well is what were looking at in the beta currently the mds1.5 or the Cwtte? Because thats the one ive been fiddling with for the last couple hours.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
well is what were looking at in the beta currently the mds1.5 or the Cwtte? Because thats the one ive been fiddling with for the last couple hours.
CWTTE. Okay, we'll use it then.
It takes a long time to finish the tech tree though. We need new effects for just about every tech.
It takes a long time to finish the tech tree though. We need new effects for just about every tech.
Here's a first look at what I've done
Looking at it thinking of going 1990,1993,1996,1999,2002,2005,2008,2011,2014,2016,2017 Not as much clumping at the end. Either way we'll still have to break out the crystal ball but I'm an avid fan of the military channel so i watch a lot of episodes of future weapons.
Looking at it thinking of going 1990,1993,1996,1999,2002,2005,2008,2011,2014,2016,2017 Not as much clumping at the end. Either way we'll still have to break out the crystal ball but I'm an avid fan of the military channel so i watch a lot of episodes of future weapons.
Last edited:
Im still working on the Infantry Tech Tree but wanted to give up an update Ive changed the requirements to start the various types of units to only need early cold war infantry. My reasoning for this was that By the end of WW2 all the guess work into what is a mechanized division had already been done. I so far have an exception to this is modern cavalry or Air Cavalry which didn't get figured out till the Vietnam war which i have set up in the Mid cold war range required so far. This would be easier but the technology data is spread across three different csv files.
AS an aside I got an idea for a couple of new brigades, tell me what you think.
Awacs ( increased Air Defense and Air Detection capabilty)
Special Operations units
Air borne refuling ( I thought of this as extending the range of air units but not sure if it can be done ie. don't know if a brigade can extend the range of the parent unit.)
AS an aside I got an idea for a couple of new brigades, tell me what you think.
Awacs ( increased Air Defense and Air Detection capabilty)
Special Operations units
Air borne refuling ( I thought of this as extending the range of air units but not sure if it can be done ie. don't know if a brigade can extend the range of the parent unit.)
Here's a first look at what I've done
Yearly changes don't make sense unless you have all the action taking place in 2012-2018. Even then the changes would probably only be significant on a bi-yearly scale.
Might I suggest
Early Cold War (Tech date in the 50's-60's?)
Mid Cold War (Tech date in the early 70's)
Late Cold War (Tech date in the early 80's)
Early 1990's (Tech Date 1990)
Mid 1990's (Tech Date 1996?)
Early 2000's (Tech date 2001?)
Mid 2000's (Tech date around 2004-2005)
Late 2000's (Tech Date 2008)
Early 2010's (Tech Date 2012)
Mid 2010's (Tech Date 2014)
Then you would figure out some change in weaponry etc (instead of reusing the Early-Mid-Late pattern) with the next tech dates being around 2017, 2019, 2020.
As for where countries would start in the 1990 Scenario, only the USA and USSR should have the 1990 tech to start, while NATO/Warsaw members might have the blueprint. Third World Countries (think Afghanistan or Congo) would probably have Early Cold War stuff with a few (Cuba, Mexico etc) in Mid Cold War.
P.S. I am interested in helping this mod any way I can. Everybody tells me I am a brilliant writer (even thought I hated English classes in High School and College).
Last edited:
I like RedPhalanx's overall naming scheme better--well, if I had to think up something, it would go more like:
Early Cold War ('50s/'60s)
Mid Cold War ('70s)
Late Cold War ('80s)
Post Cold War (early '90s) (-->This might involve big doctrinal changes, depending on how "realistic" we are going for--orientation towards anti-guerrilla warfare and such)
Advanced Post Cold War (mid '90s)
Revisited Cold War (-->This is to represent the (re)adoption of "cold-war"-style techs in the '00s, eg. the F-22, F-35, PAK FA, etc. Could be a branch versus the Post Cold War techs)
Advanced Warfare (mid '00s)
Computer-Assisted Warfare (late '00s) (Predators etc.)
