Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Creating a MP mod Options · View
enzo
Posted: Sunday, June 09, 2013 10:22:33 AM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
you're perfectly right Alex, the only command I've seen so far is "winter_effect" in the strategic resource fur, but I'm not even sure this can be reused outside of this, I've try in tech doesn't seem to work.
the other idea I have in mind, is to have a brigade with 0 size that will give this bonus, a kind of winter clothes, but again I haven't find a solution to mod this yet.

regarding "general winter" event do you know if it's possible to have the effect of an event apply to a list of province ?
And, Yes your mod is great for mp Smile

have you look to a solution to remove the house rules on trade in pre-war time ? I would like to have something that will force the allies/commintern to sell their resource to axis and axis to sell his supplies, combined with something that limit stockpile as it was done in HPP by Slan.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:47:48 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
OK, I took down 0.04 after discovering a quite serious error I made causing a few of the more important land doctrine effects to be applied twice. Sorry for that!

Should be fine now in 0.05.

Edit: I don't have a save-game to test with though since I didn't take one. If someone has it or can test it would be appreciated.
juv95hrn
Posted: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:21:02 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I'm thinking of some potential changes:

- Increasing late war soft attack on STRAT some. Allied strats were used for tactical bombing with devastating result around D-day. Strat bombers shouldn't be the answer to all issues but they are not historically good enough at tac bombing. Maybe raise their cost even furhter for some more soft attack?

- Increase cost and range of nav bombers? They are good as they are but it doesn't feel very historical that their range is so short. Compare FW-200 condor, B-24 liberators, etc that did service over the Atlantic. Could increasing the range make them overpowered or unbalanced? Cost increase could balance that maybe.

- Maybe Germany need more than 100 MP from the 1943 defensive decision if being close to defeat at that time? It would be for the next campaign so I'm not talking out of self interest.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:07:13 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
I'm thinking of some potential changes:

- Increasing late war soft attack on STRAT some. Allied strats were used for tactical bombing with devastating result around D-day. Strat bombers shouldn't be the answer to all issues but they are not historically good enough at tac bombing. Maybe raise their cost even furhter for some more soft attack?

Yes, strategic bombers managed to turn all many Germany positions (including those not manned at all!) into moon landscapes. But they were notoriously hard aim at tactical targets without flying low and becoming very vulnerable to AA and interception. There was also always a great risk of friendly fire when used near the frontline. I would argue that the strategic bombers knocking out rail lines stopping German reinforcement impacted D-Day 10 times more then any tactical damage they did to the defenses.

Since we can't represent the increased vulnerability of flying low or friendly fire risk in anyway I am not sure increasing their SA by much is a good idea. A few points is not going to unbalance anything given their cost.

juv95hrn wrote:

- Increase cost and range of nav bombers? They are good as they are but it doesn't feel very historical that their range is so short. Compare FW-200 condor, B-24 liberators, etc that did service over the Atlantic. Could increasing the range make them overpowered or unbalanced? Cost increase could balance that maybe.

While it might be historical we also have to ask, is it good for game-balance? Can you imagine what your current German NAVs could achieve if they were given the range to reach Scapa Flow so no base in England is safe? Also is current NAV range really so short? I thought they were the second longest ranged airplane in the game after Strat (surpassed by FTR when they get droptanks).

If we do give them longer range I would like to balance it by bringing IC cost up quite a bit more since they are representing bigger 4 engine planes like the FW-200 and Liberator.

Given the current balancing, IC-cost and practical values I always considered NAV and TAC to be exclusive 2 engine airplanes.

juv95hrn wrote:
- Maybe Germany need more than 100 MP from the 1943 defensive decision if being close to defeat at that time? It would be for the next campaign so I'm not talking out of self interest.

I agree, but so far I have not started with event/decision modding to make it happen. In the same notion we should decrease the Soviet event giving them 3500 manpower a bit I think.
enzo
Posted: Saturday, June 29, 2013 9:14:36 AM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
in our mp group, we have reduce mp to 3000 in great patriotic war decision, and added 500 mp to for the motherland decision.

have you consider to look to what has been done on the weather front by BattosaiSlayer here http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?644581-Are-there-things-possible-to-Mod post #19, I find this very good to reflect the climate in russia (-20° is not rare in Moscow in winter , and rasputitsa season hurt now much more).

on STRAT, usually in mp germany don't research this tech because player has to make choice, how can this be corrected and ensure strat are more attractive for germany ?
juv95hrn
Posted: Sunday, June 30, 2013 4:22:16 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Valid points all Alex. I think Enzos group has a point there.

