Downfall 1.40 is released !

[Paglia]

Click on signature for download and content link

 

[Adri2700]

I never tried this mod. But today this is going to change. Now is the time. Thank you very much for spending your time doing this.

 

[Paglia]

I never tried this mod. But today this is going to change. Now is the time. Thank you very much for spending your time doing this.

Still alive and kicking
Post in the Downfall's thread if you find any bugs or encounter issues
I keep an eye

 

[CrackingShow]

It is a very good mod, greatly improves vanilla without making the game as complicated as say black ice does.

 

[Paglia]

It is a very good mod, greatly improves vanilla without making the game as complicated as say black ice does.

Thanks

 

[Kovax]

It is a very good mod, greatly improves vanilla without making the game as complicated as say black ice does.

I'll second this. It's more like "improved vanilla", rather than a major rethink of the whole system (like BICE).

 

[rob_mtl]

I'll second this. It's more like "improved vanilla", rather than a major rethink of the whole system (like BICE).

At the risk of derailing this thread, I would say Downfall provides added complexity and balance without the overwhelming feature-bloat of BICE. I always wanted to love BICE for its strategic depth and historical realism, but the event chains in particular are so unpredictable that I've never been able to get into it. It drives me bonkers when I organize my OOB just to have a redundant OOB event-spawn mid-campaign. Also, modifiers upon modifiers upon modifiers is really problematic, as the tooltips get so long they don't fit in the tooltip box.

When they have to memorize event chains and can't understand what a tech/decision does because the modifiers aren't readable, the player starts to lose any semblance of agency. And BICE was always designed with Germany players primarily in mind. A lot of other countries were buggy as hell.

I think as Downfall progresses, these are the fundamental questions I'll be asking myself about game design and playstyle, such as:

1) Should the player minmax? As a long-term vanilla player, my temptation is always to do things like delete all regulars and HQs at the start, use production queue upgrades, sell crude and fuel and buy supplies, etc. It seems like Downfall puts in place some measures to counterbalance this temptation, which is good. If it's not cheaper or impossible to do the upgrades, etc., I'll be more tempted to work with the amazingly detailed starting OOB.

2) Historical "railroading" and alternate history. This is obviously a matter of personal preference, and my feeling is that some leeway should be given to the player to shift the course of history. Successfully defending France or Singapore is a historically plausible and fun challenge. Canada becoming communist is goofy and belongs in a mod dedicated to alt-history. Being locked out of better doctrines because "the Allies historically had bad doctrines" starts to make me feel like I'm not playing a game and I'm just spectating history. I always felt that BICE was too pushy with historical "realism" for my liking.

3) Micromanagement. Large, complex, historical OOBs are really cool, but if they get too big and too complex, the chore of micro-ing them approaches unplayability. I think as HOI3 players, many of us tend to want to organize things in our own way. I prefer when they're aren't too many events that affect the OOB over the course of the game, especially if they occur with no warning. Downfall's HQ ranges add to flexibility. I haven't played enough to get a sense of the late-game OOBs!

NOTE: I'm sure these ideas have been discussed elsewhere in this thread and in general. Just throwing the ideas out there! Also, I don't want to trash-talk BICE either. It's an amazing project on so many levels, just not one I have ever been tempted to play.

 

[Paglia]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I would say Downfall provides added complexity and balance without the overwhelming feature-bloat of BICE. I always wanted to love BICE for its strategic depth and historical realism, but the event chains in particular are so unpredictable that I've never been able to get into it. It drives me bonkers when I organize my OOB just to have a redundant OOB event-spawn mid-campaign. Also, modifiers upon modifiers upon modifiers is really problematic, as the tooltips get so long they don't fit in the tooltip box.

When they have to memorize event chains and can't understand what a tech/decision does because the modifiers aren't readable, the player starts to lose any semblance of agency. And BICE was always designed with Germany players primarily in mind. A lot of other countries were buggy as hell.

I think as Downfall progresses, these are the fundamental questions I'll be asking myself about game design and playstyle, such as:

1) Should the player minmax? As a long-term vanilla player, my temptation is always to do things like delete all regulars and HQs at the start, use production queue upgrades, sell crude and fuel and buy supplies, etc. It seems like Downfall puts in place some measures to counterbalance this temptation, which is good. If it's not cheaper or impossible to do the upgrades, etc., I'll be more tempted to work with the amazingly detailed starting OOB.

As a modder, I always tought there were some magnificence in those OOB (a feature exclusive to HoI3). The mod does indeed lessen the ability of a player to ditch everything but you can always do it. It's just more penalizing. But I can't change some fundamentals in the game (like the supply system). But the trade was revisited.

