Damn, I hoped there was some magic trick to make it work before Johan delivers 1.06 
-
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.
Question
Has anyone noticed any major problems with unit balance in any of the games that they have played or watched? I have heard a couple people mention that submarines vs destroyers might be unbalanced, but I just wanted to get a little more information before deciding on a fix (if one is necessary). I also want to know about general impressions on unit strength to see if some fixes have to made before 0.6. Thank you for your help. MDow
Has anyone noticed any major problems with unit balance in any of the games that they have played or watched? I have heard a couple people mention that submarines vs destroyers might be unbalanced, but I just wanted to get a little more information before deciding on a fix (if one is necessary). I also want to know about general impressions on unit strength to see if some fixes have to made before 0.6. Thank you for your help. MDow
Re: Question
About subs - I currently work on them. I'll send you the results soon. Basic idea is to keep them effective, hard to detect, but lower their defence (make them more fragile when detected) and their org (to limit time of contact with sub).
So far looks like it works, but have to run some more test to check that.
About surface fleet - got no opinion, running "hands off" games as Saudi don't helps me in testing that.
Further goals:
IMO we should start work on carriers. There is some threads on that matter, and idea of creating new plane type CAG (Carrier Aircraft Group) instead of torpedo planes seems rational to me. So far in CORE torpedo bombers are not that far for this idea (high tactical attack), but whole idea needs further "polishing"...
About subs - I currently work on them. I'll send you the results soon. Basic idea is to keep them effective, hard to detect, but lower their defence (make them more fragile when detected) and their org (to limit time of contact with sub).
So far looks like it works, but have to run some more test to check that.
About surface fleet - got no opinion, running "hands off" games as Saudi don't helps me in testing that.
Further goals:
IMO we should start work on carriers. There is some threads on that matter, and idea of creating new plane type CAG (Carrier Aircraft Group) instead of torpedo planes seems rational to me. So far in CORE torpedo bombers are not that far for this idea (high tactical attack), but whole idea needs further "polishing"...
Re: Question
Certainly in v0.51 you can use just the starting German submarine force (600 points) and defeat a 2700 point British force. IIRC the battle lasted about 2 or 3 days, the Brits had ships of every type including carriers with air squadrons on board but lost about 1800 points compared to about 150 points for the subs.
Certainly in v0.51 you can use just the starting German submarine force (600 points) and defeat a 2700 point British force. IIRC the battle lasted about 2 or 3 days, the Brits had ships of every type including carriers with air squadrons on board but lost about 1800 points compared to about 150 points for the subs.
Re: Question
I'm not quite sure but after I have played few games as Germany with CORE .51 I got the feeling that you could boost the early dd's a bit. Dont make anything dramatic since I suppose that early dd's should be inferior to later dd's. They should improve with new tech and according the tech tree they do so. Maybe you should alter the UK and/or other nations tech research preferences instead of modifying the units themselves.
This is also much a matter of opinion since it depends which nations ppl play. You know I have never played UK.
On a side note how about giving Germany the unlimited sub.war doctrine since it was AFAIK invented by germans and used in WWI. However I understand if you dont want to boost Germany. Not that I want subs to have more org. Subs were meant to be attacking convoys i.e merchant ships and avoid other surface ships. If you would instead lower sub org they would disengage quicker when dd's attack them. BTW Math Guy proposed this in other thread.
Also what bugs me is that I cant install Donitz as an naval minister. I suspect that you can do that later in the game but I normally dont play much further than the bitter peace. So any chance that there would be an event where I could choose to install donitz early? IIRC there was much debate in Germany in 1930's about which way they should develop their navy. They chose the Z-plan i.e. the BB:s and surface ships but they could have opted to build large sub fleet instead.
BTW what happened to the MKShep's sub techs?
My few cents.
