• 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.
Let me throw something out here:

if you don't have a prereq in that field, it will get researched by SOMEBODY (probably USA) at some point dependant on where it's located in the tech branch. Or it CAN be researched by a human player at some point. If you want to make it an event-granted tech only, do this:


application = { #
id = 1351301
name = ""
desc = ""

required = { 99999 }
chance = 90
cost = 0
time = 0
neg_offset = 0
pos_offset = 0

effects = {
command = { type = max_organization which = submarine when = now value = 5 }
 
Random AI loading

Originally posted by MateDow
The problem is that the AI would consistantly select one option and that would make the AI predictable. There already are problems with people that are familiar with the AI selection criteria being able to exploit that knowledge. I think that coming up with AI files that have the emphasis on each of those topics would be useful if they could be made to work as desired. The AI for Bombing the Hell... could be triggered by Germany controlling western Europe becuase there is no way to get ground forces into immediate use. That would probably be a more effective way to have the AI selected. It would be bad if Germany selected prepare for Sealion through an event if Britain controlled the North Sea (which usually happens) or if Russia is already involved. MDow

I've always advocated this type of randomness for AI strategies. Wish it was incorporated into more games.

The problem with the suggestion is the use of options A,B,C and so forth. This ties us to the heavily favored percentage of the 'A' option - a minimum of 85% going up to a max of 95%. And that, I think, is what MateDow was referring to.

What you would need to do is create a group of events with similar circumstantial triggers (eg., fall of France) that each has a random percentage of occurence, each say at 33% or 25% if you use 3 or 4 events per group, as an example. Or you could weight one event random percentage higher (eg., Barbarossa buildup). The AI will have to pick one of them and go forth with the loading of a certain AI file and any related actions that come with that selected event (like prioritizing of research and so on).

This can get very involved, of course. But it becomes very, very interesting if you pick and choose your spots for its usage. I think Pimpy's crossroads events like the German strategic decision after the fall of France and the US overall war strategy are worthy candidates. Perhaps Japan's war focus would be another one.

-PK
 
Re: Re: Minor Mexican - Austrian Event

Originally posted by Ghost_dk
Ill write this up tonight if you like. Im doing a big political pack (over 300 events) which should make it into 0.7 and this very much fits the profile. :)

Ghost_dk

Great thx

MfG

Sonic:cool:
 
Liberation of Spain

I've been thinking of creating events to re-establish Nationalist Spain for Germany after a victorious Republican Spain joins the Commintern.
Since the Independance command only gives half the country to Nationalist Spain, and it would be useful to have an ally to guard that flank.

Inspired by The Yogi's new order east events, I've drafted some events for comment.

########################################
# Liberation of Spain
########################################
event = {
id =
random = no
country = GER

trigger = {
event = 802016 #Spanish Civil War Ends : Republican Victory
alliance = { Country = SOV country = SPR }
war = { country = GER country = SPR }
NOT = { exists = SPA }
NOT { control = { province = 957 data = SPR } # Burgos
control = { province = 972 data = SPR } # Madrid
control = { province = 988 data = SPR } # Sevilla
control = { province = 981 data = SPR } # Valencia
} # Much of Spain has fallen
}

name = "German Conquest of Spain"
desc = "After the Spanish Civil War, the victorious Republicans joined the Commintern.

When war started with the Soviet Union, German troops moved against Spain to protect

their flank and setup a Nationalist Government."
style = 0

date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1936 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 30 month = december year = 1947 }

action_a = {
name = "Setup Nationalist Regime"
command = { type = independence which = SPA value = 1 }
command = { type = dissent value = -1 } #Nationalist Refugees
command = { type = supplies value = -2000 } # Arms and supplies
command = { type = trigger which = } #SPA Event
# command = { make_puppet = SPA } # have this wait until SPR is finished
}
action_b = {
name = "Franco was weak, keep it as part of the Reich"
}
}
event = {
id =
random = no
country = SPA
#triggered by above
action_a = {
name = "Anarchism and Communism must fall!"
command = { type = alliance which = GER }
command = { type = alignment which = fascist value = 150 }
command = { type = manpowerpool value = 50 }
command = { type = supplies value = 200 }
command = { type = add_division which = infantry }
command = { type = add_division which = infantry }
command = { type = addcore which = } #make core rest of spain
#setup ministers/leaders. Many would have been executed with SPR Victory
}
}
event = {
id =
random = no
country = GER
#triggered by above
action_a = {
name = "Spain is now our ally"
#hand over territory to Spain (inc. Gibraltar)
}
}
 
events for historically conquered minors

Halibutt and I wandered off topic in another thread about an event area where CORE could use some expansion: plausible events for small nations (and not so small) that historically were conquered early in the war. What if they weren't, and what of their colonial remnants mid/late game? What might Belgium have been up to around 1942, for example, had it not been overrun?

