is right for this...!
.
Last edited: