Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Creating a MP mod Options · View
juv95hrn
Posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:38:30 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Sorry I was to lazy to check up on SS and Guard costs. With SS being more costly I agree that they can probably stay as they are.

I really wish you could *upgrade* from normal troops into Guards of all sorts but of course that won't happen. And the same with SS. But since PI decided to do a sloppy job just to be able to mark another pointless feature in their expansion let us leave it as it is, however unsatisfactory it feels.


Longer dig-in time:
- favours the defender
- rewards planning ahead
- Simulates field fortifications

if it makes units even more protected from air attacks as well I think that is fine too.

I thought late war air attacks could eliminate dug-in land units if you left them alone? Say German garrisons in France in 1944 or so? I don't mind them being shot up losing org some, infra going to smitherens but eliminating entire divisions, like in HOI2, is excaggerated. Not sure if you still can do this in TFH though.


Did we settle on 7% per fort level? Considering how realtively easy Gibraltar fell both times maybe 8% this time around?


EDIT:

Discussing speed of units made me think of:

Engineers. Will often slow down other mechanised forces, MOT, LARM, MEC and AC. Realistic and balanced or should they get +0.10 from LARM engines (easy) or +0.05 from each ENG tech (hard)? Not sure what I think is the best option.

HQs. Why are there no mechanised HQs that can keep up with non-infatnry formations? What is the top speed HQs end up with? They start around 4kph. Would it be possible in any way to increase HQ speed artifically when attached to some other unit type? I mean there is no reason to make them speed 8 or so all on their own. Maybe a new tech they -mechanised HQ- are upgradeable into that costs some IC and increases their speed. Or a dedicated new unit that will increase HQ speed substantially that you can build and attach to it. Just throwing things out here.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:23:32 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
I thought late war air attacks could eliminate dug-in land units if you left them alone? Say German garrisons in France in 1944 or so? I don't mind them being shot up losing org some, infra going to smitherens but eliminating entire divisions, like in HOI2, is excaggerated. Not sure if you still can do this in TFH though.

It certainly still can devastate entire divisions in TFH, the group of 4 TAC bombers Germany has fielded on the east front this campaign can in my experience destroy around 5-10% strength per day of a lone soft infantry division targeted. This should be equal to 15-30% strength per day of a lone brigade.

It's not quite as bad as in HoI2, in HoI3 divisions will not be eliminated but will shatter and the only loss is manpower attrition and minor IC for reinforcements.

juv95hrn wrote:

Did we settle on 7% per fort level? Considering how realtively easy Gibraltar fell both times maybe 8% this time around?

Gibraltar fell easily both times because lack of support and only being defended by 2-3 divisions against 20-30 attacking divisions and assaults from hostile bombers. Gibraltar can also be assaulted from no less then 3 directions on the HoI3 map, which makes it very vulnerable.
Before raising the fort values I think we also should remember that Singapore defenses managed to repulse the Japanese attacks by MAR+ENG and UK held North Africa against a full corps of the most elite German armor led by fort buster leaders and supported by engineers. These are locations that can only really be attacked from a single direction over land, and were forts can have a bigger impact.

I vote against raising fort effect further before we can evaluate the effect of 50% dug in cap, combined with all other changes that now favor defending greatly. If anything I'm suspecting we should rather be looking to reduce fort effect further instead.


juv95hrn wrote:

Discussing speed of units made me think of:

Engineers. Will often slow down other mechanised forces, MOT, LARM, MEC and AC. Realistic and balanced or should they get +0.10 from LARM engines (easy) or +0.05 from each ENG tech (hard)? Not sure what I think is the best option.

A valid point. ENG and MOT start with the same base speed (8.00) and I do think it's in the spirit of the game they should be able to advance at the same speeds. So I added a +0.2 km/h gain from LARM engines just like MOT get.

