Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Creating a MP mod Options · View
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:12:46 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I would really like to see something to counter the out of supply retreat bug.

During my last game as defender as the USSR all I did was watch my retreating stacks getting lower and lower org until they are a huge bunch of zero org units. You are either being attacked or retreating, neither which regains you org. The Eastern Front is unplayable unless the defender can regain org somehow.

Can you edit the retreat speed of units?

EDIT:

I suggest making jet and rocket interceptors a bit better. I never used them but the consensus seem to be that they are not worth the cost and the reserach and it would be fun it they were.

Considering everyone hates AA brigades maybe give them an extra point of SA or something to make them a bit more attractive?

EDIT 2:

Give HARM some more river crossing penalty. It's stupid that MAR and ENG can almost nullify it.

Give NAV more sub detection ability. They can never find subs on the open sea. Maybe this is WAD?

I agree with most of the other suggestions we had in the discussion after the session.
juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:06:13 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Here are some stuff from the German mod.

Are these already in ours? There are some stuff here that I think are interesting.


C. Mod
Download Mod: mod.rar
Changelog:
Version: 1.01
Checksum: XRIW
Reserves:
* Changed conscription laws reserve size to 75%/80%/85%/90%/95% (IC cost, strength, org)
* Changed conscription laws to reduce org by 95%/66%/40%/20%/0%
Kill the reserve building problems
Upgrade:
UNIT_UPGRADE_COST = 0.1
UNIT_UPGRADE_TIME = 0.5
0,1 means 90% of costs. The formula is not intuitive.
Should kill the idea, that a heavy armor is cheaper to built, if you built at first cav and after that upgrade that cav.
Training laws:
Minimal Training at Start;
after 100 Groundfights it is possible to get next level with 10% Erfahrung
after 500 Groundfights it is possible to get next level with 15% Erfahrung
after 1000 Groundfights it is possible to get next level with 25% Erfahrung
Should kill the exploit with changing the laws at the right moment
playable conutries (SU; USA; UK; FRA; DR; ITA; JAP; Nat. China, ROM):
Allys starts with consumgoods law (SU too),
alle nationen start with minimal training
Should kill the bug where allies have mixed industries at the start of multiplayer instead of consumgoods, but must be tested
Radarrange = 0,09 (was 0,18)
cost: 1 IC (was 2) and practical is 0,25 (was 0,5)
Kill Radar rule
fortress fight impact = 0,07 (was 0,09)
cost = 4 IC (was 5) and 0,27 prac (0,33)
same with coastdefence
Kill fortress rule
Marco Polo Event annex Nat. China
Should fast the built up phase with kill of japanese china war
A Land & Lease limit of 35%

Rocket Test Side cost only 10 IC instead of 20 IC.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:03:42 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
They did start out with our mod without the sub/carrier changes and added some stuff of their own.
juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:42:33 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I know some mod had a low transport capacity for combat ships to simulate the kind of minor unit landings that fx. Germany performed in Norway. It is certainly a cool feature but is it balanced to introduce it?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013 7:18:12 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
BTW, some good news!

When modding right now I think I figured out why Soviet are getting demolished on the eastern front in TFH and have their entire army overrun so easily.


It's the new combat tactics they added, both Blitz and Breakthrough gives +50% combat movement speed which together with the 40% ish base value you normally have is calculated additive to 90% movement speed in combat.

That is brutal and means in any combat where either of the tactics are triggered (and it will be common given the German leader advantage), the Attacker will have completed his movement before combat is over and the defender is guaranteed to be out of supplies from the first hour of his retreat.


Before TFH combat events were shorter, not active all the time and only one of them provided the speed bonus.

juv95hrn wrote:

Give NAV more sub detection ability. They can never find subs on the open sea. Maybe this is WAD?

Have you equipped them with navigation radar?

In this mod the first level of radar should increase their detection values from 4 to 10, and lvl 2 up to 16, that's more then any other air unit.
Subs should be easier to find in the mod since they have higher visibility values (and the number of subs vs ship combats seem to verify this).
Praetori
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:33:31 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
That's what I thought. The combat movement speed of motorized/armor vs Infantry types is less of an issue as they historically just rolled "past" the defenders once the initial breakthrough was established (the core of using Armor with Schwerpunkt tactics). The main issue however is that even "slow" units such as Infantry variants can overrun a retreating force (which is less probable as fleeing men without weapons are bound to be faster than advancing heavily armed ones) and Panzers outrunning retreating armor with such ease).

