The moddir problems (as well as about 10 other problems related to event commands) are acknowledged bugs and should hopefully be fixed in 1.05.
-
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.
Well, i agree that sometimes, when you play HoI you want a game that recreates as closer as posible WW2, and thus you want the other countries to choose the most historical option and that their behaviour is as historical as possible and close to the WW2 dateline. But do you really want the game to go always 100% historical? It would be boring if all your games, no matter the country you play and no matter how many times you play, follow basically the same path.
In fact, in most games ive played, some details were not 100% historical, but it didn´t alter the result: WAR in Europe very similar to real WW2, but with those little differences that makes the game so replayable.
In one of my serious games (not test) SPR won the war in part because they got the help of SOV and FRA, while SPA only got ITA´s. It didn´t change the result because SPR stood apart from the war (it didn´t join the comitern). In other, CZE was not torn apart in Munich, and it stood apart from the war (surprisingly, GER didn´t DOW them). In other, Poland agreed giving Danzig to GER, so the war was delayed, but it happened early in 1940 and things went quite historical since then, so the result was only a delay in the dateline. Sometimes YUG joins axis, sometimes not, sometimes GRE is attacked, sometimes not... you know, some variables are good for playability.
IMO, we should be very cautious in cutting the possible paths the game can take, because making ai´s behaviour 100% predictable would ruin the game, you would always know what is it going to do next.
. There are very little event or behaviour outcomes that can really ruin the game, in my experience, things tend to eventually follow their natural path.
In fact, in most games ive played, some details were not 100% historical, but it didn´t alter the result: WAR in Europe very similar to real WW2, but with those little differences that makes the game so replayable.
In one of my serious games (not test) SPR won the war in part because they got the help of SOV and FRA, while SPA only got ITA´s. It didn´t change the result because SPR stood apart from the war (it didn´t join the comitern). In other, CZE was not torn apart in Munich, and it stood apart from the war (surprisingly, GER didn´t DOW them). In other, Poland agreed giving Danzig to GER, so the war was delayed, but it happened early in 1940 and things went quite historical since then, so the result was only a delay in the dateline. Sometimes YUG joins axis, sometimes not, sometimes GRE is attacked, sometimes not... you know, some variables are good for playability.
IMO, we should be very cautious in cutting the possible paths the game can take, because making ai´s behaviour 100% predictable would ruin the game, you would always know what is it going to do next.
. There are very little event or behaviour outcomes that can really ruin the game, in my experience, things tend to eventually follow their natural path.
My theory is, the game should happen just as it did in WWII if it is not interrupted.
Originally posted by nachinus
In one of my serious games (not test) SPR won the war in part because they got the help of SOV and FRA, while SPA only got ITA´s. It didn´t change the result because SPR stood apart from the war (it didn´t join the comitern). In other, CZE was not torn apart in Munich, and it stood apart from the war (surprisingly, GER didn´t DOW them). In other, Poland agreed giving Danzig to GER, so the war was delayed, but it happened early in 1940 and things went quite historical since then, so the result was only a delay in the dateline. Sometimes YUG joins axis, sometimes not, sometimes GRE is attacked, sometimes not... you know, some variables are good for playability.
IMO, we should be very cautious in cutting the possible paths the game can take, because making ai´s behaviour 100% predictable would ruin the game, you would always know what is it going to do next.
Generally I agree, however in current release of CORE (and coming release with techmod) some elements of II WW doesn't happen at all. If we created whole event chain to make Germans attack Norway, why not send them to Balkans area?
In ALL my games Grecce was not attacked, and in 80% of them they joined Axis. In 80% games Albania defended itself, thanks to Italian inability to launch aphibious attack effective enough to seize Tirana.
I don't say that ALL events should go historical way. I fact, I think that list of critical events should include only most important events that led to start WW II (exception - US elections, those were very important). I actually enjoy variant of history when Republica wins, or Sweden joins Winter War. But not version when Germany back of in Sudeten crisis and later are unable to do anything thanks to the fact, that this part of their behavioar was totally ignored by Paradox. That's why Chechoslovakia is not attacked - because german AI doesn't see it. Similar thing with Lithuania and Memel - after Rib-Mol sometimes happen situation, when Lithuania survives... only in Memel, seceding rest of territory to USSR. Sorry, but I ALWAYS reload game when something like that happens.