A starter list that comes immediately to mind would be:

--France (paroxysms between de Gaulle and that French admiral the US was cozying up to; stress between de Gaulle and Allies; placement of manpower points in Senegal at least)
--Belgium (increased mechanization? King Leopold's capitulation? return to Allies?)
--Netherlands (potential for loss of control of Dutch East Indies? eventual abandonment of neutrality policy? exceptional interceptor development?)
--Luxembourg (?)
--Poland (mechanization/modernization program)
--Czechoslovakia (might it have fragmented? A Sudeten or Slovak rebellion become reality?)
--Yugoslavia (all the ethnic schisms we all know well)
--Greece (where was the Metaxas autocracy headed?)
--Baltic States (?)
--Ethiopia (?)

All of the above are half-baked, meant only to spur thoughts and ideas from those more knowledgeable about specific countries' truncated future plans than I. Some would depend upon control of the homeland; some would depend perhaps on not controlling it. Some might be simulated by the natural political shifts of the game, thus what I'm thinking of is those events that go beyond (or could go beyond) such natural shifts.

jkk
 
--Czechoslovakia (might it have fragmented? A Sudeten or Slovak rebellion become reality?)
Fragmentation seems quite unlikely. Maybe Czechoslovakia would turn to a high-dissent country (some riots, social problems...), but that's much about it. Poland would most likely try to regain control over Teshen Silesia whatever happens, so there might be a place for a possible 'ultimatum' event sometime in 1940, as long as Czechoslovakia doesn't join the allies. It should be similar to Polish-Lithuanian crisis with the war less likely and an event-driven compromise rather than a short (Peru-Equador-ish) war. Possible place for allied and Italian mediation.
--Poland (mechanization/modernization program)
A trigger event should be set somewhere in 1936 or 1937, since the modernization started back then. By 1942 polish army was to reach the modern level (some motorized units, modern airforce, TP14 tanks). The new techs, however, should be researched by Poland rather than granted, since this was the case and the way it is now in C.O.R.E. The base of technological research is already implemented (4-years plan, Central Industrial Region, Bristol air engines purchase, and so on), we just need a continuation. Poland is not an industrial weakling anymore. Maybe a new ai research priorities set in 1940 would fix it.

1940-41 period should also be the scene of some events finishing the factories building program. Just a continuation of 4-years plan with new IC added to south-eastern and eastern Poland.

A new cathegory should be forced tech exchange if Poland is allied or allied-oriented. I mean mostly the small things like a tank periscope (polish tank periscopes made by ing. Gundlach are used even today by most armies in modified form; it was the first such construction which allowed the tank commander to look backwards without having to turn his head).
Cheers
 
Not bad, but I cringe at all that code. That's going to be a pretty intensive event chain, and a slew of new AIs. the AIs may be an issue, as we'll have to see how they effect other fronts of the war (N.Africa, Europe). As long as we can continue to get good results on those fronts, and achieve the desired effect on the Japan front, we're golden. (Now, for my next trick...) Also, I'm not keen on the forced change of ownership for provinces. It makes the game too scripted. It narrows the options for the Japanese player significantly, and may force them inot a fight that they aren't prepared for, due to whatever reason may be. Also, for the AI, this becomes a predictable pattern, one that is fairly easy to counter. Try revising the whole chain. Begin with the premise that there should be an option to not seek a confrontation with the US (appeasement works! Honest! N.Chamberlain). Experiment with the passivity factors in the AI before scripting the full blown changes. See if they actually do as you intend, before getting too deep in this. Also keep in mind triggers such as Tojo as PM, war with China, no war with Allies, and such. Also, when it comes to removing units, it happens randomly. So, if you have Pearl harbor happen, the Us could lose nothing in the Pacific, but lose all those units in the Atlantic, or it could be a bunch of infantry in New York or Texas. So, as much as we;d like to, that's not really an option. That, and it forces things that might or might not make any sense in game. Even if we could remove specific units, would it make much sense to remove teh USS Arizona if it's in port at Puerto Rico and not at Hawaii? Gotta keep these things in mind. Things like this have killed more good ideas than anything else. I've scrapped many because they can't be properly coded in game.