I also spotted that light armor tech slow MOT down which I think makes no sense, so I removed the armor effecting MOT (trucks only used for transport should not effect actual fighting stats). This should lead to slightly faster MOT units (0.1km/h per 2 years).


juv95hrn wrote:
HQs. Why are there no mechanised HQs that can keep up with non-infatnry formations? What is the top speed HQs end up with? They start around 4kph. Would it be possible in any way to increase HQ speed artifically when attached to some other unit type? I mean there is no reason to make them speed 8 or so all on their own. Maybe a new tech they -mechanised HQ- are upgradeable into that costs some IC and increases their speed. Or a dedicated new unit that will increase HQ speed substantially that you can build and attach to it. Just throwing things out here.

HQs in vanilla start out at 3km/h base speed and gain 0.5km/h for every 2 years doctrine research in mobile warfare. This puts them at speed 4km/h in 1936 and speed 5km/h in 1940.

In v0.03 I upped the doctrine gain to 1.0km/h meaning they should be able to reach 5km/h in 1936 and 7km/h in 1940. By 1944 you should have HQs able to keep up with fully mechanized formations in 9km/h. (one of those minor edits that didn't make it to the changelog, sorry).

Other units that only effect HQs are not possible to my knowledge, any such brigade would boost speed of the entire division regardless of makeup (akin to ACs).

In the current solution all your HQs will become mechanized gradually as you research the mobile warfare doctrine.
Do you want me to increase the HQ base speed by 1km/h more for v0.04?

juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:41:26 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Forts:

Good point. I think CMP should have limited land access to Gibraltar. 3 adjecent land provinces is neither balanced or realistic. Put river or strait on 2 of them and it would have been better.


HQs:

These should always be considered motorized units right and as such they shouldn't slow down other units very often. I think your suggestion is sound and vote to raise it.





More:

I am a strong believer that unlimited time at war in Ethiopia and China is not a problem balance wise, as this campaign shows if nothing else. But what if USA gobble up all of South America? What if USSR attacks all its neighbours from Danzig and lowers USAs neutrality and makes them join way too early? Also allies invading Norway, Switzerland and other "neutrals" doesn't feel quite right.

What can we do regarding DOWs and neutrals? What house rules do we need? (Can't really remember what ones we used in this campaign when writing this but will check.) It would be nice to hit allies with dissent for DOWs on non-historical targets.

Praetori
Posted: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:44:19 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
juv95hrn wrote:
Forts:

Good point. I think CMP should have limited land access to Gibraltar. 3 adjecent land provinces is neither balanced or realistic. Put river or strait on 2 of them and it would have been better.


HQs:

These should always be considered motorized units right and as such they shouldn't slow down other units very often. I think your suggestion is sound and vote to raise it.





More:

I am a strong believer that unlimited time at war in Ethiopia and China is not a problem balance wise, as this campaign shows if nothing else. But what if USA gobble up all of South America? What if USSR attacks all its neighbours from Danzig and lowers USAs neutrality and makes them join way too early? Also allies invading Norway, Switzerland and other "neutrals" doesn't feel quite right.

What can we do regarding DOWs and neutrals? What house rules do we need? (Can't really remember what ones we used in this campaign when writing this but will check.) It would be nice to hit allies with dissent for DOWs on non-historical targets.



I have no issue with the Allies invading Norway once they're at war with Germany (as it could've happened).
I do believe that Norway is a bit underrepresented in importance as Steel from Sweden is A: Not dependant on sea-ice and B: The Axis rarely have issues with steel anyway.
To make the theater a bit more intesteresting it would be fun to add Tungsten to Narvik (to emulate the benefits of controlling the ice-free port and railroad to Kiruna) or possibly adding a bunch of Rares to Narvik.
The best way to solve it would be a strategic effect with benefints to the holder of key provinces (bonus to metal, basing and intel?) but that would need some scripting.

