Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Adding new models to division ship files

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
U

unmerged(21239)

Major
Oct 28, 2003
508
0
Visit site
Ok, I have been working on this off and on for a week without success.

In the DB/Units/Division heavy cruisers file, I created 7 new models, numbered 7-13, which are listed after the original models. These 7 new models will represent the unique stats of Jap CA's.

Within the naval tech file, I then added a completely new tech line represented the Jap CA's. This new tech line has unique ID's and is self contained as are all the naval tech classes. This new tech line references the new 7-13 models in the CA file. The new tech line is just a duplicate with unique IDs and pointing to the new models.

Then I went into the 1936 scenario file, I listed the new CA tech line (with unique IDs) within the activated tech section. I completely bypassed the old CA tech line by not listing them as activated techs. Now when starting the Jap 36 scenario, the new naval tech line should be activated. And when activated, it should reference the new CA models 7-13 with brand new Japanese stats.

While in the Jap 1936 file, I also changed the model references for Japanese CA's, existing at scenario start, to point to the appropriate new models of 7-13.

The scenario starts up fine. However the starting CA's have the values of the original 1-6 models even though I reference models 7-13. In addition, when I build a new CA, again it uses the values of the matching, original 1-6 models.

Any ideas what as to what is going wrong here? I am really surprised that the starting cruisers are using the original models stats. I have changed each CA, within the 1936 scenario, to point to a specific, newly created, model class. They now point to new models that didn't exist previously. Yet in the game, they continue to use the old model values!!!

What am I missing here?
 
Last edited:
Jagger said:
Ok, I have been working on this off and on for a week without success.

In the DB/Units/Division heavy cruisers file, I created 7 new models, numbered 7-13, which are listed after the original models. These 7 new models will represent the unique stats of Jap CA's.

Within the naval tech file, I then added a completely new tech line represented the Jap CA's. This new tech line has unique ID's and is self contained as are all the naval tech classes. This new tech line references the new 7-13 models in the CA file. The new tech line is just a duplicate with unique IDs and pointing to the new models.

Then I went into the 1936 scenario file, I listed the new CA tech line (with unique IDs) within the activated tech section. I completely bypassed the old CA tech line by not listing them as activated techs. Now when starting the Jap 36 scenario, the new naval tech line should be activated. And when activated, it should reference the new CA models 7-13 with brand new Japanese stats.

While in the Jap 1936 file, I also changed the model references for Japanese CA's, existing at scenario start, to point to the appropriate new models of 7-13.

The scenario starts up fine. However the starting CA's have the values of the original 1-6 models even though I reference models 7-13. In addition, when I build a new CA, again it uses the values of the matching, original 1-6 models.

Any ideas what as to what is going wrong here? I am really surprised that the starting cruisers are using the original models stats. I have changed each CA, within the 1936 scenario, to point to a specific, newly created, model class. They now point to new models that didn't exist previously. Yet in the game, they continue to use the old model values!!!

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

You are going to encounter a problem in that you are limited to models 0-9 (ten models). This is going to cause a crash around 0000 2 Jan, 1926.

As for the rest, I can't figure out what the problem is without seeing your files. If you drop me a PM, I will give you my e-mail address and you can e-mail the files to me and I will take a look at them. MDow
 
Well, I finally got everything to work.

But unfortunately, it is true. The max number of ship model stats that the game recognizes is 10 per class. I can create all the model ship stats I want, but anything over 10 just recycles through the first 10.

Which means we are limited to 10 sets of ship stats per class. The game restricts every cruiser ever built by every nation over a 11 year period to fit within 10 sets of stats......

Its...its...aggravating!!!!!
 
If the game would recognize two digits instead of just one for models, we would be set. We could do everything needed to represent the different ship qualities if we had 99 models to work with instead of 9. And I seriously doubt we would need anywhere near 99 models per class to do what is necessary.

Oh well, as anyone put in a suggestion to Paradox???
 
Surely techs can be used to add to divisional stats? They could in HoI1, and unless that feature has been removed (which I doubt), you could always create a set of "national" techs which change stats as needed and give them to the countries concerned, or just change around the naval doctrines...
 
