Wishlist V1.2

[unmerged(12544)]

1) Production screen: small buttons next to Consumer Goods, Production, Supplies, Reinforcements, Upgrades, which by click will set the slider to 100% needed for that field.

2) Production screen: When you e.g. build a division it says "Takes 90 days to develop", please add right next to that the date, when it is finished. You see the date after clicking "Start Production", but it is not so convenient for planning. So the ETA of the queque should also be shown, when you start production.

 

[markpalm1]

New units and improvements:* Land Mines: * Sea Mines:
* Mine-sweeper: * Torpedo-boat: * Amphibious landing craft:

These are tactical items, HOI2 is a strategic game.

 

[unmerged(20003)]

i think there should be events for the Allies to establish East and West Germany (and East and West Berlin) once Germany has surrendered - although my ideal campaign is 1919-1949 - from the start of Weimar to the start of East and West Germany - or even 1933-1948 - including early Hitler like the Reichstag Fire, Enabling Act and the Night of the Long Knives. Also its Konstantine von Neurath and Otto Meissner (not "Constantine" and "Oskar") and could the Full Control cheat be fixed so you can disband units etc like in HOI I ?

I agree with others about the province sizes being ludicrously large - Danzig for example cuts a hunk out of historical Germany - in Victoria they got the size of Danzig province pretty much right. Also for some reason when Vichy France comes into existance its capital is set to Chateauroux not Vichy

 

[unmerged(18202)]

Don't know if its possible to do this. Make it to were you can make your own depots. We can manage our Convey systems, I would like to divert some resources to an area right behind the front lines. I would agree with a limit on this, for making to many depots would of course defeat the purpose of having the supply mods in the battles. I think maybe making an extra on or two depots on land (besides the capital) would be really nice. But of course it might be pointsless also. :rofl:

I would really like to see the ability to build supply depots in friendly nations. It would transform the art of liberating Europe. Right now if you're liberating a country, you often have to pour oil and supplies into them and hope for the best.

jkk

 

[unmerged(32711)]

Liberation of independent countries

I wish that wold be possibble to liberate the countries, which were independent before the war! Not only puppets. It completely unhistorical that Allies can't liberate France, Norway, Denmark etc...As Germany i must have opportunity to liberate for example Baltic States, which were annexed bu USSR after Ribentrop-Molotov pact...Will I, that's another question. But i must be possible, don't You think so?

 

[unmerged(21430)]

Just two small things:

1) The Popup when you move the mouse over a unit should be broader, so that even the longest unit informations fit into one line. This would help a lot to get the informations at one glance.

2) Improvement of the leader screen sorting: When sorting by rank it should be sorted by skill within the same rank. Same for sorting by skill, there it should be sorted by rank within the same skill. This would save me a lot of scrolling.

 

[unmerged(28537)]

lend-lease beeing affected by a low trade efficeincy between the us and uk

 

[unmerged(40191)]

Could one have a realistic chance of defeating or Vichiing the UK please.

In one game I have conquered the Home Island, India, most of Africa - and still I can't make peace/defeat the UK. Now this is somewhat unrealistic.

There should be a type of 'Bitter Peace' which sets up a Mosley Government in England and Wales, NI goes to Ireland and those colonies which have been occupied are set 'free' (puppet regiemes).

I agree with this completely, but I think we can take this one step further. If the UK were to fall than theoretically its puppet nations would become independent but still loyal to the British, not the conquerers. No one can teleport their government anywhere they want.
At the same time, it should also be easier to liberate a country after its allies retake certain provences. This goes back to the problem with Vichy France. The Allies can't liberate all of France if Vichy France remains neutral in the war. This to me is technically cheating.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

After playing on LAN with Orthank, Boromir, etc, i noticed few things that could make game management way easier. I was playing SU, so some of this may be due to its size.


1) Ideal rank for commanders. I printed 13 pages of SU commanders so i do not promote some guy with ideal rank major general to field marshall. It would be MUCH easier if it was just shown ingame. This is the single most important one - i spent 3 hours assigning my leaders! (fortunately, i had nothing else to do, obviously, as those were pre-war years)

(similairly to deathdates, as i avoided those that die prior to 43-44. Deathdates are unrealistic, anyway)




And two more somewhat less important changes.

