C.O.R.E. Tech Tree: Land units, techs and doctrines

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Militia stats

Originally posted by Steel
Copper, can you comment on militia manpower cost in C.O.R.E. as I'd like to understand why it's higher than in vanilla HoI. Intentional or oversight?

cost 		= 2 # vanilla 4
buildtime	= 45 # vanilla 40
manpower	= 7 # vanilla 5
maxspeed 	= 3 # vanilla 4

Intentional - all the other units infantry units got higher then vanilla HoI manpower cost.

It all depends on the way of counting mapower - if we count all possible (in chosen country) recruits, or only those normally conscripted (17-45, male, blah,blah...). IMO manpower is the second one, so militia cost less, but also elites cost more, as they took the best possible "material".

In current CORE manpower cost in infantry units looks like that:

Infantry (basic):
	cost 					= 5
	buildtime	 			= 90
	manpower 				= 10 #+2

Bergsjager:
	cost 					= 7
	buildtime	 			= 120
	manpower 				= 8 # +2

Marine:
	cost 					= 7 # Equipment
	buildtime	 			= 150 # Elites
	manpower 				= 12 #+2

Paras:
	cost 					= 18
	buildtime				= 180
	manpower 				= 12 #Elites

As you can see, militia is cheaper then all other types of infantry divs. On the other hand, is not that cheap, since milita units tend to be quite large compared to the standard ones.

Do you think militia should be cheaper (in MP sense)?

 

[Halibutt]

Re: Re: Militia stats

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
(...)As you can see, militia is cheaper then all other types of infantry divs. On the other hand, is not that cheap, since milita units tend to be quite large compared to the standard ones.

Do you think militia should be cheaper (in MP sense)?

I think Militia should require much less manpower. I always saw militia as auxiliary units: Grenzschutz, military police, Workers Brigades, all kind of volunteers. Badly equiped, smaller in numbers (one or two brigades, not more), suitable for second-line service and almost completely defenceless when fighting on the front.
Cheers

 

[Steel]

Re: Re: Militia stats

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Intentional - all the other units infantry units got higher then vanilla HoI manpower cost.

Well, that's the thing... that C.O.R.E. infantry is actually *NOT* higher than vanilla. In vanilla game, it's 10 MP and in C.O.R.E. it's also 10 MP. For militia it's 5 MP in vanilla and 7 in C.O.R.E. so the relative cost of militia is worse in C.O.R.E. which affects Ethiopia, China, Spanish Civil War and in some circumstances the USSR.

I agree with the definition of manpower as able recruits only and with militia drawing at least part of it's recruits from outside the normal age and fitness groups it should have a lower relative MP requirement. Probably 4 or 5 would be a good cost, any lower than that would make it tempting to exploit militia builds.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Re: Re: Militia stats

Originally posted by Steel
Well, that's the thing... that C.O.R.E. infantry is actually *NOT* higher than vanilla. In vanilla game, it's 10 MP and in C.O.R.E. it's also 10 MP. For militia it's 5 MP in vanilla and 7 in C.O.R.E. so the relative cost of militia is worse in C.O.R.E. which affects Ethiopia, China, Spanish Civil War and in some circumstances the USSR.

I agree with the definition of manpower as able recruits only and with militia drawing at least part of it's recruits from outside the normal age and fitness groups it should have a lower relative MP requirement. Probably 4 or 5 would be a good cost, any lower than that would make it tempting to exploit militia builds.

Agree, 5 MP for militia then.

BTW, some time ago, when 0.6 files were prepared, 10 MP was higher then in vanilla HoI. We should rather keep internal balance of CORE tech cost/effectiveness, then tring to copy solutions from the vanilla HoI. In case of milita it got sense, but not always it can be as good.

 

[Steel]

Re: Militia stats

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Agree, 5 MP for militia then.

BTW, some time ago, when 0.6 files were prepared, 10 MP was higher then in vanilla HoI. We should rather keep internal balance of CORE tech cost/effectiveness, then tring to copy solutions from the vanilla HoI. In case of milita it got sense, but not always it can be as good.

Will do the change now. Agree with your point on C.O.R.E. balance as well which is why militia differences was the only thing I brought up

 

[Steel]

Naval combat rework in 1.05c

As you know Paradox made some HoI.exe changes for naval combat. Here's how I think it affects us:

One of the changes in 1.05c is that the weakest unit is often targetted. Paradox has tripled carrier defence which means they will be targetted less often (and of course defend better against attacks). Makes sense to me.

To compensate, they increased BB/CA/DD seaattack and seadefence (but by smaller amounts). They've revised a lot of other values, but the SA/SD change is the one we need to consider in light of the "weakest unit" change.


Another change is the minimum time for battles. This will make naval combat deadlier and we'll need to test in depth to see how this affects game balance. There may be a need to increase SD somewhat to compensate.


