-
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've seen the AI pepper pacific islands with nukes in 1.08 SUBR. Spectacular but useless...doesn't seem to affect the defenders at all.
Further wishes:
I certainly second the idea of having more control over where supply convoy endpoints are. Player should have complete control over this.
CAP as the default mission for fighter types, including adjacent provinces if radar techs permit. (e.g Chain Home, Kammhuber line)
Techs to increase player stacking limits or decrease penalties (CCC doctrines)
Techs to reduce rebasing penalties (fleet train, air unit ground element relocation)
Techs which depend on actual combat experience to be available (reduce US and USSR advantage while at peace)
Larger effect of USSR purges--lose doctrine techs, reduce industrial efficiency etc.
Reduce the effectiveness of strategic bombing. Read the USAF Strategic Bombing Survey people! Didn't achieve anything much until mid 1944. Unescorted bombers should be meat. They are way too strong.
Add Northwarders option for japan. An attack on the USSR was seriously considered as an alternative to Pearl Harbour. Buildup would need to start much before 12/41, possibly activated by Barbarossa, that would make sense.
Fix bug in Molotov/Ribbentrop 'No deals with the Bolsheviks' option which kicks GE dissent 10, not 5 as advertised.
Fix production sliders to be percentages of available rather than amounts, to avoid the endless fiddling they always seem to need. You should be able to set e.g. Consumer 100% of need, supply 105% of need, and determine the split of what's left.
Fix auto supply and convoy, which is a complete mess. Usually in 1943 or 44 half the JA island garrisons vanish because the AI can't manage the convoys and won't build enough replacement TP and convoy.
Player should be able to prioritise convoys, and prevent the AI from messing with them.
Transports with paras loaded should be able to rebase.
UI needs to tell me about command and stacking limits so I can set up attacks intelligently. The way this works is pretty random and with 4 field marshals I'll get anywhere between 12 and 48 divisions working properly. Since the AI seems to be able to optimise this at all times, it's really, really annoying and probably the single most irritating 'feature' of the game. Damned if I can figure out how it actually works. I'd like to see more consideration of multi-national armies too, these should not be as effective as single-nation ones. At the moment all units which are allied seem to be pretty much interchangable in combat as far as command is concerned. This should require a tech or something to get right, and historically it was very difficult for those affected (GE->IT, RM, HU, UK->USA, CA, FR, etc)
Make naval units upgradeable to one level higher than when built. The IJN made extensive modernisations throughout the 30's, down to machinery and replacing the upper works. This should be long and expensive, but less so than a new unit.
AIs which have gone into garrison mode will not defend themselves properly if there's a new threat, can this be fixed?
If USA have the means to deliver the nukes Berlin and other mayors cities in europe are bombed.
I am not sure that it is a bug. Breaking a NAP always giving 5% is a feature. Those 5% directly shown in the event are additional 5%.
That may be true in history but in the game there is a NAP even before MR. Chosing "No deals with the Bolsheviks!" will break this NAP. It is the same with "bring them socialism" as sovietunion against finnland.
Well the game is just plain wrong then innit? According to my trusty copy of Purnell's the only diplomatic arrangement for USSR in our period was a defensive alliance in favour of Czechoslovakia with France, which would only become operative if someone
(guess who) declared war on CZ and France in turn declared war on them. This obviously lapsed when CZ did...not in the game either.
Another possible outcome for the M/R negotiations but very unbalancing in game terms would be a pact between USSR and the Western Allies. This was a very small possibility but the allies disliked SU so much they didn't want it, and Poland even more so. Nevertheless, WW2 could have been averted or at least delayed if the parties had been better able to see what was at stake. There is little doubt that Hitler would have hesitated when faced with almost the entire armed might of the world in 1939. What would have happened then is anyone's guess.
However this option should become operative with an improved chance if Germany refuses to make a deal with USSR, and may be a better, more realistic inducement than just nerfing the GE dissent level which IMO is a very nasty kludge.
And another thing that is pretty clear from re-reading the material (purnell's history of the Second World War, vol1 issue1, 'Before the Blitzkrieg') is that the diplomatic game system lacks an alliance type of Defensive Only. This, for example, would allow for Japan to leave the USSR alone while still being an 'ally' of Germany--because USSR did not attack GE, but the other way around. There were many other examples of this sort of alliance, some of which became operative, some which didn't. The Anti-Comintern Pact was such an alliance; the Pact of Steel was a full alliance. Japan vigorously resisted being dragged into war against USSR until the bitter end, after their experiences at Khalkin Gol/Nomonhan. Hitler exceeded his obligations by declaring war on the USA in Dec 1941; under the strict letter of the agreements in place he didn't have to, which would have presented Churchill and Roosevelt with an extremely tricky problem.
This would fill the gap between non-aggression pact (two parties only agree to not attack each other) and full alliance (offensive and defensive). It should be easier to get than a full alliance, and also is obviously worth less.
This would fill the gap between non-aggression pact (two parties only agree to not attack each other) and full alliance (offensive and defensive). It should be easier to get than a full alliance, and also is obviously worth less.
Last edited:
Make the command which = [naval/land/air] work for combat modifiers. Currently land count inf, cav and one more I can't remember. The rest is not working.
Last edited:
Maybe this has been asked for already, but I would like to see initial infrastructure builds for all the major nations in their capital and all resource-rich and high IC provinces. Possibly all existing nations to have these initial builds.
Another long running wish would be for the dissociation of the capital's infrastructure with the ESE of the entire army of a country. Or a higher 'fall-back value' for the ESE or what ever the proper name for it is, in the event the capital is bombed back to the stone age.
Another long running wish would be for the dissociation of the capital's infrastructure with the ESE of the entire army of a country. Or a higher 'fall-back value' for the ESE or what ever the proper name for it is, in the event the capital is bombed back to the stone age.
Also: the ability to de-motorise motorised units (i.e. converting mot inf. to 'leg' inf, and the same for mechanised, maybe even armour).
AoD will be very much improved IF there is a maximum of air and naval divisions that can be based in air and naval bases.
As it is now, hundreds of divisions can be based in a single base...The not so high morale regain in this case is insignificant and players tend to ignore it.
There must be a limit...be it 1, 2 or more divisions per base strength. A 10 base can have 10 or 20 or 30 divisions based.
Perhaps the limit should be also modable in the misc file.
THAT WOULD BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS WONDERFUL GAME !
As it is now, hundreds of divisions can be based in a single base...The not so high morale regain in this case is insignificant and players tend to ignore it.
There must be a limit...be it 1, 2 or more divisions per base strength. A 10 base can have 10 or 20 or 30 divisions based.
Perhaps the limit should be also modable in the misc file.
THAT WOULD BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS WONDERFUL GAME !
I completely agree with you that AoD is a wonderful game, but I don't see how that would be a huge improvement considering having such a large stack of air/naval units in such a province would already mean reorganisation for any unit there would happen at a snails pace. Ergo the game mechanic is adequate in this aspect.
Well, you know what Dirty Harry said about opinions...
As an experienced HoI and AoD player...i find this aspect of the game weird and unrealistic...and sometimes gameruining...
Well now I do after Googling it! Very funny, and very true!
Fair enough, but, especially for air units, organisation is hard to come by so surely having a massive stack of air units in one airfield would be a great disadvantage to the player moving them there anyway?
Being able to build a large number of province improvements and hold them in thin air indefinitely, before deploying them to a province is definitely weird and unrealistic