Still, there should be left "freestyle" scenario, where all could happen.
No, not always 100%; that would be boring. Steel pointed out that the minimum chance for an event is 5%, which should provide reasonable opportunity for even those obscure what-ifs to happen. I'm more interested in historical events having a high probability of occurrence, not necessarily 100%, based on factors that drove actual decision-making at the time. The game should be plausible. (It's much better now than before!) Alternate history scenario mods can assume other probabilities for more excitement or whatever, but the default scenario should strive to be historically correct.
The ripple effect of some different events happening, variable AI decisions, plus a player's unique decisions will always result in a game that deviates from history. As I pointed out previously, purely historical events being triggered with ai=yes in 1939 may be entirely inappropriate based on what happens previously, so a 100% historical game is unlikely. As factors change, so should ai decision-making. Perhaps a few key events could be locked in as suggested, but only a few.
Once CORE 1936 is squared away, historical scenarios for the subsequent years should be developed. That would allow players to pick up a historical game at any point and take it from there with CORE's realistic, but variable, events.
Axis Greek
I am working on an event that will allow Greece to get ships from the UK which will result in them moving towards the Allied side by virtue of 100 points of democracy sometime due to that event. That should help Greece stay at least neutral in the conflict. MDow
I am working on an event that will allow Greece to get ships from the UK which will result in them moving towards the Allied side by virtue of 100 points of democracy sometime due to that event. That should help Greece stay at least neutral in the conflict. MDow
Re: Axis Greek
It would be helpful - for now in test games Grecce is DOWed by Italy, then it fights alone, thanks to it's paternal autocrat government (alignment is close, but not fully democratic).
BTW, we should discuss similar events (alignment change, dissent rise) more - sometimes even small changes, when added, can result in serious game effects (UK knocked out of war by high dissent, USA to "fascist" thanks to events to join Allies, Japan so "fascist" that it joins Axis in 1940 and so on... We also can't use Paradox event policy - "few events, big effects". Any change of dissent bigger than 5% got serious impact on game, similarly every change of alignment of more than 20 points.
It would be helpful - for now in test games Grecce is DOWed by Italy, then it fights alone, thanks to it's paternal autocrat government (alignment is close, but not fully democratic).
BTW, we should discuss similar events (alignment change, dissent rise) more - sometimes even small changes, when added, can result in serious game effects (UK knocked out of war by high dissent, USA to "fascist" thanks to events to join Allies, Japan so "fascist" that it joins Axis in 1940 and so on... We also can't use Paradox event policy - "few events, big effects". Any change of dissent bigger than 5% got serious impact on game, similarly every change of alignment of more than 20 points.
I agree.
Maybe we could make a subtle maneuver to make the balkans closer to allies than axis via events than alligns them towards democracy. Maybe those events could be linked to aggresive german policy. P.e: reaction to annexation of CZE, POL, the invasion of ALB by ITA, invasion of GRE... So if the axis player or ai is as aggressive as historically, then Balkan countries would react historically.
IMO, the most important thing to fix in the Balkans is trying to make ITA more prone to invade GRE after ALB is annexed.
Maybe we could make a subtle maneuver to make the balkans closer to allies than axis via events than alligns them towards democracy. Maybe those events could be linked to aggresive german policy. P.e: reaction to annexation of CZE, POL, the invasion of ALB by ITA, invasion of GRE... So if the axis player or ai is as aggressive as historically, then Balkan countries would react historically.
IMO, the most important thing to fix in the Balkans is trying to make ITA more prone to invade GRE after ALB is annexed.
Greek Naval Events
I have finished roughing out the Greek and Turkish naval events. (I wish that you could put a time delay on triggers) Right now it moves Greece towards democracy 5 points for passing a bill to build ships in the UK and a 50 point move after Britain approves the construction. There is a choice that Britain will not approve the construction and Greece will get a push towards facism. There is also a trigger that will give Turkey the choice of matching the building program. IMO that seemed right traditionally. I will be sending copies to Copper and Steel for comment and debugging, if anyone else wants to see them, drop me a PM. MDow
I have finished roughing out the Greek and Turkish naval events. (I wish that you could put a time delay on triggers) Right now it moves Greece towards democracy 5 points for passing a bill to build ships in the UK and a 50 point move after Britain approves the construction. There is a choice that Britain will not approve the construction and Greece will get a push towards facism. There is also a trigger that will give Turkey the choice of matching the building program. IMO that seemed right traditionally. I will be sending copies to Copper and Steel for comment and debugging, if anyone else wants to see them, drop me a PM. MDow
New ideas...
