-
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.
Due to the abovementioned guidelines, Czech province names are written mostly in German (except for Cheb, which kept its Czech name to avoid confusion with the Hungarian city of Eger), while Slovakian ones are in Hungarian and have been already reviewed. If you're still willing to review Czech provinces, please let me know and I'll send you the relevant files.
For everybody's information: hotfix 1.05.1 for DH has been released yesterday. It can be safely applied to WiF3. Savegames will remain compatible.
Here's MartinBG original post: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...st-hour-patch-1-05-1-hot-fix-release.1069718/
Here's MartinBG original post: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...st-hour-patch-1-05-1-hot-fix-release.1069718/
it will be fine than. Situation in czech was simplier than in Hungarian part of Empire.
Eginhard, thanks a lot for your titanic work. I'm got great pleasure from the game as Italy and Russia.
Thank you very much! I wish I could make it better and better over time. There's so much content to be added, including some to make Russian games more challenging without weakening the Russian army (which was comparatively good in 1914) outright.
If you need any help with Scandinavia (not including Finland), give me a shout. I have access to quite a few maps from that time period that properly follows the naming conventions of the early 20th century.
Hi everyone. No spectacular announcement yet, but work still goes on both the map (where we may have found a way to close a strait even when controlled by a neutral) and WiF3 itself (there are always things to tweak here and there, for example making multi-ship naval units harder to destroy). Rather, there's something I'd like to discuss with you.
For some time, I've been contemplating the possibilty to make garrison units mobile. My feeling is that the current static nature of garrisons makes them something like a waste of manpower. After all, they will be lost as soon as defeated. While this makes sense in the case of a fort, it doesn't when the garrison is deployed anywhere else on the frontline. In WiF3, garrisons are regiment-sized infantry units; certainly of low quality (let's say 3rd line troops), but should this make them unable to retreat? I don't think so.
Of course, garrisons specifically attached to a fortified area should not be allowed to retreat, their job being to remain in their forts and to defend them to the bitter end. But in WiF3 such fort garrisons are locked permanently, so this isn't really a problem.
I don't think this would unbalance the game, provided this unit type's stats are adjusted to properly figure it: a regiment-sized, 3rd line infantry unit, with poor attack skills but able to put a decent fight on the defensive, and perhaps a little bit slower than regular infantry divisions. Build cost and duration will have to be adjusted too, in order to prevent gamey tactics, I guess.
On the contrary, with this idea I have balance in mind. With the upcoming map, the number of provinces in Europe will be significantly raised (roughly three times more). This means more units won't hurt, especially for countries which had comparatively few division-sized units. Specifically, I think of Austria-Hungary, which made extensive use of Landsturm brigades, but also of Serbia. Mobile garrisons will probably be useful for human players, and will undoubtedly help such countries when AI controlled.
Last but not least, given redeployment TC load is the same for every land unit regardless of its actual size, I think allowing garrisons to move "under their own power" would be better. Using as much TC to move a garrison only two provinces away as to move an entire division from the Eastern to the Western Front is not really fair.
So, I'd be glad to read your thoughts about this proposal.
For some time, I've been contemplating the possibilty to make garrison units mobile. My feeling is that the current static nature of garrisons makes them something like a waste of manpower. After all, they will be lost as soon as defeated. While this makes sense in the case of a fort, it doesn't when the garrison is deployed anywhere else on the frontline. In WiF3, garrisons are regiment-sized infantry units; certainly of low quality (let's say 3rd line troops), but should this make them unable to retreat? I don't think so.
Of course, garrisons specifically attached to a fortified area should not be allowed to retreat, their job being to remain in their forts and to defend them to the bitter end. But in WiF3 such fort garrisons are locked permanently, so this isn't really a problem.
I don't think this would unbalance the game, provided this unit type's stats are adjusted to properly figure it: a regiment-sized, 3rd line infantry unit, with poor attack skills but able to put a decent fight on the defensive, and perhaps a little bit slower than regular infantry divisions. Build cost and duration will have to be adjusted too, in order to prevent gamey tactics, I guess.
On the contrary, with this idea I have balance in mind. With the upcoming map, the number of provinces in Europe will be significantly raised (roughly three times more). This means more units won't hurt, especially for countries which had comparatively few division-sized units. Specifically, I think of Austria-Hungary, which made extensive use of Landsturm brigades, but also of Serbia. Mobile garrisons will probably be useful for human players, and will undoubtedly help such countries when AI controlled.
Last but not least, given redeployment TC load is the same for every land unit regardless of its actual size, I think allowing garrisons to move "under their own power" would be better. Using as much TC to move a garrison only two provinces away as to move an entire division from the Eastern to the Western Front is not really fair.
So, I'd be glad to read your thoughts about this proposal.
.png){kind=avatar}
Let me be the first to say I'm totally for and behind this change, adding mobility to garrisons conveniently provides a midpoint between regular infantry and fullblown militia.
Only suggestion is completely non-technical. Perhaps this would warrant renaming garrisons to something different, ie. reserves, so as to highlight their new more versatile role.
Only suggestion is completely non-technical. Perhaps this would warrant renaming garrisons to something different, ie. reserves, so as to highlight their new more versatile role.
But Reserves already exist... maybe split Infantry to First Rate, Second Rate and Third Rate? (in addition to Light and Mountain). That way, most formations already in the game at the start (professional troops) can be represented by First Rate, specific fortresses can be represented by locked Third Rate, and called-up reserves can be represented by Second and Third Rate (and if the war gets really desperate, maybe even Fourth Rate to represent the Landsturm or Standschützen - by the way, are those in the game, Eginhard?).
Infantry is already split in three different units: infantry (1st line), reserve (2nd line) and territorial (3rd line). Garrisons figure a smaller unit of 3-4 battalions rather than a full division in WiF3, so the only thing really new is to make them move under their own power. Some tool to guard calm sectors of the frontline, guard beaches, bolster some key frontline area with decent defensive units... As previously, but without these units doomed to be destroyed as soon as they experience their first defeat because they're simply unable to walk back.
Militia also exists, but it can only be built when you enacted the last step of mobilization (at least I planned to do so, but I suddenly realize that I'm not sure to have implemented this. I must check this. Perhaps I should add another condition to prevent militia spam).
Current speed for infantry units is 6. What do you suggest? 4, 3, less?
Ah, okay, didn't know that. Yeah, changing garrisons to smaller, defensive but movable formations makes perfect sense. I'm all for it!
2-3 for example, to avoid annihilation when battle is lost, but making them easy to encircle and surpass
Working on the EiF map doesn't preclude additional features to WiF3 itself. Here, we're taking advantage of the new commands added to DH 1.05.
Actually you could add another research called Mechanized Calculation Science or similar. Basically it researches the computer although not just that. It improves logistics, industrial output etc. It is not the same as mechanization as mechanization could be achieved much earlier. It is calculated output on a larger scale.
My description could be vague, but you get the idea.
It would give a chance for smaller nations to catch up. As industrial power would be enormous between lets say Romania and France, but if the former switches focus on this, than they could have a professional industry even if its much smaller.
It would never reach the same heights, but they would at least have a chance.
My description could be vague, but you get the idea.
It would give a chance for smaller nations to catch up. As industrial power would be enormous between lets say Romania and France, but if the former switches focus on this, than they could have a professional industry even if its much smaller.
It would never reach the same heights, but they would at least have a chance.