If you have suggestions on changes Alex I'd be happy to beta-test these in a MP trial.
juv95hrn
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:55:21 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
You should report this find in the beta forums since it is a real game breaker.




The NAV issue is from my experiences from vanilla.

I will check my NAVs in out current campaign and try to bomb some subs with the ones taht have better radar.

Maybe USA can do the same and see what we can find.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 8:13:44 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
Praetori wrote:
That's what I thought. The combat movement speed of motorized/armor vs Infantry types is less of an issue as they historically just rolled "past" the defenders once the initial breakthrough was established (the core of using Armor with Schwerpunkt tactics). The main issue however is that even "slow" units such as Infantry variants can overrun a retreating force (which is less probable as fleeing men without weapons are bound to be faster than advancing heavily armed ones) and Panzers outrunning retreating armor with such ease).

If you have suggestions on changes Alex I'd be happy to beta-test these in a MP trial.

As always I have been making some massive changes throwing landcombat, doctrines and combined arms upside down Big Grin

I agree that it's best to test them out first, and using our pre-barbarossa savegame would be a perfect starting point if you have time and patience to run it through outside our normal schedule. We can talk more about this tomorrow.
juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:53:09 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Engineers seem a little bit useless atm.

How about giving the Assault Weapons tech and increased efficiency vs. the terrain types that now give 1-2% increase? I don't think they are worthwhile with the current values but with an increase and the improved defensive capabilites it might be a good research then?

And will anyone ever build mot AA? Maybe give them a decent HA to represent heavier AA pieces like the 88 and to make them at least somewhat attractive?
Praetori
Posted: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:40:16 AM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
juv95hrn wrote:
Engineers seem a little bit useless atm.

How about giving the Assault Weapons tech and increased efficiency vs. the terrain types that now give 1-2% increase? I don't think they are worthwhile with the current values but with an increase and the improved defensive capabilites it might be a good research then?

And will anyone ever build mot AA? Maybe give them a decent HA to represent heavier AA pieces like the 88 and to make them at least somewhat attractive?


I'm all for boosting ENG and possibly giving them better resistance to air bombing (as they're actually a liability for a division without air superiority now).
I've been thinking along the line of creating a new (expensive) Assault Engineer/Sturm Pioneer unit with activation from the Motorized tree with bonuses to maybe river crossings and urban combat and possibly landings (to emulate marine engineers and armored engineers).

This ties in with Marines and armor which is very common in TFH MP. If we do something with Marines the engineer boost or new engineer units would be suitable. A non front-width combat brigade would make more sense than grouping marines with armor imo.
Another option would be, if possible, to remove the marine combined arms bonus (ie not count them as infantry and thereby negate that bonus). This would probably have a huge impact on the Pacific pace of operations and Marines could well need some sort of boost to emulate their supposedly integrated resources such as LSTs with funnies. I don't know but they're supposedly specialists like Paras (which are useless grouped with anything other than Paras).
juv95hrn
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:26:13 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I like your ideas Preatori.

Would it be possible to lower the CG demand reduction for being at war pre-Danzig or War? I would prefer to allow Italy, Japan and USSR to be at war as long as they please with Ethiopia, China (and warlords) and Finland without having to design house rules (that can be argued about eternally).

But then the difference between being at war with a minor and being at peace needs to be even smaller when it comes to CG demand reduction. Basically the reinforcments cost and increased supply cost for a mobilized army should be approximate to this decrease.

But I don't know if this is possible to fine tune even further but it would be nice to make these early scripted wars fire-and-forget events that did not need a lot of house rules and discussion for each campaign.



EDIT:

Also changing BOMB_WING_DAMAGE_MODIFIER value from 1.05 to 1.50 doubles the damage done to air units during runway cratering. This is needed since the damage is neglible atm.