To summarise current discussions, we got following topics:
1) General balance of the game,
2) Historical behaviour of the AI controled states.
I think that we can also discuss here another topic - optional pack with events, ai's and any other tweaks rising difficulty level of the game for human players (also called HARD C.O.R.E. - damn, I really like this name).
All testers of the techmod probably already noticed, that I added there startup events with an option to choose higher level of difficulty. For now it only changes starting caches of the resources and manpowerpool, lowers IC and rise dissent, but I think that it would be good idea to develop it even more.
I already test variant of those events, that sets flag (for example for germany it's ger_hard), than activates pack of special events. Those events got low, random chance of occurance (usually 3%, offset 30-50 days, different starting dates 1936-1946) and make life of the player harder - random commanders die in battles/partisan attacks, industrial catastrophes happen, reseach is sabotaged/stolen by the enemy and resources are wasted. There is even one event (very, very slim chance) with the nuclear accident. For now this pack consist of 31 events concerning Germany, but it would be great to both develop existing and create similar packs for all mayor nations.
How do you like this idea?
To summarise current discussions, we got following topics:
1) General balance of the game,
2) Historical behaviour of the AI controled states.
I think that we can also discuss here another topic - optional pack with events, ai's and any other tweaks rising difficulty level of the game for human players (also called HARD C.O.R.E. - damn, I really like this name
).All testers of the techmod probably already noticed, that I added there startup events with an option to choose higher level of difficulty. For now it only changes starting caches of the resources and manpowerpool, lowers IC and rise dissent, but I think that it would be good idea to develop it even more.
I already test variant of those events, that sets flag (for example for germany it's ger_hard), than activates pack of special events. Those events got low, random chance of occurance (usually 3%, offset 30-50 days, different starting dates 1936-1946) and make life of the player harder - random commanders die in battles/partisan attacks, industrial catastrophes happen, reseach is sabotaged/stolen by the enemy and resources are wasted. There is even one event (very, very slim chance) with the nuclear accident. For now this pack consist of 31 events concerning Germany, but it would be great to both develop existing and create similar packs for all mayor nations.
How do you like this idea?
I love it!
Would be a lot of work, I'm sure, although events that lower IC, hack into the resource pool, raise dissent, take supplies etc could be quite general for all majors. The only adjustment would be to look at the countries total IC when playing VH and reducing it by "disaster" events, though you might want to make those trigger very very infrequently and focus on the "natural born killer" countries like Germany/Japan/USSR/USA, because when those are handled by competant humans, they run away with all prices!
Suggestions;
Germany : Lower IC, lower MP, trade insufficiancies leading to resources being cut, German industry on non-war footing until 1943, make triggers checking if minister is Speer and reduce IC and resources if not..............etc etc.
USSR : If you want to make it difficult for a human USSR player, reduce IC by losses when Germany invades. Reduce IC + resources due to the mediaval running of the country pre-war etc.
USA : Greatly reduce IC available for tech research pre-war, maybe events that "demand" more consumer goods.
Japan : too many resources, cut them + IC available, keep in mind that if human player "rolls" over China, resources after annexation really become patheticly high, compared with Japan's pre-war production and resources available.
Maybe events like "China pulls resources away, big dip in coal/rubber" and are the US trade wars with Japan (scrap steel/oil embargo) really hurting Japan, maybe they should be increased in vigor?
Just some ideas, but your "select difficulty setting" is GREAT!!
Would be a lot of work, I'm sure, although events that lower IC, hack into the resource pool, raise dissent, take supplies etc could be quite general for all majors. The only adjustment would be to look at the countries total IC when playing VH and reducing it by "disaster" events, though you might want to make those trigger very very infrequently and focus on the "natural born killer" countries like Germany/Japan/USSR/USA, because when those are handled by competant humans, they run away with all prices!
Suggestions;
Germany : Lower IC, lower MP, trade insufficiancies leading to resources being cut, German industry on non-war footing until 1943, make triggers checking if minister is Speer and reduce IC and resources if not..............etc etc.