2) Making prioritize button visible when you have more than one corp selected, similairly to offensive supply function. Its tiresome having to manually mark/unmark all six armored corps.

3) Again, popup message that you can move domestic slider.

 

[unmerged(11202)]

Attrition bug

When reinforcing your armies and some divisions are in a province causing attrition, i.e. jungle/winter, manpower gets drained at an absurd rate. For me this practically a game-killing bug.

 

[unmerged(11202)]

Britain Surrenders Event

Could the Britain surrender event include the ceding of Gibraltar and Suez to Germany if they control those provinces? As it stands now you have the conquer and annex the entire Empire in order to get those provinces in a peace deal.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

While it made sense that you could sink divisions making ambhibious landings by sinking their transports in HoI I, with the new movement is attack rule in HoI II it makes hardly sense.

In extreme cases you could have your troops only few hours away from their destination (ie. few hours away from positioning themselves on the borders of the province they were moving into) when an enemy fleet comes-a-knocking and sinks your transports - automagically causing your marines that were happily strolling in the jungle to snuff it. Which, I must admit, is amusing enough concept...

However, since I doubt that this game is intended to be a recreation of Monty Python style humor, I propose that any troops that have actually commenced the ambhibious assault (there seems to be a shorth gap in time between the transport fleet arriving to the nearby waters and the assault beginning) can not by stopped by the means of naval interdiction anymore.

 

[Makeyourownmind]

Wishlist

1)I want to have a deactivation button for coal in oil. ->high priority

2) If a country can't fullfill his trade agreements, it should fullfill to whatever grade it can, not skip it entirely. If it can't fullfill them in general, it should cancel the agreement at all. Anyway, I want to see what these potentiel tradeagreements could have traded instead of the message that this agreement is not fullfilled today - maybe I have to cancel an agreement anyway. Trade nations (all major players) have so many agreements, I cant remember every agreement. ->high priority

3) You should be able to make more than one tradeagreement on the same day with a certain country - at least untill one is rejected. I hate mixed trade agreements, and if I have to cancel a big one, where I get metal, rares and oil, and I only want to get rid of the oil, I get very angry. ->high priority

4) Trading is a job you have to spend a lot of time for. Please make a button: I have to give... and I want... and the comp makes a list which countrys can deliver to what price - of course, allied first, then best biddings. ->high priority

5) If something affects produktion or technology (like machine tools or computing [and blueprints, I dont know if they work on existing research]) the program should automatically recalculate all existing production and research. Looking manually what I can make faster or cheaper, even if it is already in process, is annoying. ->high priority

6) I can't reorganise my planes if there are land divisions in the same province. If there is a possibility to do this, please make it clear in a webupgrade of the manual. If it doesn't work, please make it work. ->high priority

7) If you could make an extra bar in the diplomacy where I can look for specific forms of goverments (Social Conservative, Paternal Autocrat, Leninist and the others), I would be greatfull. This is for the search of potentiell allies.
->low priority

8)I want to see what trade agreements I have with a certain country in the diplomacy screen. ->low priority

9) Please make small planes (interceptors, fighter, escort fighter, CAS) transportable by Transports (this was done in WWII). ->low priority

10) Computer players (especially Allies with +200!) should end their attempts to influence human players to their politics, because the human players don't change their politics because of that. ->needed

11) Please make the calendar work like the real one, not the 12x30 like now. This is a game where dates are important, and having a battle on a 30. february is... not funny. ->supplemental

-) Of course, there are some other points, but I have read them already in the wishlist, so I only agree to most of them instead of writing all again.

Thanks for the game, and I hope this is realizable.

 

[Makeyourownmind]

Naval concerns

1936:

(...)

Add to in production queue:
KMS Scarnhorst Laid down 06 May 35 Battlecruiser-3
KMS Gneisenau Laid down 15 Jun 35 Battlecruiser-3
KMS Admiral Hipper Laid down 06 Jul 35 Hvy Cruiser-3
KMS BLucher Laid down 15 Aug 35 Hvy Cruiser-3

First, it is Scharnhorst and Blücher, then the cruisers of the Admiral Hipper class are in the game as Hvy Cruisers-4, what I think is realistic.