Partially Computerized Warfare (early '10s)
Fully Computerized Warfare (mid '10s)
Automated War (late '10s)
And how this might play out in models...
Multi-Role Fighters (Russia/USSR):
Early Cold War: MiG-21
Mid Cold War: MiG-23
Late Cold War: Su-27
Post Cold War: Su-30
Advanced Post Cold War: Su-35
Revisited Cold War: Su-40 (aka PAK FA--just making something up here)
Advanced Warfare: Su-40M (like the Su-35, originally the Su-27M)
Computer-Assisted Warfare: MiG-37
Partially Computerized Warfare: MiG-37M
Fully Computerized Warfare: MiG-38 (-->This one is actually a UCAV)
Automated War: MiG-38M
Years...
Early Cold War: 1960
Mid Cold War: 1975
Late Cold War: 1985
Post Cold War: 1990
Advanced Post Cold War: 1995
Revisited Cold War: 2000
Advanced Warfare: 2004
Computer-Assisted Warfare: 2008
Partially Computerized Warfare: 2012
Fully Computerized Warfare: 2016
Automated War: 2018
The years could be shoved around a bit, but I like more flavorful description text (and, um, I guess that's my job, huh?)
EDIT: And I should mention that the overall naming scheme is adaptable to non-war techs--just replace "Warfare" with whatever--eg., "Advanced Rares Producton", "Automated Small Arms Line". Of course, totally different names are fine, too, eg.: "Early Oil Substitutes" (for probably the "Advanced Warfare" stage)
Early Cold War ('50s/'60s)
Mid Cold War ('70s)
Late Cold War ('80s)
Post Cold War (early '90s) (-->This might involve big doctrinal changes, depending on how "realistic" we are going for--orientation towards anti-guerrilla warfare and such)
Advanced Post Cold War (mid '90s)
Revisited Cold War (-->This is to represent the (re)adoption of "cold-war"-style techs in the '00s, eg. the F-22, F-35, PAK FA, etc. Could be a branch versus the Post Cold War techs)
Advanced Warfare (mid '00s)
Computer-Assisted Warfare (late '00s) (Predators etc.)
Partially Computerized Warfare (early '10s)
Fully Computerized Warfare (mid '10s)
Automated War (late '10s)
And how this might play out in models...
Multi-Role Fighters (Russia/USSR):
Early Cold War: MiG-21
Mid Cold War: MiG-23
Late Cold War: Su-27
Post Cold War: Su-30
Advanced Post Cold War: Su-35
Revisited Cold War: Su-40 (aka PAK FA--just making something up here)
Advanced Warfare: Su-40M (like the Su-35, originally the Su-27M)
Computer-Assisted Warfare: MiG-37
Partially Computerized Warfare: MiG-37M
Fully Computerized Warfare: MiG-38 (-->This one is actually a UCAV)
Automated War: MiG-38M
Years...
Early Cold War: 1960
Mid Cold War: 1975
Late Cold War: 1985
Post Cold War: 1990
Advanced Post Cold War: 1995
Revisited Cold War: 2000
Advanced Warfare: 2004
Computer-Assisted Warfare: 2008
Partially Computerized Warfare: 2012
Fully Computerized Warfare: 2016
Automated War: 2018
The years could be shoved around a bit, but I like more flavorful description text (and, um, I guess that's my job, huh?)
EDIT: And I should mention that the overall naming scheme is adaptable to non-war techs--just replace "Warfare" with whatever--eg., "Advanced Rares Producton", "Automated Small Arms Line". Of course, totally different names are fine, too, eg.: "Early Oil Substitutes" (for probably the "Advanced Warfare" stage)
Truth is life, I like those names. I would like to get rid of the generic names in the early parts, though.