I'm not quite sure but after I have played few games as Germany with CORE .51 I got the feeling that you could boost the early dd's a bit. Dont make anything dramatic since I suppose that early dd's should be inferior to later dd's. They should improve with new tech and according the tech tree they do so. Maybe you should alter the UK and/or other nations tech research preferences instead of modifying the units themselves.
This is also much a matter of opinion since it depends which nations ppl play. You know I have never played UK.
On a side note how about giving Germany the unlimited sub.war doctrine since it was AFAIK invented by germans and used in WWI. However I understand if you dont want to boost Germany. Not that I want subs to have more org. Subs were meant to be attacking convoys i.e merchant ships and avoid other surface ships. If you would instead lower sub org they would disengage quicker when dd's attack them. BTW Math Guy proposed this in other thread.
Also what bugs me is that I cant install Donitz as an naval minister. I suspect that you can do that later in the game but I normally dont play much further than the bitter peace. So any chance that there would be an event where I could choose to install donitz early? IIRC there was much debate in Germany in 1930's about which way they should develop their navy. They chose the Z-plan i.e. the BB:s and surface ships but they could have opted to build large sub fleet instead.
BTW what happened to the MKShep's sub techs?
My few cents.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Various Answers
It is supposedly working in 1.05b according to the readme. Haven't tried it yet.
Superior Turret Optics in naval_tech.txt does not lead anywhere and does not give any bonus.
Superior Turret Optics
Oops
It is supposed to be a requirement for Post-Treaty Battleships. It will also be a pre-requisite for semi-modern preiscopes when I finish the new submarine tech tree. Thank you for pointing it out. MDow
Oops
It is supposed to be a requirement for Post-Treaty Battleships. It will also be a pre-requisite for semi-modern preiscopes when I finish the new submarine tech tree. Thank you for pointing it out. MDow
Re: Re: Question
Yes it was. Will think about it, but as you pointed out - it boost Germany. And even early U-boats are powerful already. Hopefully my changes for 0.6 will balance this...
In the AI files for 0.6 Germany build some decent number of subs before the war (later there is no time) and when at war, send them on the Atlantic, so we can safely say that they have chosen 'Doenitz plan'. And as a player you can do it the same.
Well, this is fine material to compare, but not usable 'at once' (it was prepared for 1.03b and is balance dfor this edition).
Yes it was. Will think about it, but as you pointed out - it boost Germany. And even early U-boats are powerful already. Hopefully my changes for 0.6 will balance this...
In the AI files for 0.6 Germany build some decent number of subs before the war (later there is no time) and when at war, send them on the Atlantic, so we can safely say that they have chosen 'Doenitz plan'. And as a player you can do it the same.
Well, this is fine material to compare, but not usable 'at once' (it was prepared for 1.03b and is balance dfor this edition).
About the unlimited sub warfare you can just as easily argue that this was a political decision and that the doctrine should not be available until 17th August 1940. I don't think it should be known in 1936 as Donitz had only just returned to working with the submarine branch at the end of 1935 and had a lot of work ahead of him. While WWI experience is relevant I don't think it quite translates into an automatic 15% org bonus
If we want to go into more detail on this subject and offer this doctrine to Germany via an event then one possible solution could be to expand the Allied Blockade events. I think a revised event chain would go like this:
- British regulations on contraband goods (3rd September 1939). This allowed the British fleet to stop neutral shipping to Germany (imports only). In game, it would enable the first part of the Allied Blockade events (less effects than the current events).
- Allied blockade events.
- British export blockade for German goods (27th November 1939). This would cause a 1 point dissent hit for Germany as they suffer loss of overseas markets but give them say 500 supplies as goods destined for exports can now be used by the army.
- Navicert System and black lists. This gave British control over neutral trade and made ships liable to be seized and confiscated if they did not participate. This would enable the rest of the Blockade events (same effects as Blockade events in 0.52).
- Allied blockade events.
- German announcement of blockade against the United Kingdom.
Triggered by at least two of the small blockade events and one of the Navicert blockade events having occurred. This event would give Germany the Unlimited Submarine Warfare doctrine, reduce dissent by 2 points and optionally trigger one or a series of German blockade events.
