May I suggest again a change in Galician leaders? Fuco Gómez should be communist (not Andreu Nin, who is Catalan) and Alfonso Daniel Rodríguez Castelao the democratic one.
-
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.
- Status
Yay for Balkanizing France!
Now let us split Italy into a few states pls (Sardinia, Savoy, Veneto, Two Sicilies at least)
Now let us split Italy into a few states pls (Sardinia, Savoy, Veneto, Two Sicilies at least)
What about non-removable Carlist national spirit if you have won Spanish Civil war as Falangists before carlist uprising?
this is great and all but I still don't see anything about fixing the bug about being unable to switch spies and use different spies from your total pool. The spies are still locked in place and they can never be changed. Any idea when this will be fixed?
Could Portugal’s ‘unstable monarchy’ spirit have an expiry date on it please? It seems that you’re becoming a monarchy for the exclusive reason of annexing Brazil (again). Now, perhaps it’s just me, but just maybe I’d like to ONLY form Portugal into a kingdom and not have Brazil too.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just odd like that.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just odd like that.
Nice to see so many things fixed, +1 for that
However, 3 things:
- While it's good that you're trying to solve the spy-spam problem, I think that you're taking the wrong approach. The main problems is that 1) a nation that doesn't want to be in a faction should still be allowed to build a large agency, 2) a nation that wants to heavily invest in its agency shouldn't have a magical hardcap, 3) its still illogical since spies should require an economy not faction members. Why not make additional operatives slots bind civilian factories instead? During late game, some nations have 100+ civilian factories doing nothing, this would make them useful.
- Related to the point above, when you make an advisor give an additional operative slot, that advisor becomes pretty much a must-have for any nation that wants to be able to run all kinds of operations. That means we only have 2 slots left for advisors, and many nations have a lot of really good advisors. I understand that there should be a choice here, but you're making this choice too exclusive.
- I will propably get a lot of downvotes for this one, but I need to point this out. While it's good that you fixed the training-1-division exploit, it's not good that now we're now unable to directly change our division templates. In real life, military high command could change their divisions templates without first gathering any kind of experience. Experience might be required to make a good change, but you can still make a change even without experience. That exploit was a way for players to bypass that illogical game barrier. Now if we want a special purpose division at the start of the game, we have to train half of our army first, which doesn't make any sense. How about making division template changes free?
Also I'm a bit disappointed to not see any fixes to serius bugs such as not being able to reach 80% complience without running operations and not being able to dismiss operatives.
Would also be nice if you could remove the -50% building slot penalty for non-core states as the aviable factories from complience already takes care of that limitation. Also, please allow us to core states if the complience reached 80% or 100%.
I wrote you some feedback here aswell:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/la-resistance-feedback.1340403/
Would be much appreciated if someone from Paradox could atleast write a line or two regarding Paradox's stance on these suggestions
the one division training thing and experience as a whole to change the template has been my primary and most hated complained about the game. like you said it makes no logical sense if there is absolutely no reason that any military commander would be unable to make a logical change to their division template.. there's not some magical RPG style experience that is required. When division training was the only way that you could realistically change your army before the war begins. don't get me wrong I hated One Division training because I was stupid too... But there has to be a better system. I can think of a million different ways to do it better. But it's doubtful we'll see a change to the experience system.
Nah, I was hoping for a Kingdom of Portugal that was purely focused on Portugal, not being forced to recreate the old empire, but maybe we're both just odd.
It does look that way, I never really like playing majors/super-powers. But a minor which can punch reasonably above it's weight? Definitely.Nah, I was hoping for a Kingdom of Portugal that was purely focused on Portugal, not being forced to recreate the old empire, but maybe we're both just odd.
- Fixed faction members joining wars via one's puppets, overriding master's consent
Does this mean puppets no longer call factions member into wars? if so that's one of my pet peeves gone.
Does this mean puppets no longer call factions member into wars? if so that's one of my pet peeves gone.
Same, I have more fun playing Canada, Hungary, Romania and Australia to name a few, the whole world dominating/conquest as a major thing doesn't appeal to me. I like the idea of "here's a country, here's your objective, try to do it with limited resoures". Now I don't know what focus path for the Kingdom of Portugal would like, since I agree that it might not be the most engaging without trying to return Brazil to the empire, but I'm sure they could've done something with monarchist Spain, Great Britain, Italy or whatever, maybe one day when they start revisiting DLC trees we'll get a Kingdom path.
