dave191 said:
This is hard coded AFAIK, and can't be modded. There can only be the three alliances (Allies, Axis, Comintern). We've simulated everything else by granting military acess to participants.
-
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.
This is hard coded AFAIK, and can't be modded. There can only be the three alliances (Allies, Axis, Comintern). We've simulated everything else by granting military acess to participants.
Okay, I've pretty much finished the Rhineland War-event chain I was talking about, but it still needs lots of testing, as I'm still more or less constantly tweaking certain values mid-game (that is, without restarting a new 1936 scenario), which admittedly is a bit shit.
But it's already progressed to a point where I can say that the basic concept of an early, non-fullscale war definitely 'works', something I was afraid it wouldn't.
But it's already progressed to a point where I can say that the basic concept of an early, non-fullscale war definitely 'works', something I was afraid it wouldn't.
Here's my events I've come up with
This 1st one would be for Germany when Germany launches its drive into the Caucasus Mts. and Southern Soviet Union. The provinces for this country would be the ones across from Sevastopol, Krasnodar, and I can't think of the other 2, Stravropol i think. Cossackia would have territorial claims stretching Millerevo or the province right after Rostov on the Don, extending to the one b4 stalingrad, and south to the borders of the caucasus mts. i dunno how many units it would gain, but im thinking one infantry one militia and 2 cavalry, i dunno how to actually implement all this stuff, i havent researched any leaders military or political to go with it yet, and no flag, but i decided to post my idea anyways
In October of 1942, German General Wagner permitted the creation, under strict German control, of a small autonomous Cossack district in the Kuban, where the old Cossack customs were to be re-introduced while collective farms were to be disbanded. Many of the White Cossack exiles in Western and Central Europe gave their unquestionable support to the cause of founding this state and forming Cossack units to fight alongside the Axis against the Bolshevik Hordes. The more important members of this category included former prominent Czarist Cossack generals like Krasnov, Andrei Shkuro, and V. Naumenko, the latter becoming a German appointed Ataman of the Kuban. The primary objective of these exiles was the materialization of a Greater Cossackia, a Cossack-ruled German protectorate extending from eastern Ukraine in the west, to the Samara river in the east. The main groups of Cossacks that supported this cause in the Occupied Territories were the Don, Kuban, and Terek Cossacks, mostly due to their proximity to the German Front Lines.
Come as Liberators and create an independent Cossackia
Cossack Independence can wait untill the front lines push forward
The Cossacks deserve no Independence, we come as Conquerors, not Liberators
My next event is for the Italian Social Republic regarding Mussolini's revenge on the Fascist Grand Council Members who ousted him from power.
On January 8th, 1944, a tribunal authorized by the Council of Ministers on October 13th, 1943, was convened. Present were Ciano, returned to RSI police on October 14th, 1943 by the Germans, along with Emilio de Bono, Giovanni Marinelli, Tullio Cianetti, Carlo Pareschi and Luciano Gottardi. The defendants explained their vote of no confidence at the Grand Council meeting on July 25th 1943. They declared that they did not intend to diminish the role of Mussolini, only to give the King authority over the military. The Tribunal concluded on Jan 10th, 1944 with the sentence of death. Ciano, Marshal de Bono, Giovanni Marinelli, Carlo Pareschi and Luciano Gottardi were executed by firing squad the morning of Jan 11th, 1944. Cianetti's life was spared with a prison sentence of 30 years.
Fascism is strong execute the traitorous Grand Council Members
Fascism is weak, and we must not cause more decent to swell the ranks of the Partisans even more
I am currently working on events for the various resistence divisions in Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, and so on. And i have a question about that that i would like answered. If Yugoslavia is annexed and does not exist any more should the option of creating the Partisan/Chetnik units be given to Great Britain or Soviet Russia for instance, or what? But anyways, those are my 2 finished text events and thats it, untill then Bohnjhorno, later.
This 1st one would be for Germany when Germany launches its drive into the Caucasus Mts. and Southern Soviet Union. The provinces for this country would be the ones across from Sevastopol, Krasnodar, and I can't think of the other 2, Stravropol i think. Cossackia would have territorial claims stretching Millerevo or the province right after Rostov on the Don, extending to the one b4 stalingrad, and south to the borders of the caucasus mts. i dunno how many units it would gain, but im thinking one infantry one militia and 2 cavalry, i dunno how to actually implement all this stuff, i havent researched any leaders military or political to go with it yet, and no flag, but i decided to post my idea anyways
In October of 1942, German General Wagner permitted the creation, under strict German control, of a small autonomous Cossack district in the Kuban, where the old Cossack customs were to be re-introduced while collective farms were to be disbanded. Many of the White Cossack exiles in Western and Central Europe gave their unquestionable support to the cause of founding this state and forming Cossack units to fight alongside the Axis against the Bolshevik Hordes. The more important members of this category included former prominent Czarist Cossack generals like Krasnov, Andrei Shkuro, and V. Naumenko, the latter becoming a German appointed Ataman of the Kuban. The primary objective of these exiles was the materialization of a Greater Cossackia, a Cossack-ruled German protectorate extending from eastern Ukraine in the west, to the Samara river in the east. The main groups of Cossacks that supported this cause in the Occupied Territories were the Don, Kuban, and Terek Cossacks, mostly due to their proximity to the German Front Lines.