Sub airdefence has been multiplied (from 1 to 8, 10 etc). This makes subs a lot less vulnerable to air attack and can perhaps better simulate that naval bombers would only be attacking one sub rather than the entire sub flotilla. Certainly the previous 3 hour bombardement of a thousand planes against a sub flottilla was a bit over the top... Again test it but I think the change looks like a good idea.


Paradox has started using decimal values, ie 0.5 in airattack. Don't know if this requires the 1.05c HoI.exe or if it was always possible, but can somebody please test (with the new HoI.exe) and check outcome. Suggest using a 1vs1 battle with one combatant set to 0, then 0.5, then 1 in attack.

 

[Szun]

well the changed they put into 1.05c...
they may be good..but the AI cant handle it.
I sank 8 BBs a couple cruisers and a carrier with 11 VIIc Subs with seaattack 4 and a GA with skill 4 / seawolf (Doenitz uped to GA) out of 24 ships/flotillas 10 escaped heavyly damaged.
Not to mention Doenitz got like 50 xp in the fight.

If thats a upgrade I dont know.
Subs are very powerfull til Ai comes with good DDs..but that wont happen until 42 or so.

P.S. tell me a reason to build normal ships if U see the resolts here...

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Szun
well the changed they put into 1.05c...
they may be good..but the AI cant handle it.
I sank 8 BBs a couple cruisers and a carrier with 11 VIIc Subs with seaattack 4 and a GA with skill 4 / seawolf (Doenitz uped to GA) out of 24 ships/flotillas 10 escaped heavyly damaged.
Not to mention Doenitz got like 50 xp in the fight.

It was probably the subs that put it over the top. Was that with Vanilla HoI units or CORE units? We are still having some problems with sub relative to surface warships. Were there any DDs with the above mentioned force? None of the ships that is listed has any anti-submarine warfare ability. It would be a tragedy if the British were parading battleships and a carrier through the North Sea without an escort

If thats a upgrade I dont know.
Subs are very powerfull til Ai comes with good DDs..but that wont happen until 42 or so.

P.S. tell me a reason to build normal ships if U see the resolts here...

Historically many countries had trouble with anti-submarine work until about 1942. There are other advantages to surface ships in terms of supporting amphibious operations and other operations. MDow

 

[Sonic]

Originally posted by MateDow
It was probably the subs that put it over the top. Was that with Vanilla HoI units or CORE units? We are still having some problems with sub relative to surface warships. Were there any DDs with the above mentioned force? None of the ships that is listed has any anti-submarine warfare ability. It would be a tragedy if the British were parading battleships and a carrier through the North Sea without an escort

I think what Math Guy is doing solves the problem really well. I´ve tested a view times with his proposed SA and SD and it really works. Maybe we should look into that sometime.

MfG

Sonic

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by MateDow
It was probably the subs that put it over the top. Was that with Vanilla HoI units or CORE units? We are still having some problems with sub relative to surface warships. Were there any DDs with the above mentioned force? None of the ships that is listed has any anti-submarine warfare ability. It would be a tragedy if the British were parading battleships and a carrier through the North Sea without an escort

I've seen similar thing with vanilla HoI 1.05c - seems like Paradox decided to overpower subs in the same way as CORE. But IMO they did too much - their subs got high org, defense and low visibility (only the last parameter is similar to the ones used by CORE).

I've sunk over 2000 points (out of 6000+) of combined UK-Belgium fleet in one battle, all the time bombed by naval bombers, with only 5 basic medium range subs. Seems like CORE is a bit more balanced after all...

About attacking the weakest units - IMO we should only rise defense of CV less then vanilla HoI. After all, those were prime targets - why anyone would attack destroyer, when nice, big "Shinano" is around?

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
I've seen similar thing with vanilla HoI 1.05c - seems like Paradox decided to overpower subs in the same way as CORE. But IMO they did too much - their subs got high org, defense and low visibility (only the last parameter is similar to the ones used by CORE).

I've sunk over 2000 points (out of 6000+) of combined UK-Belgium fleet in one battle, all the time bombed by naval bombers, with only 5 basic medium range subs. Seems like CORE is a bit more balanced after all...

About attacking the weakest units - IMO we should only rise defense of CV less then vanilla HoI. After all, those were prime targets - why anyone would attack destroyer, when nice, big "Shinano" is around?

I think that we are on the right path with the low org. A submarine that sticks around is dead. Submarine battles should be short and deadly. The sub should get in and sink a few ships and that should be the end of the battle. Later in the war when the ASW techs start kicking in, the battle will be deadlier for the sub. I am still looking at how much is too much for attack and defence for subs. I want them to be able to get that initial kill, but not be able to kill every unit in a force.

As for always attacking the smallest unit first... that seems a little backwards. I think that smaller units died quicker in actions because they were less able to absorb damage, not because they were the frequent targets. The destroyer screens would be in contact with enemy units more often than the heavy units at the center of the formation. Unfortunatly, the model isn't detailed enough to recreate that, so this is probably the next best solution. It will encourage balanced forces with plenty of destroyers to sap off the enemy's fire so your heavy units can get in to destroy his units without worrying about his destoyers.

