Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Creating a MP mod Options · View
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:52:50 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
v 0.04

* Decreased damage factor for static AAA to 0.1 (10% as much damage taken as other buildings).
* Jet engine difficulty lowered to 10 (down from 14)
* Doubled Jet engine defence gain and added a +1 air attack for INT/FTR, also added +2 surface defence for the bomber models that gained no surface defence.
* Reduced cost of all airwings by 25%
* MOT are not effected by Light Armor research anymore (Trucks are only used for transport)
* Engineers now gain the same speed benefits from light armor engines that MOT do (+0.2 every 2 years)
* HQs base speed increased to 4km/h and added fuel use to the doctrine that now increase their speed by 1km/h per level (motorizes them).
* A new strategic resource, Swedish Ironore added to Narvik to increase the value of this port. Effect: +10% Resources.
* Fixed a bug with the amphibious assault equipment tech, now Japanese Imperial guards gain the bonus instead of Soviet Guards.
* Increased base range of strategic bombers by 100km and increase per techlevel by 50km.
* Added a new armor technology, casemate tank destroyers that reduce the cost, speed and attack efficiencies, but improves armor and defensiveness of TDs.
* Tank destroyer armour gain moved from heavy armor to medium armor techs.
* Added a unit Heavy tank destroyer, that can pierce heavy armor, require heavy tank and casemate tank destroyers researched to unlock.
* Increased the speed of Heavy armor by 1km/h to promote historical use in mobile divisions.
* All four models of artillery now have +15% base river attack efficiency instead of -5% (with terrain values -45% instead of -65%).
* Lowered the reinforcement chance bonus of leaders from 10% to 5%.


v 0.03

Sub changes:
* Lowered submarine base sea attack value from 6 to 5
* Lowered submarine sea attack from electric torpedo from 4 to 2
* Lowered submarine hull from 5.0 to 3.0
* Lowered submarine org, but raised morale to prevent them dominating drawn out battles (changed both unit and doctrines).

Ship/CV Mechanics:
* Increased CVE hull from 0.8 to 1.0
* Halfed base AA for all ships (Except BB and SHBB which starts low enough as it is)
* Lowered base Air Defence for most ships to 0.
* Lowered AA from techs for most ships with half, they now gain +1.00 more air defence per AA tech level instead.
* Increased CAG and NAV surface_defence to 6.0 baseline and also increased their gain from techs (to help them survive AA better).
* Lowered CAG air_attack by 1.0 baseline and 0.5 per techlevel.
* Lowered CAG air_defence from 6.0 to 1.0.
* Moved CAG morale gain to CV Hangar tech
* Balanced CV armor so they gain more from armor tech, but lose the extra if you research CV hangar tech.
* Slightly increased naval attack values of bombers and CAGs
* Removed the "hidden" +100% efficinecy bonus of CAGs against ships in combat

Amphibious Assaults ENG/MAR:
* Lowered MAR rivercrossing bonus to 20% (down from 40%) and Amphibious bonus to 40 (down from 50%)
* Increased ENG rivercrossing bonus to 80% (up from 60%) and lowered Amphibious bonus to 20% (down from 40%).
* Increased general Amphibious penalty to 80% (up from 70%)
* Lowered LARM amphibious assault penalty to -20%, down from -60% (on top of the -70% base penalty).
* Reduced Capacity of invasion and assault transports to 10 (down from 60)
* Halfed invade speed base (should now take 4 days to disembark instead of 2 max)
* Lowered transport weight of many brigades to 3.0-5.0 (including Infantry, Marines, Engineers and most other special forces as well as Militia)
* Increased transport weight of many brigades to 10.0 or more (including artillery/AT/AA, SP support, MOT/MEC and Armor)
* The intention of the above changes is to force heavy units to be unloaded into already captured ports.
* Added 1.0 or 0.5 transport capacity to all warships so that bigger ships can bring along a maximum of 1000 equipped marines. A normal fleet should be able to land a few brigades of marines.

Land Combat Revamp:
* Unit dig in raised to 25 days max (up from 10 days, for a +50% combat bonus).
* Lowered land attack efficiency by 20% accross the board (all offensive combat tactics give -20% additional attacker efficiency)
* Increased land defence efficiency by 10% accross the board (all defensive combat tactics give +10% additional defender efficiency)
* Changed AVOID HIT/AVOID HIT AT NO DEF to be 80% and 40%, meaning defensiveness/toughness/air/seadefence should be more important stats. It means a unit should have 3 times higher chance to avoid getting hit until their defensive stat is overwhelmed.
* Changed LOW_ORG_REGAIN_BONUS from 0.3 to 0.7. This means that low org units regain org 70% faster and high org units regain org 3 times slower.
* Changed COMBAT_MOVEMENT_SPEED to 0.1 (from 0.33).
* Added 96 hours (4 days) to max attack delay, and to compensate chanced Period to 72 (delay will count upwards toward maximum for the first 3 days in combat). Normally the defender will buy 2-4 hours extra retreat time for every hour he can hold the attacker pinned in combat.
* The above means you do gain 4 extra days delay from strategic redeployment however, so to compensate (and promote Soviet redeployment between East <-> West) speed is increased to 30 and supplycost decreased to 1.0.
* Raised river attack penalty of HARM to -90%, ARM to -30% and SHARM to -150% (this is on top of the -60% base penalty all units get).
* Increased/added engineers defensive bonus to 80% (plains and light terrain) and 100% (rough terrain).
* Changed "repair_cost_multiplier" to = 0.10 (up form 0.05), this should mean repairs/reinforcements of all land units (including mobilizations) cost twice as much IC now.
* Higher training law now requires many combats fought (300 per 5% base experience), all majors start at minimal training level now.


