Probably trapped in a port that exits into the now-blocked sea province due to german take-over of DEN.
-
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.
Is there not a problem with the value of certain unattached brigades in the build queue when a save game is loaded? I realize that this is a HOI problem rather than a CORE problem, but the characteristics of some CORE naval brigades then makes these certain brigades un-upgradeable.
Take the Light AAA Battery LAA-6 for instance. If it is built as a brigade and attached to a ship it increases the AA attack by 4 and the ship air defense by 7. This is often done while playing as USA an 50 X 2 or so LAA-6 are added to production when war starts. However if that brigade is in the queue unattached and the game is reloaded and that brigade is then attached to a ship, it now reduces the air defense of the by -1 and will not ever upgrade. That is stat for a LAA-0. And since the LAA-1 has no stats it will not upgrade past that point and ever then become a LAA-6 with the +4, +7 air stats and will if attached to the ship have a net result of reducing the air defense value by -1.
As I said, this is a HOI naval brigade problem. That is why for instance one never should build CVs separate from CAGs because no matter how advanced the CAG may be bought and paid for, if it is in the build queue and the game is reloaded, it will drop in value to a CAG-0 and have to go through all the costly and time wasting upgrades when it is finally attached to a CV.
Anyway, one may say that the reload game situation is rare, and I could live with the rare issue like with the CAGs as stated above, but if the attached naval brigade cannot ever become upgraded, that is an unacceptable CORE problem is it not?
So -- what is my suggestion? Make LAA-0s available to be attached to all needed ships from the start of the game giving them all zero stats and when the correct time comes, allow them then to be upgraded as needed without the missing gap for LAA-1.
Take the Light AAA Battery LAA-6 for instance. If it is built as a brigade and attached to a ship it increases the AA attack by 4 and the ship air defense by 7. This is often done while playing as USA an 50 X 2 or so LAA-6 are added to production when war starts. However if that brigade is in the queue unattached and the game is reloaded and that brigade is then attached to a ship, it now reduces the air defense of the by -1 and will not ever upgrade. That is stat for a LAA-0. And since the LAA-1 has no stats it will not upgrade past that point and ever then become a LAA-6 with the +4, +7 air stats and will if attached to the ship have a net result of reducing the air defense value by -1.
As I said, this is a HOI naval brigade problem. That is why for instance one never should build CVs separate from CAGs because no matter how advanced the CAG may be bought and paid for, if it is in the build queue and the game is reloaded, it will drop in value to a CAG-0 and have to go through all the costly and time wasting upgrades when it is finally attached to a CV.
Anyway, one may say that the reload game situation is rare, and I could live with the rare issue like with the CAGs as stated above, but if the attached naval brigade cannot ever become upgraded, that is an unacceptable CORE problem is it not?
So -- what is my suggestion? Make LAA-0s available to be attached to all needed ships from the start of the game giving them all zero stats and when the correct time comes, allow them then to be upgraded as needed without the missing gap for LAA-1.
Last edited:
Hi,
The standard CORE Naval Brigade set up is designed specifically to prevent upgrades from 0-2. This may not be needed with the LAA. But the general concept is to prevent upgrading of obsolescent ships from the Pre-WW1 era. It may be possible to eliminate the gap for LAA, since I don't seem to be utilizing that option much/at all. However, doing what you suggest is technically an issue. We activate all of those models in techs and going your route would require a lot of event driven code to activate individual models. Not too keen on that.
WRT to the noted problem, I don't recall the issue being brigades in the build que. What I recall is that ones in the deployment pool revert if they are not attached. I don't recall ever seeing this problem myself. If it's just ones in the pool it is relatively minor. IF a whole production line churns out Zero stat units that is a much more substantial issue. Can you confirm exactly what the problem is. thanks!
mm
The standard CORE Naval Brigade set up is designed specifically to prevent upgrades from 0-2. This may not be needed with the LAA. But the general concept is to prevent upgrading of obsolescent ships from the Pre-WW1 era. It may be possible to eliminate the gap for LAA, since I don't seem to be utilizing that option much/at all. However, doing what you suggest is technically an issue. We activate all of those models in techs and going your route would require a lot of event driven code to activate individual models. Not too keen on that.