What about fuel and oil? So far I don't think any nation ever has run short or even had to consider fuel consumption. Is this correct? Increasing unit demand would increase supply demands which might be unbalancing for the entire campaign. But what about adjusting total availablity or conversion rates or something to make the fuel situation a bit strained for the Axis unless they manage to reach new oil sources or at least stock up properly before the war?

We don't want to crippple the Axis of course but my feeling is that fuel and oil plays almost no role at all at the moment. Maybe I am mistaken...
enzo
Posted: Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:42:47 AM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
one more point: i was reading your mp rules, and i see you restrict the use of lowering national unity spy mission while at peace.
I suppose you've done this to avoid the issue of jap, ita and ger reduce sov's UN simultaneously as it can be very easy to have sov surrender

why don't try to handle this through the mod, by for example:

Reduce spy_lower_national_unity to -0.06 instead of -0.1
Reduce spy_raise_national_unity to 0.12 instead of 0.15

what is still missing, i guess, is to increase the chance of a spy being detected while on this mission, but i can't find the right parameter.
cheers,
btw any news of fiendix and mithel ?
juv95hrn
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:44:09 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
I had a thougth on USSR usually being "too low" on LS, especially when losing large parts of their land early in the war...

Would it be possible to add base LS to the training laws? Maybe +1 base per level. It would make minors stronger in the long run but basically USSR and Germany would gain the most (since they are the fastest to rack up 1500 battles). Germany already has a shitload of LS so a few more wont matter much, right? But those extra base LS could be a life saver for the USSR and also they would come along slowly during major war and not be available from 1936 to mess around with early war balance. Would it be possible to mod this and is it a good idea?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:07:52 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
I had a thougth on USSR usually being "too low" on LS, especially when losing large parts of their land early in the war...

Would it be possible to add base LS to the training laws? Maybe +1 base per level. It would make minors stronger in the long run but basically USSR and Germany would gain the most (since they are the fastest to rack up 1500 battles). Germany already has a shitload of LS so a few more wont matter much, right? But those extra base LS could be a life saver for the USSR and also they would come along slowly during major war and not be available from 1936 to mess around with early war balance. Would it be possible to mod this and is it a good idea?

I think it's a great idea to model how leadership used for officers becomes much less of a problem as the practical experience of the army/navy/air-force

The strain on leadership from officers has been crazy the last game for Soviet seeing how air units now also use a considerable amount (and also lose it when in combat).

It is a general buff for the Axis however seeing how all of them can be at war much earlier then the allies and start climbing down this ladder. Especially so for Japan that can farm China and already has pretty awesome leadership amounts.


I will have to take a look at what law effects are valid though, don't think they can give +1 leadership, just +x% which boosts those that are already strong to much Sad
juv95hrn
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:01:44 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Yes. True. Advantage for the Axis. Not sure if that is ok or something we should avoid. Maybe give USA some more base IC to compensate or something...

A LS % bonus in one of the decisions might be what USSR need if this doesn't work. I agree USSR need more LS once the war starts (and if its going badly). If USSR stops the Germans at the border they really don't need it. For the Motherland only triggers when Germany has advanced some so maybe a trigger to that decision with 36 months bonus or something.
enzo
Posted: Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:06:01 PM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
what about something that would add a LS bonus to SOV if MR pact is signed ?
juv95hrn
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:08:24 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
enzo wrote:
what about something that would add a LS bonus to SOV if MR pact is signed ?


Just dl the mod and look at events\soviet.txt and look for"Transfer of Leadership to Siberia", as use that event should all that you need.

I got some feedback regarding this here...




enzo
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2013 10:29:48 AM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
thanks, but to which dl are you referring to ? I can't see any events directory in the rar available on the first page of this thread. did I miss something ?
juv95hrn
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:05:28 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
It refers to Chromos AHOI mod. Sorry I forgot the link to my question at the PI forums:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?726458-New-event-that-gives-SOV-leadership-each-year-at-war-with-the-Axis...
enzo
Posted: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:44:54 PM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
many thanks for the link Smile

question on upgrade cost:
I know they have been reviewed and are now more expensive (which is good), nevertheless due to the inherent mechanism of upgrade it still very interesting to upgrade lvl 1 INF to MOT as soon as you have lvl 3 or more tech for INF as the upgraded unit apart from being a MOT will also benefit of the tech level. all in all it's cheaper to upgrade INF lvl 1 to MOT lvl 3 than spend IC to upgrade INF to lvl 3 and then upgrade to MOT.