I agree that China and Ethiopia is not that much of a big deal (and ending the war and going to peace will mess up the starting laws, that in my oppinion shouldn't be there in the first place).
The USSR is dependant on getting a few wars in order to keep the leadership up but this can possibly be compensated by modifying the "evacuation of industry" event by moving LS from the western Soviet cities eastwards.
So I'm ok with houserules to keep the game semi-historical when it comes to invasions by Allies and commies.

Would it be possible to make a new HQ unit that you can upgrade an existing HQ brigade to? Because if this is possible then paradroppable HQs would be possible as well as Specialist HQs like marines, armor etc.
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:02:24 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
More rares in Narvik or something that makes it more attractive would be nice but Im not sure we should mess with the map at all. If you could attack the USSR lend lease convoy from northern Norway (maybe you can?) that theatre would have a function in itself but I'm not sure.

But as far as USSR I dont want them to start lots of wars that makes USA enter in 1939 or early 1940 no matter how much LS USSR needs.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:13:17 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

Good point. I think CMP should have limited land access to Gibraltar. 3 adjecent land provinces is neither balanced or realistic. Put river or strait on 2 of them and it would have been better.

If I could rewrite the map Gibraltar would have 1 adjacent zone and Singapore 2 (with river) given how UK historically thought it not possible to defend and surrendered, and given the result of the current game.

juv95hrn wrote:

HQs:

These should always be considered motorized units right and as such they shouldn't slow down other units very often. I think your suggestion is sound and vote to raise it.

Raised their base speed by 1 in v0.04 and also added fuel consumtion to them from mobile warfare doctrine. So if you ignore that doctrine speeding them up you retain normal infantry HQs, and if you do go for that doctrine you gradually get motorized HQs.
(0.25 fuel use and 9km/h speed by 1942 doctrine levels).

I did not dare to add more fuel use without risking tanking global fuel supply (might not be a bad idea), due to how the AI loves to spam HQs. (1000 HQs on the map equals 250 global daily fuel use extra in 1942 if they all move).

One upside of HQs using fuel is that you can also put them in ports and airbases to get a small amount of fuel stockpiled there (very minor, but enough to make planes fly and ships steam for a day or two after rebasing to the base).

Praetori wrote:
Would it be possible to make a new HQ unit that you can upgrade an existing HQ brigade to? Because if this is possible then paradroppable HQs would be possible as well as Specialist HQs like marines, armor etc.

Possible? yes I think so, but making 3 more units would take many hours work instead of a few min, all units need to be defined, triggered by research, have graphics, models and so on and on and on.
It would also increase micromanagement (where did I put that HQ?). In the end I'm not sure that solution is worth it.

juv95hrn wrote:

More:

I am a strong believer that unlimited time at war in Ethiopia and China is not a problem balance wise, as this campaign shows if nothing else. But what if USA gobble up all of South America? What if USSR attacks all its neighbours from Danzig and lowers USAs neutrality and makes them join way too early? Also allies invading Norway, Switzerland and other "neutrals" doesn't feel quite right.

What can we do regarding DOWs and neutrals? What house rules do we need? (Can't really remember what ones we used in this campaign when writing this but will check.) It would be nice to hit allies with dissent for DOWs on non-historical targets.

juv95hrn wrote:
But as far as USSR I dont want them to start lots of wars that makes USA enter in 1939 or early 1940 no matter how much LS USSR needs.

Would it be plausible to use increased USA neutrality as a punishment if Soviet or the Allies goes on a DoW spree against certain nations? (I'm thinking mostly Spain, Romania, Turkey, Sweden).

The logic being that if the Allies + Soviet are equally aggressive that Germany is the US sees no point in joining the European war but considers them all as equally bad-guys that are best left to resolve their bickering inside their own family. Perhaps also increase the threat of Japan to model USA turning their eyes towards the far east instead as a result.


And is USA actually able to attack south american nations (with their high neutrality) until they are already in the war?

juv95hrn wrote:
If you could attack the USSR lend lease convoy from northern Norway (maybe you can?)


