With the radar techs (xxxxx warning sites) you get the following "bonus" - Surprise chance them = +X% . Surely the '+' should be a '-' ? Otherwise investing in radar makes your enemy able to surprise you more easily than they otherwise would.
-
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.
About the Air-Land Battle Doctrine. The United States has researched and published a doctrine with that exact name. In August 1982, Field Manual 100-5. Google it, there's a ton of available information on it. Now, I believe that the tech itself is ok. There was an interest in better communication and synergy between Airforce and Army. So perhaps another name would suffice?
Crazyhorse said:I know.
But come to peace with the issue so the real hurting can end.
I've solved the issue by the method I explained earlier, so I won't say anything bad now.
Motorisation of the army maybee? a tech that the USA showed very well during the war, almost all their forces had motorised transportation, they did not exactly march were they were going, they took the truck. this should be a tech that only increases the speed of the inf divs, and maybee marines, but paras and mountaneers, should be left without, me thinks.
There should be an upgrade cost and ofcourse it should not be easily attainable, but i think this is a sort of work-around of the fact that you cannot upgrade inf to mot or mec. which IMO is very unrealistic. The upgrade should drain supplies and oil more than before to, to reflect that they are motorised regular inf.
Cheers
There should be an upgrade cost and ofcourse it should not be easily attainable, but i think this is a sort of work-around of the fact that you cannot upgrade inf to mot or mec. which IMO is very unrealistic. The upgrade should drain supplies and oil more than before to, to reflect that they are motorised regular inf.
Cheers
Timpino said:
Can't do that. You cannot make infantry units use any form of oil, so semi-motorized divisions are not possible, unless you want to give the the bonus' but at no fuel cost.
It will say it uses fuel but it really won't. Only armor, mech, and motorized ground units will use fuel. See bug report here. AFAIK this hasn't been fixed yet.Timpino said:
crap, didn't know about that, but what do you think of the idea, if they fix the bug? (the inf, will actually use oil, none of the other solutions)
Well, if the bug was fixed then you could actually make the infantry consume oil directly by researching a "full motorization" tech. This has been discussed before which was what caused some of us to test it and me to post the bug report.Timpino said:
Leaders
I dont know where post this question, so sorry if is the wrong place
My question is: How Leaders (and ministers) loyalty affect the game? Specially in combat.
I dont know where post this question, so sorry if is the wrong place
My question is: How Leaders (and ministers) loyalty affect the game? Specially in combat.
Diego EV said:I dont know where post this question, so sorry if is the wrong place
My question is: How Leaders (and ministers) loyalty affect the game? Specially in combat.
It's kinda nebulous. There's no direct impact on the game from loyalty levels that I am aware of. There is anecdotal evidence that low loyalty leaders will not immediately implement orders, or will not follow orders (noted in several cases of naval units). Loyalty I think has an impact on how susceptible you are to a coup. If you have a lot of low loyalty ministers and leaders you are more vulnerable than normal. But even that is questionable.
Steel said:
Yeah, but as I recall, they're buggy, and cause some CTDs. Maybe that was just minister loyalty though. Unless it got fixed and I missed it...
Dunno if this has been covered somewhere within the depths of this thread (I'm afraid to sift through all 33 or so pages! ^^, but I've been musing about the artillery tree some - more notably, the anti-tank gun and tank gun techs.
Typically, tank guns were based on modified versions of antitank guns. Therefore, might it not be logical to make the suitable AT gun a requirement for the tank gun? IE, you have to research Anti-Tank Gun 40+mm before you can research Tank Gun 40+mm. Change that would have to accompany this: move Anti-Tank Gun 75mm to the next tier, Improved Equipment and Ordnance (and have 50mm/75mm not deactivate each other).
This makes sense anyways, as virtually every nation that had a 50+mm gun of some sort (British 6-pounder, German PaK38, Russian ZiS-2, American M1 or whatever the hell they called it, ect) also had a 75+mm of some stripe or another (British 17-pounder, German PaK40, Russian ZiS-3, American 3" guns, ect), so it is fairly nonsensical to make the choice between 50mm and 75mm a one-or-the-other choice. Not to mention that guns of the 50mm variety were 1940/1941 guns, while 75mms, for the most part, tended to be 1942 weapons (with a few exceptions, such as the ZiS-3).
Given some time, I suppose I could sift through the tech list and work out a list of interdependencies, if people would like...
, but I've been musing about the artillery tree some - more notably, the anti-tank gun and tank gun techs.Typically, tank guns were based on modified versions of antitank guns. Therefore, might it not be logical to make the suitable AT gun a requirement for the tank gun? IE, you have to research Anti-Tank Gun 40+mm before you can research Tank Gun 40+mm. Change that would have to accompany this: move Anti-Tank Gun 75mm to the next tier, Improved Equipment and Ordnance (and have 50mm/75mm not deactivate each other).