Land Doctrine changes:
* Blitz and Breakthrough combat tactics now only provide +30% bonus to movement_speed (down from +50%)
* Moved Blitz chance from Blitzkrieg doctrine to Operational level command structure, where it replaces the bonus to combat movement speed.
* Lowered chance of Breakthrough to 3% (from 5%)
* Lowered base CA bonus to 2% per unit type.
* Changed Combined Arms Doctrine to give CA to all unit types (8% to armor and 2% to others)
* Added CA bonus to all types of units to many doctrines, 2% per level. You can now get 14% (artillery/direct fire/support) or 20% (armor) by researching all doctrines to 1943 level.
* Changed Mass Assault to also give reinforcement chance (1% per level)
* Changed Human wave to also give 5% reinforcement chance as well as extra morale and org to INF (but also moved historical year to 1942 and require more prerequisits).
* Changed Large Formations to also give 15% morale to MIL, +1000 maximum strength of GAR and moved historical year to 1940
* Changed Grand Battle plan and Human wave to increase the maximum strength of INF, MOT, MEC by 500.
* Increased morale gain from land doctrines to 7.5% per level for all units (up form 5%).
* Increased difficulty of all "one off" doctrines to 10 to correspond with their greatly increased power.


Officers:
* Officer cost of Infantry lowered to 75
* Officer cost of Armor, SP Support and (National) Special forces increased to 150
* Guards, SP Rocket Art and AC are exceptions of above and remain at 100 Officers (Soviet flavour bonus/"Cheap" units)
* Added Officer costs between 50 (submarine) and 250 (SHBB) to all military ships
* Added Officer costs of 100 to all airwings
* Increased LEADERSHIP_TO_OFFICERS by 25% (4 -> 5) to compensate for the added costs

Other Air Changes:
* Bomber/Fighter targeting focus now instead give you +5% extra efficinecy in intercept and air superiority missions.
* Increased Naval strike efficiency to +10% per level (to match ground attack, and make land based air a little more deadly versus ships)


Land Anti Air changes:
* Changed AA to start with 1.0 Air defence/Air Attack and gain 1.0 in both per 2 years.
* Added piercing to AA equal to +1 levels above INF given same historical year (On par with LARM).
* Increased AA Soft Attack slightly (low caliber AA)
* Changed MOT-AA to start with 3.0 Air defence/Air Attack and gain 1.0 in both per 2 years.
* Added piercing to MOT-AA equal to +2 levels above INF given same historical year (Between LARM and ARM).
* Increased MOT-AA Hard Attack (bring on the 88's)
* All other Land units start with 0 Air defence
* All other Land units gain 0.1 - 0.5 Air defence per 2 years (instead of starting with 0.5 - 2.50)
* All other Land units start with 0 Air attack
* All other Land units gain 0.05/0.10 air attack per 2 years (instead of starting with 0.10/0.33)


Misc
* Engineers now have same org/morale as other special forces for consistency (40)
* Speed of Garrisions increased to 2 km/h (up from 1, they should have a minimal chance to retreat now)
* Changed DEMOBILIZATION_FACTOR = 1.0 (you now gain 100% of manpower back when demobilizing)
* Changed UNIT_UPGRADE_COST = 0.1 (0.1 means 90% of full costs to upgrade to a new unit type)
* Added damage_factor = 0.5 to Naval Base (should mean they take half as much damage from airraids)
* Soviet Guards gain +20% attack and +50% defence vs urban terrain

Install instructions:

1.) Unrar in mod directory.
2.) Start through launcher.exe and select what mods you want to test in the launcher (any combination should work).


The aim and priorities should Imho be the following if we decide to play with a modded game:

1.) Gamebalance, making all techs and units reasonably well balanced so that all have their place, use and situation to shine.
2.) Realism, promoting historical behaviour and punishing "crazy" endevours that never worked in history.
3.) Flavour, adding new units, names and picture that make sense (after we can verify that they fit with points 1 and 2). This is a later stage and will probably mean borrowing from and adapting parts of existing mods to our needs.


Todo List:

* Rebalancing unit strength and combat width to make more sense (everything fighting on the front should have a bit width and ARM should have less strength then INF)
* Rewarding defence in depth by increasing org regain speed and slowing down advances (mostly during combat) (done)
* Field defences, raising dug in cap and rewarding a prepared defense. (done)
* Rebalancing AA, so that all land units are dependent on AA research to survive bombing and shoot back. (done)
* Raising the amphibious assault penalty further (so that it never can go below the penalties provided by shore bombardment) (done)
* Rebalancing submarines (in progress)
* Rebalancing CVs/CAGs, making CAGs (and perhaps other airplanes too) worse during nighttime is a good start and we can see where we go from there. (in progress)
* Balance Axis/Soviet/Allies decisions, strategic effects and where needed also resources/IC.
* General unit rebalance, what units need improvements since no one is using them and what units are to powerful? (in progress)
* General tech rebalance, what techs need improvements since no one is using them and what techs are to powerful? (in progress)

File Attachment(s):
Multiplayer Rebalance Project.rar (439kb) downloaded 54 time(s).
Multiplayer Rebalance Project 003.rar (489kb) downloaded 40 time(s).
Multiplayer Rebalance Project 005.rar (951kb) downloaded 65 time(s).


