Yeah, there seems to be an imminent release lurking in the shadow of Radu and his evil helping dwarfs
-
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
Yeah, there seems to be an imminent release lurking in the shadow of Radu and his evil helping dwarfs
Hope am ok suggesting a new feature here. So could you make it so shore bombardment for ships acts likes artillery bombardment for land units ^_^, or at the very least get rid of the -25% cap that its at now either way theres very little role for the navy in battles happening on the coast right now.
Loving AoD, and the patches. Keep up the good work.
I've run into that leader dieing problem when someone else gets an event occasionally.
Somewhat related, I saw this in a DH thread, tooltip when you mouse over tech. Listing various things, including techs that might be required from a different tree/page. I know this would be really nice feature for mods, such as the coldwar extension that make alot of use of that sort of thing (Also I think it would be nice for CORE too). So if you got the time to add that in, thx!
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8163/screensave15w.png
Also while on it, the trade features of DH look nice
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5285/trade1.png
I've run into that leader dieing problem when someone else gets an event occasionally.
Somewhat related, I saw this in a DH thread, tooltip when you mouse over tech. Listing various things, including techs that might be required from a different tree/page. I know this would be really nice feature for mods, such as the coldwar extension that make alot of use of that sort of thing (Also I think it would be nice for CORE too). So if you got the time to add that in, thx!
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8163/screensave15w.png
Also while on it, the trade features of DH look nice
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5285/trade1.png
Last edited:
Bug Report and Sugguestions
BUG
There is a little known Run Time StrLen error that occurs when using command = { type = ai which = "whatever.ai" }. This crash does not seem to occur in versions before 1.5, but occurs in v1.5 and v1.6. And it occurs only on human controlled events. Perhaps for scripting order reasons I may be unaware of, the error doesn't seem to be present in the vanilla. But for modders, it's something to be aware of when scripting.
I found that if this command is immediately proceeded by a real-time or immediatley executed command such as: command = { type = domestic...} or command = { type = set_ground...}, the crash doesn't occur. They must close the string or something.
Note: Please take out your thumbs.db files in your distibutions, there's one 12 MB large!
SUGGESTIONS
A needed enhancement to AOD is river and canal utilization and restriction of large capital ships moving through shallow waters, narrow straights, rivers and canals.
The were many rivers that were utilized for supply and troop movement. The Volga/Stalingrad for one (which by the way is in my VietAfghan mod). Ship troop movement or supply through the path of a river or canal should only be allowed for minor ships.
Capital Ships should not be allowed through canals or so called rivers. The only canal setting in HOI right now is through Keil. It would also be nice to be able to mod non-war restricted sea passage ways like the one through Istanbul to the Black Sea.
The adj_def.csv map file and provinces db file allows simulalion of movement through land via a canal or port seazone. The variables from these files could be used to check and restrict movement. Although rivers are cosmetic, a river could graphically represent as passage way though land.
All non-capital naval units could be given an attribute in their unit file called something like 'canals' or 'rivers' that could be set to true or false. This canal/rivers attribute could be checked for 'true' prior to ship movement through a canal or from one sea zone to another that travels over land. It could also be used for restricting capital ships from porting in a small or non-developed ports because of their size or too shallow of waters. Does it make sense that a carrier can port in every owned non-developed port?
Finally, it seems missile carrying subs were built into the engine. I would be nice to have it enabled for modern scenarios.
I could go on and on, but something along these lines would be a grand improvement.
FRVP
BUG
There is a little known Run Time StrLen error that occurs when using command = { type = ai which = "whatever.ai" }. This crash does not seem to occur in versions before 1.5, but occurs in v1.5 and v1.6. And it occurs only on human controlled events. Perhaps for scripting order reasons I may be unaware of, the error doesn't seem to be present in the vanilla. But for modders, it's something to be aware of when scripting.
I found that if this command is immediately proceeded by a real-time or immediatley executed command such as: command = { type = domestic...} or command = { type = set_ground...}, the crash doesn't occur. They must close the string or something.
Note: Please take out your thumbs.db files in your distibutions, there's one 12 MB large!
SUGGESTIONS
A needed enhancement to AOD is river and canal utilization and restriction of large capital ships moving through shallow waters, narrow straights, rivers and canals.
The were many rivers that were utilized for supply and troop movement. The Volga/Stalingrad for one (which by the way is in my VietAfghan mod). Ship troop movement or supply through the path of a river or canal should only be allowed for minor ships.
Capital Ships should not be allowed through canals or so called rivers. The only canal setting in HOI right now is through Keil. It would also be nice to be able to mod non-war restricted sea passage ways like the one through Istanbul to the Black Sea.
The adj_def.csv map file and provinces db file allows simulalion of movement through land via a canal or port seazone. The variables from these files could be used to check and restrict movement. Although rivers are cosmetic, a river could graphically represent as passage way though land.