Currently I think the lendlease goes to Vladivostok/Pacific only (but you hey you guys are the allies here, not me). The only way to force it to Murmansk would probably be to remove all USSR far east ports (not an option I think).
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:25:21 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
More rares in Narvik or something that makes it more attractive would be nice but Im not sure we should mess with the map at all.

I struggled a few hours today trying to put a new strategic resource there "Swedish ironore", only to discover "metal_production" is not a valid effect :S Should have tested that first -_-...
But now at least I know how to add a new strategic resource if we just can find out what effects are valid, for now it's +15% all resources, which should at least make it attractive for all sides.

The reason I wanted a strategic resource is because it can be bombed and taken over by everyone (unlike a strategic effect which can't be bombed and is available only to nations scripted for it).

So I made some investigation in the feasibility of actually bombing Narvik... (real distance 1450km from Scapa Flow, HoI3 distance 1370km).
And those distances reminded me of an earlier problem with strategic bombing ranges in HoI3 I haven't dealt with in this mod yet. (Making a historical 1944-45 bombing campaign on Japanese mainland from Saipan is impossible since you need 1400km range bombers to reach Nagasaki & Hiroshima)

Would it make Strategic Bombers overpowered if their ranges was increased to better match historical ones?

Currently STR gain +150km range per 2 year from fueltanks but lose 50km from engines.
This means 1943 models have 1100km range and 1945 models 1200km range.

I suggest increasing the base range by 100km (to 900km) and techgain to +200km per 2 year so 1943 models would have 1350km range and 1945 models 1500km range.
Marine
Posted: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:42:04 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Suggestions on new Aircraft Ranges in the Multiplayer mod:

Strategic Bomber: 900km as base range and then +200km every 2 years.
Claim: Bombing of mainland Japan from Saipan(Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Sasebo 1945).

Multi-Role Fighter: 400km(Org) 500km as base range and then +150km every 2 years.
Source: It was not until the introduction of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt that the bombing raids could claim a measure of success. Able to carry large Lockheed-designed drop tanks, the fighters were able to escort the bombers for much of their missions. The first Allied fighters over Berlin were 55th Fighter Group P-38s on March 3, 1944. When the Merlin-powered North American P-51 Mustang was introduced, with a laminar-flow wing for efficiency, the final escort fighter development of the war was complete. In the game it almost 900km to Berlin from bases in the east of England.

Tactical Bomber: 400km(Org) Not finished yet.

Interceptor: 220km(Org) Not finished yet.

Naval Bomber: 400km(Org) Not finished yet.

CAS: 200km(Org) Not finished yet.

CAG: 450km(Org) Not finished yet.

Transport Plane: 500km(Org) 900km as base range and then +250km every 2 years.
Source: The first United States airborne combat mission occurred during Operation Torch in North Africa on 8 November 1942. 531 men of the U.S. 2nd Battalion 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment flew over 1,600 miles (2,600 km) at night from Britain, over Spain, intending to drop near Oran and capture two airfields. In the game it´s almost 1400km to Oran from bases in the south of England.

Rocket Interceptor: 150km Not finished yet.

Not finished yet means that I have not had the time yet to look up this types of aircrafts.
Feel free and come with more suggestions on new ranges.
Thank you Alex for taking up this about aircraft ranges in HOI3, that I have wanted to change for a long time now.
I have always wanted to reach and bomb targets that they could bomb in WW2.
Maybe we don´t want to change to much ,but a overhaul is not wrong I think or?
Is there a deadline on version 0.04 Alex?

I will edit in more in this post when I can.

/Marine
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:48:06 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
Somewhere in there we also need to take into account gameplay balance and not just historical numbers.

Transport airplanes with 2600km range for example is not something I plan on including. Partially because it's silly (allowing airdrops based in Berlin to drop paras in Moscow, Scapa Flow, Suez, Gibraltar) and partially because you can already achieve that historical result by basing your transport planes in Gibraltar instead.