I would like to find a way to prevent this kind of "exploit".
cheers
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:26:40 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
enzo wrote:
all in all it's cheaper to upgrade INF lvl 1 to MOT lvl 3 than spend IC to upgrade INF to lvl 3 and then upgrade to MOT.

I would like to find a way to prevent this kind of "exploit".

I don't think there is a way to prevent that. And not sure it should be a high priority either.

But it should still be more expensive to upgrade into MOT compared to building a new MOT if you take into account the opportunity cost of not having two units (upgraded INF lvl 3 + MOT lvl 3) instead. What I mean is that INF -> MOT upgrade + building INF is more expensive then just building an extra MOT.

If there is any comfort upgrading INF from lvl 1 to lvl 3 should actually increase it's base cost by roughly 25%, which would in turn reduce the cost of upgrading slightly (even if not as much as going from lvl 1 to lvl 3 costed).

All in all I see no big exploit here due to how cheap it is to upgrade from lvl 1 to lvl 3 anyways.
Praetori
Posted: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:22:48 AM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Alex_brunius wrote:
I don't think there is a way to prevent that. And not sure it should be a high priority either.

But it should still be more expensive to upgrade into MOT compared to building a new MOT if you take into account the opportunity cost of not having two units (upgraded INF lvl 3 + MOT lvl 3) instead. What I mean is that INF -> MOT upgrade + building INF is more expensive then just building an extra MOT.

If there is any comfort upgrading INF from lvl 1 to lvl 3 should actually increase it's base cost by roughly 25%, which would in turn reduce the cost of upgrading slightly (even if not as much as going from lvl 1 to lvl 3 costed).

All in all I see no big exploit here due to how cheap it is to upgrade from lvl 1 to lvl 3 anyways.


Upgrading while "skipping" a step or two doesn't feel unbalanced at all but rather sound.
If you take a very outdated unit and equip them with the latest weapons and vehicles rather than doing it several times (from 1->2->3 asf) it should be more efficient.
The only way to actually keep a unit on a specific type of unit on its lower level is to turn off its reinforcements and upgrades and that has some drawbacks on its own.
Not researching the techs at all is hardly an option as it will annihilate your theoreticals in any case.

Besides upgrading from INF1 to INF3 is handled by a different mechanic than upgrading the unit to MOT (reinforcement vs production) and doing an actual upgrade will both be affected by current production limitations as well as temporarily remove the unit from play.
juv95hrn
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2013 4:45:24 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Why does MEC have armour rating "0". I see the logic since it is an upgrade from MOT but it hardly feels historical and realistic. It might make them overpowered to give them an armour rating.

How about giving them a low armour rating that protects them from at least MIL, GAR, CAV and increase their cost a bit? Their inherent halftracks, AC and tanks should deserve a rating right? 0 armour on them just feels wrong.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, November 17, 2013 12:57:46 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
juv95hrn wrote:
Why does MEC have armour rating "0". I see the logic since it is an upgrade from MOT but it hardly feels historical and realistic. It might make them overpowered to give them an armour rating.

How about giving them a low armour rating that protects them from at least MIL, GAR, CAV and increase their cost a bit? Their inherent halftracks, AC and tanks should deserve a rating right? 0 armour on them just feels wrong.


Does anyone ever use MEC without AC/LARM or other tanks that would provide equal or more armour to the division anyways?

It's easy to fix and somewhat valid for historical accuracy, but I don't think I have run into any situation where it would actually change anything Smile
juv95hrn
Posted: Sunday, November 17, 2013 9:28:45 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Well if they had arm rating one might use them without but as it stands now, no, of course not. Still I think it is an oversight from PI's side to not include it.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:03:47 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
I see no reason a halftrack should have the same armor ratings that tanks do and don't consider any tanks to be included in the MEC brigades either, except at most a few obsolete light armor refitted for command or recon purposes.

So I would put them around AC armor rating anyways, which is what I meant being able to run MEC on their own with neither tank/TD nor AC support is not likely.

Historically Armored Cars ran with up to 30mm armour and I've never seen a halftrack with thicker then half of that. Halftrack "armor" was not really intended to offer more then protection against shrapnel, ricochets and perhaps sidearms, rifle fire was a real threat for people inside.

This is accomplished by a lower softness stat, but still no Armour stat for protection against even obsolete anti vehicle guns which is fairly accurate actually.
Praetori
Posted: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:14:19 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
I spent some time this morning scripting Soviet Leadership transfer and my idea worked out fine (only preliminary testing of the triggers and method done but everything triggered as expected and results were as intended).