All non-capital naval units could be given an attribute in their unit file called something like 'canals' or 'rivers' that could be set to true or false. This canal/rivers attribute could be checked for 'true' prior to ship movement through a canal or from one sea zone to another that travels over land. It could also be used for restricting capital ships from porting in a small or non-developed ports because of their size or too shallow of waters. Does it make sense that a carrier can port in every owned non-developed port?
Finally, it seems missile carrying subs were built into the engine. I would be nice to have it enabled for modern scenarios.
I could go on and on, but something along these lines would be a grand improvement.
FRVP
Last edited:
Please have a closer look at the relation between ressource consumption and available IC. If nothing is prduced and IC just slider-distributed to CG,supplies, etc then there's most often a mismatch between steel usage and available IC. Both should have a 100% match except for some smaller rounding stuff. If you start the 1938 scenario as USA you pay 30 units steel more than you would need for what's listed as available IC. Also happens to other countries at variing degrees. Sometimes you pay less steel for available IC, sometimes you pay more. The 0.5:1:2 ratio between rare, steel and energy usage is always correct though.
The more I think about this idea the more I like it. Shore bombardment like the new artillery bombardment with damage to infrastructure would be amazing.
For the defender this would mean protecting his shores would need actually using his fleet and planes at his shores even without an ongoing invasion, not just stacking some divisions to the coasts.
But most of all I like the strategical options the attacker gains by this: Bombarding the enemy before the invasion and weaken his defending capabilities but giving away your intention of attacking this province and therefore giving the defender a chance to improve his troops there. Or just fake an attack by bombarding somewhere, wait until reserves get there to repel your attack and then invade elsewhere without naval support.
I think this would highly improve fighting for islands in the pacific theatre and, as a side effect, make it somewhat more historical accurate, too (Iwojima, anyone?).
Not sure if this has been reported but I'm getting a CTD crash when playing as Japan and USA related events triggers (Oil embargo, Pearl Harbour), the error report refers to some event or string that haven't occured yet (not the exact wording of the error but the gist of it). Doesn't tell me which event though, but disabling the oil embargo event solved that crash.
Steam version of the game.
Steam version of the game.
I have noticed playing USSR until 1951, that USA has researched every nuclear tech possible but has not build any nuclear reactor, witch is quite strange.
I begin this game with beta 1 and continue it with beta 2, could have had a influence on the build shema...?
I begin this game with beta 1 and continue it with beta 2, could have had a influence on the build shema...?
Thanks Radu and guys, this is getting really good now!
Would it be possible to add manpower to the debugai info?
Would it be possible to add manpower to the debugai info?
It might be worthwhile to explore this idea even further. We might even split the Shore bombardment mission into an Invasion Support mission and such a strategic Shore bombardment mission. But in both cases we should rethink the role of coastal forts in the game. If we see more Shore bombardment missions in the game these should be no longer toothless. Coastal forts should defend their province versus attacking naval units in the same way as AA does defend versus attacking air units.
In this case the sea (and land) provinces would have to be reshaped into coastal zones. It doesn´t make sense for coastal forts to send their shells as far as 100 km, and it´s not very realistic if shore bombardment will disrupt the infrastructure of a province of several hundred square km or kill whole divisions.
.png){kind=avatar}
Well carriers should be able to do this from the get go
Cold War Extension would like this as well as were working on modern missile naval forces which can easily tomahawk the s##t out of most countries 2000km from shore!
>>One possible way that i think could be modded easily would be that any naval vessel with firing range say over 300km (this can/should be changed) should be able to do strategic/infrastructure/etc strike on shore provinces.
I also like the coastal -AAA conversion to allow them to damage vessels. Sounds cool/great & would allow for modern coastal AShM brigade realism
This is an improvement, but in my experience the AI transport losses are still ridiculously high in Beta2. Mere destroyer screens aren't enough. In the campaigns I've played the UK and USA together lose usually around 100 TPs! To make things even worse, often these are carrying divisions which are also lost when ships are sunk.
I don't know how this could be fixed properly. Perhaps the transports should always accompany major fleets (BBs, CVs etc).
(cross-posted from the main forum)
I keep having serious problems with events in 1.06b2. I'm playing Germany in the 1936 scenario. The surrender events for Poland never kicked in, and, in addition, the USSR breaks the non-aggression pack it has with me. Even once I annexed all of Poland the traditional way there was no exchange of provinces.
In another game as the USSR I defeated Germany, but there were serious issues with the surrender events. All the eastern bloc countries - Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, etc - are formed but there is no alliance/puppet state with the USSR. Additionally East and West Germany form, even though the allies were not on the continent, but they are both market liberal and West Germany forms an alliance with the USSR. Is this working correctly?
Finally, playing as the USA, I could not get Japan to surrender. I ended up occupying every Japanese VP province plus all of the Home Islands and there was still no surrender. I had to annex them then release them as a puppet. I also had the same problem with Europe that I had with the USSR.
I tried running SMEP to solve the problems, but that didn't help at all.
