Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Scandinavian MP Mod (HoI4) Options · View
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 1:22:44 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356


Current Mod in Use:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=840042485

+ 1.3.2 Beta patch












Old post:
Here is a first suggestion for a Balance mod to "fix" air casualties for strategic bombing and make naval invasions harder.

Changes:
NAVAL_SUPREMACY_CAN_INVADE = 0.5 -> 0.9
COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE = 2 -> 8


Without the mod:
1000 Strategic bombers vs 800 fighters (air sup mission) = 4 bombers shot down for 9 fighters.
With the mod:
1000 Strategic bombers vs 800 fighters (air sup mission) = 37 bombers shot down for 51 fighters.

( Above done with 1936 equipment and is the result of combat over 30 days )

File Attachment(s):
Scandinavian MP mod.rar (1kb) downloaded 21 time(s).


Marine
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 3:34:23 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Those numbers of planes shot down sounds much better I think.
What about naval bombers are they also going to be shot down more then or?
Beethoven
Posted: Sunday, January 08, 2017 7:03:13 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Those losses still seem too low, at least from a gameplay/balance perspective. I presume those are from continuous air combat? If so, consider that the person who is strategically bombing will likely move around their bombers, and when they do, the fighters won't be able to engage them until they switch to the same air zone. Since the losses are quite low to begin with, this means whoever is trying to defend against strats is stuck in micro hell the entire game, but even if they pay very close attention to the micro of constantly rebasing and reassigning their planes, they will still do very little to stop the strat bombing.

For reference, in a historical MP game organized on the paradox, Baddospirito made a similar air mod, and set that same COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE to 12. Still, even that higher value may be a bit too low, but I think that is closer to the right balance.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818969822
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Sunday, January 08, 2017 10:46:49 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Alex_brunius wrote:
Here is a first suggestion for a Balance mod to "fix" air casualties for strategic bombing and make naval invasions harder.

Changes:
NAVAL_SUPREMACY_CAN_INVADE = 0.5 -> 0.9
COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE = 2 -> 8


Without the mod:
1000 Strategic bombers vs 800 fighters (air sup mission) = 4 bombers shot down for 9 fighters.
With the mod:
1000 Strategic bombers vs 800 fighters (air sup mission) = 37 bombers shot down for 51 fighters.

( Above done with 1936 equipment and is the result of combat over 30 days )


I would take a look at the ships ability to damage aircraft as well, there are values in the defines to make ships shoot down more aircraft. Historically ships did shout down a fair number of them. Since ships can't protect other ships they need to be a bit more deadly when they do are attacked to simulate that they do manage to inflict some damage.
Demosthenes
Posted: Sunday, January 08, 2017 11:10:22 AM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
Thanks Alex!
How about the disruption values?
Marine
Posted: Sunday, January 08, 2017 6:16:28 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I will here put in what Mods I probably will be using when we play MP, if it´s okay(The Thread is about MOD Smile )

Bigger Mapcounter V.1.3.1 Ironman
Not at the same time as the one with NATO Counters.

Från <http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=835625703>

Hearts of Iron IV: Historical Flags
THis one is not at the same time as the other flag mod.

Från <http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818758734>

HOIIP - NATO Template Counters

Från <http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=768448576>

Icons for plane

Från <http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=709144835>


Adiya's Historical Flag Pack

Från <http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=699302152&searchtext=flag+mod>

I had one before about clearer map terrain ,but i don't use it anymore.

If you have any mods that you use that you want to share please do ,but they have to be MP compatible

Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, January 09, 2017 10:59:51 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Demosthenes wrote:
Thanks Alex!
How about the disruption values?


Another test I did suggested that the reduced disruptions from escorted strategic bombers increased damage by ~+50%, compared to un-escorted bombers ( both tests with the modded values). I have also observed that using the interception mission can lead to better results vs escorted bombers.

But, I haven't been able to make much sense from the actual "disruption" values shown ingame though, so I didn't look at them.

If anyone of you want to upload the mod to the workshop ( if you want it to be used ), feel free to do so, since I won't be able to support the mod on my vacation if further tweaks are or additions needed.
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:01:01 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
Any chance we could also include No Man's land?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:04:31 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Demosthenes wrote:
Any chance we could also include No Man's land?


Might be easier to just use the one from Baddospirito (which includes no mans land and is uploaded on steam) in that case? And ask if he is OK with updating the Naval Supremacy defines?
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:10:34 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
Well that one changes a lot of stuff which I haven't tried.
Marine
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:47:53 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

Should we use the new BETA Hotfix ,that just got out today 1.3.2 or?
It fixes some things that has been annoying.

Change log:

- Fixed CTD when double clicking the first factory in a line superduperfast to reset factories
- AI now much better at respecting airbase size limits
- Improved AI management of air missions
- Deployment is now allowed in locations where it supposed to, regardless if your capital state is not owned by you.
- Fixed huge slow down and eternal freeze in the peace conference.
- Lowered air combat delay so that some areas will still see combat even though caught in extreme time zones.
- Crusader Kings 2 achievement now requires correct states
- Rebalanced air combat for increased air casualties
- Air accidents should no longer happen in peacetime
- Added CTD safety for voice over playing in case player has some broken sound drivers
- Fixed potential CTD in clearing country resources on civil war starts
- Fixed a manpower transfer issue causing units to disappear after peaceful annexation (like the Anchluss)
- Fixed issue with Australia demanding New Zealand causing Australia to be kicked out of any faction it is currently in
- Fixed two typos in Indian focus tree/ideas
- Tech tree now refresh after switching tag (when choosing to play as new puppet) which made some achievements tricky
- Transfer ship effect (like in NZL focuses) no longer sometimes transfers wrong ships (or whole fleets Big Grin)
- French language translation fixes.
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:52:39 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=840003735

I made this combining no man's land and this changes:
COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE = 12
NAVAL_SUPREMACY_CAN_INVADE = 0.9

I'd like to work on this to increase winter effect, reduce air supperiority given by non-fighter air units, possibly nerf basic equipment and fix the naval overstacking, which doesn't work atm.
But for now this should do.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:07:31 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE = 12


Be careful when using this in combination with the changes made in the BETA patch since that also modify another defines which also increase air casualties.

