-
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.
With the IC and the resources available CHI can hardly sustain its starting army. There is a strong need to increase IC and therefore resource production. If the AI is not intended to be stupid on purpuse it needs to build infra and IC.
yes goes up from 80 to 150 from 36 to somewhere in 37 in Nanjing. i think that is way way too much.
i use this one for the JAP 1936 scenario:
now JAP is slowly building infra in Tokyo but just finishes one or two while CHI makes 7 in Nanjing alone within a few months.
i suggest to give both such commands in their scenario files.
well if you change too much, lol. seems that ITA is invading spain, so strange things can happen, maybe.Pang Bingxun said:
EDIT:
well CHI is designed to be a problematic state, if i'm not mistaken. if adding something i would give them some resources via the provinces.csv instead of highways
This happen in your scenario only. If thing go historic there happen no infraincreasemnt in Nanjing due to japanese advancements.
This is a possibilty. A better solutions were build infra commands for AI events.
I made no such changes. SPA joined axis after SPR joined allies in 1940. Something that happens quite often.
The alternative is to increase resources and IC. Which values are appropriate?
I would prefer China to stay poorer if possible, and if the Japanese AI is too strong, then reduce the Japanese land units. Is this feasible?
Unless it has been changed, and I don't believe that it has -- The real problem with assigning commando leaders to non-comando units was that in actual battle in the game, the combat value was reduced by -10.
This made commando leaders worth less when leading non-commando units than any regular leader.
For instance -- a commando leader with a marine is +10 combat.
A non-commando leader with a marine is +0 combat.
A commando leader with an infantry is -10 combat. This makes no sense!
It is feasible, but imo it is not desireable. Right now there is quite a nice balance. Before increasing the Infra limit in the events from 50% to 150% the CHI AI was a bit to weak because of being stupid. The optimal solution is to make CHI trade for supplies and to build Infra via regular AI and event commands like "build building=5 size=10" to make the AI start a serial of 10 units Infra.
It is -5% and imo that is plausible. You cannot command regular infantry like a marine corps.
Last edited:
Pang Bingxun said:
there are quite a few people who lead PAR or MTN units and other units as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Conrath
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Personenregister/F/FehnGustav-R.htm
http://generals.dk/general/Bowen/Frank_Sayles_Jr./USA.html
http://generals.dk/general/Martinek/Robert/Germany.html
Right now it´s just Chongqing that has 150% infra. I don´t mind that one, since most of China´s IC and some resources are located there.
It would be strange, however, to see other provinces rise their infra to the same level (and increase ESE accordingly).
It would be strange, however, to see other provinces rise their infra to the same level (and increase ESE accordingly).
Usually Kunming raises above 100% until CHI runs out of money when ~130% is reached. The solution is balanced quite elegantly as lost divisions require no salaries. The more money CHI has the more Infra is builds.
Here is a new set of changes. It also includes the proper files for nationalist_spain.txt and republican_spain.txt.