Come as Liberators and create an independent Cossackia
Cossack Independence can wait untill the front lines push forward
The Cossacks deserve no Independence, we come as Conquerors, not Liberators
My next event is for the Italian Social Republic regarding Mussolini's revenge on the Fascist Grand Council Members who ousted him from power.
On January 8th, 1944, a tribunal authorized by the Council of Ministers on October 13th, 1943, was convened. Present were Ciano, returned to RSI police on October 14th, 1943 by the Germans, along with Emilio de Bono, Giovanni Marinelli, Tullio Cianetti, Carlo Pareschi and Luciano Gottardi. The defendants explained their vote of no confidence at the Grand Council meeting on July 25th 1943. They declared that they did not intend to diminish the role of Mussolini, only to give the King authority over the military. The Tribunal concluded on Jan 10th, 1944 with the sentence of death. Ciano, Marshal de Bono, Giovanni Marinelli, Carlo Pareschi and Luciano Gottardi were executed by firing squad the morning of Jan 11th, 1944. Cianetti's life was spared with a prison sentence of 30 years.
Fascism is strong execute the traitorous Grand Council Members
Fascism is weak, and we must not cause more decent to swell the ranks of the Partisans even more
I am currently working on events for the various resistence divisions in Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, and so on. And i have a question about that that i would like answered. If Yugoslavia is annexed and does not exist any more should the option of creating the Partisan/Chetnik units be given to Great Britain or Soviet Russia for instance, or what? But anyways, those are my 2 finished text events and thats it, untill then Bohnjhorno, later.
Arab Uprising
I finished a string of events for the Arab Uprising of 1936-1939 that I first mentioned long long ago on the old Middle-east thread. It is substantially the same as what OHGamer signed off on.
The event chain simulates an ulcer on the British Empire. Major fighting consumes supplies, increases dissent fractionally (important in Palestine but not so big for Empire-wide UK number), consumes some diplomatic influence, and if the British tilt too hard on the Palestinians, the Arab states react by moving anti-democratic and pro-fascist. The Germans get a chance to throw gas on the fire (a secret meeting in Beirut between Admiral Canaris and the exiled Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (historical) resulting in arms). The most likely set of events leads to a Palestinian victory at the negotiation table where the UK commits to give Palestine sovereignty in 1948 and limit Jewish emigration in the interim.
The less likely resolutions of the conflict offer the possibility of raising one or two divisions of local troops for the British once WW2 erupts. The historical result just stops the fighting in the spring of 1939. If the British mismanage things badly enough, I give the Germans a militia division in volunteers if they take control of the province.
The events are firing OK with dummy numbers. There are no mentions of genocide or massacres in the description, and historically, the scale of events is tame compared to the greater bloodletting in Europe that would occur in WW2. But you can't hide this is sectarian violence.
I think it falls on the acceptable side of the line, but I was looking for some advice before I register the events in the ID treasury and then update the code. It amounts to about a 10 UK events, 2 for Germany, 3 for Syria, and two each for Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi, and Egypt.
Worthwhile to add or not?
I finished a string of events for the Arab Uprising of 1936-1939 that I first mentioned long long ago on the old Middle-east thread. It is substantially the same as what OHGamer signed off on.
The event chain simulates an ulcer on the British Empire. Major fighting consumes supplies, increases dissent fractionally (important in Palestine but not so big for Empire-wide UK number), consumes some diplomatic influence, and if the British tilt too hard on the Palestinians, the Arab states react by moving anti-democratic and pro-fascist. The Germans get a chance to throw gas on the fire (a secret meeting in Beirut between Admiral Canaris and the exiled Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (historical) resulting in arms). The most likely set of events leads to a Palestinian victory at the negotiation table where the UK commits to give Palestine sovereignty in 1948 and limit Jewish emigration in the interim.
The less likely resolutions of the conflict offer the possibility of raising one or two divisions of local troops for the British once WW2 erupts. The historical result just stops the fighting in the spring of 1939. If the British mismanage things badly enough, I give the Germans a militia division in volunteers if they take control of the province.
The events are firing OK with dummy numbers. There are no mentions of genocide or massacres in the description, and historically, the scale of events is tame compared to the greater bloodletting in Europe that would occur in WW2. But you can't hide this is sectarian violence.
I think it falls on the acceptable side of the line, but I was looking for some advice before I register the events in the ID treasury and then update the code. It amounts to about a 10 UK events, 2 for Germany, 3 for Syria, and two each for Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi, and Egypt.