USSR : If you want to make it difficult for a human USSR player, reduce IC by losses when Germany invades. Reduce IC + resources due to the mediaval running of the country pre-war etc.
USA : Greatly reduce IC available for tech research pre-war, maybe events that "demand" more consumer goods.
Japan : too many resources, cut them + IC available, keep in mind that if human player "rolls" over China, resources after annexation really become patheticly high, compared with Japan's pre-war production and resources available.
Maybe events like "China pulls resources away, big dip in coal/rubber" and are the US trade wars with Japan (scrap steel/oil embargo) really hurting Japan, maybe they should be increased in vigor?
Just some ideas, but your "select difficulty setting" is GREAT!!
I like the idea. I think it´s the correct way to make CORE harder: instead of espectacular restrictions in a few critical issues (just as the difficulty level works), i prefer subtle details or restrictions in many areas, so you don´t really notice a big restriction from the beggining of the game.
some observations
After finishing my above mentioned game, I DL the latest Techmod (1.28) and fire it up. For some reason Italy declares war on The USSR in 1937. Germany goes with the honoring the Munich agreement (later the Czechs join the Axis) and declares war on the USSR in June of 1939. September 1, 1939, Germany declares war on Poland and the Allies. What!?!?!?!?! Great non-historical game but WOW going against doctrine and fighting on two fronts. Then Germany proceeds to kick not only the Poles & Russians buttocks in the East, they take out France and the Low countries. (The UK AI needs A LOT of work. They didn't raise a finger to help the French. No bombing even with a huge STR Airforce, no large commitment of ground forces to the continent.)
Japan is another thing. If the Japan AI choses the "go with the North" policy of resource allocation then I could see them 'Officially' joining the AXIS and fighting the USSR. If the Japan AI chooses the 'South' option they should not join the AXIS, but declare war on the Allies separately to get the British and Dutch East Indies. As it now stands Japan cannot last past 1943 since it is having to fight the British in Burma and Singapore, the USSR in Manchuria, and then the US. I can sail right into Tokyo Bay and invade Japan in 1943 as the US while the Soviets have annexed the eastern half of China and are marching down the Korean Peninsula.
About the Soviet Annexation of Persia (It simplfies things for the USSR I know) but couldn't we just have a coup event that sets up a Pro-Ally or Com-Intern puppet government (ala Vichy) if Persia refuses access?
Patrick
After finishing my above mentioned game, I DL the latest Techmod (1.28) and fire it up. For some reason Italy declares war on The USSR in 1937. Germany goes with the honoring the Munich agreement (later the Czechs join the Axis) and declares war on the USSR in June of 1939. September 1, 1939, Germany declares war on Poland and the Allies. What!?!?!?!?! Great non-historical game but WOW going against doctrine and fighting on two fronts. Then Germany proceeds to kick not only the Poles & Russians buttocks in the East, they take out France and the Low countries. (The UK AI needs A LOT of work. They didn't raise a finger to help the French. No bombing even with a huge STR Airforce, no large commitment of ground forces to the continent.)
Japan is another thing. If the Japan AI choses the "go with the North" policy of resource allocation then I could see them 'Officially' joining the AXIS and fighting the USSR. If the Japan AI chooses the 'South' option they should not join the AXIS, but declare war on the Allies separately to get the British and Dutch East Indies. As it now stands Japan cannot last past 1943 since it is having to fight the British in Burma and Singapore, the USSR in Manchuria, and then the US. I can sail right into Tokyo Bay and invade Japan in 1943 as the US while the Soviets have annexed the eastern half of China and are marching down the Korean Peninsula.
About the Soviet Annexation of Persia (It simplfies things for the USSR I know) but couldn't we just have a coup event that sets up a Pro-Ally or Com-Intern puppet government (ala Vichy) if Persia refuses access?
Patrick
About Japan, there's three ways they can join the Axis:
- Wars merged (automatic thing in HOI 1.04)
- Diplomatic action (automatic thing in HOI 1.04)
- Event (under my control)
While I totally understand where you are coming from, it's not easy to control who joins what alliance. It's also worthwhile remembering that Pearl Harbour can't be modelled and therefore the Japanese are fighting the full American fleet
Personally I am quite comfortable with Japan joining the Axis if Moscow has fallen but not earlier, unless of course China is defeated and they chose the North strategy. Remember that historically the Japanese army had most of it's divisions in China while in HOI the Chinese are often puppeted or annexed, freeing up 50+ divisions for action elsewhere (read: Vladivostok).