WRT to the noted problem, I don't recall the issue being brigades in the build que. What I recall is that ones in the deployment pool revert if they are not attached. I don't recall ever seeing this problem myself. If it's just ones in the pool it is relatively minor. IF a whole production line churns out Zero stat units that is a much more substantial issue. Can you confirm exactly what the problem is. thanks!
mm
Hi,
I'm to the point where I've initially calculated all of the initial Resource Reserves that I'd like to implement. This will be a substantial bump from the current numbers and represents something close to the RW data we have. However, it's still a bit lower than the target values implemented in the Trade AI file we just added. IMO those values are just too high. Especially for the Oil trading scheme which targets extremely high values. At this point I'd prefer to disable the Oil component completely as the logic of targeting a stockpile based on development level without any usage based trigger is simply faulty logic. Any comments before I start editing files?
mm
I'm to the point where I've initially calculated all of the initial Resource Reserves that I'd like to implement. This will be a substantial bump from the current numbers and represents something close to the RW data we have. However, it's still a bit lower than the target values implemented in the Trade AI file we just added. IMO those values are just too high. Especially for the Oil trading scheme which targets extremely high values. At this point I'd prefer to disable the Oil component completely as the logic of targeting a stockpile based on development level without any usage based trigger is simply faulty logic. Any comments before I start editing files?
mm
Correct -- the problem is with naval brigades in the deployment queue since the savegame file does not keep stats for them so they revert back from a LAA-6 to a LAA-0 which is then never upgradable -- in fact the LAA-0 has a net effect of DECREASING air defense by 1 rather than increasing it by 7.
It does not surprise me that nobody ever noticed this before since we all know that nobody plays Japan or USA in CORE as a human so the only concern has been with their handsoff results. I am running games with 3 human players so I get to see more of the game issues that go missed by all the single player Germany/Russia players with small navies. Like -- the "Rogue Wave" effect which I resolved by returning to the original game critical hit numbers.
Don't get me wrong here -- CORE is the best mod I have seen yet. I would have picked up on it earlier except for the fact that it was unplayable multiplayer despite the statement on the multiplayer site by a CORE expert saying that it was easy. Were it not for the fact that I discovered a finesse -- starting a single player game in CORE and saving the gamestart, then transferring it to the multiplayer game, I would still not be playing CORE.
It does not surprise me that nobody ever noticed this before since we all know that nobody plays Japan or USA in CORE as a human so the only concern has been with their handsoff results. I am running games with 3 human players so I get to see more of the game issues that go missed by all the single player Germany/Russia players with small navies. Like -- the "Rogue Wave" effect which I resolved by returning to the original game critical hit numbers.
Don't get me wrong here -- CORE is the best mod I have seen yet. I would have picked up on it earlier except for the fact that it was unplayable multiplayer despite the statement on the multiplayer site by a CORE expert saying that it was easy. Were it not for the fact that I discovered a finesse -- starting a single player game in CORE and saving the gamestart, then transferring it to the multiplayer game, I would still not be playing CORE.
Last edited:
I just had a inspiration -- what if I made the LAA-0 stats the same as the LAA-6 stats? Then if it reverted in the savegame deployment queue it would still be correct. And, as stated on the LAA brigade file, that the LAA-0 was unbuildable, there would be no problem with that.
Does that sound like it would work? I have my name on 11 USA patents so I know how to improvise on the fly!
Does that sound like it would work? I have my name on 11 USA patents so I know how to improvise on the fly!
Hi,
We actually were aware of the Brigade reversion issue. It's just that IMO the cure is worse than the disease. It only effects players as the AI doesn't seem to build any Attachmnets anymore. And a player can work around the issue by never saving with an attachment in the deployment que. I'll consider the options here. Right now this is not hot enough for me to work as I'm in the middle of fixing things with much wider applicability.
Switching the LAA-0 stats to LAA-6 would be a good gouge fix for your game. They'd still be stuck at LAA-0. but at least they wouldn't be a permanent penalty. The problem is LAA-6 isn't always correct globally. Going to an upgradeable stucture by copying the model 2 stats into model 1 and then activating model 1 by event seems a better solution. The unit would upgrade extremely fast d2 being multiple levels obsolete.
mm
We actually were aware of the Brigade reversion issue. It's just that IMO the cure is worse than the disease. It only effects players as the AI doesn't seem to build any Attachmnets anymore. And a player can work around the issue by never saving with an attachment in the deployment que. I'll consider the options here. Right now this is not hot enough for me to work as I'm in the middle of fixing things with much wider applicability.