Strunt, what I wanted to do was reflect the individual characteristics of specific ship classes-such as armor, AA capability, range, firepower etc. These values are inherent to specific ship classes. The Japanese had very small CL's with little firepower but lots of torpedos. The Japanese and Germans built massive CA's regardless of the Naval treaties. The 30's UK BB's were known for lightly armored conning towers unlike other navies. Some navies made CLAA's while others didn't. There is a huge amount of variety just within specific ship classes.

The national techs could adjust some of the values of ship classes but not many. And the adjustments would be across the board for every CA, CL, BB/ etc rather than specific ship models. It is a very blunt instrument for tailoring values which should just be inherent to the ships themselves.
 
Last edited:
Can we assume, then, that alphabetical values won't work as a stand-in for 0-9? I'm relitively new to modding, and I think it's a valid question.
 
I tried decimals without success. I didn't try the alphabet.

But I also had what appears to be fatal results with the naval tech.

I created a few new IJN models with the remaining empty slots in the CA file. I then created a new IJN naval tech line with new ID's to bypass the original CA line. By doing this, the newly created ships would only be available to the IJN.

I updated the scenario file by adding the new tech ID;s to the activated tech list.

Production worked. It recognized the new ID's. I could build and produce the new model CA's with their individualized stats.

Unfortunately, the naval tech did not recognize the new tech line. It continued to use the old tech numbers and line. I could only research the original CA's starting with the first "Great War" tech.

I assume the game is hardcoded to go to the original first tech in each tech group.

If correct, we can only add new techs that appear after the first tech in each group. In addition, new techs will be universally applied to all nations. We won't be able to add units specific to a nation.

Sad.
 
Last edited:
Letters won't work. You don't assign an ID (essentially the number) to a model, the game does automatically. so no go for the letters.

You can add nation specific techs quite simple.

First you create a tech that does nothing. Don't make it researchable (no button to click on, I _guess_ that can be done by leaving out the 'position'-line. If not, pity.), then give the tech to the country specifically ( in the scenario file). Make all other nation specific techs require it.
 
Yes you can, you just have other techs that sleep specific models.

However, I am totally against specific units for ONE nation. Why do just Japan when other nations had specified ships? Totally unfair, in my opinion.
 
Jagger said:
Strunt, what I wanted to do was reflect the individual characteristics of specific ship classes-such as armor, AA capability, range, firepower etc. These values are inherent to specific ship classes. The Japanese had very small CL's with little firepower but lots of torpedos. The Japanese and Germans built massive CA's regardless of the Naval treaties. The 30's UK BB's were known for lightly armored conning towers unlike other navies. Some navies made CLAA's while others didn't. There is a huge amount of variety just within specific ship classes.
Click to expand...

The models which are going to be included in the initial version of CORE take some of this into account within the limitations of 10 models. There is a model which wasn't in CORE1 which is the Large Heavy Cruiser. It is a subset of the technology to build Pocket Battleships. This will limit it to countries which built the larger cruisers (primarily Germany).

There will also be a full range of light cruiser choices. The CLAA will be in there in addition to protected and unprotected cruisers. There will also be a distinction between the larger treaty light cruisers (Brooklyn and Mogami) and the smaller treaty light cruisers (Leander and Le Glassionerre (sp?)). This will allow the OOBs to be accurate without a lot of fine tuning of stats.


The national techs could adjust some of the values of ship classes but not many. And the adjustments would be across the board for every CA, CL, BB/ etc rather than specific ship models. It is a very blunt instrument for tailoring values which should just be inherent to the ships themselves.
Click to expand...

There will be national techs for the major maritime powers (US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, USSR, Spain and Netherlands) but those are still in development. MDow
 
Actually I am doing exactly what MateDow is describing. The classes I am creating fill niches which are missed by the original models.

For example, one of the new models would fit both the Kinugasa and Exeter class. Another new model is for the CLAA which covers the Atlanta, Oakland and large UK CLAA's.

The problem was to insert the new models into the tech tree substituting for non-appropriate models while simultaneously restricting them to appropriate nationalities.