Worthwhile to add or not?
I have an idea for the USA. Numerous people have complained that it is difficult to create a large enough army from scratch to defeat the Axis. Others have asked why the US recieves such little manpower.
The truth behind the historical 90 division gamble is that raising more divisions would have hampered America's biggest contribution to the Allied war effort, her (i assume it is a her) economy.
I propose an event that fires one year after entry into the war where the Americans can get 1000 or more manpower for the cost of 200 IC's (permanent until demobilization). These numbers can be modified, but the idea is sound, as further mobilization may be needed/desired, thus impacting the economy.
I for one have already changed the American war mobilization to 800mp (instead of 600mp). I will try to create this event, will update, but I would rather prefer it if someone more experienced either makes it or guides me trough it as my latest Scandinavian event failed. (can't get Sweden to anchluss with other scandinavian nations, only expirimental.)
Thanks all, please do tell if u guys like it or if I should just wait for HOI2 (some people use that 2 quickly now), or if should just stop smoking that wacky...... or maybe smoke more......or whaaaaattt....very very very late where I am, no sleap for 24 hrs.
The truth behind the historical 90 division gamble is that raising more divisions would have hampered America's biggest contribution to the Allied war effort, her (i assume it is a her) economy.
I propose an event that fires one year after entry into the war where the Americans can get 1000 or more manpower for the cost of 200 IC's (permanent until demobilization). These numbers can be modified, but the idea is sound, as further mobilization may be needed/desired, thus impacting the economy.
I for one have already changed the American war mobilization to 800mp (instead of 600mp). I will try to create this event, will update, but I would rather prefer it if someone more experienced either makes it or guides me trough it as my latest Scandinavian event failed. (can't get Sweden to anchluss with other scandinavian nations, only expirimental.)
Thanks all, please do tell if u guys like it or if I should just wait for HOI2 (some people use that 2 quickly now), or if should just stop smoking that wacky...... or maybe smoke more......or whaaaaattt....very very very late where I am, no sleap for 24 hrs.
DF123 said:
I actually like the idea. America could decide to contribute technology and supplies or more divisions.
- MVSN
dave191 said:
Unfortunately, nobody figured out how to make other alliances work.
They SHOULD have been in there and country SHOULD be able to decide whether or not to honour an alliance. Seems basic enough to me, and the Paradox Team with EVERY other product they released.
- MVSN
I think you can save yourself a lot of grief in the event writing process if you assume the point of view of an advisor to the Head of State. Here's why:
a) When taking the role of an advisor, you can offer options that the Head of State might not be considered capable of considering.
b) If you're writing events AS the Head of State, you're going to run the risk of putting yourself in to a strait-jacket. Writing as the Advisor grants
you more flexibility.
c) Those who get jiggy over using Fascist imagery like the Swastika might take grand offense at the assumption that they are supposed to be a person from history that they don't hold in high regard.
I tried having this discussion with the HSR crew, and got shut down pretty fast. I am glad to see it being hashed over here.
a) When taking the role of an advisor, you can offer options that the Head of State might not be considered capable of considering.
b) If you're writing events AS the Head of State, you're going to run the risk of putting yourself in to a strait-jacket. Writing as the Advisor grants
you more flexibility.
c) Those who get jiggy over using Fascist imagery like the Swastika might take grand offense at the assumption that they are supposed to be a person from history that they don't hold in high regard.
I tried having this discussion with the HSR crew, and got shut down pretty fast. I am glad to see it being hashed over here.
USA Army Size
DF123
The mistake that's been made so far has been concentrating on the regular army and overlooking the National Guard. Do the research, and you find that there were about 20 divisions of infantry and 4 1/2 divisions of NG cavalry in the 1930s. In 1940, legislation was passed federalizing the Guard. All but one of the Guard infantry divisions served as a cadre for a regular army division. The cavalry was broken up and the troops used for the new armor divisions.
One way to put this into HOI-ese is to create militia divisions for the infantry and cavalry for the cavalry. It puts a drag of about 25 extra supply points on the US economy, but also adds over 100 MP to the OOB. The player can simulate the US actions by disbanding a militia division and then entering a new division in the build queue.
The NG OOB information has been submitted to the Wiki in the draft 1939 USA OOB. I'll be submitting that to integration soon.
Also, the OOB needs to include the missing regulars: the Hawaiian Division in Honolulu (it would split in 1941 to form the 24th and 25th Divisions), the Panama Mobile Force (three regiments plus supporting units charged with defense of the Canal Zone), the navy's flying boats (a naval bomber wing for each coast) and the USMC as one understrength marine division on each coast (Historically, they were characterized as brigades and not upgraded and reinforced to divisions until 1941).