Switching the LAA-0 stats to LAA-6 would be a good gouge fix for your game. They'd still be stuck at LAA-0. but at least they wouldn't be a permanent penalty. The problem is LAA-6 isn't always correct globally. Going to an upgradeable stucture by copying the model 2 stats into model 1 and then activating model 1 by event seems a better solution. The unit would upgrade extremely fast d2 being multiple levels obsolete.
mm
A player may not work around a game crash with an attachment in the deployment queue though. And a player cannot work around an attachment in the queue when at savegame time the ship it is designed for is not in the port to be attached. A person playing as USA is forced by the game system to lay down something like 50 lines of 2 deep LAA-6s when war starts. There is no way to plan how to attach them all as they come in without a micromanagement staff of people involved.
I prefer instead to edit my LAA-0 to look like LAA-6. Is there some hidden issue with that? It is my understanding that the LAA-0 is not buildable so what is the problem?
A question about the 1930 HBs that USA start with. In all my early games I scrapped them all at game start. Last game though I kept them in and in 1941 populated them and upgraded them -- except that they will not upgrade at all except for the brigade. Is that WAD? I have researched 1942 HB and they are still stuck at 1930 model. The 1930 MBs upgraded just fine to 1942 models. Is it possible that the problem is due to not researching the 1936 HB but instead going straight to the 1938 model which results in the 1936 HB research being made red-out? The 1936 HB is not required to research the 1938 HB. If this is true, then how was one to know that in advance?
I prefer instead to edit my LAA-0 to look like LAA-6. Is there some hidden issue with that? It is my understanding that the LAA-0 is not buildable so what is the problem?
A question about the 1930 HBs that USA start with. In all my early games I scrapped them all at game start. Last game though I kept them in and in 1941 populated them and upgraded them -- except that they will not upgrade at all except for the brigade. Is that WAD? I have researched 1942 HB and they are still stuck at 1930 model. The 1930 MBs upgraded just fine to 1942 models. Is it possible that the problem is due to not researching the 1936 HB but instead going straight to the 1938 model which results in the 1936 HB research being made red-out? The 1936 HB is not required to research the 1938 HB. If this is true, then how was one to know that in advance?
Last edited:
Indeed, you have to research all the models in between, if you want to upgrade your units. The same is true if you want to upgrade your production lines. Some models, however, look like they cannot be upgraded, e.g. CV3.
Hi,
The Heavy Bomber issue was a flaw in the code and is already fixed. So thank you for finding it! The original version didn't have any 1930 models for most aircraft and I missed a line when adding it. The only breaks in aircraft lines are in between the "Patrol Bomber " and the "AShM-equipped Medium Bomber" that both use the Naval Bomber file. OTOH, there are some situations where Naval production lines can't be upgraded. This isn't always fully desireable but is generally WAD due to other considerations.
With respect to LAA, my point is that your play style may make LAA-0 and LAA-6 essentially equal in many cases. However, I can't build a Mod around an assumed play style. And I'd note that if I was as bothered about the LAA-0 reversion as you seem to be I'd want them upgradeable to LAA-7 once that is available. the solution I suggested is a bit more complicated. but it would allow that.
mm
The Heavy Bomber issue was a flaw in the code and is already fixed. So thank you for finding it! The original version didn't have any 1930 models for most aircraft and I missed a line when adding it. The only breaks in aircraft lines are in between the "Patrol Bomber " and the "AShM-equipped Medium Bomber" that both use the Naval Bomber file. OTOH, there are some situations where Naval production lines can't be upgraded. This isn't always fully desireable but is generally WAD due to other considerations.
With respect to LAA, my point is that your play style may make LAA-0 and LAA-6 essentially equal in many cases. However, I can't build a Mod around an assumed play style. And I'd note that if I was as bothered about the LAA-0 reversion as you seem to be I'd want them upgradeable to LAA-7 once that is available. the solution I suggested is a bit more complicated. but it would allow that.
mm
Indeed, a CORE novice is not born with that knowledge. I never even realized that I had bypassed the critical 1936 HB so that I could upgrade the 1930 HB until it was red-out and I was already screwed, blued, and tattooed.