Marine
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:59:08 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Hi Alex,

Is this modding for FTM or TFH ?

I like the ideas that you have, this can be something good Smile

Keep it up Smile

/Roger
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:36:05 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
I was thinking mostly for TFH assuming that is what we will play when we start in a few weeks time. With some minor changes to the files the same changes apply for both expansions though if it works like before.

But I understand that it's abit hard to talk balance about an expansion that's not released yet yay

If we assume that anything wasn't changed much yet except whats touched by the Dev Diarys (I hope you all have been reading them btw, really great stuff!) we have somewhere to start at least.

DDs: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?626339-Their-Finest-Hour-%96-Developer-Diaries
Marine
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:14:05 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I guess that we have to wait until the new expansion is released and that 3.06 also is released.

Then we will see if more people wants to do some changing in the game.

/Roger
Praetori
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:24:47 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
I'm generally a bit avid towards modding things that affect combat mechanics as macro scale consequences are very hard to predict (stymied German Panzers, Chinese Verdun style trench warfare etc).
Though I'm not saying it can't be done we should be very careful modifying the unit characteristics too much as it's a very delicate balance holding the game together.
Stuff like being able to upgrade or downgrade INF to GAR and back would on the other hand be most welcome without upsetting the operational balance. It really depends on the specific changes suggested.

One thing that crossed my mind with TFH is the unit caps that they've added (to deal with elite units).
This is supposedly fully moddable which means we could have soft-coded house rules regarding builds (such as paras etc). It would probably require changing the unit types for the modded units but should be doable.
I've yet found a way to limit the number of reserve units though as this modifier seems hardcoded to the production system (haven't given up on it quite yet).

I would also like to present an idea regarding decision-based event triggers to deal with a few of the most common issues in HOI3 (such as the US being sidelined without any real effort from the Axis).
One could be "unrestricted submarine warfare" which would give Germany a flat bonus to something submarine or convoy-raiding related but also pushing the US closer to the Allies (and/or lowering neutrality).
The British would of course get the "Form British Security Coordination" as a possible decision hampering Axis spies in the US while easing the US transition into the Allies (through propaganda).
This is simply a suggestion to basically add a few "buttons" the MP participants can use to maneuver the game in a more proper direction should we want to.

IF we decide to use modded files I would strongly advice we use a simple method of installing the mod with a separate HOI3 folder and then a share .zip with all the changes to avoid the checksum error carousel.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:51:27 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Praetori wrote:

I've yet found a way to limit the number of reserve units though as this modifier seems hardcoded to the production system (haven't given up on it quite yet).

Fixing any reserve exploits is probably doable, but I would do it through laws.

Either we can reduce the "reserves_penalty_size = -0.75" from the peaceful laws to be much lower, for example only 25%. This has the downside of making reserves almost as good as ordinary units though even when not mobilized. There might be some other way to nerf them like reducing your org levels on these laws but I haven't tested if or how that works.

Or we can make unit builds take significantly longer time when you got reserve laws to compensate for the possibility to build troops at a lower price. This has the downside of you getting less practical values for reserve builds so to balance the extra build-time needs to be smaller then the IC cost reduction.

The following 3 lines will make land units take twice as long to build but not affect air and naval units at all:

unit_recruitment_time = 1.00
air_build_speed = -0.50
naval_build_speed = -0.50

This is what HPP does to have the training laws only impact land unit buildtimes, so it can be used there in the same way they do aswell.

Laws are nice to modify in general, for example you can make an emergency draft law that has impacts like these:

industrial_efficiency = -0.30 # (30% extra buildcost and buildtime)
global_manpower_modifier = 0.60 # (60% extra manpower drafted from industry)


Praetori wrote:

IF we decide to use modded files I would strongly advice we use a simple method of installing the mod with a separate HOI3 folder and then a share .zip with all the changes to avoid the checksum error carousel.

Aye if I/we make a mod it will be saved as a compressed file for easy installation.
Praetori
Posted: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:07:35 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Alex_brunius wrote:
Aye if I/we make a mod it will be saved as a compressed file for easy installation.


TFH will come in it's own -modfolder AFAIK and Paradox is endorsing modfolders from now on so maybe we wouldn't have to use separate installs (both map cache, settings and save games have been moved to be compliant with this new system).
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 1:27:55 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I refer to my top 6 list in the PI forum sig:

1) Make DOWs and naval combats default pop-up messages. Add a separate air vs. naval bmbing pop-up message.
2) Upgradable Soviet Guards (and elite MEC+ARM units)
3) Introcude a trade off cost of annexing/making Finland puppet in the Finnish Winter war.
4) Improve forts, engineer construction missions to get in line with the rest of the detail in the game.
5) Dissent/threat hit for refusing trade of surplus resources when one/both of the parties are at peace to avoid resource starving pre-war strategies in MP.
6) Limit GOI's

Making Soviet guards only upgradable might be doable for a mod. The others problably not.
Ederon
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:09:13 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
If you want some inspiration, here is multiplayer mod for Monday Game we payed with (and planned to play with on). You should get good overview from the post I refer to.

Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:51:21 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Praetori wrote:

One thing that crossed my mind with TFH is the unit caps that they've added (to deal with elite units).
This is supposedly fully moddable which means we could have soft-coded house rules regarding builds (such as paras etc). It would probably require changing the unit types for the modded units but should be doable.