What I suggest is to do a chain of events, linked to the eexecutive orders, and embargo events that lead to a Japanese DOW on the US and Phillipines. Use the events to build up supply stockpiles, as well as steel and oil. Also, consider events to get more infantry units for the forth coming invaqsions, similar to the Fall weserbung events for Germany. this should give the Japanese the resources to effect invasions of Malaya, Phillipines, New Guinea, and the DEI, without killing them In China.
 
Re: Pearl Harbor

Originally posted by Budgie
Pearl Harbour...
[cut, post quoted was too long]
the most important part of your idea "the attack on pearl harbour" cannot be represented in game, so all is useless
Pearl Harbor Attack.

A Pearl Harbor attack event will be created and USA naval forces in the Pearl Harbour Area
(if possible and if not , any Pacific area and if not , any area) WILL suffer losses approximately equal to the historical attacks success rate Plus or minus 50%
# Note: 8 battleships , 2 destroyers, and severely damaged 3 cruisers and 1 destroyer.

Also, three USA carriers will stand a 1 in four chance of being caught and sunk.
# It was luck the carriers Lexington and Enterprise were not at Pearl and Saratoga WAS heavily damaged by a Japanese sub on Jan 11.

Also , 10 USA fighter/tac air/strategic bombers squadrons at random will be attacked/destroyed .
#Pearl Harbour and Clarke Field attacks. Note check actual losses to squad game ratio
#Pearl 188 planes lost 159 damaged Clarke 108 destroyed <check

Also ...There will be a possibility (one in six) that the USA will NOT be caught by surprise and in that case the Japanese fleet will suffer a (one in five) chance of each ship (4 carriers,2 battleships, 4 cruisers and some small ships under Admiral Nagumo) of being sunk.
Unit interaction in HoI is very limited, so all that i quoted here CANNOT be done in ANY WAY, that's why Pearl Harbour was NEVER introduced in HoI.

Also, about the AI's, including 8 AIs that are specific as "patrol ONLY pearl harbour area" are not usefull, because they create exploits, i could know that they are going to do that always after i played 1 game and then, while they are patrolling PH i could send my transports to Tokyo and conquer japan. :(
So that's why making AIs is complex, you have to take care of a lot of situation AND exploits that the player easilly could find.

Thanks for the feedback, but as we have told a lot of times to a lot of people, Pearl Harbour will not be included as nothing more than a flavour event. :(

Cheers.
:cool:
 
Last edited:
I think you're still heading for a brick wall. ;) The unit interaction is random. You cannot designate which units, or what type of units, or what area the units are in. Thus, if you remove 12 units in the Japanes attack, you'll get 12 units disappearing randomly from the US forces around teh globe. so, you could end up losing infantry based in New York, or an air unit in colon, or naval units cruising off Iceland. It's just not that fine a command.

secondly, the whole process is a bit too scripted to force things through. As you yourself said, a player can do all sorts of ahistorical things. right now, Japan and the US go to war at a reasonable time frame. The problem lies in an overpowered US early in the game, and a semi-underpowered Japan. As i said before, consider event chains similar to that of Fall Wesserbung for Germany, which would create infantry for Japan, so it won't try to strip the China front to get units for invasions of the Phillipines and Malaya, or the DEI.
 
Re: Thanks Guys

Originally posted by Budgie
Pearl is just a title for the scenario but a backwater issue for a 30 day series of conquests the Japanese military inflicted on the western world.


"Unit interaction "

Yes: I fully understand the limits we have on programming unit interaction at this time.

Hence I carefully tried to structure the mod around this limitation.

Please don't fixate on Pearl Harbour.

It mattered NOT... WHERE the USA fleet was parked ,stationed or patrolling.

The Japanese planner's mandate was to neutralize the USA PAC naval/air forces and if required, they would have struck the fleet in San Francisco Bay.

Historically; No fleet was safe from a determined enemy; not at Scapa Flow, Taranto, nor the Baltic Ports and Japan knew that.

The fact that the US decided to park it's whole Pacific battle fleet within easy striking range of Japan's Forces , just made it easier for the attack planners.


Therefore :

The mod's design is to remove USA units arbitrarily at random, in Pearl (if possible) or in the Pacific (if possible) or anywhere if necessary.

Losses generally proportional to actual losses suffered.

There is no combat what ever designed to take place in the plan I have presented.

Losses of areas/naval/air/land forces are completely historically arbitrary.
loosing units that are parked in New York or in the UK has no sense because of a "Pearl Harbour" attack... the unit interaction is totally random, so this is not posible, and brings a not desirable effect.

Originally posted by Budgie
Patrol Areas

I intend to assign naval forces to patrol areas at certain times to duplicate where they historically were.

Not to make them fight , which we cannot do.