EDIT 2:

Would it be possible to make MTN brigades to be air transportable? No able to para drop but to transport them between air bases? Or make a tech that makes them this. This is something I always wanted in HOI3.

Update: According to the mod forum you can only make them like paras which would mean house rules would have to prevent them from jumping but the would be able to be air lifted between air bases. Seems like a good solution to me.


EDIT 3:

How about increasing repair cost in general? "repair_cost_multiplier = 0.05"

I don't think it is possible but I would also love to increase repair time on ships to make damage to them more realistic and important.

Please change the CV hangar tech since it is utterly useless as it is now. (At least I think so and the concensus seems to be this) :-)


Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2013 6:46:27 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:

Also changing BOMB_WING_DAMAGE_MODIFIER value from 1.05 to 1.50 doubles the damage done to air units during runway cratering. This is needed since the damage is neglible atm.

I haven't seen any version of HoI3 where you can damage airplanes on the ground at all. Feel free to test this out yourself but I remain skeptical since It never worked and I feel Paradox wouldn't implement such a big feature without the major re-balancing it would also require.


Marine
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:24:43 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Great changes Alex on the new version of the mod.
I will try and look more at it when I have time.
I will also try to find changes myself to suggest .
This new version will be the one that we will play the next MP match on, so until then lets do our best to make it the best of the best Smile

/Marine
juv95hrn
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013 12:18:45 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Alex_brunius wrote:
I haven't seen any version of HoI3 where you can damage airplanes on the ground at all. Feel free to test this out yourself but I remain skeptical since It never worked and I feel Paradox wouldn't implement such a big feature without the major re-balancing it would also require.




Well personally I have no idea regarding this but some of the pros on the PI forums agreed that planes indeed take damage during the runway cratering missions but that it is so miniscule that you hardly don't notice it. Maybe for balance reasons. I don't know but apparantly they do take damage and the BOMB_WING_DAMAGE_MODIFIER should adjust how much. But as I said, this is only what I have read.

EDIT:

Meh, I edited your post by mistake Alex. Sorry about that. I guess I'm not mature enough to be a mod here. :-)


And great job with the new mod!!!
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:13:57 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
Tried to change it from 1.05 to 2.05 and I was not able to see any effect at all, tested with 1947 tech TACs and FTR, so if there is an effect it's probably strategic attack that inflicts damage in practice, which I'm not certain is something we want (using strategic bombers to suppress airforce is strong enough as it is by quickly knocking out airbases).
Praetori
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:06:52 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Would it be possible to set the ORG regain modifier to negative if the airstrip is bombed to lvl0 to "hurt" planes stationed there?
juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:35:33 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Nations now start on specialist training and manually has to be set back to minimal training. I wonder if its possible to set more than one nation to minimal training at once.

Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:24:39 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
Nations now start on specialist training and manually has to be set back to minimal training. I wonder if its possible to set more than one nation to minimal training at once.

Strange, in the history files in the mod I set it to minimal training for all the 6 major nations (ENG/GER/ITA/JAP/SOV/USA). What nation where you testing as?
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:19:35 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Germany.

I am checking Black Ice 1.6.4 out. They have lowered the cost and thus the numbers of air units in the game.

But they have also modded their stats, stacking penalties, size of air bases on the map, etc to fit these new numbers of air units.

Since air combat is rather balanced as it is, even if numbers are historically few, I'm n ot sure it is worth opening that can of worms and risk playing an entire campaign with unbalanced air warfare...



EDIT:

Did you increase AA on BBs? If not that is ofc a good idea.



EDIT:

Does anyone else think that weather has too little impact on land combat (not movement speed any longer)?

How about adding another -15/-30/-45% for attacking in Snow/Mud/Blizzard. I feel the attacker should be punished more than the defender for conducting operations in bad weather, not the same as it is now. Isn't it?



EDIT:

Move industry East for USSR. How about introducing a delay of say 9 months and move some LS and MP as well in this decision?


EDIT:

Increase cost of Civilian nuclear industry and Atomic bomb? I believe you can get it quite early if you go for it from start.
juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:57:49 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Except the Edits in the post above I believe we should:

- Make jet fighters more worthwhile.