- German blockade events. Reduces resource stockpiles for UK and adds 1 point of dissent to represent rationing.
Note that all the blockade events are not intended to replace the convoy battles in game but just to add some flavour and represent the food shortages impact on morale. I'm slightly against the German blockade events because they would still occur even if Germany has no navy...
If we want to go into more detail on this subject and offer this doctrine to Germany via an event then one possible solution could be to expand the Allied Blockade events. I think a revised event chain would go like this:
- British regulations on contraband goods (3rd September 1939). This allowed the British fleet to stop neutral shipping to Germany (imports only). In game, it would enable the first part of the Allied Blockade events (less effects than the current events).
- Allied blockade events.
- British export blockade for German goods (27th November 1939). This would cause a 1 point dissent hit for Germany as they suffer loss of overseas markets but give them say 500 supplies as goods destined for exports can now be used by the army.
- Navicert System and black lists. This gave British control over neutral trade and made ships liable to be seized and confiscated if they did not participate. This would enable the rest of the Blockade events (same effects as Blockade events in 0.52).
- Allied blockade events.
- German announcement of blockade against the United Kingdom.
Triggered by at least two of the small blockade events and one of the Navicert blockade events having occurred. This event would give Germany the Unlimited Submarine Warfare doctrine, reduce dissent by 2 points and optionally trigger one or a series of German blockade events.
- German blockade events. Reduces resource stockpiles for UK and adds 1 point of dissent to represent rationing.
Note that all the blockade events are not intended to replace the convoy battles in game but just to add some flavour and represent the food shortages impact on morale. I'm slightly against the German blockade events because they would still occur even if Germany has no navy...
well, but we should help Germany AI a bit ... it is very easy for the UK because no one stops your convoys... no matter if you don't even build one ship, you can sink all German navy at the start and your convoys are totally free... Germany should have more subs to make your life harder...
Originally posted by Generalisimo
well, but we should help Germany AI a bit ... it is very easy for the UK because no one stops your convoys... no matter if you don't even build one ship, you can sink all German navy at the start and your convoys are totally free... Germany should have more subs to make your life harder...
In current variant of German AI (for 0.6) it builds it's sub fleet up to 20 units and is able to replenish that by the 3 first years of war. Sadly, even with high admirat priority for Central Altantic, it waste to much time for battles near UK shores. But sometimes it breaks the blocade - it's nice view...
What's more, in Hard CORE highest level they will get two sub doctrines to make their attacks more annoing.
I agree. At the time, Raeder was in control of the Kriegsmarine, and he was a protogee of Von Tirpitz, and very much a surface fleet guy. Doenitz doesn't become chief of the KM until late 41, when Raeder argues himself out of office (and his friendhip with Cnaris and laothing of Heydrich).
I like these. As Genralissimo pointed out, UK resource stocks stay at ridiculous levels. There really isn't anyway to strangle Britain by sea, or even cause it any worry as things stand. We should have some method of representing the effectiveness of the German merchant raiders, either by event (easiest), or by tech.
The same argument can be applied to the Allied blockade events, though less likely to occur. A fully isolationist US could seriously impede UK efforts in the Atlantic war. We may need to add additional triggers to the Lend-Lease, and Bases for DDs events, checking that certain US presidents are not in office.
Just a suggestion
I know that a lot of you have read the treads of Math Guy. Are you intending to take some of his proposals (org value of subs,..) in account when you reconsider the sub tech tree?
MfG
Sonic
I know that a lot of you have read the treads of Math Guy. Are you intending to take some of his proposals (org value of subs,..) in account when you reconsider the sub tech tree?
MfG
Sonic
Re: Just a suggestion
It's already there in 0.6 files. Now basic subs got 15% of org and no doctrine/tech rise it more then 5%. Still subs are hard to detect and rather 'hard-hitting" - that should do.
