OK, when Allenby uses the generic patch, his game starts in 1935.
Mine starts in 1914.
Any other team members want to comment on when the game starts?
Mine starts in 1914.
Any other team members want to comment on when the game starts?
-
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 Allenby meant that if you use NO patch the game starts in 1935. AFAIK the generic NTL allows game start dates from 1 A.D. (I think it's 0, but there's no such thing anyway 
) onwards.
) onwards.
The patch allows you to set the date to AD 1 but since our scenario file defines the start date to be 1914, it should start in 1914.
It does on my game anyway.
I got Kiel mutiny to fire - we only need to add that flag into one of the trigger conditions for 21901, post 1916 Treaty of Versailles to get things done properly.
It does on my game anyway.
I got Kiel mutiny to fire - we only need to add that flag into one of the trigger conditions for 21901, post 1916 Treaty of Versailles to get things done properly.
OK, then, so I'll write this for the generic NTL, mod-dir version:
Directions for auto-swapping of the province.csv file.
You must have tgw installed in a directory named TGW within the main HOI directory. In <hoi>\db there must be a copy of the TGW province.csv named province.csv.tgw and a copy of the original HOI province.csv named province.csv.bak.
Create a file named tgw.bat in your root hoi directory and place this text in it.
For the original province.csv to be restored when HOI is run, you must have another file in the basic HOI directory named hoi.bat with this in it:
Edit your TGW and HOI shortcuts to point to tgw.bat and hoi.bat respectively.
The correct province.csv should now always be used.
Directions for auto-swapping of the province.csv file.
You must have tgw installed in a directory named TGW within the main HOI directory. In <hoi>\db there must be a copy of the TGW province.csv named province.csv.tgw and a copy of the original HOI province.csv named province.csv.bak.
Create a file named tgw.bat in your root hoi directory and place this text in it.
Code:
copy db\province.csv.tgw db\province.csv
hoi.exe tgwFor the original province.csv to be restored when HOI is run, you must have another file in the basic HOI directory named hoi.bat with this in it:
Code:
copy db\province.csv.bak db\province.csv
hoi.exeEdit your TGW and HOI shortcuts to point to tgw.bat and hoi.bat respectively.
The correct province.csv should now always be used.
Here's a question to our naval experts (Stephen and Richmond?):
Was it inevitable that the Admiralty implemented convoys?
If so what took them so long to implement this not-so-new idea?
Currently in my supply loss events I assume the Admiralty will 100% use convoys to protect merchant shipping.
Safe assumption?
Was it inevitable that the Admiralty implemented convoys?
If so what took them so long to implement this not-so-new idea?
Currently in my supply loss events I assume the Admiralty will 100% use convoys to protect merchant shipping.
Safe assumption?
There was huge resistance to the introduction of convoys. It was believed that they would do more harm than good. You'd be concentrating all your merchant ships into one huge, fat, juicy target; forcing them to travel at the speed of the slowest ship; and tying down your naval forces to plod along in escort duty instead of roaming free to seek out the enemy ships first. (Naval officers hated the idea of convoy duty too, because of the last reason). Finally, interfering with private shipowners in this way would be an unacceptable extension of state control into the activities of the free market, and would requre a costly new government bureaucracy to organise it all..
The convoy system was only adopted as a last resort, when the policy of aggressive patrols to hunt out submarines was manifestly failing, and a group of iconoclasts supported by the Lloyd George government persuaded the Powers That Be at the Admiralty to change their policy.
The convoy system was only adopted as a last resort, when the policy of aggressive patrols to hunt out submarines was manifestly failing, and a group of iconoclasts supported by the Lloyd George government persuaded the Powers That Be at the Admiralty to change their policy.
So would it be reasonable to check for Lloyd George as PM before I "implement" convoys? Or can we assume that with the losses getting horrific, someone would eventually set them up?
What I'm getting at is should we have the probability of NO convoys > 0?
What I'm getting at is should we have the probability of NO convoys > 0?
I dont know how many of you who know it, but I took upon msyelf to code the Swedish ministers for HoITGW.
Unfortunately, as I have been forced to stay home from work due to extreme stress, I am trying to cut down on my commitments. I am sorry, but I will not have time to do the Swedish ministers.
Unfortunately, as I have been forced to stay home from work due to extreme stress, I am trying to cut down on my commitments. I am sorry, but I will not have time to do the Swedish ministers.
von Adler said:I dont know how many of you who know it, but I took upon msyelf to code the Swedish ministers for HoITGW.
Unfortunately, as I have been forced to stay home from work due to extreme stress, I am trying to cut down on my commitments. I am sorry, but I will not have time to do the Swedish ministers.
And how about CK?