More supplies for more units means less IC for tech development. However, the US tech oob is too stingy. High octane fuel (9407) was used for USN carrier planes since 1926. Superchargers (9408) were standard from 1935. The PBY Catalina (basic naval bomber) was squadron deployed from 1935. Douglas DC-2 and DC-3 airliners (basic air transport) were in serial production in early 1936. The M1 Garand (advanced rifle) was adopted in 1936. Given all the tech pre-requisites for that it is simplest just to give the USA that tech.
DF123
The mistake that's been made so far has been concentrating on the regular army and overlooking the National Guard. Do the research, and you find that there were about 20 divisions of infantry and 4 1/2 divisions of NG cavalry in the 1930s. In 1940, legislation was passed federalizing the Guard. All but one of the Guard infantry divisions served as a cadre for a regular army division. The cavalry was broken up and the troops used for the new armor divisions.
One way to put this into HOI-ese is to create militia divisions for the infantry and cavalry for the cavalry. It puts a drag of about 25 extra supply points on the US economy, but also adds over 100 MP to the OOB. The player can simulate the US actions by disbanding a militia division and then entering a new division in the build queue.
The NG OOB information has been submitted to the Wiki in the draft 1939 USA OOB. I'll be submitting that to integration soon.
Also, the OOB needs to include the missing regulars: the Hawaiian Division in Honolulu (it would split in 1941 to form the 24th and 25th Divisions), the Panama Mobile Force (three regiments plus supporting units charged with defense of the Canal Zone), the navy's flying boats (a naval bomber wing for each coast) and the USMC as one understrength marine division on each coast (Historically, they were characterized as brigades and not upgraded and reinforced to divisions until 1941).
More supplies for more units means less IC for tech development. However, the US tech oob is too stingy. High octane fuel (9407) was used for USN carrier planes since 1926. Superchargers (9408) were standard from 1935. The PBY Catalina (basic naval bomber) was squadron deployed from 1935. Douglas DC-2 and DC-3 airliners (basic air transport) were in serial production in early 1936. The M1 Garand (advanced rifle) was adopted in 1936. Given all the tech pre-requisites for that it is simplest just to give the USA that tech.
Last edited:
Thanks all, Engineer (u know ur stuff/ or some stuff), anything else u might have to add to the US. I knew about the PBY's and boat squadrons, as well as the NG divisions, but as they werent represented (probably people complained about having stupid militia that they would just disband), but I didn't know it was that big (20 divs).
My point thought was that the American staff initially projected 213 divisions as what would be needed (since the USSR's fate was in doubt), then as the war progressed it became clear that America had manpower difficulties, as it couldn't field a huge army and be the Arsenal of democracy.
Source: http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/command/70-7_0.html (good site lots of info, yet a thick read, so ADD inflicted need not apply)
However as of the current game version there are two grievances:
1: The US is not the Arsenal of democracy, instead it is simply a huge ally. Although the Lend lease events are a step in the right direction, I reccommend that these events give divisions/units (with corresponding manpower loss as if the unit had been built) to the recievers as well as resources, and perhaps an odd tech or two (the US was the leader in electronics, on the allied side). This would more accuratly represent the true purpose of the Lend lease as well as the idea of the Arsenal of democracy.
2: However CORE for game balance reasons limits American manpower to build a war winning army. However this has the obvious benefit of being close to history (90 div gamble). On the flip side it limits the Americans to having to wait for 42 (at least) to try a knockout D Day, while this is historical as the Americans had limits (production and mobilization wise). This I am all for, however there should still be an option for a much larger mobilization at the cost of some unrest (the inevatible war weary; the 1 thing I liked in the Civ series), and manufacturing power.
This would allow the American player the option of building a much larger army quicker, but at a cost; instead of wasting 200+ ICs on research because u have no manpower (although the current monthly gain is great).
Otherwise I truely understand why number 2 wasn't enabled; I guess it might be easier to leave as is because if it aint broke no need to fix. But the way lend lease is represented isn't enough (as well as some of the Commonwealth programs, bar the Chinese situation after the war)
My point thought was that the American staff initially projected 213 divisions as what would be needed (since the USSR's fate was in doubt), then as the war progressed it became clear that America had manpower difficulties, as it couldn't field a huge army and be the Arsenal of democracy.
Source: http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/command/70-7_0.html (good site lots of info, yet a thick read, so ADD inflicted need not apply)
However as of the current game version there are two grievances:
1: The US is not the Arsenal of democracy, instead it is simply a huge ally. Although the Lend lease events are a step in the right direction, I reccommend that these events give divisions/units (with corresponding manpower loss as if the unit had been built) to the recievers as well as resources, and perhaps an odd tech or two (the US was the leader in electronics, on the allied side). This would more accuratly represent the true purpose of the Lend lease as well as the idea of the Arsenal of democracy.
2: However CORE for game balance reasons limits American manpower to build a war winning army. However this has the obvious benefit of being close to history (90 div gamble). On the flip side it limits the Americans to having to wait for 42 (at least) to try a knockout D Day, while this is historical as the Americans had limits (production and mobilization wise). This I am all for, however there should still be an option for a much larger mobilization at the cost of some unrest (the inevatible war weary; the 1 thing I liked in the Civ series), and manufacturing power.