Code:
\ai\ger_1936.ai
max_factor = 0.40 changed to 0.50
hq = 2 changed to 3
interceptor = 15 changed to 21
multi_role = 0 changed to 6
cas = 15 changed to 6
tactical_bomber = 10 changed to 6
\ai\ita_1936.ai
max_factor = 0.30 changed to 0.40
infantry = 15 changed to 50
motorized = 5 changed to 3
armor = 8 changed to 1
marine = 0 changed to 2
bergsjaeger = 10 changed to 5
garrison = 5 changed to 0
hq = 4 changed to 2
interceptor = 5 changed to 6
tactical_bomber = 5 changed to 3
naval_bomber = 5 changed to 3
battleship = 3 changed to 2
destroyer = 10 changed to 5
heavy_cruiser = 5 changed to 3
submarine = 5 changed to 2
transport = 10 changed to 8
new written research
\ai\jap_1936.ai
infantry = 35 changed to 40
garrison = 20 changed to 15
\ai\pol_1936.ai
infantry = 70 changed to 40
cavalry = 0 changed to 30
\ai\rom_1936.ai
infantry = 90 changed to 70
cas = 0 changed to 20
\ai\sov_1936.ai
infantry = 30 changed to 58
motorized = 14 changed to 12
marine = 2 changed to 0
bergsjaeger = 3 changed to 0
interceptor = 4 changed to 6
multi_role = 5 changed to 3
cas = 10 changed to 6
tactical_bomber = 10 changed to 3
submarine = 10 changed to 0
endgoal 1951 Inf instead of 1951 Mech
\ai\switch\ger_build_land.ai
infantry = 22 changed to 16
motorized = 10 changed to 15
mechanized = 8 changed to 10
armor = 4 changed to 5
garrison = 20 changed to 20
interceptor = 6 changed to 9
cas = 6 changed to 3
tactical_bomber = 5 changed to 3
\ai\switch\ger_build_mix.ai
infantry = 19 changed to 10
motorized = 10 changed to 15
mechanized = 8 changed to 10
armor = 4 changed to 5
garrison = 12 changed to 15
interceptor = 6 changed to 9
cas = 6 changed to 3
tactical_bomber = 6 changed to 3
destroyer = 2 changed to 3
\ai\switch\ger_build_navy.ai
infantry = 10 changed to 5
motorized = 6 changed to 12
mechanized = 6 changed to 8
armor = 3 changed to 4
interceptor = 3 changed to 7
destroyer = 10 changed to 8
light_cruiser = 10 changed to 8
heavy_cruiser = 4 changed to 3
battlecruiser = 6 changed to 3
\ai\switch\ger_build_standard.ai
infantry = 20 changed to 13
motorized = 7 changed to 15
mechanized = 7 changed to 10
armor = 4 changed to 5
garrison = 10 changed to 5
interceptor = 4 changed to 9
multi_role = 4 changed to 3
cas = 5 changed to 3
tactical_bomber = 5 changed to 3
\ai\switch\ger_build_sp_art.ai
infantry = 26 changed to 19
motorized = 10 changed to 20
armor = 4 changed to 5
interceptor = 7 changed to 9
multi_role = 4 changed to 3
cas = 6 changed to 3
tactical_bomber = 5 changed to 3
\ai\switch\ita_build_land.ai
infantry = 35 changed to 65
motorized = 5 changed to 3
armor = 6 changed to 1
marine = 0 changed to 2
bergsjaeger = 9 changed to 5
garrison = 10 changed to 0
hq = 5 changed to 2
interceptor = 5 changed to 6
multi_role = 5 changed to 0
tactical_bomber = 4 changed to 3
naval_bomber = 6 changed to 3
\ai\switch\ita_build_standard.ai
infantry = 12 changed to 45
motorized = 2 changed to 3
armor = 3 changed to 1
marine = 0 changed to 4
garrison = 8 changed to 0
interceptor = 4 changed to 3
multi_role = 4 changed to 0
destroyer = 25 changed to 7
light_cruiser = 7 changed to 5
submarine = 4 changed to 2
transport = 10 changed to 8
\ai\switch\sov_build_land.ai
infantry = 63 changed to 58
motorized = 9 changed to 12
armor = 6 changed to 8
\ai\switch\sov_build_standard.ai
infantry = 52 changed to 47
motorized = 9 changed to 12
armor = 6 changed to 8
\ai\switch\SOV_Fin_Demands.ai
FIN = 15 changed to 10
\ai\switch\sov_germany.ai
FIN = 15 changed to 10
\db\events\ai_ger.txt
20007: Changed may random back to 20
20556: changed back to an earlier state
\db\events\AI_POL.txt
36972: deleted my own event
\db\events\AI_ROM.txt
32169: deleted my own event
\db\events\hoi2.txt
changed back to earlier state
\db\events\nationalist_spain.txt
changed back
\db\events\republican_spain.txt
changed back
@Pioniere
U73-England
We already have J.F.C. Fuller a CoS and CoA but it would be nice to have him as a Minister of Armament (tank proponent), too. I've seen that the U73 leader file (v1.08A) is quite empty: only 6 entries. Some additions would be useful because after a successful Sealion many players are tempted to release U73 to ease their garrison duties.