- Increase the reserach cost of Nukes since they seem to be rather easy to achieve a bit too early. Not sure how they work but I might have the tech reserached sometime in the last half of 1943 which seems a tad too early.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?683408-How-does-Nuclear-weapons-work-exactly-in-TFH-4.02

I won't use them unless UK is invaded or loses its army or something really important changes.

- I have seen that in some mods they give GAR speed 2 to make it a bit more realistic I suppose. Even with substandard transportation equipment one footmarching infantry shouldn't be 4x faster than another of the same type?

EDIT:

It seems AAA takes too much damage from strat bombing over all. Should we change it?

"In common/buildings.txt the AA has damage_factor = 0.25, so you could set it to 0.01 or even zero if you wanted to." Maybe try with 0.15 instead?
Praetori
Posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:54:14 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
juv95hrn wrote:
Except the Edits in the post above I believe we should:

- Make jet fighters more worthwhile.

- Increase the reserach cost of Nukes since they seem to be rather easy to achieve a bit too early. Not sure how they work but I might have the tech reserached sometime in the last half of 1943 which seems a tad too early.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?683408-How-does-Nuclear-weapons-work-exactly-in-TFH-4.02

I won't use them unless UK is invaded or loses its army or something really important changes.

- I have seen that in some mods they give GAR speed 2 to make it a bit more realistic I suppose. Even with substandard transportation equipment one footmarching infantry shouldn't be 4x faster than another of the same type?

EDIT:

It seems AAA takes too much damage from strat bombing over all. Should we change it?

"In common/buildings.txt the AA has damage_factor = 0.25, so you could set it to 0.01 or even zero if you wanted to." Maybe try with 0.15 instead?


Valid points. Would it be possible to look into the support brigades vulnerability to air as well? What will happen if you raise the air_defence attribute for support brigades?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:35:33 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
Did you increase AA on BBs? If not that is ofc a good idea.

I actually revamped AA bigtime. Now all ships start with 0 air defence and the major thing AA techs provide is added Air Defence to reduce damage taken (between 2.0 and 2.5 per level for surface ships). Hopefully Old WW1 ships should be sitting ducks to even a few fighter wings without AA research and upgrades Smile

AA values in general was also lowered since big fleet stacks seem to be impervious to air attack and slaughter fewer airwings in a matter of hours in the current game. It was also evened out more between the ship classes.

In v0.03 Surface ships get between +0.5 AA (BB/BC/CV/CVL/DD) and +0.75 AA (CL/CA) per two years tech, so in relation to screens BBs gained a massive AA buff.

I also had an interesting debate in how to balance Superstack fleets / Air (CAG) deathstacks, it seems many other MP players consider them unbalanced now that ships has no hard stacking penalty and air units has a cap on -80% penalty. My conclusion is that we have a few limited options only really.
- Allow them and try to mod the game around it (what I have been trying to do with AA/Aircraft changes)
- Mod the max stacking penalty to -99% (only fixes air really, ship superstacks will still be there)
- Ban one or both of them via houserules (max X ships per zone, max Y airwings/CVs)

Since my attempt at balancing subs with high hull/bad positioning failed miserably I suggest we add a houserule to at least limit how many sub flotillas you may use per fleet, 4 or 6 perhaps?

Another cool thing I did remember now from some other mod/discussion was CAs as Screens.
So Heavy Cruisers are now a screen in v0.04 to promote Screen versatility (one Anti sub, one Anti air, one Anti ship), and since it's cool with German raiders or a historical Bismarck + Prinz Eugen sortie!
There wasn't that much difference between CA/BC/BB anyway to warrant the research into all 3.


juv95hrn wrote:

- Make jet fighters more worthwhile.

Also keep in mind that this is not a one-off tech but you can research it several times, so you can get it in 1943, 44 and 47 for 3 times the stated benefit (in a really drawn out war).

But I did do some changes of v0.04:
- Lowered difficulty to 10.
- Doubled airdefence/surface defence gain and added a +1 air attack for the airplane types that focus on this stat, also added +2 surface defence for the models that gained no surface defence.