This would allow the American player the option of building a much larger army quicker, but at a cost; instead of wasting 200+ ICs on research because u have no manpower (although the current monthly gain is great).
Otherwise I truely understand why number 2 wasn't enabled; I guess it might be easier to leave as is because if it aint broke no need to fix. But the way lend lease is represented isn't enough (as well as some of the Commonwealth programs, bar the Chinese situation after the war)
Usa
Thanks for the link. Good info.
For me, the gold standard is accuracy in the simulation so historical play in historical circumstances gives historical results. By that measure the USA in CORE is about a bronze insofar as I usually have a hard time getting anywhere close to the combination of historical economic growth, technological progress, and military unit construction by 9/39 or 12/41. That usually means that I end up agitating for an even more capable USA (with all the associated game-balance downsides of that).
1) Making the USA a better 'Arsenal of Democracy' has to run a gauntlet between hard-coding cooperation in the game and leaving it to the player. Maybe that points to having a 'generous' style of play in the AI or a set of AI only events to reflect a strong AoD bias.
2) One of the big US contributions to the UK was replenishing her merchant marine to replace u-boat losses. A silly question, but can a player who receives transports in an expeditionary force convert them into his merchant marine pool? If not, you can kluge together an event where you translate a Liberty ship unit into IC-days, translate that into supplies, and then give the US player (or AI) the choice of subtracting supplies from their pool and giving merchants to the UK. You can also use the event to put them directly into the merchant pool (sometimes I see the AI keeping like 90 transports in the UK's navy). That technique can probably be expanded to include things like escort ships, escort carriers, light carriers, air transports, etc. You need some care on the triggers to make sure this really works as designed. That style of play will force the US player to put a bigger emphasis on supplies than units so you would need AI tweaks. (Disclaimer, I am no expert on AI files even though I've got good sources/skill on history, technology, and event scripting).
3) Big Army & Timing: One thing that is clear to me is that December, 1941 US Army is about as big as the USA could have politically tolerated (+/- 20%) unless a Republican victory in 1936 would have resulted in the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt - not my reading of Landon's character but an intriguing 'what-if'. So that leads me to a conclusion that the CORE restrictions on pre-war manpower are a good simulation tool. We agree there.
4) Logistical Tails: One of the things that's not well simulated in HOI is the cost of waging intercontinental war. An awful lot of US manpower was spent moving beans and bullets to the troops at the front.
5) Women in the Workforce: I'm playtesting a new industrial tech that simulates incorporating women in the workforce. Besides a boost in IC from more labor, it releases some manpower for the military. I'm afraid I'm almost going to have to write individual events for at least the major powers to fine tune the manpower effects to the size of the host society. It looks like the USA, UK, Germany, Russia, and Japan all did this sooner or later in the war.
6) Auxiliary organizations like WACs and WAVEs, etc. also release manpower. But timing wise, I see these probably as war start + 18 - 24 month events in order to give time for these organizations to be set up, and expand to a significant level.
7) Going back to my Gold Standard, if you really could get an economy big enough to peak at over 40 strategic bomber units (USAAF strength peaked at 98 heavy and super heavy bomb groups of about 48 planes each in late 44 and 45) then it becomes a player decision whether you want to do that or not. Forty strategic bombers buys a lot of infantry divisions. FYI, Dive bomber and tacticals peaked out at about 14 HOI units (28 groups) and fighters at 33 HOI units (66 groups). The Navy and Marine Corps probably fielded the equivalent of nearly 100 CAGs. The trouble here is MP balance. A US that can build its historical air force and historical navy will almost certainly build smaller organizations in HOI and turn that into as many divisions as the manpower will allow.
Thanks for the link. Good info.
For me, the gold standard is accuracy in the simulation so historical play in historical circumstances gives historical results. By that measure the USA in CORE is about a bronze insofar as I usually have a hard time getting anywhere close to the combination of historical economic growth, technological progress, and military unit construction by 9/39 or 12/41. That usually means that I end up agitating for an even more capable USA (with all the associated game-balance downsides of that).
1) Making the USA a better 'Arsenal of Democracy' has to run a gauntlet between hard-coding cooperation in the game and leaving it to the player. Maybe that points to having a 'generous' style of play in the AI or a set of AI only events to reflect a strong AoD bias.
2) One of the big US contributions to the UK was replenishing her merchant marine to replace u-boat losses. A silly question, but can a player who receives transports in an expeditionary force convert them into his merchant marine pool? If not, you can kluge together an event where you translate a Liberty ship unit into IC-days, translate that into supplies, and then give the US player (or AI) the choice of subtracting supplies from their pool and giving merchants to the UK. You can also use the event to put them directly into the merchant pool (sometimes I see the AI keeping like 90 transports in the UK's navy). That technique can probably be expanded to include things like escort ships, escort carriers, light carriers, air transports, etc. You need some care on the triggers to make sure this really works as designed. That style of play will force the US player to put a bigger emphasis on supplies than units so you would need AI tweaks. (Disclaimer, I am no expert on AI files even though I've got good sources/skill on history, technology, and event scripting).