Seriously though, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I can get by with way things are, but my 2 gaming buddies that I am running the 3 player networked game with are blaming me for what you have not communicated.
Perhaps what is needed is a simple list of Do's and Don'ts as pertains to research.
Like for instance -- don't pass over researching a unit model or you may find that your cannot upgrade you units.
Seriously though, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I can get by with way things are, but my 2 gaming buddies that I am running the 3 player networked game with are blaming me for what you have not communicated.
Perhaps what is needed is a simple list of Do's and Don'ts as pertains to research.
Like for instance -- don't pass over researching a unit model or you may find that your cannot upgrade you units.
It sounds like I may have become your new game tester for a human USA. We here are also playing with a human UK so I will try my best to communicate to you all problems we are seeing with the game both real (hopefully) and imagined. Our third player normally plays SOV at the moment but will switch to Germany as he learns the game better. We use our own custom difficulty file that tends to give IC/resource, and manpower to the AI as well as a custom event giving Japan IC/resource, and manpower just to make it interesting -- sort of a "What if a Deming figure arrived in Japan 20 years sooner."
Hi,
Sounds great. It will be a little hared to judge balance from your play. But play is how bugs are found.
And just to be crystal, the fix applied is that you don't need to research 36 HB to have an open upgrade path. That had always been the intended design. So the issue there wasn't communication. Though there are some other places where that may be a very valid critique. The big issues with Research are the Mobilization Tech Activation, the Air Doctrine Path Deactivation and the relatively few instances where we Deactivate obsolete Techs after more advanced ones are completed.
mm
Sounds great. It will be a little hared to judge balance from your play. But play is how bugs are found.
And just to be crystal, the fix applied is that you don't need to research 36 HB to have an open upgrade path. That had always been the intended design. So the issue there wasn't communication. Though there are some other places where that may be a very valid critique. The big issues with Research are the Mobilization Tech Activation, the Air Doctrine Path Deactivation and the relatively few instances where we Deactivate obsolete Techs after more advanced ones are completed.
mm
My valiant human Russian ally in our 3 player game today figured out what I consider to be a "cheat" to avoid being attacked by Germany.
He has a dug-in line from Riga to Perekop with NO men in front of that line. Therefore the German AI does not have 5 men in each required boarder territory and even worse, the bulk of the German army is sitting in the middle of Western Europe around LXU-BEL-FRA picking their butt. Even reducing the required number of men from 5 to 0 will really not help here because the bulk of the German army when needed to invade Russia is on leave 700 miles away. I was about to go through the time consuming AI re-write myself to force Germans by event to station along the Russian boarder and then the required undoing of those AI events when war starts when I got pissed and told him NO. Consider this the Russian Pearl Harbour event and place 3/4ths of that Riga line army on the front when we re-load the game on March 27, 1941 and here is a hint: choose men who can run!
He has a dug-in line from Riga to Perekop with NO men in front of that line. Therefore the German AI does not have 5 men in each required boarder territory and even worse, the bulk of the German army is sitting in the middle of Western Europe around LXU-BEL-FRA picking their butt. Even reducing the required number of men from 5 to 0 will really not help here because the bulk of the German army when needed to invade Russia is on leave 700 miles away. I was about to go through the time consuming AI re-write myself to force Germans by event to station along the Russian boarder and then the required undoing of those AI events when war starts when I got pissed and told him NO. Consider this the Russian Pearl Harbour event and place 3/4ths of that Riga line army on the front when we re-load the game on March 27, 1941 and here is a hint: choose men who can run!
Hi,
That's certainly interesting. We actually use a substantially higher target then 5. It varies by province. And the target isn't related to the SOV deployment. Plus our AI is supposeed to place forces on the border as a function of Garrison priority rather than being "reactive" to the SOV deployment. Look at the Russia Buildup AI file. So I'm suprised it went this way. What was the last "historical" point in the game? And if you can find the applicable AI switch info in the log that would help as well. Might be related to multi player. Though I have never thought to try this as SOV.
mm
That's certainly interesting. We actually use a substantially higher target then 5. It varies by province. And the target isn't related to the SOV deployment. Plus our AI is supposeed to place forces on the border as a function of Garrison priority rather than being "reactive" to the SOV deployment. Look at the Russia Buildup AI file. So I'm suprised it went this way. What was the last "historical" point in the game? And if you can find the applicable AI switch info in the log that would help as well. Might be related to multi player. Though I have never thought to try this as SOV.
mm
Our current game has a human USA, England, and Russia. Germany had spent a lot of effort with Norway and had actually gotten into Oslo and Hamar but was finally driven out by ~March 1941.