Historically some 17-25 million Soviet citizens were evacuated in 41 and 42 as they were in the path of the advancing German armies. Several thousand companies, universities, scientific institutes etc were moved eastward together with a lot of the Soviet bureaucratic system, foreign embassies etc.
The already present event to evacuate factories only handles IC and doesn't touch Moscow or Leningrad so I've addressed that in the suggestion.

I've not yet finalized the events but the plan is to have 3 different events with some different options each in order to be historically plausible so please tell me what you think.
I could use some help with historical research in any case.

Please keep in mind that these are only suggestions so we can change it to whatever you feel like.
We could also make it very simple and just move all LS to Siberia in one big event that triggers after the industrial evacuation.

Event: Evacuation to Siberia
Triggers when the factories are moved east.
Has three options.
No evacuation: gives a slight NU boost but leaves everything where it is
Only evacuate the intelligentsia: moves most of the LS points in cities between Kiev to Rostov to the Baltic, excluding Leningrad and Moscow, to cities further east (picked on as much historical grounds as possible).
Evacuate everyone (and let NKVD deal with traitors unwilling to move): Moves some 90% of the LS east and also evacuates about 70% of the MP from the same cities as above (though not Leningrad or Moscow).

Leningrad is a bit special as the city (as with Stalingrad) really didn't contribute to the Soviet war effort on a research/resource/industrial scale after the siege began. Now a besieged Leningrad with its IC and MP will still contribute in HOI3.
The city province itself holds pretty limited leadership (compared to Moscow) but in reality all the important centers of research or industrial design were actually evacuated well before the arrival of German forces so it "should" at least move all the leadership.

Event: Leningrad is suffering
Triggers when Axis occupy certain provinces in the vicinity of Leningrad.
Has three options.
Fight for you homes: A pretty historical choice which keeps LS, Industry and MP in Leningrad but raises X militia divisions and adds fortifications to reflect the emergency draft and siege-works done by more than 1 million Soviet civilians that tried to defend the city.
Evacuate the important parts: Removes most Industry and LS from Leningrad along with some of it's MP (most of the deducted is moved east of the Urals).
Leave the Fascists nothing: Removes all Industry, LS and most of the MP from Leningrad (a large portion is moved east). Brings both Harbor, Airbase and INFRA down a couple of levels and. Also causes NU hit and possibly dissent? Also destroys any fortifications?

Event: The Battle for Moscow
Triggers when the Axis are approaching Moscow
Has three options.
Moscow will not fall: The historical choice. Most LS is "secretly" evacuated to Kuybyshev (Samar) and Chkalov (Orenburg) while some IC is lost (to reflect the turmoil when Moscow factories were re-tooled to produce firearms and mines for the defenses. 12 militia divisions are spawned to reflect the 100.000 strong ad-hoc force drafted by Moscow's defense council on Stalin and Zhukov's orders (in reality it also contained some 10 AT regiments and 5 armored brigades formed from the populace and shattered forces).
Fortifications are spawned inside the historical Maloiaroslavets fortification area to reflect the gargantuan forced-labor and drafted civilian effort to improve the defenses.
Evacuate the important parts, but quietly or we'll have mass panic: Evacuates most of the LS and IC to the East.
Moscow will not be a Prize: Evacuates most of the city's LS and most of its IC and some MP further east while destroying the rest and lowers the Airbases and INFRA. Gives a negative X% LS modifier for a month or two and lowers NU with X.

I've also done some thinking on how to handle the entire Soviet stockpile of resources when/if Moscow falls. It's not really realistic to have every single piece of fuel, oil etc stacked in the Kremlin so maybe something can be done to address this?
Also we can do whatever we want with events such as these. If we want to give the US extra manpower IF the Axis land in Britain we can and so forth.
enzo
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:49:00 AM
 Private

Joined: 4/28/2013
Posts: 11
Hi,
do you have the exact formula for AVOID HIT/AVOID HIT AT NO DEF parameters in define.lua apparently it doesn't work with sea_defense, especially true with sub vs capital ship ?
exemple:
base_chance_to_avoid_hit 100
sea_defense 100 for sub unit
in theory this mean sub are never hit, in game there is no change with usual value base_chance of 80 and sea_defense around 12.

is there something like chance_to_avoid_hit_if_defense_left = base_chance_to_avoid_hit + attacker_leader_bonus - defender_leader_bonus ?
any clues ?
thanks
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.