We also needs to take into account different nations models aswell, the Ju 52 had a range of 1000km, which gives it a drop radius of less then 500km.
Most of Germany's transport airplanes seem to have had fairly short range.

The first real longrange transport that I know of was the C-47 that entered service end 1941/beginning 1942.

The airplane it was based on DC3 (Li-2) was available in 1939 but as I understand mostly in shorter range configurations with similar range to the Ju 52.


Edit: Apparently Japan also built their own licensed version of the DC3, (L2D) configured for much longer range (available from 1940), this configuration should be able to make combat drops almost 1500km away.


I should also mentioned that I reduced IC costs of all airplanes by 25% to promote airforce in general as a more cost effective weapon. Their build-time remains constant though.

The Deadline for v0.04 is when we want to start a new campaign Smile
Marine
Posted: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:17:44 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I´m sorry I got carried away Sad

Of course we also have to consider game play and balance.

Also you are right if you want to jump and it is to far away ,well then you just have to take a base closer Smile

I did not know about the 25 % reduced airplane costs. That s great news Smile

We all have to live with having different opinions ,but that´s alright Smile

It´s the same for everyone.

Let´s make this a good mod that all can agree on Smile

So let´s come with more suggestions for the mod Smile

/Marine

juv95hrn
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:46:54 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
training laws:

Is 15% build time not better sometimes than 5% starting experience and even 10%?

Is there a reason that the default law is -15% build time instead of just normal build time?

Are there too few units on map when war starts otherwise? Doesn't decreased build time just mean that campaigns end prematurly compared to the historical span?

I might have missed something but I don't feel its quite balanced atm.

What about:

0% exp +-0% build time, starting law
5% exp, +5% build time, 300 battles
10% exp, +10% build time, 600 battles

etc etc
Praetori
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:36:31 AM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
juv95hrn wrote:
training laws:

Is 15% build time not better sometimes than 5% starting experience and even 10%?

Is there a reason that the default law is -15% build time instead of just normal build time?

Are there too few units on map when war starts otherwise? Doesn't decreased build time just mean that campaigns end prematurly compared to the historical span?

I might have missed something but I don't feel its quite balanced atm.

What about:

0% exp +-0% build time, starting law
5% exp, +5% build time, 300 battles
10% exp, +10% build time, 600 battles

etc etc


Decreased build time means better practicals faster which (for the USSR or China for example) is vital in order to build an army large enough (as they start out with terrible practicals in many areas).
The real problem is that the laws are identical across all nations but the end-effect will vary greatly depending on timeframe, units built and which nation we're talking about.
I haven't looked into the details of the latest mod-update but 0% experience with normal training feels a bit odd (even though as you say it might make sense, game-balance wise).
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:21:31 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Praetori wrote:
Decreased build time means better practicals faster which (for the USSR or China for example) is vital in order to build an army large enough (as they start out with terrible practicals in many areas).
The real problem is that the laws are identical across all nations but the end-effect will vary greatly depending on timeframe, units built and which nation we're talking about.
I haven't looked into the details of the latest mod-update but 0% experience with normal training feels a bit odd (even though as you say it might make sense, game-balance wise).


Yes. I feel this is part of the problem. The current set up benefits certain nations more than others and I don't feel that is the reason the laws exist. They should exist to allow nations with better fighting "culture", ie. GER more than others, to maintain an advantasge due to more exerienced troops whereas now they allow the USSR to build a larger army. Not sure of course but I have a feeling they could be better balanced than now.
Praetori
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:08:11 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Alex_brunius wrote:
I struggled a few hours today trying to put a new strategic resource there "Swedish ironore", only to discover "metal_production" is not a valid effect :S Should have tested that first -_-...
But now at least I know how to add a new strategic resource if we just can find out what effects are valid, for now it's +15% all resources, which should at least make it attractive for all sides.