- Jul 23, 2007
- 12.812
- 38.541
Thats how its designed to work. You pick and the you stick with the agents you picked. So its not a bug. That said I feel like it could be nice to fire people and recruit others so could be a useful feature to add, but as such its not as prioritized as working on bugs
So any commander could have called up high command and drastically alterer all divisions in their army? I doubt it. not without solid testing in training exercises or data from actual combat, which is what the system simulates. Some nations were much more behind than others and I feel its important to model this. Could we have a different system where you design a target template and need to work up the XP to start integrating it? yeah I think that would work, but I wouldnt like a system where you could just change stuff to the optimum however you pleased.
ye
- 1
I've noticed that random_list seems to be broken. Attached is a piece of code I have for it. Has something been changed?
Code:
random_list = {
fixed_random_seed = no
98 = {
country_event = {
id = ger_flavor.1
days = 1559
}
}
2 = {
country_event = {
id = ger_flavor.2
days = 1559
}
}
}@podcat
Although it is not a priority I am extremely happy to hear that switching spies may be a possibility in the future. I'm still baffled why we can't right now though...
But about the army experience thing...
How are we supposed to make changes to our templates before the war starts? Are we not supposed to?
Can you tell me why France, after fighting a 4 year war with entrenching tools in trenches, and their doctrine is based on defense, does not have entrenching tools in their divisions? WHy do I have to pay 10 experience for something that should be standard for this army? I have to grind my army into the dirt and deplete their resources just to add something they should already have.
So what's the point in researching some things if we can't even add them in to our divisions unless we're already at war? When new innovations in warfare were made, they were implemented, before the war. The nation didn't need to throw all their resources into the garbage for 4 years to save up enough magical experience points to add some tanks to their divisions. They just made the tanks and added them in...its kind of counter intuitive that you would lose so many resources when you're trying to add things.
And on the subject of France, they're famous for their B1 bis tank that was a major player in the war historically. You will never get to use it, and the focus to boost research for it is FAR down the tree...they had them in 1936.
The experience system makes SOME sense that you learn and change things as the war goes on. But it makes it nearly impossible to change anything before the war. And in the case of France, which is already crippled with just about every debuff imaginable and buried under a mountain of hate already, there is no hope at all to get anything close to historically accurate or making any even minor changes to your templates.
I think you guys really need to do some historical research about France and actually play test France. Please at the very least change some of the starting templates. If the experience system remains exactly as it is we just need some boost at the start of the game to the default templates, of maybe some kind of system like two of three "freebie" changes we can make.
Why cant we start with something like 25 xp? That solves so many issues. Thats really the smallest and easiest change to make, just a small amount of starting xp...
edit:
Germany starts with their heavy tanks but France does not, it's totally unfair.
Germany also starts with entrenching tools in their divisions, but France does not?
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm glad to hear this. Being unable to change operatives might sound reasonable at first (realistically you'll want to keep experienced people) but since we are capped at 3 slots, it makes the nationality of operatives difficult to work with. What's the point in recruiting an Italian operative as France if I can't replace them with a German or French operative once Italy is weakened enough and I want to focus my espionage on my occupied homeland or on Germany directly?
@podcat
I am playing without mods, and reinstalled. It seems to be somewhat fixed now in the beta hotpatch. Strike forces are being used, patrol fleets seem to be used rarely. Surprisingly subs on raiding seems to be the "patrols" instead.
A large part of the Navies seem still to be in invasions support even when invasions arent planned.
To repeat the issue, start a -39 game as sweden tag over a few weeks after Italy joined the war. and check how the majors (FRA, ENG, ITA, GER) are handling their fleets.
I am playing without mods, and reinstalled. It seems to be somewhat fixed now in the beta hotpatch. Strike forces are being used, patrol fleets seem to be used rarely. Surprisingly subs on raiding seems to be the "patrols" instead.
A large part of the Navies seem still to be in invasions support even when invasions arent planned.
To repeat the issue, start a -39 game as sweden tag over a few weeks after Italy joined the war. and check how the majors (FRA, ENG, ITA, GER) are handling their fleets.
.png){kind=avatar}
I am wondering if there are any plans for altering the compliance system. As far as I am aware it's next to impossible to get the compliance to 80% with non Democratic nation's without building up a spy network and getting the compliance up to 80% or 100% before capitulating your enemy. Which would take years per enemy you sought to be compliant.
Ahh, I quite liked how Primo de Rivera looked as an advisor, should have been his leader portrait.
- Status