Should we allow this tech for CAGs however and extend increased bonus for them?
I'm not sure jet-CAGs was feasible during WW2 era until 1948, (first landing carried out mid 1946 and first model entered service oct 1947)
Early jet engines were notoriously unreliable and had weak acceleration, two traits that make them exceptionally unsuited for Carrier use.

juv95hrn wrote:

Increase cost of Civilian nuclear industry and Atomic bomb? I believe you can get it quite early if you go for it from start.

juv95hrn wrote:

- Increase the reserach cost of Nukes since they seem to be rather easy to achieve a bit too early. Not sure how they work but I might have the tech reserached sometime in the last half of 1943 which seems a tad too early.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?683408-How-does-Nuclear-weapons-work-exactly-in-TFH-4.02

I won't use them unless UK is invaded or loses its army or something really important changes.

Feel free to nuke Germany as much as you like, they are made to be used right? =)

Even so from what we have seen in that thread it looks like it takes almost a year from you start production until the first can be launched, so perhaps they are not so unbalanced after all?


juv95hrn wrote:

- I have seen that in some mods they give GAR speed 2 to make it a bit more realistic I suppose. Even with substandard transportation equipment one footmarching infantry shouldn't be 4x faster than another of the same type?

Done in 0.03 already, it's even in the changelog! Smile

juv95hrn wrote:

EDIT:

It seems AAA takes too much damage from strat bombing over all. Should we change it?

"In common/buildings.txt the AA has damage_factor = 0.25, so you could set it to 0.01 or even zero if you wanted to." Maybe try with 0.15 instead?

Agreed, let's be a bit drastic and go for 0.1 (40% as much damage as now).
Ports were already reduced from 1.00 to 0.50 to make them a bit more resillient, I suspect it will be needed with the changes to make amphibious landings harder and slower.

Praetori wrote:
Would it be possible to look into the support brigades vulnerability to air as well? What will happen if you raise the air_defence attribute for support brigades?

They received the same changes as all other AA did in v0.03, Zero starting Air_defence and you need to research AA techs unless you want them slaughtered. Support still gain less then Frontline though.

Before I change these values we have to be 100% certain that it's applied and used brigade wise so that you can't just add any support brigades to turn an entire division into being immune from air attack though. 1INF+AA+ART+AT+ENG shouldn't dominate the game and be immune to air assault Smile
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:46:14 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
It all sounds excellent.

I'm mostly brainstorming and jotting down impressions I get from reading the general forums.

Regarding SS and Guards:

I'm not quite happy with how the balance out and how you prefer to use them with current stats. ( I need to check if all new elite units cost the same or my points below might not be valid).

- I don't like that SS gets higher org than all other forces in the German Army. They are already motorised. How about putting them down to 50 org along with paras and mountain troops that were at least as effective? Their high speed already makes them better than most other of the new elite units.
- Maybe give Soviet guards 5 or 6 in movement to make the "semi-motorised", give them 50 org along with the rest of Soviet elite units and lessen the city defense bonus a tiny bit say 10%

Would that even them out? SOV will ofc be able to build more Guards than SS since they should have a larger army than Germany but they cost the same (right?) and should be about as good.

I would prefer to have the rangers be support brigades with 1000 Strength, para dropable (already are?) and insane terrain bonuses for historical flavour.

I really don't care that much about other elite units since they will appear in such small numbers. Meddling with elite units at all is of course trivial but they are a real thumb in my eye since their introduction and if we are working to get the mod to feel "right" I would like to balance them out as much as possible.
Praetori
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:54:17 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

Before I change these values we have to be 100% certain that it's applied and used brigade wise so that you can't just add any support brigades to turn an entire division into being immune from air attack though. 1INF+AA+ART+AT+ENG shouldn't dominate the game and be immune to air assault Smile


I agree though currently an infantry brigade is almost impervious to air-attacks unless you hit it 24/7 with TACs while their support units gets slaughtered to 0 ORG (which as far as I understand leads to the division retreating if attacked in ground combat).
I believe the mechanic is supposed to only count brigades with frontage to be included in the calculations for retreat but from what I've witnessed so far the Divisions seem to fall back once any of the involved brigades (including support) reaches zero (and that happens quickly if airpower is involved).

Would it be possible to lower the air defense for INF, MTN and MAR to balance this?