I have given this some thought. It can be done, but has a big downside... I don't think that you can upgrade to units limited in such ways, so adding that to Paras (or Soviet guards funnily enough) to limit them means that you can't upgrade into them.

juv95hrn wrote:

2) Upgradable Soviet Guards (and elite MEC+ARM units)

This is doable, but would need a list of historical names and agreed on stats unless we can just take it from some other mod. For fairness and balance Germany should probably get SS equivalents aswell. Given this and the above problem with limiting their numbers I'm not sure this is something we should give high priority.

juv95hrn wrote:

3) Introcude a trade off cost of annexing/making Finland puppet in the Finnish Winter war.

Should be possible to mod. Can't you have restoration of the officer corps require finland to exist and not be puppet?

juv95hrn wrote:

4) Improve forts, engineer construction missions to get in line with the rest of the detail in the game.

There are a few changes that can be done though:

1.) Making offensives in general more costly and increasing the importance of defensiveness/toughness (Peekee made a mod I think back for 3.06)
2.) Raise dug in cap so all units can dig in further.
3.) Raise defensive bonuses of engineers further (and/or expand it to INF based units). This risks making at least engineers overpowered due to their excellent offensive qualities against rivers and forts.
4.) Rebalance cost, efficiency and buildtime of forts to model more hastilly gathered fortifications. (with the downside of weakening the maginot line).


Ederon wrote:
If you want some inspiration, here is multiplayer mod for Monday Game we payed with (and planned to play with on). You should get good overview from the post I refer to.

Thanks for the link, some rebalancing are made obsolete by TFH though (15 days supply pool now instead of 20/30 for example). Balancing MP and IC I think have to wait until we ran a game or two. Adding officer costs to Air and Naval units is a classic change. If anyone else can spot anything you want to run with let me know.

The only rebalancing I would feel confident to do currently is moving manpower and leadership deeper into russia out of German reach.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:38:32 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Alright, here is the first versions for testing.

I'm making separate mods for each feature so we can decide which (if any) we want to use.

Install instructions:

1.) Unrar in mod directory.
2.) Start through launcher.exe and select what mods you want to test in the launcher (any combination works).


Changelogs:

Law mod:

* Changed training laws so that air and naval buildspeeds are constant regardless of law.
* Made the unit recruitment time difference somewhat bigger (-25% build-time for minimal training now).
* Added an officer recruitment boost of 10% per step.


Reserve mod:

* Changed conscription law so that the maximum discount you can get is 25% build-cost.


Sub and Carrier mod:

* Submarines have 5 hull. This is the only way I found to make them almost immune to bombing by airplanes and CAGs early war, and it gives anyone running with more then 3-4 sub fleets huge positioning penalties.
* Submarines have higher sea attack values (between 6 and 15 depending on tech year)
* Submarines have slightly higher visibility and can't go below 4 visibility until the "elektroboot" tech is unlocked (replaces submarine airwarning)
* Added elektroboot development tech (1943) which increase positioning, sea attack and reduce visibility of submarines drastically (not upgradable)
* Changed tech acoustic torpedoes into ASW mostly and changed historical year to 1943
* Added tech Electric torpedo (1941) to fill the gap of a secret weapon submarine boosting tech
* Submarines have repaircost = 0.5 instead of 0.05, the raider will not lose flotillas as easily but they will be expensive to repair instead.
* Lowered Destroyer base sub detection, but raised detection from tech.
* Changed ASW tech to 1940 first year and 1 year increments
* Changed ASW tech to give less bonus to CLs, more sub attack to DDs and alot of sub detection + some sub attack to CVEs.
* Lowered buildtime of convoys from 100 to 60 days.
* Changed tonnage factor to 2000 to give more realistic tonnage sunk numbers in strategic warfare window (flavor change only)
* Added +1 naval attack for strategic bombers so they can fly port strike missions (raids bombing down sub pens for example).
* Lowered firing distance of CVs and CVEs to make them more vulnerable against surface ships (CVs get back to normal "invincible" values when they have 1945 naval doctrines researched)
* CAGs get 40% extra night attack penalty (for a total of -90% efficiency at night)
* CAG radar reduce night attack penalty by 15% instead of 10% per step
* Increased CAG tech gain from 1.00 sea attack per 2 year to 1.50 sea attack
* Increased CAS tech gain from 0.25 sea attack per 2 year to 0.50 sea attack
* Increased NAV tech gain from 1.00 sea attack per 2 year to 1.50 sea attack
* Increased FTR tech gain from 0 sea attack per 2 year to 0.25 sea attack
* More changes I can't recall at the moment.

Note: I don't think subs will be totally unstoppable, using 1942 numbers an allied player researching on time will have DDs with 29 sub attack and CVEs with 21 sub detection.

My hopes is that these (fairly drastic) changes will provide a more attrition based battle of the Atlantic where UK surface warships are also put at risk. My initial tests are promising but as always it's hard to tell what two opposing skilled human players could use them for, I'm guessing a really messy and bloody battle of the Atlantic at least which sure would be an improvement.
JASGripen
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:01:34 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 144
Location: Sweden
I do not like the avenue taken for subs at all. But as I feel rather besieged by work now - and will be among the less reliable players in the group - I can go with absolutely anything.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

//G. K. Chesterton
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:25:44 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
JASGripen wrote:
I do not like the avenue taken for subs at all. But as I feel rather besieged by work now - and will be among the less reliable players in the group - I can go with absolutely anything.

Yeah I know the changes are drastical. In It's current state I would vote against including such big changes that haven't been tested enough.

So I need help from everyone that can spare time and are interrested to test them out.