If only Paradox stopped making patch after patch... it not helps us to keep on main part of work, when we have to make updates of the mod every week.
Just kidding, it's was nice surprise to see 1.05 and 1.05b - but nevertheless it also means that all the work with balancing subs, planes and AI development is delayed.
It's already there in 0.6 files. Now basic subs got 15% of org and no doctrine/tech rise it more then 5%. Still subs are hard to detect and rather 'hard-hitting" - that should do.
If only Paradox stopped making patch after patch... it not helps us to keep on main part of work, when we have to make updates of the mod every week.
Just kidding, it's was nice surprise to see 1.05 and 1.05b - but nevertheless it also means that all the work with balancing subs, planes and AI development is delayed.
Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6
This is the list of completed tweaks for CORE 0.6 Naval Mod. Is anything missing?
Germany
Corrected Model Numbers for Cruisers
Added Tech 6616 (Treaty Battleship)
Tweaked Construction Que Costs
Greece
Added Armored Cruiser Georgios Averof
Added Protected Cruiser Helle
Removed Tech Level 6100
Italy
Added Armored Cruiser San Marco
Added Battleship Contruction to Build Que
Japan
Added Light Cruisers to Build Que
Portugal
Added Techs and Tech Levels
Corrected Model Numbers for Destroyers
Soviet Union
Added Heavy Cruisers to Build Que
Added Tech 6614 (Treaty Heavy Cruiser)
Turkey
Corrected Model Number for Battlecruiser
UK
Corrected Model Numbers for Light & Heavy Cruisers
Added Heavy and Light Cruisers to Build Que
United States
Added Heavy and Light Cruisers to Build Que
Added Tech 6613 (Treaty Light Cruiser)
Let me know if I am missing anything before I send these off to be incoperated. MDow
This is the list of completed tweaks for CORE 0.6 Naval Mod. Is anything missing?
Germany
Corrected Model Numbers for Cruisers
Added Tech 6616 (Treaty Battleship)
Tweaked Construction Que Costs
Greece
Added Armored Cruiser Georgios Averof
Added Protected Cruiser Helle
Removed Tech Level 6100
Italy
Added Armored Cruiser San Marco
Added Battleship Contruction to Build Que
Japan
Added Light Cruisers to Build Que
Portugal
Added Techs and Tech Levels
Corrected Model Numbers for Destroyers
Soviet Union
Added Heavy Cruisers to Build Que
Added Tech 6614 (Treaty Heavy Cruiser)
Turkey
Corrected Model Number for Battlecruiser
UK
Corrected Model Numbers for Light & Heavy Cruisers
Added Heavy and Light Cruisers to Build Que
United States
Added Heavy and Light Cruisers to Build Que
Added Tech 6613 (Treaty Light Cruiser)
Let me know if I am missing anything before I send these off to be incoperated. MDow
yes, the German navy OOB needs to be corrected. Most of the ships arent the correct class.
aet
aet
Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6
Someone on that forum posted info about CV "Yorktown" being build (and finished) in 1937.
Maybe it should be added to the US construction queue?
Someone on that forum posted info about CV "Yorktown" being build (and finished) in 1937.
Maybe it should be added to the US construction queue?
Re: Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6
I found the info on the american naval history site
The following ship should be considered in pre order besides the cruisers already mentioned by MateDow
Carriers
yorktown cv-5
laid down 21 may 1934
launched april 4th 1936
enterprise cv-6
laid down ?
launched oct. 3rd. 1936
Destroyers
5 laid down 35 launched summer 36
Submarines
4 laid down 35 launched fall 36
Ghost_dk
I found the info on the american naval history site
The following ship should be considered in pre order besides the cruisers already mentioned by MateDow
Carriers
yorktown cv-5
laid down 21 may 1934
launched april 4th 1936
enterprise cv-6
laid down ?
launched oct. 3rd. 1936
Destroyers
5 laid down 35 launched summer 36
Submarines
4 laid down 35 launched fall 36
Ghost_dk