On that.... thanks for the pointer I will assign 4 areas for the Japan naval patrols.

And up the garrison ratios for Tokyo and beach areas which is too low now.
again the same, if you just assign some specific patrolling areas, you can easilly skip them with an attacking fleet if you know more or less where they are, you do not need to invade Tokyo, you can take Korea from japan and they are doomed, most of the resources of japan came from that zone. ;)


Originally posted by Budgie
Re: Exploits

heck guys...

As France I complete the Maginot Line to the Channel and fortify Paris .

As Russia I fortify the Dnieper Line, as Japan or UK every area with land and coastal forts.

Because I'm a genius...no... because I'm exploiting on my WWII knowledge.
there is a lot of events to try to avoid exploits like that... so i do not know what is your point.... "exploits are good"??? :confused:

Cheers.
:cool:
 
Pearl Harbour has been proposed so many times that I think most people here are on "auto-respond", there's no offense intended.

Regarding the extended Maginot line it's a reflection of political reality (if it's the events I'm thinking of).
 
Originally posted by Budgie
OK... truthfully I am surprized at this discussion as I posted the Pearl idea in this thread under this understanding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote...JesseJames

"Feel like a certain event should be represented in C.O.R.E. but is missing?

Want to see your own creation when you play a C.O.R.E. campaign?

Have a good idea for an event to make C.O.R.E. even better than it already is?
You've come to the right place.....The minimum requirement to help out is simple: all you have to do is write the title, and a short description of an event you would like to see in C.O.R.E."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't looking for my idea to be flamed , even politely flamed and did not know you guys had considered the problem in detail and... gave up.

I considered the difficulties but regardless decided to structure the mod to have the Japanesse attack happen..as it did happen.

Nothing I have outlined in the obvious "draught" plan is as non historical as the events that arbitarily desolve and built extended ,solid concrete, Maginot line forts.

Events that were included in an attempt ,I assume, to make sure France falls in 1940 as histroricaly it did.

Why?

Because in the game you can't program the UK and French forces to march stupidlity into Belgium and leave the Ardennes wide open, again, as they histrocally did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also not advocating exploits...but also have never yet seen a board or computer game where they did not exist.

In multiplay one makes house rules to minimize them....no fast rushes...no stacking of built units in the build que for instant armies...etc.

In single play against any AI (HOI-Civ-AofK-Diablo-CC-MOO).

...at our current level of programing AI technology.

Who would need "an exploit" to win?
____________________________________________________

Anyway....I didn't post here looking for an arguement.
I came here looking for advise and help.

Thank You for your advise and help.

:confused:
if you want to know how to model pearl harbour, i have already answered that it is not posible to simulate it due to engine limitations. :D


quoting from your first post:
Working on this advise , comments, crits., Help
i gave you my advice on this because this has been suggested thousands of times and we finally got to the conclusion that it is not posible.


and about exploits, we do what we can to erradicate them... some things are not posible due to the engine... :( ... but if we could, we would have removed them... :D

Cheers.
:cool:
 
Originally posted by Budgie
I wasn't looking for my idea to be flamed , even politely flamed and did not know you guys had considered the problem in detail and... gave up.

If you consider the replies you got 'flaming' of any kind, then you will find discussion a sore trial. For, if that's how you see it, any time you propose something that just won't work--and someone tells you this straight out--you'll think you were 'flamed'.

If you decline to accept the statements of some of the people who are most familiar with the engine and have already spent untold hours turning over every electronic rock in the game engine--when they say that it just plain won't work--then my vote is more power to you.

Maybe, perhaps, you will even find the Seven Cities of Cibola that Pearl Harbour represents in HOI. No one would be happier than the CORE team. But they'd be laying down on the job if they didn't come straight out and say, simply, "Won't work. We tried. Hard." And politely, even though for many it's probably the thirtieth time they've had to say so and a human being can grow fatigued with repetition.

The right to make a proposal does not in any way imply the right to have one's proposal agreed with.

Now, if you really want to do something that could help achieve your goal, write politely but passionately to Paradox, and join us all in proactively begging them to add the ability to selectively damage or remove units, by area or by type. You can probably imagine the joy this would bring in Modville.

jkk
 
Hey guys...

I'm still swamped with my project at work (doing a PhD sometimes leaves you with little time to spare for C.O.R.E. HOI), so please forgive my general absence.

I just happened to catch the whole "Pearl Harbour" discussion, and I think I may see a possible compromise between the full scripted events/unit removal/patrol and AI package, and the "it won't work we tried" response.

I am actually just piecing together things that others have said earlier in this thread.