I could make them available to all nationalities but then every nation would have a nine ship CA research line which isn't really what I want to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Here is the list of models for the first version of CORE2. Let me know what you think. MDow

Code: 
[b]Battleships[/b]
Coast Defense Battleship ([i]Norge[/i]-class)
Pre-Dreadnaught Battleship ([i]Sverige[/i]-class)
Dreadnaught Battleship ([i]Espana[/i]-class)
Super-Dreadnaught Battleship ([i]Colorado[/i]-class)
Fast Dreadnaught Battleship ([i]Queen Elizabeth[/i]-class)
Post-Jutland Battleship (Battleships cancelled by the Washington Treaty)
Treaty Battleship ([i]King George V[/i]-class)
Fast Battleship ([i]Iowa[/i]-class)
Post-Treaty Battleship ([i]Montana[/i]-class)
Super Battleship ([i]Yamato[/i]-class)

[b]Battlecruisers[/b]
Large Armored Cruiser ([i]Averoff[/i]-class)
Large Light Cruiser ([i]Courageous[/i]-class)
Dreadnaught Battlecruiser ([i]Yavuz[/i]-class)
Super-Dreadnaught Battlecruiser ([i]Kongo[/i]-class)
Post-Jutland Battlecruiser ([i]Hood[/i]-class)
Small Treaty Battlecruiser ([i]Scharnhorst[/i]-class)
Treaty Battlecruiser
Post Treaty Battlecruiser
Super Battlecruiser
Guided Missile Battlecruiser

[b]Aircraft Carriers[/b]
Conversion Carrier ([i]Langley[/i]-class)
Cruiser Conversion ([i]Akagi[/i]-class)
Small Carrier ([i]Wasp[/i]-class)
Fleet Carrier ([i]Yorktown[/i]-class)
Armored Deck Fleet Carrier ([i]Indomitable[/i]-class)
Post-Treaty Fleet Carrier ([i]Essex[/i]-class)
Armored Deck Post-Treaty Carrier ([i]Malta[/i]-class)
Large Carrier ([i]Shinano[/i]-class)
Super Carrier ([i]Forrestal[/i]-class)
Nuclear Super Carrier ([i]Enterprise[/i]-class)

[b]Heavy Cruisers[/b]
Small Armored Cruiser ([i]Pisa[/i]-class)
Pocket Battleship ([i]Deutchland[/i]-class)
Large Heavy Cruiser ([i]Admiral Hipper[/i]-class)
Post-Jutland Heavy Cruiser ([i]Hawkins[/i]-class)
Small Treaty Heavy Cruiser ([i]York[/i]-class)
Early Treaty Heavy Cruiser ([i]Colbert[/i]-class)
Late Treaty Heavy Cruiser ([i]Bolzano[/i]-class)
Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser ([i]Baltimore[/i]-class)
Super Cruiser ([i]Alaska[/i]-class)
Semi-Modern Heavy Cruiser ([i]Des Moines[/i]-class)

[b]Light Cruisers[/b]
Unprotected Cruiser ([i]Cuba[/i]-class)
Protected Cruiser ([i]Quarto[/i]-class)
Treaty Sloop ([i]Erie[/i]-class)
Light Cruiser ([i]Emerald[/i]-class)
Small Treaty Light Cruiser ([i]Leander[/i]-class)
Treaty Light Cruiser ([i]Mogami[/i]-class)
AA Light Cruiser ([i]Atlanta[/i]-class)
Post-Treaty Light Cruiser ([i]Fiji[/i]-class)
Large AA Light Cruiser ([i]Worcester[/i]-class)
Guided Missile Light Cruiser ([i]Galveston[/i]-class)

[b]Destroyers[/b]
Patrol Gunboat (Miscelaneous Small Warships)
Motor Torpedo Boat (S-Boats)
500 Ton Destroyer ([i]La Melpomene[/i]-class)
1000 Ton Destroyer ([i]Clemson[/i]-class)
Escort Sloops ([i]Flower[/i]-class)
Corvette ([i]Everts[/i]-class)
Large Destroyer ([i]Mogador[/i]-class)
1500 Ton Destroyer ([i]Yubari[/i]-class)
2000 Ton Destroyer ([i]Tribal[/i]-class)
2500 Ton Destroyer ([i]Allen M Sumner[/i]-class)