Change Deutschland, Adm. Sheer, and Adm Graf Spee from
Hvy Cruiser 3 to Battlecruiser-2
Why: Design dates to 1929, and better matches battlecruiser.

Again, this is Hvy Cruiser-4, not three; but there is a problem with classifiing these ships. Germany was only allowed to build "cuirassé", which in German means "Linienschiff" (the old Dreadnought-like ships), but is translated as "Panzerschiff" (in english named pocket-battleship). They have a displacement like a cruiser, protection like a cruiser, guns like a battlecruiser, speed like a battlecruiser and a range above all (up to 20,000 sm one-way at 10 knots!). Germany was the only one who built this "super-cruiser", because all other major nations had the naval bases needed, and they were also restricted by the Washington naval treaty to built no Hvy Cruiseres with more than 20 cm guns (the Deutschland- class had 28 cm like the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau).

1939

(...)

Note: two M-class Light cruisers were under construction, started in 1938. Same with H39 class battleships. "H" being built in same space used for Bizmarck, "J" has mixed info, but under construction netherless. Z23 laid down 15 Nov 38. launch 15 Dec 39.

While there are LOTS of in construction units that can be added (most cancelled late Sept 1939 by Direct order Furher, add:

KMS Prinz Eugen - laid down 23 April 36 (think it is already there)
KMS Seydlitz - laid down 29 Dec 36 Heavy Cruiser-4
KMS Lutzow - laid down 02 Aug 37 Heavy Cruiser-4

The names are Bismarck, Führer and Lützow.

Additionelly, the Z1 class is actually the "Zerstörer 1934"-class, the Z17 is the "Zerstörer 1936"-class, and the Z23 is the "Zerstörer 1936 A"-class.
Also, the Nürnberg (CL-4) is the same class as the Leipzig, both are "Leipzig"-class. (the Leipzig is counted as a K-class CL, and the CL-4 is named Nürnberg-class, which is wrong)

Names for tech:

(...)

Improved carrier : Flugzeugtrager B (1938)
Advanced Carrier: Flugdeckkreuzer E V (1942)

Imp Battleship: H39-class
Adv Battleship: H42-class
Superbattleship: H44-class (but this one is confusing, as tech is 1938)
(...)

The "Flugzeugträger B" was a "Graf Zeppelin"-class, and the "Flugdeckkreuzer E V" is NOT a Carrier, instead it is half a cruiser with only 18 planes (19.150 ts displacement). ALL "Grossflugzeugkreuzer" and "Flugdeckkreuzer" (projects) are NOT Carriers, instead they are a mix of a cruiser or battleship and some sort of commerce war carrier. The Russians have build this type of warship after the WW II, but no other country ever. (Note that the "Graf Zeppelin" had the Armament of a light cruiser - 16 x 5.9" naval guns and some middle artillery)

The Great War Carrier called Seydlitz-class is also wrong, the Seydlitz was a really fast Admiral Hipper class Hvy-cruiser, converted to a small aircraft carrier (never completed). With an estimated range (one way) of 6600 sm, this was - for a GERMAN capital ship - a small range, but this was not an old crappy thing like the converted coalfrighter of the US (the first aircraft carrier ever on the seas of the world).

The H-class Battleship is not an advanced Battleship, they were the super heavy type (see: standard displacement of Yamato and Musashi: 65,000 ts, Montana (Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Louisiana) 60,500 ts, H-class 62,500 ts), but please name it "Hindenburg"-class, not H-class.

There were some studys of Battleships of over 80,000 ts, but they were never built, too.

With Z46 class you probably mean the "Zerstörer 1936C" or the "Zerstörer 1938"-class, but maybe the Advanced Destroyer could be named as "Spähkreuzer 1940"-class (project studies started 1938, 1939 and 1940, the first three ships were ordered in February 1941, only SP1 was laid down).
[12,000 sm one-way range at 17 knots!!]
_______________________________________________________________

At this point, I have a suggestion for Ships in general: could you integrate a button "modifications" at the ships building menue, where you can order one or two modifications to the new ship at the expense of a greater cost in IC, like -greater range, - faster, -greater firepower/firerange (heavier gun types) or -more AA.
Historically, this was done. (To solve the problem with the "Deutschland"-class, who has greater range and firepower/firerange than all other cruisers of that time, and a lot of other German ships, who had A LOT more range than other navies. Germany was fully aware that they don't had harbours in the wide world, so almost all German ships - namly the ones for the Atlantic- had better ranges than the game sugested. Like the small Battleships of the Scharnhorst class, about 8,800 sm (one-way) at 19 knots; the BBs of the Bismarck class, about 10,000 sm (one-way) at 16 knots; the Zeppelin class was constructed for 8,000 sm (one-way) at 19 knots and the "Spähkreuzer 1940" was constructed for 12,000 sm (one-way) at 17 knots... and so on.)