Rest assured that I'll continue tweaking this and pray for more modders tools in 1.05
- Wars merged (automatic thing in HOI 1.04)
- Diplomatic action (automatic thing in HOI 1.04)
- Event (under my control)
While I totally understand where you are coming from, it's not easy to control who joins what alliance. It's also worthwhile remembering that Pearl Harbour can't be modelled and therefore the Japanese are fighting the full American fleet
Personally I am quite comfortable with Japan joining the Axis if Moscow has fallen but not earlier, unless of course China is defeated and they chose the North strategy. Remember that historically the Japanese army had most of it's divisions in China while in HOI the Chinese are often puppeted or annexed, freeing up 50+ divisions for action elsewhere (read: Vladivostok).
Rest assured that I'll continue tweaking this and pray for more modders tools in 1.05
Re: some observations
I was thinking about it - but the main problem is "peace" command. For now Persia is potential source of similar problem as Yugoslavia or RSI - switching alliances in HoI is really tricky now. I prefer to annex then (for now) to simplify things, of course only if Persia is not governed byt he human player.
Japan... For now (1.04) there is no good solution of this problem. Contrary to earlier patches Japan in 10.4 is too eager to join Axis - and modding can't help much here. In current version of the techmod Japan is much less fascist then in case of vanilla CORE or HoI, Chalkin Gol make them even less fascist, and still they join Axis 1941 at the latest, and most of the time it happens during the German Balkan campaign.
Maybe if we could make Japan Liberal Conservative state and keep them fighting, that would help? As a democracy they would not be able to join Axis. It's as much strange as communist Japan in 1.03b, but it should do.
I was thinking about it - but the main problem is "peace" command. For now Persia is potential source of similar problem as Yugoslavia or RSI - switching alliances in HoI is really tricky now. I prefer to annex then (for now) to simplify things, of course only if Persia is not governed byt he human player.
Japan... For now (1.04) there is no good solution of this problem. Contrary to earlier patches Japan in 10.4 is too eager to join Axis - and modding can't help much here. In current version of the techmod Japan is much less fascist then in case of vanilla CORE or HoI, Chalkin Gol make them even less fascist, and still they join Axis 1941 at the latest, and most of the time it happens during the German Balkan campaign.
Maybe if we could make Japan Liberal Conservative state and keep them fighting, that would help? As a democracy they would not be able to join Axis. It's as much strange as communist Japan in 1.03b, but it should do.
Re: Greek Naval Events
Is there any way to increase the size of the diplomatic fallout when a country does a DOW or Join Alliance. It seems to me that Greece/Turkey/etc don't care all that much about thier neighbours being overrun or joining a Alliance. I know it sounds strange but I thought a lot of these balkanised countries got more worried about being absorbed than joining the winning side.
Is there any way to increase the size of the diplomatic fallout when a country does a DOW or Join Alliance. It seems to me that Greece/Turkey/etc don't care all that much about thier neighbours being overrun or joining a Alliance. I know it sounds strange but I thought a lot of these balkanised countries got more worried about being absorbed than joining the winning side.
Re: Re: Greek Naval Events
Basic diplomatic influence (DI points) could be lowered by events, but it's not the point - right now diplomacy in HoI is based on strong influence of war on diplomatic influence. Basically, if you win, then it's easier to influence other countries.
It's generally correct, but sometimes it creates weird situations - during 1939-41 Axis got good realy good "war bonus" to their diplomatic moves and sometimes they are able to develop their alliance a bit more than IRL (Afghanistan, Argentina, Spain, Iraq).
In case of Grecce problem is solved in 0.3 - now Italy most of the time would attack them right after creation of Vichy and Albania conquest. In case of Turkey, IRL they were close to join war on the Axis side when they were at the peak of their power (1941-1942), so it's not that bad recreated in game...
Basic diplomatic influence (DI points) could be lowered by events, but it's not the point - right now diplomacy in HoI is based on strong influence of war on diplomatic influence. Basically, if you win, then it's easier to influence other countries.