I'm also interrested in knowing why/what you don't like and what your suggestions are instead.
JASGripen
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:00:01 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 144
Location: Sweden
Well I have had my hand on the current state of subs very much. The rebalance made from 1.0 is mostly my work. As we know it is not really good still, even if the improvements from 1.0 are substantial.

I like the idea that the subs thrive on low visibility and are toast if they lose the visibility/detection race. I see it fitting with the immersion of subs that they have low hull and low visibility. The trick is to make the balance tech wise good, so that the subs got a window of opportunity to act in time-wise when they got good stats and are not detected in general. This can and has been fairly well done with the surface ships, while CAG and NAV got high detection values and are not balanced vs subs in any respect.

Big stacks of subs is possible with low hull, but on the other hand they increase their visibility and will be killed sooner or later if they throw away their strongest weapon (low visibility). Now the abstraction of subs is like 56 subs in a unit. But one could say that the German subs in the Atlantic took this approach with the Wolfpacks, gathering subs (actually closer to a single sub unit, but still) by radio. Thus giving up visibility and getting nailed by the HF/DF when they came around. Off topic: If not for the micro it would bring it would perhaps be a better abstraction with sub units actually representing single subs (changing stats of course).


To make the subs better I would rather check out on the NAV/CAG detections. Can they be pressed down while still making them good at detection but not as good as they are now (that they use surface detection does not help this rebalance). It is the CAG/NAV which really hounds (a bit to much) the subs and make them weak atm.


Rather than giving them higher attack values I would drastically increase their chance for the surprise event. That will make them more powerful but also vulnerable at the same time when the event does not kick in. The subs will even with a high surprise chance be at risk as the event is only active when they are defined as attacker in the combat. Even if they do attack all the time and got 60% event chance they will still only get the event say at 30% when meeting a unit set on attacking (patrol etc) if it is a coin toss which attacker actually is defined as attacker.

One could also increase the effect of the surprise so that no capital ships are safe (now positioning might still be an issue to get to CV:s, but on the other hand it is good that screens actually can screen so idk).

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

//G. K. Chesterton
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:45:52 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
JASGripen wrote:
I like the idea that the subs thrive on low visibility and are toast if they lose the visibility/detection race. I see it fitting with the immersion of subs that they have low hull and low visibility.

The problem with that is that if you seek to replicate the 1939-41 years of the battle of the atlantic they will be very boring for both sides. Not to mention how hard it is to balance this right so a sub flotilla is only found (and sunk) once every two months.

Because to mirror history (using sub flottilas of 5 subs each) you can only lose:

2 flotillas in 1939
5 flotillas in 1940
7 flotillas in 1941

And this assumes that damage flotillas never lose subs, else the number is probably closer to 0 flotillas lost for the entire period. I'm pretty sure that Germany never lost an entire flotilla of 5 subs at once during this period and this is also part of what my mod tries to replicate.

JASGripen wrote:
To make the subs better I would rather check out on the NAV/CAG detections. Can they be pressed down while still making them good at detection but not as good as they are now (that they use surface detection does not help this rebalance). It is the CAG/NAV which really hounds (a bit to much) the subs and make them weak atm.

The problem IMHO is not only CAGs detection but their sea attack values. They use the same values against subs as they do against ships here aswell, so either we need CAGs that suck against ship until 1943 (to balance their ASW), or we need to accept that CAGs will slaughter subs even if they hardly even sunk a single sub flotilla on their own 1939-41 historically. Same for NAVs pretty much.

JASGripen wrote:

Big stacks of subs is possible with low hull, but on the other hand they increase their visibility and will be killed sooner or later if they throw away their strongest weapon (low visibility).

This is my biggest problem with the current system. Using 0.50 hull you can group 32 sub flotillas together before taking positioning penalty. This means their sea attack values need to be balanced taking that into account which means a single sub flotilla will never even get close to sinking any warship (if it would the 32 stack would annihilate everything except carriers in 1hour of combat).

JASGripen wrote:

Rather than giving them higher attack values I would drastically increase their chance for the surprise event.

The problem here is that the surprise event has 0% chance of triggering when subs run convoy raid mission.

This is because subs on convoy raid missions never attack anything except convoys, so in all battles with subs vs fleet units the subs end up as defenders. Surprise can only happen when the sub is attacker.

I already reported this bug. But the current state is what we got to work with.

Besides as far as I understand all naval combat already have a critical strike mechanic which is 10% chance to do 10 times damage. By relying on surprise being effective without this we risk a situation where an 1918 level sub can sink the Yamato with a single torpedo 3% of the times it finds her, just to model doing measurable damage the 27% time surprise triggers without critical strike.

I understand you are attached to the way subs work right now seeing how you had a big hand in getting them this far, but if you find time at least try this crazy balance idea out before disregarding it Smile
JASGripen
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:25:26 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 144
Location: Sweden
About the size of the stacks. I do not see it as a problem as such a big stack will be decimated in no time, and avoided in the meantime as it will be seen. But again, the system might be better balanced with a unit representing a single sub (32 subs in an area are ok, but then again the micro might be to much).

About convoy raiding, sure it is bad for the subs not to get surprise. But you sink convoys on Patrol too, so if you want to be stalwart and surprising naval units then you go patrol. If not and you go convoy raiding, well then you actually chose actively to not engage the naval units and then you get no surprise. It is kind of square, but at least you got an option as a sub owner.

And as I wrote, I can go along with (almost) anything as I do not feel I got the time to motivate me trying to dictate the house tweaks for all of us.