3) Big Army & Timing: One thing that is clear to me is that December, 1941 US Army is about as big as the USA could have politically tolerated (+/- 20%) unless a Republican victory in 1936 would have resulted in the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt - not my reading of Landon's character but an intriguing 'what-if'. So that leads me to a conclusion that the CORE restrictions on pre-war manpower are a good simulation tool. We agree there.
4) Logistical Tails: One of the things that's not well simulated in HOI is the cost of waging intercontinental war. An awful lot of US manpower was spent moving beans and bullets to the troops at the front.
5) Women in the Workforce: I'm playtesting a new industrial tech that simulates incorporating women in the workforce. Besides a boost in IC from more labor, it releases some manpower for the military. I'm afraid I'm almost going to have to write individual events for at least the major powers to fine tune the manpower effects to the size of the host society. It looks like the USA, UK, Germany, Russia, and Japan all did this sooner or later in the war.
6) Auxiliary organizations like WACs and WAVEs, etc. also release manpower. But timing wise, I see these probably as war start + 18 - 24 month events in order to give time for these organizations to be set up, and expand to a significant level.
7) Going back to my Gold Standard, if you really could get an economy big enough to peak at over 40 strategic bomber units (USAAF strength peaked at 98 heavy and super heavy bomb groups of about 48 planes each in late 44 and 45) then it becomes a player decision whether you want to do that or not. Forty strategic bombers buys a lot of infantry divisions. FYI, Dive bomber and tacticals peaked out at about 14 HOI units (28 groups) and fighters at 33 HOI units (66 groups). The Navy and Marine Corps probably fielded the equivalent of nearly 100 CAGs. The trouble here is MP balance. A US that can build its historical air force and historical navy will almost certainly build smaller organizations in HOI and turn that into as many divisions as the manpower will allow.
I see that the design team is testing NFL Championship events. So if they put in the NFL championships and World Series events then they HAVE to put in the yearly championships of the Football teams in Europe (the F.A., Scottish Division 1, Bundesleauge, Italian Division 1, et cetera); they should also have the old championship trophy in North America- the Grey Cup!!!
Football was introduced to North America by the British Army. they played games against McGill University- which in turn played several games against Harvard starting in 1874- from which both games evolved in North America. The CFL was over 50 years old in 1936!!! So if you have the World Series, then have to have the "world series" of other nations.
Here go the games for the Grey Cup championship
1936: Regina 26-Ottawa 20
1937: Toronto 4-Winnipeg 3
1938: Toronto 30-Winnipeg 7
1939: Winnipeg 8-Ottawa 7
1940: the championship game had to be played in two rounds due to some sort of pre-emption
Overall Ottawa 20, Balmy Beach 7
Individually- Round 1 Ottawa 8-Balmy Beach 2
Round 2 Ottawa 12-Balmy Beach 5
1941: Winnipeg 18-Ottawa 16
1942: (at this point the teams were mostly replaced by Armed forces teams because every other man in Canada was involved in the armed forces (military or merchant marine))
Toronto RCAF 8-Winnipeg RCAF 5
1943: Hamiliton 23-Winnipeg RCAF 14
1944: Montreal Navy 7-Hamilton 6
1945: (normal season resumed)
Toronto 35-Winnipeg 0
1946: Toronto 28-Winnipeg 6
1947: Toronto 10-Winnipeg 9
Notes: All Information is from the Canadian Football League website
www.cfl.ca
The Grey Cup is named after Lord Earl Grey- then Governor General of the Dominion (he would also make a good ship name...)
1935 was the last year that intercollegiate teams competed for the Grey Cup
the attendance of the non war year games were each in the high 20,000's amazingly.
Football was introduced to North America by the British Army. they played games against McGill University- which in turn played several games against Harvard starting in 1874- from which both games evolved in North America. The CFL was over 50 years old in 1936!!! So if you have the World Series, then have to have the "world series" of other nations.
Here go the games for the Grey Cup championship
1936: Regina 26-Ottawa 20
1937: Toronto 4-Winnipeg 3
1938: Toronto 30-Winnipeg 7
1939: Winnipeg 8-Ottawa 7
1940: the championship game had to be played in two rounds due to some sort of pre-emption
Overall Ottawa 20, Balmy Beach 7
Individually- Round 1 Ottawa 8-Balmy Beach 2
Round 2 Ottawa 12-Balmy Beach 5
1941: Winnipeg 18-Ottawa 16
1942: (at this point the teams were mostly replaced by Armed forces teams because every other man in Canada was involved in the armed forces (military or merchant marine))
Toronto RCAF 8-Winnipeg RCAF 5
1943: Hamiliton 23-Winnipeg RCAF 14
1944: Montreal Navy 7-Hamilton 6
1945: (normal season resumed)
Toronto 35-Winnipeg 0
1946: Toronto 28-Winnipeg 6
1947: Toronto 10-Winnipeg 9
Notes: All Information is from the Canadian Football League website
www.cfl.ca
The Grey Cup is named after Lord Earl Grey- then Governor General of the Dominion (he would also make a good ship name...)