I believe that historically, Lloyd George did claim credit for introducing convoys. However, this could just be his usual self-aggrandisement. Personally, I believe that it should be inevitable that convoys are set up, but not necessarily on the historical date.ptan54 said:
As a more general issue, do I understand that you are proposing to reproduce the 1st Battle of the Atlantic using events, without reference to how many submarine units the Germans actually build and whether or not the British put research points into naval doctrines?
I have a few tech events that give both sides the advances needed to simulate upping the scales.
One event gives the Germans 10 submarines (which isnt very much at all, they all get clobbered by the Grand Fleet in no time) so that sort of takes care of the sub problem.
If this were Victoria I'd check for the actual numbers of submarines and destroyers to make it more realistic. However such a trigger condition doesn't exist in HOI.
One event gives the Germans 10 submarines (which isnt very much at all, they all get clobbered by the Grand Fleet in no time) so that sort of takes care of the sub problem.
If this were Victoria I'd check for the actual numbers of submarines and destroyers to make it more realistic. However such a trigger condition doesn't exist in HOI.
When Russia leaves the war, then it grants access for Germany and Austria-Hungary- but NOT for the Ottoman Empire! This is messed up!
IF it grants access to the central powers, then it must grant to Ottomans as well.
IF it grants access to the central powers, then it must grant to Ottomans as well.
Junkyard_Pope said:
The Ottoman Empire's presence in the Central Powers is not a certainty, thus, it would be strange if Russia were to grant access to a neutral country.
Italy A.I. should spend more on developing bombers. After all, they did INVENT the strategic bomber. They also developed a TRIplane heavy bomber! They focused with a national pride on bomber developement even until WW II. That's one of the reasons they had excellent bombers at the start of the war- they could hold more bombs than German bombers, and it was one of the things the Germans learned from the Italians- reliable Strategic bombers are a must.
Great Britain and France bought Italian bombers as well. 8 of the 32 triplane bombers (Caproni Ca.4) were bought by Britain. It had 8 defensive machine guns! and could carry 1,500 kgs of bombs!!! Ha ha!!! THAT'S a Great War Flying Fortress eh?
http://www.theaerodrome.com/
Great Britain and France bought Italian bombers as well. 8 of the 32 triplane bombers (Caproni Ca.4) were bought by Britain. It had 8 defensive machine guns! and could carry 1,500 kgs of bombs!!! Ha ha!!! THAT'S a Great War Flying Fortress eh?
http://www.theaerodrome.com/
Last edited:
Just a quick announcement that I've started a new AAR, this one using 1.02b on hard/aggressive, playing as Germany. It's posted on the main HoI AAR forum. (Which, hopefully, should also be a way of whipping up interest in the mod).
StephenT said:
Argh! You disabled my over complicated and bug prone auto defeat events! Unbeliever! Blashphemer! Heretic!
I hope you get some good results back from this intensive testing, Stephen.
About a challegin game;
Would it be possible to make different scenarios?
Instead of using difficult levels like easy to hard to really doesn’t do anything to improve the Ai:s chances to beat or at least put up a god fight? Couldn’t you create 3 different scenarios?
1) Human Ent.major player; gives the Cent.powers some more divs, techs, manpower etc.
2) Human Cent.major player; gives the Ent.powers some more divs, techs, manpower etc.
3) Human Minor neutral player/ standoff game no changes
Would it be possible to make different scenarios?
Instead of using difficult levels like easy to hard to really doesn’t do anything to improve the Ai:s chances to beat or at least put up a god fight? Couldn’t you create 3 different scenarios?
1) Human Ent.major player; gives the Cent.powers some more divs, techs, manpower etc.
2) Human Cent.major player; gives the Ent.powers some more divs, techs, manpower etc.
3) Human Minor neutral player/ standoff game no changes
(swe)tuuttu said:
I shan't put any work into this - if the player wants to change the composition of alliances' forces, techs and resources then they can do so on their own initiative.
We will be doing some scenarios when we've got a solid playable version:
1) August 1914 scenario
2) post-Revolution 1917 scenario
3) 1916 scenario starting with Verdun
4) 1918 scenario beginning with the Kaiserschlacht
....at least it will give us something to do in the future
Mmmm,
This was just a suggestion to make the game ”go” in a different way without putting X hours into improving the AI:s ability, witch probably wont work anyway, since Paradox themselves cant do much.....its just a comp.
Let’s say you choose to play “Cent. Power major country scenario”; wouldn’t it be a good idea to give the Ent. AI some more divs then like in North Africa. This would make it possible for them to put up a good fight, at least for a while, since theirs no way that the AI ever will move more troops to Africa.
We plan to "alleviate" the North African scenario by dumbing down the Turks a bit...
In any case you can always go to the French mobilisation event in France.txt in the events folder and add 100 more divisions!
In any case you can always go to the French mobilisation event in France.txt in the events folder and add 100 more divisions!