I see your point, but should it be a priority given how busy the team is with other things that really are a priority and will appreciably improve gameplay and(hopefully) AI performance? Or is it just a nice to have that could wait for 1.07?
-
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.
I think this would be a bigger improvement to the game than some of the new events.
Events can be done by anyone, and if there is a shortage of man-hours to do them, I'm sure that people on the forum/discord that could help with writing them.
This UI improvement however, is something that only the devs can perform as it requires access to the source code.
Of course if they need some help this UI change, I'm sure that there are people that would be eager to help with that too, perhaps create the graphics for it?
Dunno if it will be possible (well, it would certainly be, but maybe would need a change in every ai file)
For ai building, set a difference between units.
I mean you set art built at 20, it means that every unit that can attach art has 20% chance of getting an art regiment
I would like to be able to set different values for each kind of unit
Also it would be nice that the attachments appear in the UI in same order always, that wouldn't have any impact in the game as it would be just cosmetical.
For ai building, set a difference between units.
I mean you set art built at 20, it means that every unit that can attach art has 20% chance of getting an art regiment
I would like to be able to set different values for each kind of unit
Also it would be nice that the attachments appear in the UI in same order always, that wouldn't have any impact in the game as it would be just cosmetical.
I can let them know then. What skills do you have? I know they need help, people actually willing to contribute. One thing I know they need is open source pictures of ministers, researchers, generals, specific tanks, planes, ships etc.... I am not sure which countries are left to be updated, but I can ask if that interests you.
Lately I've been busy with other things, so I'll just give a quick answer to some posts.
The problem is that we are constantly working with two different objectives:
EDIT: and sometimes having an upgrade with both bonuses and penalties is WAD too.
Definitely not.
We had one planned for the end of September but then we faced unexpected issues that have seriosuly delayed our plans. I cannot give any estimate even on next DD unfortunately.
I am not sure what you're talking about. Some changes are definitely WAD. We have our own spreadsheets, but always we're open to suggestions.
The problem is that we are constantly working with two different objectives:
- gameplay
- historical adherence
EDIT: and sometimes having an upgrade with both bonuses and penalties is WAD too.
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
Some of his stat concerns have merit and you guys might want to ensure they actually are wad. The file he sent me was barely "comprehensible" so I asked him to redo it and did not forward the original to you. I will reiterate though, some of his concerns do have merit and should be examined imo. Just waiting for a more "useable" format. JMO, YMMV
I am sure there are inconsistencies in our files. I will add it to my already extremely long list of things to check and fix.
If a readable file is provided, that would be definitely helpful and might help fixing the issue. It would surely be appreciated.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I can see the argument for sidegrades due to historical development, but flat downgrades are never justified. If the purpose is to make one side lose at particular years, then player can get around with not researching the inferior model entirely.
That is the problem of balancing game through tech tree. I think the same historical result can be reached without flaws in gameplay. Through events for example.
Unless you're talking about land doctrines, then no, that was never the intent for units from what I remember.
I disagree. Once you start using events for tinkering and adjusting values of units between different countries, the game becomes much more difficult to balance and it is also much more difficult to justify each change.
- 2
Events are always dangerous.
When people are familiar with the trigger conditions it can be misused. The "AI" is already weak and events could influence it way more.
But because I'm curious: What files and what units have "problems". I read it but I cant see any examples so far? Thx for any help.
When people are familiar with the trigger conditions it can be misused. The "AI" is already weak and events could influence it way more.
But because I'm curious: What files and what units have "problems". I read it but I cant see any examples so far? Thx for any help.
- 2
Unfortunately I don't have any skills
But even more dire is the lack of time on my part.
I do however believe that I know people that would be able to contribute, with both skill and time.
Would be good to have some form of fixing to naval distance combat so that battleships and gun ships aren't entirely useless the moment a single carrier appears. Also would be neat if enough define control is there for ships defence to work as before the Dupuy land combat inspired changes, as they currently make little sense.
- 1
- 1
I would say no. I am not a dev, so my opinion doesn't matter much, but I would refer you to the battle of leyte gulf. The question was definitively answered there and then. As much as we all love big guns and the ships that employ them, carriers and their CAGs ruled the seas in WW2. Show me one battle after Pearl Harbor that indicates differently.
I honestly have no idea what you are saying here.
My only grip of carrier is how invincible it is. Yes the carrier is safe in a strike, but the planes will take casualty. Air defense should reduce carrier damage, but dont. Carrier should take damage based on target air attack, but do not. All carrier plane carries void shield from warhammer 40k.
Is there a way to balance it within game mechanics? I don't know. It would be up to devs.
Is there a way to balance it within game mechanics? I don't know. It would be up to devs.
- 1
There is a difference with battleships being bad, and being completly useless. Also that for all that is worth , the HMS Glorious was sunk by a battleship off the coast in Norway. In game doesn't matter if is the pacific or the north atlantic were climate conditions aren't so carrier favorable, battleships or other gun ships can't hit at all enemy carriers.
- 1
Another major reason carrier is OP is how damn consistent it is. It is actually very hard for carriers to attack a target far away. The ship must first spot the enemy. If it was friendly destroyer, then enemy will not be at max carrier range, the fight would be closer. Spotting enemy with plane is much less consistent. Game treat it as a battleship with 5x the range when it clearly is not.
Furthermore there is lack of sea terrain. No shallow water vs deep sea.
Deep sea should make smaller ships slower, weaker in combat, due to strong waves. This gives cruisers a purpose over destroyers.
Shallow water makes submarines easier to spot.
Last edited:
Because usually most players using BBs are playing kind of "old guard": the bigger guns, the better guns... more guns, better.
And when they get pounded by carriers, so far I've heard none concluding that it perhaps needs a change of tactics.
If you insist on using ships with less reach than the enemy, you need to make sure to get into reach. So you need to maximize your sea detection, minimize your visibility to kind of sneak into BB-gun-reach. Is there even 1 player using battleship fleets in this way? I would be honestly interested to hear about the results...
- 1