2) Historical "railroading" and alternate history. This is obviously a matter of personal preference, and my feeling is that some leeway should be given to the player to shift the course of history. Successfully defending France or Singapore is a historically plausible and fun challenge. Canada becoming communist is goofy and belongs in a mod dedicated to alt-history. Being locked out of better doctrines because "the Allies historically had bad doctrines" starts to make me feel like I'm not playing a game and I'm just spectating history. I always felt that BICE was too pushy with historical "realism" for my liking.

Ahistorical requires more work than historical. The reason is simple, you basically have to predict some of the issue and create alternate path. In Downfall, I mostly gave up the ahistorical path... a simple matter of time available to mode properly. I try to leave some leeway to the player but it's not perfect... There are still some very historical paths in there... But the mod does account for a non Molotov-Ribbentrop path, an invasion of Britain or Japan... and a couple of other major ahistorical things. Mostly those who could have occured but did not. Also, the mod penalise players that do not protect historical key areas, mainly in the case of ENG, ITA, JAP and SOV...

3) Micromanagement. Large, complex, historical OOBs are really cool, but if they get too big and too complex, the chore of micro-ing them approaches unplayability. I think as HOI3 players, many of us tend to want to organize things in our own way. I prefer when they're aren't too many events that affect the OOB over the course of the game, especially if they occur with no warning. Downfall's HQ ranges add to flexibility. I haven't played enough to get a sense of the late-game OOBs!

There is no event changing your OOB. Only AI ones who get new units and so on... A couple of exception there, like ITA getting some GER units in cas GER is AI.

NOTE: I'm sure these ideas have been discussed elsewhere in this thread and in general. Just throwing the ideas out there! Also, I don't want to trash-talk BICE either. It's an amazing project on so many levels, just not one I have ever been tempted to play.

I can't comment on BICE as I never played it...

 

[rob_mtl]

As a modder, I always tought there were some magnificence in those OOB (a feature exclusive to HoI3). The mod does indeed lessen the ability of a player to ditch everything but you can always do it. It's just more penalizing. But I can't change some fundamentals in the game (like the supply system). But the trade was revisited.





Ahistorical requires more work than historical. The reason is simple, you basically have to predict some of the issue and create alternate path. In Downfall, I mostly gave up the ahistorical path... a simple matter of time available to mode properly. I try to leave some leeway to the player but it's not perfect... There are still some very historical paths in there... But the mod does account for a non Molotov-Ribbentrop path, an invasion of Britain or Japan... and a couple of other major ahistorical things. Mostly those who could have occured but did not. Also, the mod penalise players that do not protect historical key areas, mainly in the case of ENG, ITA, JAP and SOV...





There is no event changing your OOB. Only AI ones who get new units and so on... A couple of exception there, like ITA getting some GER units in cas GER is AI.





I can't comment on BICE as I never played it...

All reasonable choices. I'm a big fan so far! Was streaming some Downfall on Twitch earlier today actually.

 

[Paglia]

I'm a big fan so far! Was streaming some Downfall on Twitch earlier today actually.

That's great !
I'll go watch those

 

[Herr Cola]

i will never play an Ahistorical Hearts of Iron. So, i think there should be this little change :
Manpower..
Ger : 80mil ab. = 8000 mp
Chi : 900mil ab = 90000mp
Jap : 100mil ab = 10000 mp
Ita,Fra,UK = 45mil ab = 4500mp
URSS = 120mil ab = 12000 mp
USA = 240mil ab = 24000mp..
Doing so, AI will build much more units and the game will be more interessant as regard battles.. To avoid a too large extra-build, maybe inf. rgt. could have 150mp insteed than 100, and so on... What do you think about?

 

[50shadesofgreen]

Interesting thought on manpower. Perhaps base on historical army size rather than population, and include colonies? The UK had 2.5 million in the Indian Army alone, which was equal to the size of the entire Italian Army. France could also have drawn on huge colonial numbers, had it not fallen.

 

[Herr Cola]

Interesting thought on manpower. Perhaps base on historical army size rather than population, and include colonies? The UK had 2.5 million in the Indian Army alone, which was equal to the size of the entire Italian Army. France could also have drawn on huge colonial numbers, had it not fallen.

yes, but they alredy start with a different army strenght. We can also say, that Britisch Raj, as indipendent but de fact puppet Britisch nation, alredy have a his Army that fight with the UK, than the real UK manpower stay at 45milion. For France is different because they have no puppets, than we can say as France with 60 mil abithants, than 6000 mp.. That's ok.. But what i wanted to say is that, for better balancing the game, it's absolutely necessary to give to the AI the chance to do more divisions. Or, if i Play as Japan for examples, i can see Germany with an Army of just 1 million man fighting with Russia, and i find that like funny and absurd at the same time... With Germany, i have an Army of just 1 milion mans against France, and a manpower of 800 people.. and i need to dopple that number for Barbarossa, taking in considerations that with Fall Gelbs i will need maybe 250 mp to reinforce my army and keep them in full strenght.. Think about this.. i think it will create a real real real cool game..