Btw, I would like to add in the Creation of Croatia OOB (it is in Black ICE now). It can be fun for the German to get some reason to create CRO. Smile

File Attachment(s):
croatia creation OOB.7z (4kb) downloaded 27 time(s).




The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

//G. K. Chesterton
juv95hrn
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:55:38 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I think most changes seem cool although I can't quite can see what real effects they would have on long term game play.

Would it be possible to give coastal forts (and regular too) some AA capability? Like maybe 0.25 or 0.5 points per level to simulate sub pens and well fortified ports?

Would it be possible to give coastal forts some sort of offensive capability to simulate coastal artillery? I frankly think it sucks that surface ships can coastal bombard fortified ports with no risk what so ever.

Can we reinstitute engineers fortification bonus in clear terrain? I think it is gone again in TFH and I can't for my life figure out why!

Also. As Germany would it work to deploy an AG HQ or a theatre with a single port province area and deploy your subs to this and put it on AI control? This way you would automate the sub warfare but if the AI will suicide your subs you don't want to do it. I wold love if the AI would handle your micro management for you but I suspect you will lose all your subs if you ever trust the AI to do anything.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:15:36 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
juv95hrn wrote:

Would it be possible to give coastal forts (and regular too) some AA capability? Like maybe 0.25 or 0.5 points per level to simulate sub pens and well fortified ports?

Afraid not, buildings last time I tested can only have one effect (sadly). We can reduce their price with what AA costs and have you add AA manually though.

For forts I would suggest lowering their effect if we can so we don't have to add a houserule cap for level 5 forts, same for Radar.

How about a maximum of -70% for forts.

And for radar half range?

juv95hrn wrote:
Would it be possible to give coastal forts some sort of offensive capability to simulate coastal artillery? I frankly think it sucks that surface ships can coastal bombard fortified ports with no risk what so ever.

Not possible to mod to my knowledge, the rule of thumb is that unless an effect (or at least something very similar) already exist elsewhere in the game it's impossible to add it.

juv95hrn wrote:

Can we reinstitute engineers fortification bonus in clear terrain? I think it is gone again in TFH and I can't for my life figure out why!

Sure thing, that's an easy fix. We need to be a bit careful to not make any unit overpowered though, Imo engineers already have a distinct and useful role as attacking in tough situations, piling on to many bonuses may render engineers mandatory.
Praetori
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:02:59 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
I'll test out the modifications during the weekend.
I like the changes to subs but for pure awesome factor I absolutely love the idea of subs (and possibly destroyers) representing single ships (something that's been bugging me). However this would probably require some LUA modding as well to not break AI builds no?
As far as CAGs and NAVs vs subs go. As we can't fiddle around with the attack stats without breaking them vs ships could we instead raise the air_defense value for subs to make aircraft less deadly?

Regarding coastal fortifications I feel that they're now a bit out-of-order (with the new invasion mechanics) but that this could possibly be compensated by making them pre-fabs but not deployment-stackable (like airfields). With possible tweaked stats the lowest fort level would represent the pre-planned defenses, heavy weapons, ammodumps, hedgehoges, stakes, mines, coordinated fire zones etc that was prepared (not part of the digging-in bonus). This is a very minor issue as far as I'm concerned but would make for a more interesting Pacific theater.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:52:49 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Praetori wrote:
I'll test out the modifications during the weekend.
I like the changes to subs but for pure awesome factor I absolutely love the idea of subs (and possibly destroyers) representing single ships (something that's been bugging me). However this would probably require some LUA modding as well to not break AI builds no?

Tbh I don't care at all about AI builds for MP games. Most of the work with implementing this change actually is adding 1200 historical submarine names to the German file Wink
(and removing flotilla from all nations build names and starting units).

Praetori wrote:

As far as CAGs and NAVs vs subs go. As we can't fiddle around with the attack stats without breaking them vs ships could we instead raise the air_defense value for subs to make aircraft less deadly?

Sadly no. Air defense doesn't reduce damage taken from air by a % amount, it just decides if the unit has 70% chance to avoid a hit (defense > attack) or if the chance is 48% instead (attack > defense).

So raising air defense from 10 to 10000 has zero effect if the submarine is attacked by a unit with 9 effective sea attack value.

I should probably raise it some more though to ensure that subs always have maximum chance to avoid hit by air.

Praetori wrote:

Regarding coastal fortifications I feel that they're now a bit out-of-order (with the new invasion mechanics) but that this could possibly be compensated by making them pre-fabs but not deployment-stackable (like airfields).
Not sure that's possible to mod, I haven't found a way to at least so far.
Cost and buildtime are easy to lower if that's what you mean by making them "pre-fabs".
Praetori
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:05:50 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Alex_brunius wrote:

Tbh I don't care at all about AI builds for MP games. Most of the work with implementing this change actually is adding 1200 historical submarine names to the German file
(and removing flotilla from all nations build names and starting units).


I agree that AI considerations are not very important but the AI in TFH seems to deploy subs everywhere and they interfere in larger naval battles pretty frequently.
My point was that we at least must consider the AI impact from any mods (so we don't get hordes of AI Minor's subs wrecking the game).

Alex_brunius wrote:

Sadly no. Air defense doesn't reduce damage taken from air by a % amount, it just decides if the unit has 70% chance to avoid a hit (defense > attack) or if the chance is 48% instead (attack > defense).

So raising air defense from 10 to 10000 has zero effect if the submarine is attacked by a unit with 9 effective sea attack value.