It's generally correct, but sometimes it creates weird situations - during 1939-41 Axis got good realy good "war bonus" to their diplomatic moves and sometimes they are able to develop their alliance a bit more than IRL (Afghanistan, Argentina, Spain, Iraq).
In case of Grecce problem is solved in 0.3 - now Italy most of the time would attack them right after creation of Vichy and Albania conquest. In case of Turkey, IRL they were close to join war on the Axis side when they were at the peak of their power (1941-1942), so it's not that bad recreated in game...
Difficulty through random events
Copper N -
no offense, but I really don't like your suggestion to increase the difficulty for the German player via random events. I don't like games with gratuitous volatility... a personal preference perhaps.
I'd far rather start with less forces, less resources, and/or less industry. It's much more straightforward than repeatedly getting hit over the head with teleporting sledgehammers coming from nowhere.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm NOT a masochist (even though I play stony road). Stony road makes the game A LOT harder by reducing Germany's manpower at the start of the game... and I think that sort of approach is what makes a game more enjoyable.
I'll grant you that your events might make things a lot more realistic, but the thing is, particularly if the events are nasty enough, you can suddenly find yourself in a completely untenable position through no fault of your own.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that kind of situation EXTREMELY frustrating....
Copper N -
no offense, but I really don't like your suggestion to increase the difficulty for the German player via random events. I don't like games with gratuitous volatility... a personal preference perhaps.
I'd far rather start with less forces, less resources, and/or less industry. It's much more straightforward than repeatedly getting hit over the head with teleporting sledgehammers coming from nowhere.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm NOT a masochist (even though I play stony road). Stony road makes the game A LOT harder by reducing Germany's manpower at the start of the game... and I think that sort of approach is what makes a game more enjoyable.
I'll grant you that your events might make things a lot more realistic, but the thing is, particularly if the events are nasty enough, you can suddenly find yourself in a completely untenable position through no fault of your own.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that kind of situation EXTREMELY frustrating....
Re: Difficulty through random events
I understand, and believe me - I thinked about it a lot. Situiation when you are whacked randomly is really frustrating, but it's only option if you want to keep game balanced. Changing whole scenario is better, but got one main fault - it will affect not only human players, but also AI. In effect you have to make "one nation" scenario - because only human player is able to play this modded nation.
Main idea behind those events is the option to turn those off (basic difficulty level). Also, those events are "ai=no", so they not affect nations played by AI. It more important than you may think - this way we can keep one scenario for all nations, not separate ones for UK, USSR, Germany... you name it.
One more thing - those events are annoing, but nothing more. I played test game on hardest level (starting manpower 600, no resources, HARD_core events on) and I still win... It's 1941, 4 events happened, I've lost some resources and 10 IC points. As you can see, not much. I expect that soon I'll loose some commanders, more resources and witness some research sabotages, but it won't have huge impact on whole game. Just as I wanted. Harder, but not dead Hard, like SF..
I understand, and believe me - I thinked about it a lot. Situiation when you are whacked randomly is really frustrating, but it's only option if you want to keep game balanced. Changing whole scenario is better, but got one main fault - it will affect not only human players, but also AI. In effect you have to make "one nation" scenario - because only human player is able to play this modded nation.
Main idea behind those events is the option to turn those off (basic difficulty level). Also, those events are "ai=no", so they not affect nations played by AI. It more important than you may think - this way we can keep one scenario for all nations, not separate ones for UK, USSR, Germany... you name it.
One more thing - those events are annoing, but nothing more. I played test game on hardest level (starting manpower 600, no resources, HARD_core events on) and I still win... It's 1941, 4 events happened, I've lost some resources and 10 IC points. As you can see, not much. I expect that soon I'll loose some commanders, more resources and witness some research sabotages, but it won't have huge impact on whole game. Just as I wanted. Harder, but not dead Hard, like SF.
.
Hmmm... how about the diff level setup event with options like this:
A - Normal (change nothing)
B - Hard (reduce my resources, manpower etc a bit)
C - Very Hard (reduce my resources, manpower etc a lot)
D - Very Hard + Events (same as C but also the random events)
A - Normal (change nothing)
B - Hard (reduce my resources, manpower etc a bit)
C - Very Hard (reduce my resources, manpower etc a lot)
D - Very Hard + Events (same as C but also the random events)