Last edited:
Hey, I am doing 1992 US Presidential events. It should work out where there will be a Republican Primary (Bush vs. Pat Buchanan), a Democratic Primary (Clinton vs. Paul Tsongas vs. Jerry Brown), and a "Ross Perot" event, with a general election event in November based on the previous 3 events. As a start here are the six possible candidates:
Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton
Former Senator Paul Tsongas
President George H. W. Bush
Patrick J. Buchanan
Former California Governor Jerry Brown
Texas Billionare Ross Perot
Update 2: Here's what the Clinton Administration will look like:
Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton
Former Senator Paul Tsongas
President George H. W. Bush
Patrick J. Buchanan
Former California Governor Jerry Brown
Texas Billionare Ross Perot
Update 2: Here's what the Clinton Administration will look like:
Last edited:
Don t worry thing will get sorted out and more specific remember this is beta also for basic infantry with the tech tree we have that's 12 techs to space out so the further we date units eventually we'll get really scifiish And im still learning how to do things I have the buttons set up that way atm so I can see about what years we want that particular tech being researched normally. ASlso currently I have early Cold War set at 1952 mid cold war at 1966 and late cold war at 1982.
Ok Ive got the basics just about worked out for the infantry Tech tree. Bit I'm looking at the Armored and Air cavalry part and find myself in a quandry. Now as the current tech progression works you start off as old school cavalry which upgrades after you get it into armored cavalry. Which further upgrades into air cavalry. Now after doing some research the US uses really three types of cavalry cocurrently.
1. Armored Cavalry such as 1st or 2nd ACR.
2. Air Cavalry or known now a days as Air Assault like the 101st.
Now we have a third type
3.Tricap Cavalry Which is what the 1st Cavalry Division was transformed into after Vietnam. Which is Heavily armored, but with a large Air Componet.
Now what I'm thinking of doing is keeping the single line of advancement that starts with Armored cav goes then to Air Cav and then has like 5 or 6 levels beyond it . But id like to have the two units as seperate and equal division that you can choose to have with Air or Armored Cav. An example being say you research level 3 of the line upon completion youd have acess to level 3 armored Cavalry and Level 2 Air Cavalry. How does that Sound to everyone?
1. Armored Cavalry such as 1st or 2nd ACR.
2. Air Cavalry or known now a days as Air Assault like the 101st.
Now we have a third type
3.Tricap Cavalry Which is what the 1st Cavalry Division was transformed into after Vietnam. Which is Heavily armored, but with a large Air Componet.
Now what I'm thinking of doing is keeping the single line of advancement that starts with Armored cav goes then to Air Cav and then has like 5 or 6 levels beyond it . But id like to have the two units as seperate and equal division that you can choose to have with Air or Armored Cav. An example being say you research level 3 of the line upon completion youd have acess to level 3 armored Cavalry and Level 2 Air Cavalry. How does that Sound to everyone?
So in other words the cores are given based solely on claims.
I am sorry, but this means a lot of provinces with no resistence, no partisan activity lowering TC and FULL IC to use.
Even vanilla HoI isn't so generous, but if this is the policy of this mod then fine, but it is hard to accept that territories with c.15 million people can be annexed just like that.
You can add claims on Austria, 'the Sudetenland', Kaliningrad, Luxemburg, Slovenia, southern Denmark and eastern France almost just as well.
of course I know what was the legal status of those territories in western Poland in light of western german constitution but that is all. Granting those cores ignores everything else (from Tehran to Willy Brandt) so in this respect it is like with old medieval acts of law still present in the Common Law in Great Britain. It might be perfectly legal according to some of them to shoot a Welshman approaching the gates of the city, but just try to find somebody actually killing one.
Cores represent areas where you can expect less resistence, for example because your countrymen are numerous enough. That is my understanding.
I see it will be different in this mod. The choice of course is yours.
Fortunatelly mods are for free, contribution voluntary and noone has to play them. Realism is also optional.
