• 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.
Yes that is intended AI behaviour (partially). More accurately, what happens is : " 2 x 4 Tactical Bomber groups can reduce infrastructure to less than 10% in a few days for a number of provinces "

Attrition and supply problems are quite severe in 10% infrastructure and less provinces, that's why the AI pulls back.

We will lower the effectiveness of Logistical Strike.

Can you travel through those low-infra provinces with your troops without severe problems? If so,we might want to increase the effects of low infrastructure as well.

P.S. : A very good catch.
 
Last edited:
Hi Radu,

I did notice that my own troops had severe org/str problems along the Polish/Russia frontier (it was an ahistorical alliance between Germany and Poland) which meant that I had to rotate stacks out from the front back to Konigsberg to refit.

This was the first game that I had really concentrated on air power, which resulted with total air superiority over all fronts and a really easy time of it. But as my units were able to take the Ukraine with zero combat, there was very little org/str loss to begin with.

I do think that reducing log strike would be a good idea but if there is no danger to the tacs then it will just take longer to achieve the same result.

A possible fix would be to reduce strength attrition loss/org regain in national or non-occupied provinces so that even with very little infra units within their own territory (or allied) can be effective.
 
had another thought : what if logistical strike damage, if not all air damage against ground targets, was logarithmic? So it would take more and more effort to cause damage against infrastructure as it approached zero. This would simulate destroying a few major bridges, for example, which are big targets and have a large impact on the transport network in a province, but requiring much more effort to destroy every road, trail, or railway yard. (not that destroying bridges was ever easy for pre air to ground missile air forces)

Also, If a province is given priority for rebuilding by clicking on that little green star, should the repair rate be equal to the destruction rate, or at least close? Like in that movie, Apocalypse Now, where the NVA bomb the bridge every day and the Americans rebuild it every night? (or was it the other way around?).

I don't know if the AI expresses priority for rebuilding provinces though. This could be taken from the provinces already mentioned in the AI files for IC or infra building, or for provinces which should be garrisoned.
 
Yes that is intended AI behaviour (partially). More accurately, what happens is : " 2 x 4 Tactical Bomber groups can reduce infrastructure to less than 10% in a few days for a number of provinces "

This is a possible game breaker, if untouched. Extremely easy to exploit.

Regards,
Thorsten
 
I tested a CORE handsoff game 50.19 with AoD 1.06beta patch 2 in 1944/45.

After a successful invasion of France and retaking of most of the French provinces in 1944, I noticed the US were not advancing into Germany as the provinces were being repeatedly attacked by interdiction strikes. This stopped them from advancing at all and held them up while the Soviets slowly advanced from the East. In the end some US forces advanced up from Italy but very slowly and painfully, as the Allies had overwhelming air superiority. Even when nearly all the German units were destroyed and partisans were claiming large tracts of land, the Allies refused to move into empty low infra provinces. Eventually the US and Soviet armies met but it took a whole year or more to cause the surrender of Germany. Even when Berlin was surrounded and empty of troops, the Soviets refused to enter the province due to the low infrastructure.

This will certainly need to be looked at since it stalled the whole Western Allies' offensive into Germany due to the devastation caused by their own air forces.