1935 was the last year that intercollegiate teams competed for the Grey Cup
the attendance of the non war year games were each in the high 20,000's amazingly.
Last edited:
Sports Events
Fair points. My view on these is as follows:
- Organized sports do three main things: they provide an outlet for the aggressions of young men, they provide entertainment, they distract people from other topics (like the dictator arming next door).
- The way that these effects show up in the HOI context is a negative war entry score and dissent reduction.
- My estimate is that negative war entry is the threshold effect and occurs first. The dissent effect is only present if the sport becomes widely followed within the society. For instance, the proposal on the NFL includes the -1 war entry from 1936 onward, but only includes a -1 dissent modifier once seasonal attendance exceeded one million paid admissions. One million isn't a hard rule, share and participation is the greater point.
- The championship games don't stand alone but are a shorthand for the effect of the whole season.
- There is also a lower scale of event where the particular sport is almost a subculture so you would just script a single event to bundle several years worth of the sport's effects. Examples there might be professional basketball (which got started in the 30's but was far smaller than baseball), auto racing, or horse racing.
- There is also room for using sports as a back-door for gaining technology. It's arguable that, for example, civilian air racing (the Schneider Trophy, Thompson Trophy, National Air Races, etc.) provided a place for certain light aircraft technologies to be introduced and debugged.
For the Grey Cup, my question would be how early did this acquire a broad national following? Once it was followed as broadly as baseball was in the USA, then clearly it would get the -1 dissent and W/E effect.
Other sports deserve mention, too. I did a quick Google and found out that France hosted the 1938 World Cup (Italy beat Hungary in the finals). But I don't know the attendance or if soccer/football had the same intensity of popular following in the 1930s that it has acquired in recent decades.
Fair points. My view on these is as follows:
- Organized sports do three main things: they provide an outlet for the aggressions of young men, they provide entertainment, they distract people from other topics (like the dictator arming next door).
- The way that these effects show up in the HOI context is a negative war entry score and dissent reduction.
- My estimate is that negative war entry is the threshold effect and occurs first. The dissent effect is only present if the sport becomes widely followed within the society. For instance, the proposal on the NFL includes the -1 war entry from 1936 onward, but only includes a -1 dissent modifier once seasonal attendance exceeded one million paid admissions. One million isn't a hard rule, share and participation is the greater point.
- The championship games don't stand alone but are a shorthand for the effect of the whole season.
- There is also a lower scale of event where the particular sport is almost a subculture so you would just script a single event to bundle several years worth of the sport's effects. Examples there might be professional basketball (which got started in the 30's but was far smaller than baseball), auto racing, or horse racing.
- There is also room for using sports as a back-door for gaining technology. It's arguable that, for example, civilian air racing (the Schneider Trophy, Thompson Trophy, National Air Races, etc.) provided a place for certain light aircraft technologies to be introduced and debugged.
For the Grey Cup, my question would be how early did this acquire a broad national following? Once it was followed as broadly as baseball was in the USA, then clearly it would get the -1 dissent and W/E effect.
Other sports deserve mention, too. I did a quick Google and found out that France hosted the 1938 World Cup (Italy beat Hungary in the finals). But I don't know the attendance or if soccer/football had the same intensity of popular following in the 1930s that it has acquired in recent decades.
As I posted in the other thread regarding western europe:
1. The Netherlands joins the allies as an event upon invasion of The Netherlands.
Small amount of manpower increase for countries in the war. War participation increase for allied countries not in the war yet (Eg. Greece, USA)
2. Upon succesfull invasion of the Netherlands (annexing or installing a puppet regime), trigger the event: Dutch refugees arrive in the UK. Moderate manpower increase as a result of almost all of them enlisting in the British Armed Forces.
3. If invasion of the Netherlands succeeds (or if it does not after X days/weeks/months, but that would be kinda unfair for those who are coping.) Trigger a 'Germany bombs Rotterdam' event. Moderate manpower increase for participating allied countries, war entry increase for allied countries not yet in war.
4. Immediately after that, trigger event 'General Winkelman capitulates'.
Result, The Netherlands becomes German territory, navy ships are transferred to British ports, remain under control of the Dutch player.