This makes sense anyways, as virtually every nation that had a 50+mm gun of some sort (British 6-pounder, German PaK38, Russian ZiS-2, American M1 or whatever the hell they called it, ect) also had a 75+mm of some stripe or another (British 17-pounder, German PaK40, Russian ZiS-3, American 3" guns, ect), so it is fairly nonsensical to make the choice between 50mm and 75mm a one-or-the-other choice. Not to mention that guns of the 50mm variety were 1940/1941 guns, while 75mms, for the most part, tended to be 1942 weapons (with a few exceptions, such as the ZiS-3).
Given some time, I suppose I could sift through the tech list and work out a list of interdependencies, if people would like...
Supplies
Was watching the History Channel late last night (or was it the night before ? ) ANyway - it was abou thte Battle of the Bulge and the lead up - one comment was about the very stretched Allied supply lines after D-Day , the red ball express, etc. They stated that an Allied Armoured Divisions needed c 300 tons of supplies daily, whilst the German equivalent coudl make do with about 1/3 rd of that (figures may not be 100% accurate, but the ratio certainly stuck in my memory).
Was wondering if anyone had looked at numbers, etc to see if this had any kind of relationship to HoI consumption for oil/ supplies ? If not, perhaps there need to be some thought given to the voracious need for oil & supplies of American and Allied units, and perhaps some kind of supply/oil reduction for German units on the defensive (perhaps tied to the 1944 division reforms?)
Tim
Was watching the History Channel late last night (or was it the night before ? ) ANyway - it was abou thte Battle of the Bulge and the lead up - one comment was about the very stretched Allied supply lines after D-Day , the red ball express, etc. They stated that an Allied Armoured Divisions needed c 300 tons of supplies daily, whilst the German equivalent coudl make do with about 1/3 rd of that (figures may not be 100% accurate, but the ratio certainly stuck in my memory).
Was wondering if anyone had looked at numbers, etc to see if this had any kind of relationship to HoI consumption for oil/ supplies ? If not, perhaps there need to be some thought given to the voracious need for oil & supplies of American and Allied units, and perhaps some kind of supply/oil reduction for German units on the defensive (perhaps tied to the 1944 division reforms?)
Tim
300 tons??? That seems a bit much IMHO.
The 6th Army in Stalingrad needed minimal 350 tons of supplies to keep alive while they were surrounded. 700 tons were preffered for the 6th Army. (Just read it in Anthony Beevor's - Stalingrad)
And the 6th Army was a lot bigger then a allied armour division.
It seems to me that the 300 tons number is incorrect.
I don't think the numbers wee really that different for an Allied or an german division. Perhaps the German divisions did not receive as much as they wanted and a Allied division did. Taking in mind that in Germany supplies were a bit of a problem.
The 6th Army in Stalingrad needed minimal 350 tons of supplies to keep alive while they were surrounded. 700 tons were preffered for the 6th Army. (Just read it in Anthony Beevor's - Stalingrad)
And the 6th Army was a lot bigger then a allied armour division.
It seems to me that the 300 tons number is incorrect.
I don't think the numbers wee really that different for an Allied or an german division. Perhaps the German divisions did not receive as much as they wanted and a Allied division did. Taking in mind that in Germany supplies were a bit of a problem.
Last edited:
Guns and speed
Could be modified for the next core version the speed of the tanks, in relation with their guns?
For example, if you can desing a medium tank 37mm, 50mm or 75mm S. Then the 37mm, being the weakest, should recive an extra point in mobility. The 50mm remain as it is and the 75mm S recive a -1 movement as penalty due the bigger gun.
At this way made sence to design tanks with smaller guns, cose you recive something in exchange. IMHO
Could be modified for the next core version the speed of the tanks, in relation with their guns?
For example, if you can desing a medium tank 37mm, 50mm or 75mm S. Then the 37mm, being the weakest, should recive an extra point in mobility. The 50mm remain as it is and the 75mm S recive a -1 movement as penalty due the bigger gun.
At this way made sence to design tanks with smaller guns, cose you recive something in exchange. IMHO
Diego EV said:Could be modified for the next core version the speed of the tanks, in relation with their guns?
For example, if you can desing a medium tank 37mm, 50mm or 75mm S. Then the 37mm, being the weakest, should recive an extra point in mobility. The 50mm remain as it is and the 75mm S recive a -1 movement as penalty due the bigger gun.
At this way made sence to design tanks with smaller guns, cose you recive something in exchange. IMHO
Well there is some thinking of doing something like that. Only then making for example the 37mm version research time 60 days and the 50mm 80 days the 75mm version 95 days.
But I do like your idea also. Perhaps a combination would be nice.
Fast tanks wich can be researched quick or slower tanks wich need more research time.
Speed differences would be minimal because I don't think it would have made a big difference IRL.
Crazyhorse said:
Keep in mind that the American divisions (in particular) were incredible supply hogs, especially for gas/oil/machine parts. The US Army in WW2 was the world's first fully motorized military, so there is a markedly higher demand for logistical support. This, if course, would only apply to US armored divisions.