[b]Transports[/b]
Converted Merchant Vessels ([i]Liberty[/i]-class)
Minelayer ([i]Pluton[/i]-class)
Auxiliary Cruiser ([i]Atlantis[/i]-class)
Small Passenger Liner ([i]La Savoi[/i]-class)
Medium Passenger Liner ([i]Bremen[/i]-class)
Large Passenger Liner ([i]Queen Mary[/i]-class)
Attack Transport ([i]Henderson[/i]-class)

[b]Submarines[/b]
Coast Defense Submarines
Basic Short Range Submarines
Basic Medium Range Submarines
Basic Long Range Submarines
Improved Short Range Submarines
Improved Long Range Submarines
Advanced Short Range Submarines
Advanced Long Range Submarines
Semi-Modern Short Range Submarines
Semi-Modern Long Lange Submarines
 
I don't like the addition of very light ships in the Destroyer section. A better use would be to cover the different destroyer types that were used throughout the war (light Torpedoboats, treaty-type destroyers, large destroyers) than to have a progression just from small tonage to large tonage.

I was rethinking things, mainly the destroyers (I really don't think that the very small ships are good additions).

Destroyers (something like this)
500 ton 1918 Refit Destroyer
500 ton 1930 Treaty Torpedoboat
1000 ton 1930 Treaty Destroyer
*1500 ton 1930 Illegal Treaty Destroyer
800 ton 1936 Torpedoboat
1000 ton 1936 Treaty Destroyer
*1500 ton 1936 Illegal Treaty Destroyer
1500 ton 1939 Destroyer
2000 ton 1941 Destroyer
2500 ton 1943 Destroyer

*I think that the addition of "Illegal Treaty Destroyers/Cruisers/Battleships" would be good additions to the game. This represents a particular nation getting ahead of technical destroyer design and production in the pre-war years, based on ignoring maximum tonnage laws, while most other nations had smaller ships because they followed the treaty. Tonnage really didn't change much, but main armament, radar, ASDIC, ASW, etc. did during this time. It wasn't until war began when nations started to build larger destroyers.

The illegal ship models could be activated/deactivated by a specific tech that a nation would either get or not get starting in 1936 (depending on their position regarding the London Naval Treaty). Nations like Germany, Italy and Japan would have access to these, as they either lied about following the treaty limitations, or blatantly ignored them.

This way, you get some nations with slightly more powerful vessels that they could build (at greater cost/time) representing a real difference between navies.

To me, this is much better than adding very small and/or obscure vessel classes. You get to choose to build either treaty destroyers, or treaty torpedoboats (for more ships, but weaker, like what Italy did), or if you are a nation that ignored the London Treaty, you get the choice to build 'large destroyers'.

New units should fix probems in OOBs, not create more (by having literally hundreds of these very light vessels that didn't perform in fleet actions, but in HoI2 they will be used this way). Adding those small ships will just muck up the game, better to have some differentiation where it counts, and some choice.
 
McNaughton said:
I don't like the addition of very light ships in the Destroyer section. A better use would be to cover the different destroyer types that were used throughout the war (light Torpedoboats, treaty-type destroyers, large destroyers) than to have a progression just from small tonage to large tonage.
Click to expand...

Many of the smaller warships were the mainstay of minor navies during the period leading up to and through the war. The Danish and Norweigen navies were built around torpedo boats which weren't as large as some of the other navies destroyers, but they were still the escort units for their capital ships. These were ships that were used during the war. It also allows the minor nations to have their historical OOBs and construction opportunities.



The different tonnages represent the different types of destroyers that were built up to and through the war.

The 1000 Ton destroyers were those that were built during and following the first World War.

The 1500 Ton destroyers were the destroyers that were being built at the beginning of the 1936 GC. These destroyers were the standard fleet destroyers for all of the nations prior to the expiration of the treaty limits.