I keep having serious problems with events in 1.06b2. I'm playing Germany in the 1936 scenario. The surrender events for Poland never kicked in, and, in addition, the USSR breaks the non-aggression pack it has with me. Even once I annexed all of Poland the traditional way there was no exchange of provinces.
In another game as the USSR I defeated Germany, but there were serious issues with the surrender events. All the eastern bloc countries - Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, etc - are formed but there is no alliance/puppet state with the USSR. Additionally East and West Germany form, even though the allies were not on the continent, but they are both market liberal and West Germany forms an alliance with the USSR. Is this working correctly?
Finally, playing as the USA, I could not get Japan to surrender. I ended up occupying every Japanese VP province plus all of the Home Islands and there was still no surrender. I had to annex them then release them as a puppet. I also had the same problem with Europe that I had with the USSR.
I tried running SMEP to solve the problems, but that didn't help at all.
I think my CW extension should help with the surrender events--you can use them if you don't like the rest of the mod. Vanilla surrender events have sucked for a long time.
Although I'd like to see new features the most important thing now is a bugfree release. Right now 1.06 Beta 2 has a disabling bug relating to deletion of random leaders and units. It seems as if this was introduced by B2. In all honesty it causes me to recommend a rollback to Beta 1. I'd like to see beta 3 with the reported bugs fixed. When can we see this?
As for the long-range attacks by nuclear subs and aircraft carriers against inland targets, I think what is needed is some sort of floating base concept. Only carriers and nuclear subs should get this. As for carriers there actually was an idea in 1945 that the USA considered and abandoned to give carriers a long range nuclear strike capability.
Although I'd like to see new features the most important thing now is a bugfree release. Right now 1.06 Beta 2 has a disabling bug relating to deletion of random leaders and units. It seems as if this was introduced by B2. In all honesty it causes me to recommend a rollback to Beta 1. I'd like to see beta 3 with the reported bugs fixed. When can we see this?
As for the long-range attacks by nuclear subs and aircraft carriers against inland targets, I think what is needed is some sort of floating base concept. Only carriers and nuclear subs should get this. As for carriers there actually was an idea in 1945 that the USA considered and abandoned to give carriers a long range nuclear strike capability.
Last edited:
carrier based air had a very limited impact on strategic targets, and if it did, it was only when the war was already decided or had overwhelming force.
And using nukes in carrier strikes was a navy pipe dream to justify a piece of the nuclear deterrent pie, later fulfilled via submarines.
And using nukes in carrier strikes was a navy pipe dream to justify a piece of the nuclear deterrent pie, later fulfilled via submarines.
Limited impact on strategic targets? Have you studied carrier warfare in the last 50 years? Carriers are hideously expensive yet all major powers are planning to or have already used them for power projection capabilities since WWII. Over the last 50 years 95+% of their actual combat operations have been strategic/interdiction/infrastructure strike & CAS missions by volume!
Even late WWII - Post Jap carrier force destruction the primary CAG mission was fleet air defense (anti-kamikaze), shore bombardment & Importantly airbase strike.
Way off on this one
Last edited:
umm, AoD is a WORLD WAR II game, so changes to the engine to support a cold war mod are not really a focus of the developers, I imagine.
Any anyway, carriers have only been effective during the CW in strategic role because there has never been a threat of the Third World country they are attacking deploying land-based air.
Do you think carriers will be in the Gulf when war with Iran comes?
Any anyway, carriers have only been effective during the CW in strategic role because there has never been a threat of the Third World country they are attacking deploying land-based air.
Do you think carriers will be in the Gulf when war with Iran comes?
Power projection isn't the same thing as strategic warfare
Doesn't "strategic" represent bombing of entire nations to seriously affect their entire economy, and thus their ability to wage war? IMHO naval power projection is a quite different thing, representing the ability to use any kind of military forces in states otherwise out of reach. This has been done with naval forces since anicent Greece and IMHO the concept hasn't changed, only been updated with recent tech (i.e. aircraft was simply added in wwII). Even the US has relied solely upon strategic missiles (land & sub) and land-based & air refuelled bombers for this task postwar.
Attacking the very limited industrial base & infrastructure in extremely poor and small third world nations unable to strike back cant be considered strategic warfare (IMHO it's dobious if it's warfare at all or merly a logistic operation).
And this discussion isn't really about the 1.06b patch is it?
/Mattias
Doesn't "strategic" represent bombing of entire nations to seriously affect their entire economy, and thus their ability to wage war? IMHO naval power projection is a quite different thing, representing the ability to use any kind of military forces in states otherwise out of reach. This has been done with naval forces since anicent Greece and IMHO the concept hasn't changed, only been updated with recent tech (i.e. aircraft was simply added in wwII). Even the US has relied solely upon strategic missiles (land & sub) and land-based & air refuelled bombers for this task postwar.
Attacking the very limited industrial base & infrastructure in extremely poor and small third world nations unable to strike back cant be considered strategic warfare (IMHO it's dobious if it's warfare at all or merly a logistic operation
). And this discussion isn't really about the 1.06b patch is it?
/Mattias
- Status