I should probably raise it some more though to ensure that subs always have maximum chance to avoid hit by air.


Yes forgot about that. The only other option in regard to survivability for subs (other than stats) that I can come to think of would be to lower the NAVAL_INTERCEPT_AFTER_ATTACK modifier to make convoy raiding subs harder to detect.
Alex_brunius wrote:

Not sure that's possible to mod, I haven't found a way to at least so far.
Cost and buildtime are easy to lower if that's what you mean by making them "pre-fabs".

Was thinking more along the line to build them in the deployment queue but alas it seems to be in the .EXE and not available for modding.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 7:20:24 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Praetori wrote:
I agree that AI considerations are not very important but the AI in TFH seems to deploy subs everywhere and they interfere in larger naval battles pretty frequently.
My point was that we at least must consider the AI impact from any mods (so we don't get hordes of AI Minor's subs wrecking the game).

Yes that is a potential problem. Not fun to have the AI dance in with subs and screw up your positioning...



Btw uploaded new version for testing (first post updated).
Praetori
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 9:01:20 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Alex_brunius wrote:
Yes that is a potential problem. Not fun to have the AI dance in with subs and screw up your positioning...



Btw uploaded new version for testing (first post updated).


First impressions (I've not had the time I would've wanted to test this).
Carriers feel a bit too vulnerable especially during invasions. I was able to totally annihilate a 3ship of mid war UK carriers with lots of escorts with 2xBB 4xCA 5xCL. I've yet been able to corner one in open seas though which feels good.
This could be an issue with invasion mechanics rather than carriers in themselves though (it was a turkey shoot).

AI navy is a beast at finding and hunting those subs. Once a CV fleet picks up a trail they keep following the subs around [sic] (I tried moving subs a long way outside of the normal patrol routes and the hostile fleet kept "shadowing" until the CAGs found the subs and ate them, this was with mid-late techs). Overall the subs feel a lot better now but the TFH vulnerability seems to have more with really active navy AI to do than anything else. They need a serious positioning bonus or something so that they can avoid being hammered and sunk in the first engagement (emulating their ability to dive away from danger). I don't know if the increase in hull size might have offed something with their visibility (in combination with the visibility increase) but subs seem to be very easily spotted (although they seem almost impervious to actually being engaged by NAVs until mid war which is strange).

Early war CAGs feels a bit better (dunno if you did anything with that) but they're very resilient to damage form land-based air as well as packing a helluva punch in reverse despite early techs.
Let's be realistic, a 1938 swordfish CAG was no match for a pack of Emils or Zeroes and the outcome should never be in doubt IMO.

Haven't had time to put fighters on anti-sub duty so can't really say anything about that change.

Edit: Forgot to mention the No Houserules mod. The Radar change feels nice and better reflects reality IMO. It's sad that you can't build radar/listening posts in other nations territory though as you're completely blind as the UK in regard to Germany proper. Maybe we could lower the distance a tiny bit more but make radar cheaper?
20 brigades of paras feels like alot by most standards. Sure it blocks the most major exploits but as far as I understand you could only give a minimum value and a percentage?
Maybe 10brigades for starters and then 0.06 per infantry (with 300 brigades of INF you could then build 6 Para divisions of 3xbde size) but I dunno.

Overall great changes and a very good work indeed by Alex. Thumbs Up
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 9:58:30 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
First thanks for the feedback!

Praetori wrote:
First impressions (I've not had the time I would've wanted to test this).
Carriers feel a bit too vulnerable especially during invasions. I was able to totally annihilate a 3ship of mid war UK carriers with lots of escorts with 2xBB 4xCA 5xCL. I've yet been able to corner one in open seas though which feels good.
This could be an issue with invasion mechanics rather than carriers in themselves though (it was a turkey shoot).


Was this CVs or CVEs you sunk? Slow CVEs had more drastic firing distance changes so that they will almost never be able to get away if caught by surface ships. If it was CVs it might have been the slow speed of TPs that did them in.

That's more the fault of bad AI fleet builds if that was the case.

Praetori wrote:

AI navy is a beast at finding and hunting those subs. Once a CV fleet picks up a trail they keep following the subs around [sic] (I tried moving subs a long way outside of the normal patrol routes and the hostile fleet kept "shadowing" until the CAGs found the subs and ate them, this was with mid-late techs). Overall the subs feel a lot better now but the TFH vulnerability seems to have more with really active navy AI to do than anything else. They need a serious positioning bonus or something so that they can avoid being hammered and sunk in the first engagement (emulating their ability to dive away from danger). I don't know if the increase in hull size might have offed something with their visibility (in combination with the visibility increase) but subs seem to be very easily spotted (although they seem almost impervious to actually being engaged by NAVs until mid war which is strange).

This is probably the visibility caps I put in at play especially if it was mid/late war since ASW techs got more sub detection aswell (but lowered start values). Before subs started at 5 visibility and teched down to 1 visibility by 1940 level hull. My approach to balance was that they should be easy to spot but hard to sink. They start at 8 visibility and go down to minimum 4 from hull tech. To get them down to 1 you need to research the added elektroboot tech that's extremely complex which should again tip the balance in favor of Germany making submarines a plauge to find.

Also CVEs had a major role change and now provide awesome amounts of sub detection. With 1943 ASW They will be able to find early war submarines in a matter of hours and with acoustic torpedoes also sink them.

I did never see subs sunk during first engagements, especially not by air alone. For me to be able to do that I had to have 1943 ASW upgraded and 7+ destroyer flotillas in the fleet.