The reason I wanted a strategic resource is because it can be bombed and taken over by everyone (unlike a strategic effect which can't be bombed and is available only to nations scripted for it).

So I made some investigation in the feasibility of actually bombing Narvik... (real distance 1450km from Scapa Flow, HoI3 distance 1370km).
And those distances reminded me of an earlier problem with strategic bombing ranges in HoI3 I haven't dealt with in this mod yet. (Making a historical 1944-45 bombing campaign on Japanese mainland from Saipan is impossible since you need 1400km range bombers to reach Nagasaki & Hiroshima)

Would it make Strategic Bombers overpowered if their ranges was increased to better match historical ones?

Currently STR gain +150km range per 2 year from fueltanks but lose 50km from engines.
This means 1943 models have 1100km range and 1945 models 1200km range.

I suggest increasing the base range by 100km (to 900km) and techgain to +200km per 2 year so 1943 models would have 1350km range and 1945 models 1500km range.


Sounds nice although the speed of the bombers could be decreased somewhat to allow for multiple interceptions and prevent more than one sortie per bomber wing and day.

I tested the latest 0.3 version and beating France as Germany seems a lot tougher now (both the dig-in and attack pace slows down advances to a more manageable pace).
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:46:54 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
Praetori wrote:
Decreased build time means better practicals faster which (for the USSR or China for example) is vital in order to build an army large enough (as they start out with terrible practicals in many areas).
The real problem is that the laws are identical across all nations but the end-effect will vary greatly depending on timeframe, units built and which nation we're talking about.

I haven't looked into the details of the latest mod-update but 0% experience with normal training feels a bit odd (even though as you say it might make sense, game-balance wise).


The laws have the following name and effect in v0.03:

minimal_training, 0% xp, buildtime -15%
basic_training, 5% xp
standard_training, 10% xp
quality_training, 15% xp
advanced_training, 20% xp
specialist_training, 25% xp

I agree with Juv it's a bit too steep change from minimal to basic, so changed it to the following in v0.04:

minimal_training, 0% xp, buildtime -5%
basic_training, 5% xp
standard_training, 10% xp, buildtime+5%
quality_training, 15% xp, buildtime+10%
advanced_training, 20% xp, buildtime+15%
specialist_training, 25% xp, buildtime +20%
juv95hrn
Posted: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:51:33 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I like this.

Now you have more of a reason to change from minimal to basic when you can. And keep upgrading later on.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:15:34 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
v 0.04 uploaded.

NOTE: This version is not savegame compatible due to changes in units (Heavy TD added) and strategic resources (Narvik Swedish Ironore effect added).
juv95hrn
Posted: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:35:14 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Some ideas for 0.05

The infantry equipment techs are not very attractive.

Arctic:

* +attack/defence in blizzard and arctic
* + movement in snow/blizzard/arctic (ski and pulka equipped?)

Amphibious:

* + 5% or 10% Attack rivers (With the lowering of marines I don't think this is too much)
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:28:37 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
Some ideas for 0.05

The infantry equipment techs are not very attractive.

Arctic:

* +attack/defence in blizzard and arctic
* + movement in snow/blizzard/arctic (ski and pulka equipped?)

You can't make separate attack/defence with weather like you can with terrain, only efficiency changes.
In fact I'm not even 100% it's possible you can change weather effects such as cold and mud with techs at all, can you find some other place or mod where this is done so I can see the syntax?

With weather I only think there is cold and mud actually affecting land combat, and the degree depends on how cold and how muddy, not a set amount, so It's unlikely you can change it with any set amount either or a multiplier.


juv95hrn wrote:

Amphibious:

* + 5% or 10% Attack rivers (With the lowering of marines I don't think this is too much)

The Idea of lowering marines efficiency for rivers was to make engineers specialized rivers and marines specialized on amphibious.