U73-England
We already have J.F.C. Fuller a CoS and CoA but it would be nice to have him as a Minister of Armament (tank proponent), too. I've seen that the U73 leader file (v1.08A) is quite empty: only 6 entries. Some additions would be useful because after a successful Sealion many players are tempted to release U73 to ease their garrison duties.
@Pioniere
The pictures of the first soviet light cruisers models are mixed up:
Please rename
Ill_div_sov_22_0 to Ill_div_sov_22_1
and
Ill_div_sov_22_2 to Ill_div_sov_22_0
The pictures of the first soviet light cruisers models are mixed up:
Please rename
Ill_div_sov_22_0 to Ill_div_sov_22_1
and
Ill_div_sov_22_2 to Ill_div_sov_22_0
@Pioniere and Denniss
Sd.Kfz. 140 Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) is missing as a german light armor model
Please revisit the name of the third german light armor model. Although a more spiced-up armor tech tree would be nice to have I'm simply asking to include the main german light armor of the early war years: the Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). The Panzer 38(t) (produced 1938-1942) would also fit better than the PzKpfw IIF (produced 1941-1942) to the historical years proposed by the armor tech tree (1936/1938/1939).
EDIT:
Rename a copy of 'Ill_div_cze_5_2' to 'Ill_div_ger_4_2', if you can't retrieve a picture of a german Panzer 38(t).
The 'c' of the second model isn't necessary any longer if we're going to change the third model.
IF we're going to add a forth light armor model to the armor tech tree, either as another light armor division or as a late-war light armor brigade, we'd add the Panzer II Ausf. L (PzKpfw IIL) "Luchs" which was built during 1943-44 and would fit nicely.
Sd.Kfz. 140 Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) is missing as a german light armor model
Please revisit the name of the third german light armor model. Although a more spiced-up armor tech tree would be nice to have I'm simply asking to include the main german light armor of the early war years: the Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). The Panzer 38(t) (produced 1938-1942) would also fit better than the PzKpfw IIF (produced 1941-1942) to the historical years proposed by the armor tech tree (1936/1938/1939).
EDIT:
Rename a copy of 'Ill_div_cze_5_2' to 'Ill_div_ger_4_2', if you can't retrieve a picture of a german Panzer 38(t).
The 'c' of the second model isn't necessary any longer if we're going to change the third model.
IF we're going to add a forth light armor model to the armor tech tree, either as another light armor division or as a late-war light armor brigade, we'd add the Panzer II Ausf. L (PzKpfw IIL) "Luchs" which was built during 1943-44 and would fit nicely.
@Pioniere and Denniss
'PzKpfw. Nb.Fz.' instead of 'PzKpfw. NbFz. VI'
quoted from wikipedia:
'PzKpfw. Nb.Fz.' instead of 'PzKpfw. NbFz. VI'
The name of the second german armor model should be revisited, too. According to wiki 2 versions of the NeubauFahrzeug have been developed, so that it seems to be better to remove the added number (VI), because it simply designates the origin of the design.
quoted from wikipedia:
"Perhaps coastal forts could work like Anti-air guns against ships in bordering sea provinces" if these have a mission (shore bombardment or invasion) which targets their own or one of the neighbouring provinces. Fleets passing through one of the bordering sea provinces shouldn't be harmed at all.
Should the shore bombardment mission be limited to provinces which actually have a beach? Without forward artillery observers it would be quite difficult for them to actually hit anything beyond their visibility range.
Maybe move the activation of the armour (unit) model(s) to a later doctrine, so that the ai can only build tank brigades until the usefulness of combined arms, i.e. fully integrated armoured divisions, is proven by the Sichelschnitt?
Yes, Fürstbischof your right about the U73 and fuller maybe we could give him that post.
Thanks for the model info about soviet and Germany. Hopefully that should be corrected.
Thanks for the model info about soviet and Germany. Hopefully that should be corrected.