1. The Netherlands joins the allies as an event upon invasion of The Netherlands.
Small amount of manpower increase for countries in the war. War participation increase for allied countries not in the war yet (Eg. Greece, USA)
2. Upon succesfull invasion of the Netherlands (annexing or installing a puppet regime), trigger the event: Dutch refugees arrive in the UK. Moderate manpower increase as a result of almost all of them enlisting in the British Armed Forces.
3. If invasion of the Netherlands succeeds (or if it does not after X days/weeks/months, but that would be kinda unfair for those who are coping.) Trigger a 'Germany bombs Rotterdam' event. Moderate manpower increase for participating allied countries, war entry increase for allied countries not yet in war.
4. Immediately after that, trigger event 'General Winkelman capitulates'.
Result, The Netherlands becomes German territory, navy ships are transferred to British ports, remain under control of the Dutch player.
Source for Historical events
I have no idea if it has been mentioned, but I just discovered WIKI.
It covers most major (and some not so major) events around the world in a easy to view format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936
It loosk like an excellent source to assist in writing historical events.
Later,
BlackHat
I have no idea if it has been mentioned, but I just discovered WIKI.
It covers most major (and some not so major) events around the world in a easy to view format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936
It loosk like an excellent source to assist in writing historical events.
Later,
BlackHat
Spain food
There event about the shipments of food from Latin America to Spain? During the WW2 Spain relies on that to avoid starving. I think that should be similar than the events of aids to Finland. Ex: Argentina sends grain, Brazil cofee, etc.
There event about the shipments of food from Latin America to Spain? During the WW2 Spain relies on that to avoid starving. I think that should be similar than the events of aids to Finland. Ex: Argentina sends grain, Brazil cofee, etc.
Wc38
About the world cup 38 I read that Mussolini was really interested on that. He visited the italian team and give support to the players. Was more or less: If you dont bring home the cup kiss your ass good bye :rofl:
Mayby before the final Italy could have the option:
A) Mussolini visits the team (as results Italy wins the cup, dissent -2 or 3, was important for Mussolini)
B) Do not visit (and here could be ramndon, or Italy wins or Poland wins)
About the world cup 38 I read that Mussolini was really interested on that. He visited the italian team and give support to the players. Was more or less: If you dont bring home the cup kiss your ass good bye :rofl:
Mayby before the final Italy could have the option:
A) Mussolini visits the team (as results Italy wins the cup, dissent -2 or 3, was important for Mussolini)
B) Do not visit (and here could be ramndon, or Italy wins or Poland wins)
1)In Latvia On October 15th, 1939, a new hydro electric station at Kegums(65 KM FROM Riga) on River Daugava began operating. This operated in a joint network with the City of Riga electric station and several local level electric stations, thus establishing a national electricity system. On December 22nd, 1939, the Latvian Minister’s cabinet accepted a Law establishing the State electricity company "Ķegums". This date can be viewed as being the birth of the energy system. Electric station ''Kegums'' power was 51 MW, biggest in Baltic States.
(In C.O.R.E. in Riga, Rezekne, Daugavpils IC+1 and Infrastructure in these cities +5).
2)On September 28, 1939, the Foreign Minister of Germany, J.von Ribbentrop, and his counterpart V.Molotov, the Foreign Minister of the USSR, signed a secret protocol regarding German emigration from territories within the Soviet sphere of influence. On October 30, 1939, a special treaty was signed between Germany and Latvia concerning the emigration of Baltic Germans and the liquidation of their educational, cultural, and religious institutions. The Nazis succeeded in getting the Baltic Germans to abandon their homes and homeland in haste, disposing of their belongings at cut-rate prices. Between the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940, more than 51,000 Germans left Latvia on German ships.
After Latvia’s forcible incorporation into the USSR, 10,500 more persons left; all together, more than 60,000 Germans and their families left Latvia between 1939 and 1941. Germans moved to Occupied polish Westprusia and Varta.
(In C.O.R.E. Germany have manpower growth +20).
(In C.O.R.E. in Riga, Rezekne, Daugavpils IC+1 and Infrastructure in these cities +5).
2)On September 28, 1939, the Foreign Minister of Germany, J.von Ribbentrop, and his counterpart V.Molotov, the Foreign Minister of the USSR, signed a secret protocol regarding German emigration from territories within the Soviet sphere of influence. On October 30, 1939, a special treaty was signed between Germany and Latvia concerning the emigration of Baltic Germans and the liquidation of their educational, cultural, and religious institutions. The Nazis succeeded in getting the Baltic Germans to abandon their homes and homeland in haste, disposing of their belongings at cut-rate prices. Between the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940, more than 51,000 Germans left Latvia on German ships.
After Latvia’s forcible incorporation into the USSR, 10,500 more persons left; all together, more than 60,000 Germans and their families left Latvia between 1939 and 1941. Germans moved to Occupied polish Westprusia and Varta.
(In C.O.R.E. Germany have manpower growth +20).
hmm
this has probably already been said but how about a event for a polish lituania merger?
this has probably already been said but how about a event for a polish lituania merger?