Sounds good. If only I would get the sprites working correctly, I remember when I used to make helicopter attacks in MDS with those awesome sprites... now militia sprite doesn't work (it's used for motorized and mechanized infantry too), and I have no aircraft sprites. I guess we have to stick with counters.
I will not add those cores. However, what do you guys think if the Oder-Neisse treaty would sign a NAP between Germany and Poland?
I've created a new event. This one fires if the USSR controls Berlin and has communist government. It rebuilds the Berlin Wall.
Code:
event = {
id = 120
random = no
country = SOV
trigger = {
control = { province = 300 data = SOV } #Berlin owned by the USSR
government = communist #Communists in the government
}
}
date = { day = 15 month = october year = 1990 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 15 month = october year = 9999 }
name = "New Berlin Wall"
desc = "Berlin is ours. In late 1989, the Berlin Wall, a symbol of communism in Europe, collapsed. It was rumoured to be the end of the USSR and the communism. Well, they were wrong. We must show the Western capitalists that communism is the only acceptable way of life. Should we rebuild the Berlin Wall?"
picture = "berlinwall"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "A new symbol of Communism"
command = { type = belligerence which = SOV value = 5 }
command = { type = relation which = USA value = -50 }
command = { type = relation which = GER value = -50 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -50 }
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = -50 }
command = { type = relation which = ITA value = -50 }
command = { type = vp value = 50 }
command = { type = setflag which = diemauer }
}
action_b = {
name = "No"
command = { type = relation which = USA value = 25 }
command = { type = relation which = GER value = 25 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = 25 }
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 25 }
command = { type = relation which = ITA value = 25 }
}
}
event = {
id = 121
random = no
trigger = {
flag = diemauer
NOT = {
control = { province = 300 data = SOV } #Berlin NOT owned by the USSR
government = communist #NO Communists in the government
}
}
date = { day = 15 month = october year = 1990 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 15 month = october year = 9999 }
name = "Destroy the Mauer"
desc = "After the USSR conquered Berlin, they rebuilt the Wall. Berlin is no longer in the hands of the USSR, though. We must destroy the symbol of communism."
picture = "berlinwall"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "Destroy the wall. We must forget the horrors of communism"
command = { type = relation which = USA value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = GER value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = ITA value = 50 }
command = { type = trigger which = 122 }
command = { type = clrflag which = diemauer }
}
action_b = {
name = "No, we must preserve it to remember how bad things were"
command = { type = dissent value = 5 }
}
}
event = {
id = 122
random = no
country = SOV
#Triggered by 121 Option A
date = { day = 15 month = october year = 1990 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 15 month = october year = 9999 }
name = "Berlin Wall is destroyed"
desc = "We rebuilt the Wall as the new symbol of communism in Europe. Our enemies have taken Berlin from us and have set up explosives to destroy the Wall. We must revenge."
picture = "berlinwall"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "A Sad Day for Communism"
command = { type = dissent value = 15 }
command = { type = vp value = -50 } #Remember, they gained this from building the Wall!!!
}
}Hey, I am doing 1992 US Presidential events. It should work out where there will be a Republican Primary (Bush vs. Pat Buchanan), a Democratic Primary (Clinton vs. Paul Tsongas vs. Jerry Brown), and a "Ross Perot" event, with a general election event in November based on the previous 3 events. As a start here are the six possible candidates:
Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton
Former Senator Paul Tsongas
President George H. W. Bush
Patrick J. Buchanan
Former California Governor Jerry Brown
Texas Billionare Ross Perot
Update 2: Here's what the Clinton Administration will look like:
Looks like I've completely missed this post. Looks awesome!
Why don't you have a white border around your minister pictures?
More work, few tangible benefits. Right now at 21 ministers; each one requires finding a good picture, resizing, naming and implementing into the game. My goal right now is getting the events to work and proper minister names+good pictures. Later, perhaps, white borders.