I don't know if the AI is ready for balanced naval forces. I still see large British fleets (30-40 units) roaming the oceans. There aren't always destroyers with those groups making them more vulnerable to submarine and now enemy fleet attack. It will take some watching. MDow

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
About attacking the weakest units - IMO we should only rise defense of CV less then vanilla HoI. After all, those were prime targets - why anyone would attack destroyer, when nice, big "Shinano" is around?

The way I see it is that the DDs are closing to be in torpedo range, the CA/BB are closing to be in gun range but CV are standing off at a 100 miles from the target. Hence it would be relatively rare for a CA/BB to be able to engage a CV with guns.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Steel
Hence it would be relatively rare for a CA/BB to be able to engage a CV with guns.

Only happened twice in recorded history as far as I know MDow

 

[unmerged(14683)]

But what in case of sub attack? Most of the time subs were aiming for the "big ones", not for the escorts.

BTW, after another day of tests I'm absolutely sure that vanilla HoI 1.05c got overpowered subs. Another battle with basic mediums against bulk of US fleet and I killed over 1000 points, loosing 50-100 points (5 fleets, starting org 50). Our model of sub warfare is a bit better...

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
But what in case of sub attack? Most of the time subs were aiming for the "big ones", not for the escorts.

I agree it may be a problem, testing will show how big. However it's worth noting that while subs *wanted* to go after the "big ones" their success rate against large ships was rarely a big carrier or battleship.

Biggest targets sunk by German subs

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Steel
I agree it may be a problem, testing will show how big. However it's worth noting that while subs *wanted* to go after the "big ones" their success rate against large ships was rarely a big carrier or battleship.

Biggest targets sunk by German subs

German subs were not that much aiming for the capital ships as for merchants. Most of the sunken capital ships were either at the start of war (when UK introduced fleet CV's into sub-hunt duty), or during the conflict around Malta (limited area and so on).

Subs were aiming for the big ones and their were either fend off or attcked the target, but there was no option that they attacked escorts instead.

Situation when sub attacked escort was very rare due to:

- limited number of torpedos,

- very low chance to hit (small, fast moving target),

- alarming the rest of escorts,

- low priority of those targets.

Good example is Japan (their sub wafare doctrine was concetrated on the attacks on capital ships, not on merchants).

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Good example is Japan (their sub wafare doctrine was concetrated on the attacks on capital ships, not on merchants).

But even they only had good success when the carriers were limited in their area of operations while operating around Guadalcanal, and the only notable success was the sinking of the Wasp. I seem to remember a couple of light or escort carriers getting sunk later in the war, but they were also tied to amphibious operations.

I think we know that subs in both CORE and Vanilla are too powerful. Has there ever been complaints about subs not being powerful enough? That would help establish a lower level for technology as well.

Were the sub battles that you watched long drawn out affairs that would have been more realistic if they had retreated sooner due to org being gone? What year were these battles taking place? We might have to add +1 or +2 to all of the base destroyer ASW ratings in order to limit submarine effectiveness. It is only a temporary solution, but it might work until 0.7. MDow

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by MateDow
But even they only had good success when the carriers were limited in their area of operations while operating around Guadalcanal, and the only notable success was the sinking of the Wasp. I seem to remember a couple of light or escort carriers getting sunk later in the war, but they were also tied to amphibious operations.

That torpedo salvo was legendary, not just "success".

Originally posted by MateDow
Were the sub battles that you watched long drawn out affairs that would have been more realistic if they had retreated sooner due to org being gone? What year were these battles taking place? We might have to add +1 or +2 to all of the base destroyer ASW ratings in order to limit submarine effectiveness. It is only a temporary solution, but it might work until 0.7. MDow

Long battles, but those were vanilla HoI subs with org 35-50% and high defense, not ours. For now, a tad higher detection of the destroyers would be really useful, especially when you consider the fact, that most of the AI controlled navies use their basic fleet until the end of war.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus

Long battles, but those were vanilla HoI subs with org 35-50% and high defense, not ours. For now, a tad higher detection of the destroyers would be really useful, especially when you consider the fact, that most of the AI controlled navies use their basic fleet until the end of war.

What do you think? +1 or +2? It also sounds like a +1 bonus for sub attack would not be out of order either. It wouldn't be too hard to get the files modified. MDow

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by MateDow
What do you think? +1 or +2? It also sounds like a +1 bonus for sub attack would not be out of order either. It wouldn't be too hard to get the files modified. MDow

I suggest subdetectioncapability +4, subattack + 2 (all destroyer models 1+) - the detection is much more important then attack.

That's the minimal change that seems reasonable from the 1.05c vs. CORE 0.6 compare...

EDIT:

BTW, I know why sub attacks in vanilla HoI seems to be overpowered. AI doesn't know about naval stacking limit and big stacks of AI controlled ships are easy prey for human controlled sub. In case of normal stacks sub battles are pretty much balanced.