But if we want to even it out wouldn't it make more sense in that case to give marines bonus to river crossing from engineer river crossing equipment? (And engineers amphibious bonus from amphibious equipment?)
Praetori
Posted: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:49:53 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
juv95hrn wrote:
Some ideas for 0.05

The infantry equipment techs are not very attractive.

Arctic:

* +attack/defence in blizzard and arctic
* + movement in snow/blizzard/arctic (ski and pulka equipped?)

Amphibious:

* + 5% or 10% Attack rivers (With the lowering of marines I don't think this is too much)


I would definitively like to see some modifications to the warfare equipment techs. The attrition lowering is kinda pointless when the attrition is so low.
As the terrain mod is simply "frozen" and Snow has no real impact I don't know about movement increase (an entire division doesn't move along by skis and sleigh with any great speed) but some sort of combat bonus would surely be in order.
Finland should definitively get some starting bonus for the tech if implemented (would give them an edge vs USSR).

Regarding the amphibious equipment I would love to see it give some slight bonus to armor, but river bonuses for INF or MAR seems a bit cake-on-cake as Engineers have the bridging techs, maybe for armor though (snorkels, winches etc).

Basically the same with the Jungle and Desert techs. Maybe a slight supply bonus for Desert and some sort of movement boni for Jungle (to reflect chainsaws, bulldozers, trained specialists etc).
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:12:45 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Where is my mind. Yes, river crossing bonus for LARM and ARM was my thought actually. Totally agree.

I have a very vague idea how much -1% attrition means in MP savings. Does anyone know?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:49:46 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
I have a very vague idea how much -1% attrition means in MP savings. Does anyone know?

Let's start with some game observations, how much men each day do a 3000 strength brigade lose due to attrition? This we should be able to observe now by spending 100% reinforcement and watch rear units not engaged in combat or engaged by enemy bombers.

1.36% attrition = 2998 strength
1.87% attrition = 2997 strength

It's logical to assume that attrition should be about how much is lost per month, these numbers roughly corresponds to that.

If I have 100 brigades of infantry (3.33 manpower each) stuck in attrition 3% terrain, then 1% less attrition should save me 3.33 manpower per month, reducing my loss from 10mp down to 6.67mp.
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:13:07 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
That is substantial but how often do you have 100 brigades stuck in arctic or mountains? I suppose jungle and desert would be useful for the relevant nations though.
enzo
Posted: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:28:50 AM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
Hello,
what would be interesting is to have a bonus that can have effect on the weather rather the terrain. a kind of tech like "winter clothes" or "summer clothes".
artic warfare tech as it is today is not very interesting as they are very few combat in this zone.

btw, back on the forum with a new login after some years, I use to participate to the MEM mod on HoI 2 with Mithel/Fiendix some years ago
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:07:33 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
That is substantial but how often do you have 100 brigades stuck in arctic or mountains? I suppose jungle and desert would be useful for the relevant nations though.

100 brigades just 33 divisions or 6 corps.

It also helps us judge how good the attrition reducing tech is that lowers it by 5% per month.
If you entire army of 500 brigades suffer an average 1.5% attrition then the first tech level will lower it to 95% (1.425%) and will save us around 1.25 manpower per month.

enzo wrote:
Hello,
what would be interesting is to have a bonus that can have effect on the weather rather the terrain. a kind of tech like "winter clothes" or "summer clothes".
artic warfare tech as it is today is not very interesting as they are very few combat in this zone.

btw, back on the forum with a new login after some years, I use to participate to the MEM mod on HoI 2 with Mithel/Fiendix some years ago

WB, as I wrote before I am not sure it's possible to even do that, since the weather effects are gradual. I have not found any mod that manages to have techs impact weather. The only implementation I know of is through hacks like "general winter" style events giving certain global effects to attack/defense between specific pre determined months. If you have seen otherwise please let me know so I can take a look at it Smile
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.