Praetori wrote:

Early war CAGs feels a bit better (dunno if you did anything with that) but they're very resilient to damage form land-based air as well as packing a helluva punch in reverse despite early techs.
Let's be realistic, a 1938 swordfish CAG was no match for a pack of Emils or Zeroes and the outcome should never be in doubt IMO.

I'm pretty sure I didn't change anything that should effect this. But CAGs always was fairly strong against land based air in HoI3 imho. We should probably lower their air attack a bit.

Praetori wrote:

Edit: Forgot to mention the No Houserules mod. The Radar change feels nice and better reflects reality IMO. It's sad that you can't build radar/listening posts in other nations territory though as you're completely blind as the UK in regard to Germany proper. Maybe we could lower the distance a tiny bit more but make radar cheaper?
20 brigades of paras feels like alot by most standards. Sure it blocks the most major exploits but as far as I understand you could only give a minimum value and a percentage?
Maybe 10brigades for starters and then 0.06 per infantry (with 300 brigades of INF you could then build 6 Para divisions of 3xbde size) but I dunno.

About forts/radars I'm wondering if we should half their buildtimes (and practical gain) aswell in order to make it identical with "max level 5". For radar stations it doesn't matter much since you can deploy level 10 at once but for forts it will mean you can build level 10 in just 900 days (basetime) instead of 1800 days.


I sadly didn't get the special force percentage to work with modding, only seems to work with the special forces that Paradox added :S
When testing there was only X brigades for everyone, no less no more. After having looked around a bit what people use some seems to go with 30 or 40 brigades of Para allowed even, and I was thinking that now when light armor and ACs can roll over Paras badly 6 divisions shouldn't be that overpowered.
Praetori
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:54:28 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Alex_brunius wrote:
Was this CVs or CVEs you sunk? Slow CVEs had more drastic firing distance changes so that they will almost never be able to get away if caught by surface ships. If it was CVs it might have been the slow speed of TPs that did them in.

That's more the fault of bad AI fleet builds if that was the case.

It was at least two full fledged fleet carriers (one of them was Illustrious) although they were probably laid down around 1940 if the intelligence had it right so unsure about tech levels and I don't have any savegames so it's hard to tell.
I was under the impression that they were indeed in a separate fleet from the landing force (multiple stacks in the end). The got away the first time though i think the Bismarck got a critical on one of them because it got extreme damage in one single combat phase. They then joined up with the reminder of the RN already doing an invasion and from there it just went sideways. Schlesien which have starting techs? [sic] just went bezerk and killed 2 of the carriers and one BB while Blücher finished off the second BB while it's escort cruisers sunk another CVE [sic] (the last one pulled away with like 3% strength. Bismarck and Tirpitz were mostly useless despite me rushing their techs a bit and got hammered by CAGs and shot up some transports and destroyers (as well as a friendly Tier 1 destroyer just passing through on patrol in what looked to be a one-shot).

Sharnhorst with escorts in another game hunted down a UK carrier (now I'm not too certain it really was a CV and not a CVE) and sunk it during bad weather with little effort (although the UK fleet was also under air attack at one point and was escorted by HMS Renown which I believe is fairly old and slow). Gneisenau in the same game came close to whacking a fleet CV (also in bad weather) but it pulled away after hitting 0 ORG.
As Japan I only managed to sink a CVE with a fast cruiserfleet but I actually got into a few fights with US CVs outside Hawaii though never managed to close (this was in good weather also with mod).

As I stated previously I've not been able to test it as much as I would've liked. I don't think it's a major issue but players should be aware that CVs seems a bit more vulnerable now than previously and the Invasion thing needs to be looked at.

Alex_brunius wrote:

Before subs started at 5 visibility and teched down to 1 visibility by 1940 level hull. My approach to balance was that they should be easy to spot but hard to sink. They start at 8 visibility and go down to minimum 4 from hull tech. To get them down to 1 you need to research the added elektroboot tech that's extremely complex which should again tip the balance in favor of Germany making submarines a plauge to find.


The issue seems to be that the subs are detected strategically and even though they can't be attacked every time, the faster surface fleet is able to follow the subs around for a very long period and over vast distances while the CAGs buzz around like angry bees and make spotting roll after roll.
You're correct that CAGs doesn't seem to sink subs outright early war but once they're detected and attacked the surface fleet simply moves in and the SAG (or CV escorts) eat the subs and you'll be lucky if they don't kill them all.

Alex_brunius wrote:

About forts/radars I'm wondering if we should half their buildtimes (and practical gain) aswell in order to make it identical with "max level 5". For radar stations it doesn't matter much since you can deploy level 10 at once but for forts it will mean you can build level 10 in just 900 days (basetime) instead of 1800 days.

Sounds ok with me. Would like some of the other players input on this as well though as it can seriously skew the game (imagine Singapore fortified in 900 days).


Alex_brunius wrote:

I sadly didn't get the special force percentage to work with modding, only seems to work with the special forces that Paradox added :S
When testing there was only X brigades for everyone, no less no more. After having looked around a bit what people use some seems to go with 30 or 40 brigades of Para allowed even, and I was thinking that now when light armor and ACs can roll over Paras badly 6 divisions shouldn't be that overpowered.


Ah ok. Then a max level seems more reasonable. I would make it 21 just to be able to build 7 triangular divisions or 5 square.
You're right about the piercing and armor addition. ACs are terrifying for the "light" divisions in TFH.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.