The 2000 Ton destroyers represent those destroyers that were built around 1940.

The 2500 Ton destroyers were the last destroyers built during the war.

It looks like you have the same progression that I have, but with different tonnages and the addition of the "illegal" models. I didn't just go up in tonnage, but picked a tonnage that represented a majority of the destroyers that were built for a specific generation of destroyers.


*I think that the addition of "Illegal Treaty Destroyers/Cruisers/Battleships" would be good additions to the game. This represents a particular nation getting ahead of technical destroyer design and production in the pre-war years, based on ignoring maximum tonnage laws, while most other nations had smaller ships because they followed the treaty. Tonnage really didn't change much, but main armament, radar, ASDIC, ASW, etc. did during this time. It wasn't until war began when nations started to build larger destroyers.

The illegal ship models could be activated/deactivated by a specific tech that a nation would either get or not get starting in 1936 (depending on their position regarding the London Naval Treaty). Nations like Germany, Italy and Japan would have access to these, as they either lied about following the treaty limitations, or blatantly ignored them.

This way, you get some nations with slightly more powerful vessels that they could build (at greater cost/time) representing a real difference between navies.

To me, this is much better than adding very small and/or obscure vessel classes. You get to choose to build either treaty destroyers, or treaty torpedoboats (for more ships, but weaker, like what Italy did), or if you are a nation that ignored the London Treaty, you get the choice to build 'large destroyers'.

New units should fix probems in OOBs, not create more (by having literally hundreds of these very light vessels that didn't perform in fleet actions, but in HoI2 they will be used this way). Adding those small ships will just muck up the game, better to have some differentiation where it counts, and some choice.
Click to expand...

The large destroyer class covers these "Illegal" ships. If you look at the German and Italian destroyers of the pre-war period they realy aren't that much larger than the French destroyers and the British and American leader type destroyers. Their armament and resilience is fairly comparable. The US Porter-class destroyers with their 8 127mm (5 inch) guns were more than a match in tonnage and guns for any of the German destroyers. The French who were renowned for their large destroyers were treaty signatories. The Italians actually started building smaller destroyers as the course of the war went on.

The German heavy cruisers are represented by the Large Heavy Cruiser class of warships. This allows them to have the Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruisers at the beginning of the 1936 GC without giving them unnecessarily advanced models. They were the only power that built heavy cruisers that large until well into the war. The Italian cruisers were all around 10000 tons (the treaty limit) as well as the Japanese designs.

Sorry about the fact that this rambles. It is getting late. Let me know what your comments are and I will respond (hopefully better) after I have gotten some sleep. MDow
 
MateDow said:
Here is the list of models for the first version of CORE2. Let me know what you think. MDow

1500 Ton Destroyer (Yubari-class)
Click to expand...

Only one minor quibble. Wasn't Yubari an experimental Japanese cruiser built as an alternative to the 5500 tonners and as a testbed for weightsaving techniques?
 
I also think that the smallest vessels should be Corvettes / Frigates / Escort Destroyers, especially for patrol and ASW missions.

The problem of all the new models, which I also had on HOI1, is that the AI can't handle them.

CORE should also find a solution to teach the AI to handle this new different types.......that would be the biggest challenge....
 
Agelastus said:
Only one minor quibble. Wasn't Yubari an experimental Japanese cruiser built as an alternative to the 5500 tonners and as a testbed for weightsaving techniques?
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek: You caught me. I meant to list them as Fubuki-class. I will say that I got distracted while typing and that was the reason for the mistake (that is my story and I'm sticking to it :D) MDow
 
In the Carriers section, MateDow, you list Armored Deck Post-Treaty Carrier (Malta-class). Out of curiousity, about how many were produced across the board by the naval powers?

And your list ignores escort carriers, (I have read about the problems of implementation of various CAG sizes). Could an escort carrier be made to have a small boost to sub detection and attack, be short range (similar to DD's range), and have stats otherwise similar to an earlier model, so as to limit their use to their intended role? Or has this been tossed around before? (I'm sure it has, I just want to help with input if it hasn't)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back