 

[Herr Cola]

Interesting thought on manpower. Perhaps base on historical army size rather than population, and include colonies? The UK had 2.5 million in the Indian Army alone, which was equal to the size of the entire Italian Army. France could also have drawn on huge colonial numbers, had it not fallen.

Perhaps base on historical army size rather than population, and include colonies?
No no, the point is to givo to the AI the possibility to create more forces and to have a more interesting battles rather than 1 division against 1 as in Barbarossa..

 

[Herr Cola]

So :
ITA 4500
FRA 4500
UK 4500
GER 8000
URSS 12400
USA 24000
Jap 10000
CHI 90000
AUT 1500
NZE 400
HOL 450
BEL 450
LUX 40
SPA 2400
POR 500
ROM 600
HUN 500
YUG 1400
GRE 700
BUL 500
POL 1700
FIN 450
SVE 700
NOR 190
DEN 200
and so on.. it's quite easy, and i can tell you that the game will became really interessing.. Ah, don't forget to give a look to the officials instructions in the tecnologies.. there should be also a little change in that sector.. Anyway, i love this mod.. This had a wonderfull basis to arrive to be a real realistic game

 

[50shadesofgreen]

France have no puppets?

But the population of their Indochina and African possessions exceeded the population of Italy. My suggestion was increasing the manpower of UK, France etc, not reducing it. This gives the AI the chance to create more units.

 

[Herr Cola]

France have no puppets?

But the population of their Indochina and African possessions exceeded the population of Italy. My suggestion was increasing the manpower of UK, France etc, not reducing it. This gives the AI the chance to create more units.

yes, France can be increased from 45 milions to 60 or 65.. it means from 4500mp to 6000 or 6500, but england i don't think.. Egypt was indipendent, Iraq was indipendent, India was indipendent, Canada, australia, new zeland were all indipendents also if they were part of the commonwealth. Infact, their army works alredy for Allies.. But France have not puppets. Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Mali, French Morocco, Indochina.. they was all part of French, not indipendent. That's why Franch mp can be increased but Englisch not..

 

[50shadesofgreen]

France raised 500,000 African soldiers. British Empire 600,000?

Kings African Rifles alone had 43 battalions in WW2.

Also compare Poland's population of marginally below Italy, but you have granted them a third of the manpower Italy has?

Belgium fielded 650k troops in just 1940. Italy barely reached 4 times that at any time but again, have been gifted 10 times manpower of Belgium.

 

[Herr Cola]

France raised 500,000 African soldiers. British Empire 600,000?

Kings African Rifles alone had 43 battalions in WW2.

Also compare Poland's population of marginally below Italy, but you have granted them a third of the manpower Italy has?

Belgium fielded 650k troops in just 1940. Italy barely reached 4 times that at any time but again, have been gifted 10 times manpower of Belgium.

British Empire works for Allies.. Indian are not British, are Indian.. in the game, the Raj is indipendent and it send his troops to UK as Iraq do and Egypt too.. While France mp can be increased from 4500 to 6000.. The fact of how many man at arms can a nation have don't touch how many manpower a nation can have. Manpower is how many inhabitants a nation have. Belgium is absolutely nothing compared to the greatness of Italy. Poland too.. Poland had barely 20mil inhabitants or less in 1939 that's why they should have 2000mp in the game. That's the right balancement. It's absolutely untinkable to give Belgium the same mp that can have a great power as Italy. All Belgium people can easily live in two Italian city as Milan and Rome.. There's not any kind of possible comparison between Italy and that belgium. It's very easy : 1milion = 100.. Tha's necessary just to balance the manpower and to increase the number of division that can be produced by the AI, with the only goal to make the game more realistic and interessant.. If you can think that giving the possibility to Poland to field the same number of Division that Italy can do, it's a total nonsense..Italy had an Army of 1.875.000 man in 1940, and 3.100.000 in 1943. Poland had an Army of 950.000 man at his full strenght.. can you see the difference? Belgium, what is it?

 

[Herr Cola]

France raised 500,000 African soldiers. British Empire 600,000?

Kings African Rifles alone had 43 battalions in WW2.

Also compare Poland's population of marginally below Italy, but you have granted them a third of the manpower Italy has?

Belgium fielded 650k troops in just 1940. Italy barely reached 4 times that at any time but again, have been gifted 10 times manpower of Belgium.

43 battallions are 4/5 divisions..use the right number, as people can really understand what are you speacking about.. just 4 or 5 divisions.. 1 Division = 3 rgt. 1 rgt. =3 btg. 1 Div. = 9 btg. 9x4 = 36, 9x5 = 45.. just 4 or 5 div..