Also did we discuss the dug-in time? As aircraft ignores any dug-in bonus the importance of air-superiority would increase if the dug-in days are increased from say 10 to 12?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:05:15 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:

Regarding SS and Guards:

I'm not quite happy with how the balance out and how you prefer to use them with current stats. ( I need to check if all new elite units cost the same or my points below might not be valid).

- I don't like that SS gets higher org than all other forces in the German Army. They are already motorised. How about putting them down to 50 org along with paras and mountain troops that were at least as effective? Their high speed already makes them better than most other of the new elite units.
- Maybe give Soviet guards 5 or 6 in movement to make the "semi-motorised", give them 50 org along with the rest of Soviet elite units and lessen the city defense bonus a tiny bit say 10%

Would that even them out? SOV will ofc be able to build more Guards than SS since they should have a larger army than Germany but they cost the same (right?) and should be about as good.

I would prefer to have the rangers be support brigades with 1000 Strength, para dropable (already are?) and insane terrain bonuses for historical flavour.

I really don't care that much about other elite units since they will appear in such small numbers. Meddling with elite units at all is of course trivial but they are a real thumb in my eye since their introduction and if we are working to get the mod to feel "right" I would like to balance them out as much as possible.

TFH base values for cost is Guards = 320 ICdays, Waffen SS = 560 ICdays. Guards also has an added bonus of using 10% less manpower then other infantry (3.00 instead of 3.33).
Now in v0.03 Guards also only cost 67% as much officers.
Guards start with 45 org and 60% morale, Waffen SS with 50 org and 50% morale.
Guards have 50% Urban defence and 20% attack, Waffen SS have 15% urban defence and 20% attack.
I don't think giving Guards more speed is motivated balance wise and this would also move them even closer to being a clone of Waffen SS (bad enough as it is imo).

Do we want to go down the route of making Germany/Soviet a special case and adding several more versions of SS and Guards? That is quite a bit work and I'm not sure it's possible to make them distinctive enough. Id probably add different classes like MEC/HARM for Waffen SS - Germany and ARM/SPRArt Guards for Soviet. If we are adding units I would rather prefer to add more generic things like heavy TDs (anti HARM), and AGs (low softness high armor support brigade) first.

Praetori wrote:
I agree though currently an infantry brigade is almost impervious to air-attacks unless you hit it 24/7 with TACs while their support units gets slaughtered

From what I have seen support brigades seem to take 3 times as much damage due to have 1/3 strength.

The only way to REALLY fix it would be to give all brigades the same strength which we for obvious reasons wont do.
I have contemplated redo frontage/combat strength further however:

- Frontline (full frontage): 3000-4000 strength INF/MOT/CAV...
- Support (half frontage): 2000 strength AT/AA/ENG/ARM...
- Indirect fire (no frontage): 1000 strength ART/SPART...

The main motivation would be all weapons at the front taking up frontage, tanks being more vulnerable to air, and AA + other direct support less vulnerable.

Praetori wrote:
0 ORG (which as far as I understand leads to the division retreating if attacked in ground combat). I believe the mechanic is supposed to only count brigades with frontage to be included in the calculations for retreat but from what I've witnessed so far the Divisions seem to fall back once any of the involved brigades (including support) reaches zero (and that happens quickly if airpower is involved).

Needs further testing but my initial feeling is this is wrong, during last game I had a tank brigade get upgraded and land together with full org mec right before battle. The tank division was able to stay in battle even though the armor brigade had 0 org thanks to the Mec/average org being good enough.

Praetori wrote:
Also did we discuss the dug-in time? As aircraft ignores any dug-in bonus the importance of air-superiority would increase if the dug-in days are increased from say 10 to 12?

Aircrafts don't really ignore dug in status of units, it's just doesn't reduce damage as drastically as it does in HoI2 (where it would reduce damage of ground attacks by pretty much 100%).

In v0.03 the land units dig in for 25 days for a maximum of +50% dug in bonus, this bonus should be able to increase land unit AA fire efficiency by 50% and also increase all defense stats (including air_defence) by 50% (in theory, not tested).
Part of the reason for this change was Juv's request for "field fortifications", I can't think of another mod mechanic to better model those then longer/more potent dig in.
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.