Our custom difficulty settings give the AI +20 IC, RES, MP and the human Russia also get +20 (although I think that +10 would have been a better number) so Germany was slightly short of the 0.7 ratio of divisions required but I had anticipated this and had reduced that value to 0.5. But 2 of the boarder territories with Russia only had 4 divisions and the rest mainly 5 while as I stated, the bulk of the German army was stacked in 3 territories, excluding the beach defense etc. near LUX in the March-July 1941 period. Greece had fallen and Yugo etc. Everything seemed on schedule for an early May attack on Russia but it never came. By August I started searching the AI files for a clue and it was not until I loaded the game nofog that I saw what Russia did on the boarder realized that this was the problem.
If I were to correct this I would assign to AI Germany province_priorities for the Russian boarder with an event following declaration of war to remove these province_priorities. You could even make these AI switch events conditional upon a human Russia so as not to disturb your current AI deployment versus AI Russia which works great. Then one would only have to pick the correct number -- maybe try 10 to start.
Anyway, it seems that unless I have missed something, that in a single player game with a human Russia set at normal difficulty that war could be avoided with Germany in May/June 1941 by "gaming" the deployment at the front.
Our custom difficulty settings give the AI +20 IC, RES, MP and the human Russia also get +20 (although I think that +10 would have been a better number) so Germany was slightly short of the 0.7 ratio of divisions required but I had anticipated this and had reduced that value to 0.5. But 2 of the boarder territories with Russia only had 4 divisions and the rest mainly 5 while as I stated, the bulk of the German army was stacked in 3 territories, excluding the beach defense etc. near LUX in the March-July 1941 period. Greece had fallen and Yugo etc. Everything seemed on schedule for an early May attack on Russia but it never came. By August I started searching the AI files for a clue and it was not until I loaded the game nofog that I saw what Russia did on the boarder realized that this was the problem.
If I were to correct this I would assign to AI Germany province_priorities for the Russian boarder with an event following declaration of war to remove these province_priorities. You could even make these AI switch events conditional upon a human Russia so as not to disturb your current AI deployment versus AI Russia which works great. Then one would only have to pick the correct number -- maybe try 10 to start.
Anyway, it seems that unless I have missed something, that in a single player game with a human Russia set at normal difficulty that war could be avoided with Germany in May/June 1941 by "gaming" the deployment at the front.
NEVER MIND!!!
I now see what the problem is. It is because we are playing multiplayer that following the instruction of the CORE "expert" several years ago, simply copying the CORE folder into the game leaves vanilla game AI event files that seem to take priority and this is the issue.
Somebody really needs to go back into that multiplayer CORE discussion forum and delete that "experts" post because it is WRONG!!! And he said that it was simple or easy!
I will keep you all updated as I try to resolve this. I think I can do it though.
I now see what the problem is. It is because we are playing multiplayer that following the instruction of the CORE "expert" several years ago, simply copying the CORE folder into the game leaves vanilla game AI event files that seem to take priority and this is the issue.
Somebody really needs to go back into that multiplayer CORE discussion forum and delete that "experts" post because it is WRONG!!! And he said that it was simple or easy!
I will keep you all updated as I try to resolve this. I think I can do it though.
Hi,
Yes. mpw that I think about it you might need to adjust the AI file structure a bit. Most files are direct 1-1 replacements. but the AI was set up a bit different for some reason. Was not here at the time so can't speak to why. Good luck!
mm
Yes. mpw that I think about it you might need to adjust the AI file structure a bit. Most files are direct 1-1 replacements. but the AI was set up a bit different for some reason. Was not here at the time so can't speak to why. Good luck!
mm
I think and hope that I will have some time to spend this weekend.
So, if anyone had noticed more ITA-rules-the-world shenanigans or ethiopian oddness, now would be a good time to share their observations.
So, if anyone had noticed more ITA-rules-the-world shenanigans or ethiopian oddness, now would be a good time to share their observations.