ALSO I want to have Auxiliary Ships (maybe you can use convois?) - I cant use a fleet (especially as Germany) if I can't research range for ships.

 

[Makeyourownmind]

What I don't whant from the wishlist

I only say what I DON'T whant from the wishlist - all the points I left are wished!

Interface/information changes:

DO NOT: 1.1) Instead of 1: Select one item that get's all excess from production, upgrades and reinforcements.

DO NOT: 17) A buttom to put all Garrison units on 'Anti Partisan' duty - or change the default order to that.

Game Mechanics changes:

DO NOT: 18) Be able to give non national territory to non allies.

----------This could be dangerous; but beeing able to let them slip would be nice. Maybe another country (or the old one restoring its territory from the scratch) could say: this is mine.---------------

DO NOT: 23) possibility of trade national provinces: germany can sell munchen and can receive nice

DO NOT: 57) anti-partisan duty should give slow experience rise to units and commanders.

DO NOT: 59) introduce "national attitudes" affecting unit and country performance within same equipment generation CORE-wise.

---------Don't do this, instead, maybe you can make a button: "modificate" to unitproduktion, where you can select (researched?) modifications at the expense of IC. Maybe some countrys have the possibility to make some modifications, and others not. Or it is entirely researcheable, or integrated in existing research.--------------------

General changes:

DO NOT: 4) it seems possible that the IC is too low the other way now: In HOI-1, I used to be able to upgrade every german province in a single year (IIRC). It now takes 2+ years to do this now, and I cannot build a single unit in the process. Mayby this is more realistic, but after playing HOI-1, I strongly dislike this new way.

DO NOT: 15) Ability to hide enemy troop totals from the statistics tab

DO NOT: 21) I'd like to be able to gain at least a bit more manpower from conquered nations

DO NOT: 24) when a garrison is defeated - it should move to your force pool and you should get an immediate malus for your total manpower like -2.

-------------------Instead, let some of them flee (about 10%?) to your forcepool, but make the most of the others beeing captured, letting you the chance to get them back at peace or when you win versus this country. Do this also with encirceled armys. Display captured man in the diplomacy menu. Of course you can kill them, but that should have a disadvantage, and most of the AI should't whant to do this. The amount of captured man you can reuse should be not to high, but this would be nice.------------------------------

DO NOT: 29) more ic to japan and italy so they can have 5 tech teams, or give change the skill of their tech teams and their abilities

DO NOT: 36) sooo want to get rid of the damn Old Guard. They are always in the way when I am looking for a new leader to assign. Make them retire-able.

------------there was a point: get two lists of leaders... make it three--------------------

 

[Makeyourownmind]

High priority

These are the points I give high priority. They are more numberous than I thought first...

Interface/information changes:

1)
2)
3)

5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

12)
13)

15)
16)

17.1)
18)

20)
21)

23)
24)

27)

29)

31)
32)
33)
34)

37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)

47)

50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)

58)
59)
60)


AI changes:

Do what you must and/or can.


Game Mechanics changes:

1)
2) make SS somehow weaker against surface ships (at least against screening ships) and don't let them battle surface fleet (with great succes) so often anymore (Maybe the surface fleet flees?).
3)
4) (-->make speed and numbers the important point for retreats!)
5)
6)
7) ability to attach tank brigades to infantry divisions (and maybe even possibility to use them independently only after certain doctrinal research)to simulate early war use of tanks as support vehicles and not as independent fighting force (maybe 7 tankbrigades can be converted to a Tankdivision and vice versa)

9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15) Have units consume less supplies while their nation is not at war. (And even more supplies, when they are actually fighting)
16) Ability to trade old ships to other countries for cash (or ressources)
17)

19)
20)
21)

25)
26)
27)
28)
29)

31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)

40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)

54)
55)
56)

58)

60)
61)


General changes:

2)
3)

5)
6)
7)

9)
10)

12)
13)

16)

18)
19)
20)

22)
23)

25)
26)
27)
28)

31) Eliminate automatic leader death and replace it with a random event for leaders involved in combat depending on how well its going (if they are winning for shure, no deathchance).