HOURS_DELAY_AFTER_EACH_COMBAT also was halved ( probably to fix this issue: "Lowered air combat delay so that some areas will still see combat even though caught in extreme time zones." ), which means that the air combat simulation happens twice as often as in 1.3.1

COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE in the BETA patch seems to be 6
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:14:57 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
I'll test it. If beta already works then I'll only change the navy thing for now.
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:37:20 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
Beta seems to work.
Fighters don't even disrupt strats though. AA does nothing. You need Heavy Fighters.

Anyhow, updated the mod: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=840042485
Has no man's land and the naval invasion fix.
Beethoven
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:28:20 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Demosthenes wrote:
Beta seems to work.
Fighters don't even disrupt strats though. AA does nothing. You need Heavy Fighters.

Anyhow, updated the mod: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=840042485
Has no man's land and the naval invasion fix.


Did you test explicitly if heavy fighters do actually work against strats? Or are you just saying that since light fighters don't work against strats, presumably you need heavies?
BaddoSpirito
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:38:53 PM
Recruit

Joined: 1/11/2017
Posts: 3
The only two changes I could see are HOURS_DELAY_AFTER_EACH_COMBAT is halved and COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE is 6. This is effectively same as setting COMBAT_MAX_WINGS_AT_ONCE to 12 previously. That's a sensible casualty rate but disruption is still crap so strats are still OP.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:42:33 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Beethoven wrote:
Did you test explicitly if heavy fighters do actually work against strats? Or are you just saying that since light fighters don't work against strats, presumably you need heavies?


When you write "don't work" I assume you mean they shoot down 0 strats and are totally broken?

That has never been my observation in any version of the game I tested so far, Fighters always shoot down and disrupt some strategic bombers, and they have always shot down more MIC worth of Strategic bombers then the fighters lost are worth, even if you use lower tech fighters.
Beethoven
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:44:47 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Alex_brunius wrote:
When you write "don't work" I assume you mean they shoot down 0 strats and are totally broken?

That has never been my observation in any version of the game I tested so far, Fighters always shoot down and disrupt some strategic bombers, and they have always shot down more MIC worth of Strategic bombers then the fighters lost are worth, even if you use lower tech fighters.


I haven't tested anything with the new hotfix, or this particular mod. I was just commenting on Demosthenes post/asking him.

However, I did test the strat losses in Baddo's mod for his saturday game, and concluded from that that strat bombers were not worth it (for Australia, rushing 1944 strats to have them in July 1937 with Australia's broken research bonuses), because they took too high losses in comparison to the losses that light fighters took in shooting them down.
Anders
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:21:44 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Beethoven wrote:
they took too high losses in comparison to the losses that light fighters took in shooting them down.

Needless to say, Air Superiority is kinda important if you' are going to be doing bombing.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:35:40 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
I tested heavy fighters and they basically reduced strat damage to 0 but didn't kill that much.
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:38:09 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
Anders wrote:
Needless to say, Air Superiority is kinda important if you' are going to be doing bombing.

It's not really.
Anders
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:39:39 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Demosthenes wrote:
It's not really.

Enjoy getting disrupted by enemy fighters then.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Demosthenes
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:54:25 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
What happens is this: you do night bombing and after a few days there are no enemy fighters because air bases have been destroyed anc can't be repaired. Unless the enemy has heavy fighters. Normal fighters do nothing.
Beethoven
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:13:13 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Rule suggestions for the next game, in case the next session ends up how I think it will (i.e. with both Japan and Germany both getting nowhere) -

1) No lend lease to China and Japan for the Sino-Japanese war. - this alone was not why China has been doing well, China was holding well even before any lend-lease arrived, but it can make it too much for Japan. And since Molotov-Ribbentrop is required, Germany cannot punish the Soviets by attacking them if they lend-lease too much equipment to China.
2) France may not build forts.
3) Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria may join the war at any time after Danzig or War.


If you don't want to do #3 for historical reasons, then a balanced game requires either:

a) at minimum, some fairly stringent restrictions on how much UK can help France (since the axis minors and Italy cannot help Germany). For example, UK can only send 200 combat-width worth of ground troops to France, including at most 20-width worth of tank divisions. Also, UK can have a maximum of only 1000 planes in the skies over France. In practice, the latter wouldn't even be too much of a restriction, since planes shot down over France would reinforce with other planes. But this would at least symbolize that the BEF the UK sent to France was not that big/powerful, and also that the UK did not want to risk losing the entire RAF in France (because it needed to preserve planes to protect the UK).

or

b) no restriction on ahead of time research (in which case rule #2 on French forts would not be needed).

IMO it is good to have the restrictions on ahead-of-time research - it makes for a more interesting game in which different countries can do a greater variety of things, rather than just a tech-rushing competition where you have 1944 fighters already in 1939, and modern tanks in 1941. But IMO balance requires one of these various options.
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.