Firstly, I want to say that I don't think we should give up on Pearl Harbour, if we could get a reasonable model, why not at least try?

Issue #1: The road to war in the Pacific

I agree with Jkkelley and JRaup that a chain of events which would most likely follow the historical path to war, but allows for some divergence, would be a good idea to kick off the war both punctually and consistantly. This badly needs to be developed. Event chains with divergent option will both keep the AI on track with a realistic model of the U.S./Japan war, and yet still allow for human player/occasional AI divergence from history.

Issue #2: Japan's campaign
I agree that scripted turnovers of the islands & territories that Japan took does not give enough room for player choice, and is too predictable. Instead, after war is declared (around the traditional date), why not give Japan (AI or player) a transport unit and an infantry unit(s) (or whatever) for each takeover listed by Halibutt (or just a set number of units in one event). The AI, given proper improvements in Japanese ability to take islands, could surely use the help. The human player would keep the freedom of using those units wherever they wanted, and in attacking islands in whatever order. If the amount is kept to a realistic, but not overpowered 'bonus gift' of units, it would help model the initial Japanese surge in the campaign. As long as it is kept small (transports aren't that valuable, they can't fight, and Japanese infantry is pretty cheap too), there shouldn't be a change in balance.

Issue #3: Pearl Harbour

As Halibutt said, war comes with surprise, and the Japanese who planned the sneak attack on the U.S. would have prepared to strike the fleet wherever it was based. Having said that, I know this cannot be modeled by his suggestions of randomly deleting units. That could cause too much imbalance elsewhere around the world. Patrols where the Japanese/Americans were 'supposed' to be is also too exploitable. As said by Halibutt, no human U.S. player is going to base their fleet at Pearl Harbour if they know a "sneak attack" is coming there, and an AI controlled U.S. will be too unpredictable and unlikely to ever have anything stationed at Hawaii either. So, my suggestion is to have just a plain 'flavor' event here, with MAYBE some limited effects thrown in... no U.S. unit deletions, but some minor manpower/resource loss might be ok. As well, maybe a corresponding event for Japan increasing the coastal forts of their campaing conquests as preparation for 'American retribution'. Additionally, there could be some alteration to the Admiral settings (I don't know too much about this) to make Japan more likely to engage in naval battles with the U.S. and the U.S. more likely to concentrate its navy in the Pacific.
Realistically, the U.S. did not lose enough naval power at Pearl to crush their chances of owning the Pacific. If we were to delete U.S. units by event, we'd have to do the same to Japan for the battle of Midway, and 100 other Pacific battles at sea... but C.O.R.E. can't work that way. My solution is flavor events with small bonuses, plus the following........

Issue #4: The Pacific War
Modelling the war in the Pacific is not anything like modelling the war in Europe. "Countries" are not supposed to follow a historical annexation/liberation story here. Basically, the Pacific war should be a melange of island hopping plus lots of naval battles.
This is where everything I have suggested comes together.
a). Hopefully someone can come up with Japanese and U.S. AI files that are trained to island hop... not in any particular order, but at least to consistantly invade the islands that were historically fought over.
b). As well, we need to increase the intensity, frequency, and amount of losses for naval battles in the Pacific by the AI. It doesn't need to be in a scripted event, nor in a predictable AI-patrol zone. After all, what difference did it really make that Pearl Harbour or Midway happened at Pearl Harbour and Midway... we just as well could be saying the Philipines and Guam, given slightly alternate history.

If we can achieve these two things (island hopping and increased Pacific naval battles), along with tweaking Admiral AI to increase both naval encounters and weightings (both size of fleets, and number of ships committed to the Pacific vs. the Atlantic for the U.S. naval AI), we should see Japan and the U.S. duking it out in the Pacific sea zones as well as fighting to take/re-take islands.

This solution includes both flavor, historical correctness, and player/AI choice, while not introducing any predictablility, exploits, or random, game altering changes. It may be abstracting the Parcific war in some places, but that's the only solution given the current game engine. Let's face it, guys, no one has been able to come up with a better solution that works in practice YET!

I would LOVE to see something like this come about, but I haven't got the time or the technical skill to make it myself. I would, however, be willing to help in whatever way I can.

Any takers on making these ideas real? Let me know what you guys think about the above essay! ;)

JesseJames
 
Last edited:
I would strongly recommend for all participants in the Pearl Harbour discussion to:

1: Read the Far East thread in this forum
2: Red the fareast.txt events file for C.O.R.E.

The first contains explanations of why 10 different approaches to Pearl Harbor doesn't work, the second contains the events for Japan's road to war with the USA. A bit of reading now will save a lot of typing later :)