33)
34)
35)

37)
38)
39)
40)

43)

 

[von Eberfest]

In case of a dead Leader, a Button should be included into the Pop-Up Message which redirects to the Unit the Leader was assigned to.

This was suggested by me within the following Topic: Leaders Death Enhancement

 

[unmerged(37708)]

1. Add More Urban Areas, there are very many places where streetfighting could take place !

2. Reduce the lethality of Marine Bombers, the damage done to ships is too high in my opinion, also change the handling how they do their patrols. Example, if i order an fleet attack over the biskay and choose night and day attack the plane will be there all the time instead of traveling from and to that are, iam not sure about it but maybe it's an bug?

3. The defensiveness of ships against sea bombers is very bad. i almost can attack an real battle fleet of the british up to 20 times with my basic bombers until they are exhausted, but if if they are exhaustes they barely had lost 10-20% of their strenght.

4. New Unit Type (like an brigade) Supply Subs to add to flotillas which could increase their range.

5. New Unit Type (also like brigade) Supply Ships, to supply fleets on hgh seas.

6. New Unit Type Moon rocket, to be the fist on moon..... No iam kidding

Enough for now, i think i'll come back to do more suggestions later on

 

[unmerged(38672)]

Slight enhancements to the technology screen

I would like a historical and gamewise decription of all the technlologies in the tech-tree. For example, if I research a doctrine I would like to get a historical description of what that doctrine is, who used it. All that kind of interesting, educating information. And I think the unit stats should be seen when researching a new type of unit, and a historical description of that unit should be included. And I believe some of the abbreviations used in the tech-tree is a little difficult to understand. Why aren´t there any tooltips here??

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Some comments on Makeyourownmind's posts...

5) If something affects produktion or technology (like machine tools or computing [and blueprints, I dont know if they work on existing research]) the program should automatically recalculate all existing production and research. Looking manually what I can make faster or cheaper, even if it is already in process, is annoying. ->high priority

6) I can't reorganise my planes if there are land divisions in the same province. If there is a possibility to do this, please make it clear in a webupgrade of the manual. If it doesn't work, please make it work. ->high priority

9) Please make small planes (interceptors, fighter, escort fighter, CAS) transportable by Transports (this was done in WWII). ->low priority

11) Please make the calendar work like the real one, not the 12x30 like now. This is a game where dates are important, and having a battle on a 30. february is... not funny. ->supplemental

5) AFAIK, research is already re-calculated on daily basis. The fact that the productions is not seems to be WAD (working as desinged). The reasoning being that factories that have already been geared towards producing small arms for 8 rifle divisions can't just suddenly implement new assembly line without interfereing with the production run. I personally think the feature is quite realistic.

6) Select an air division, and then select all units in the province (by dragging) while pressing shift and you should have all the air divisions selected.

9) Point being? You can already rebase aircraft to the ends of the earth.

11) It seems that the Paradoxian calendar is here to stay for good (as has been the case with all previous Paradox titles).

Again, this is Hvy Cruiser-4, not three; but there is a problem with classifiing these ships. Germany was only allowed to build "cuirassé", which in German means "Linienschiff" (the old Dreadnought-like ships), but is translated as "Panzerschiff" (in english named pocket-battleship). They have a displacement like a cruiser, protection like a cruiser, guns like a battlecruiser, speed like a battlecruiser and a range above all (up to 20,000 sm one-way at 10 knots!). Germany was the only one who built this "super-cruiser", because all other major nations had the naval bases needed, and they where also restricted by the Washington-agreement to built no Hvy Cruiseres with more than 20 cm guns (the Deutschland- class had 28 cm like the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau).

IMO, the panzerschiffes are quite decently classified as CA-4s. The only other real option is BC-1, but in that case they would get only a slight boost in combat stats for a significant loss in range of action, which was probably their most significant advantage historically. At least from the point of view of an European navy (especially of a one like Kriegsmarine).

Also, if I may nitpick to extreme, Germany was not the only nation to build a super cruiser nor did the Washington naval treaty limit CA main batteries to 20 cm.

The "Flugzeugträger B" was a "Graf Zeppelin"-class, and the "Flugdeckkreuzer E V" is NOT a Carrier, instead it is half a cruiser with only 18 planes (19.150 ts displacement). ALL "Grossflugzeugkreuzer" and "Flugdeckkreuzer" (projects) are NOT Carriers, instead they are a mix of a cruiser or battleship and some sort of commerce war carrier. The Russians have build this type of warship after the WW II, but no other country ever. (Note that the "Graf Zeppelin" had the Armament of a light cruiser - 16 x 5.9" naval guns and some middle artillery)

Japan did do some carrier hybrid conversions during the war (two ex-BBs, on ex-CA).

And if I may add, those 5.9" batteries on Graf Spee are nothing (well besides a complete waste of weight, as only god knows why the Germans presisted on using the obsolete practise of having seperate AA and anti-ship secondaries when everyone else went DP) when compared to the usless 8" guns that some of the Japanese and American CVs sported.

With Z46 class you probably mean the "Zerstörer 1936C" or the "Zerstörer 1938"-class, but maybe the Advanced Destroyer could be named as "Spähkreuzer 1940"-class (project studies started 1938, 1939 and 1940, the first three ships were ordered in February 1941, only SP1 was laid down).
[12,000 sm one-way range at 17 knots!!]

IMNSHO the Spähkreuzers are nothing less than CLs in HoI terms.

(To solve the problem with the "Deutschland"-class, who has greater range and firepower/firerange than all other cruisers of that time, and a lot of other German ships, who had A LOT more range than other navies. Germany was fully aware that they don't had harbours in the wide world, so almost all German ships - namly the ones for the Atlantic- had better ranges than the game sugested. Like the small Battleships of the Scharnhorst class, about 8,800 sm (one-way) at 19 knots; the BBs of the Bismarck class, about 10,000 sm (one-way) at 16 knots; the Zeppelin class was constructed for 8,000 sm (one-way) at 19 knots and the "Spähkreuzer 1940" was constructed for 12,000 sm (one-way) at 17 knots... and so on.)

It does indeed seem that the current ranges of the naval units in the game were based on the assumption that everyone is playing as Italy. Germany isn't that bad (the operational ranges on it's ships were not as special on avarage as you make them out to be), but the Pacific naval powers, ie. US and Japan, are worse off.

From historical pow (and Paradox may have very well chosen to slash the ranges intentionally), I'd like to see around 150%-200% increase in ranges, depending a bit on the type and tech level of the ship, my major points are:

#1 DDs are rather fine as they are (however, they should be able to refuel from the capital ship during long sails, ie. the ranges should avarage out and not be limited to where short ranged DDs can go).

#2 Capitals ships from CLs to BBs need significant increases.

#3 Techs should have limited effect on range (a L-1 CL should not have half the range of a L-4 one). As a historical example, the three classes of Japanese improved Tenryu type CLs from the early '20s had ranges of 9.000nm (Kuma, Nagara) and 7.800nm (Sendai) respectively, while the newer CLs from the early '40s had 6.300nm (Agano) and 10.600nm (Oyodo). Another example is USN CAs keeping steady range at 10.000nm from Pansacola to Des Moines.

#4 An exception from the point #3 are subs, whose range should increase exponentially with tech, even to as far as 15.000-20.000 kms for the semi-modern ones. I might also add at this point that the medium range subs should have lower defense than short range ones and the long ranged ones should have a lower than the mediums. This is because the larger subs always proved to be clumsier and slower to dive and manuver and were, hence, more vulnerable to depth charges. Electric subs, with their high submerged speeds should have much higher defenses than anything previous.

#5 The naval doctorine techtree could be used to give a bit of national flavor when it comes to ranges. For example the Indirect Strike path could give some range bonuses overall while the Selane Interdiction path could give some boost to the ranges of BBs and BCs.

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Allow

money = XXXX

as trigger for events, it was forgotten.