Observations on 0.11

[unmerged(51143)]

Historically, third-line formations like the ones that the garrison divisions represent, were most of the time given obsolete equipment. For example, in Germany's case they armed their static divisions with whatever small arms they could find.

And as far as concerns the Reserve divisions, I think that this mod gives the player a decent chance at portraying how some nations used second-line forces. And since the difference to first-line forces comes mainly from training and equipment, I think it is right and proper to make some Soviet and Italian divisions to be of lesser quality.

Nothing right in my opinion.

The first, is a matter of upgrading: AI considers garrisons at the last step of upgrading scale. Germans could have decided to give the best equipment to their 3rd line units: as in the game, in this case they should have renounced to some planes or tanks or whatever could be built instead.

The second. First of all, training is expensive: no way that with the same budget I train one unit better and one worst, it is absurd; and organisation/tactics depends only on land doctrines, then no links with infantry type. Equipment is the same matter: why with the same budget should I give better equipment to one division instead of the other? It is a nonsense.
Italian and Soviet infantry divisions, but also French and many German or Japanese ones, were second-level troops, CHEAPER divisions formed with mass conscription and with the weaponry coming from deposits: there is no sense in building a worse unit, spending the same money or ever more!

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Moreover, I think that Paratroopers and Marines divisions are too cheap, they costs even less than normal infantry while having a much better training!

 

[McNaughton]

There are problems in play with minister effects. Certain ministers throw off game balance, primarily because they make certain untis cheaper (say infantry) without affecting other important units (say militia). That is something I am dealing with, and possibly will make a proposal to eliminate all unit production cost benefits from leaders for divisions (a 5% cost reduction is substantial).

However, I am toying with the idea of reducing the cost of Reserve units. Since they had about 50% of the heavy equipment (artillery, anti-tank, anti-air) the cost to produce the unit should be decreased a bit further (however, you should note that the time to produce the unit has been cut by 30 days, or 1/4 the total cost of that of a regular division, which is substantial). I can see a slight reduction in cost (5-10%), as anymore will make them way too cheap (I am also going to reduce all SA values by 1, after I fix the 1938 Reserve Division which has 15, thanks for pointing that out, I did actually find it a little while ago and have updated my 0.2 files).

 

[McNaughton]

Nothing right in my opinion.

The first, is a matter of upgrading: AI considers garrisons at the last step of upgrading scale. Germans could have decided to give the best equipment to their 3rd line units: as in the game, in this case they should have renounced to some planes or tanks or whatever could be built instead.

The second. First of all, training is expensive: no way that with the same budget I train one unit better and one worst, it is absurd; and organisation/tactics depends only on land doctrines, then no links with infantry type. Equipment is the same matter: why with the same budget should I give better equipment to one division instead of the other? It is a nonsense.
Italian and Soviet infantry divisions, but also French and many German or Japanese ones, were second-level troops, CHEAPER divisions formed with mass conscription and with the weaponry coming from deposits: there is no sense in building a worse unit, spending the same money or ever more!

Actually, you don't spend the same amount, as they have different build times.

Units have abstracted cost. If it takes 120 Days to create a Division, that means everything is built, at the same rate, in those 120 days. Troops are trained, guns are made, etc. If not, we should have a division cost 10 IC in the first 60 Days, 8 IC in the next 30 Days, and 4 IC in the last 30 Days.

However, we have to assume that IC cost is consistent, and we should look at total cost to really determine the price.

A unit at 10 IC for 120 Days = 1200 total IC used to produce the unit
A unit at 10 IC for 90 Days = 900 total IC used to produce the unit

Cost is one thing, time is another. While I don't have 0.11 files on hand, I do have 0.2 files, and I know that the Garrison Division is cheaper (based on total IC), with the Reserve Division (2 Regiment) being as inexpensive (based on total IC) than a Regular (2 Regiment) Division.

The problem happens when modifiers come into play (minister primarily).

Say you get a 10% Reduction of Infantry cost. That completely messes things up.

A unit at 9 IC for 120 Days = 1080
A unit at 10 IC for 90 Days = 900

You can see the problem where Regular will meet the same total cost as Reserve if you get enough minister modifiers in play.

To summarize, you cannot just look at cost, but cost * time to figure out the true cost of a unit.

xxxxxxxxxx

The reasoning behind Italy and Russia, and later most nations throughout the world, having Reserve over Regular is not because of the quality of troops, but actually due to the amount of equipment. Checking TO&E of these nations, they lacked heavy equipment in the same numbers as most other major nations.

Lets look at Germany and Italy

German 1941 Division
50 Artillery
60 Anti-Tank

Italian 1941 Division
36 Artillery
8 AT Guns
8 AA Guns

The Italian Division is notably deficient in heavy equipment. While a comparable German and French Division is not.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Actually, you don't spend the same amount, as they have different build times.

Units have abstracted cost. If it takes 120 Days to create a Division, that means everything is built, at the same rate, in those 120 days. Troops are trained, guns are made, etc. If not, we should have a division cost 10 IC in the first 60 Days, 8 IC in the next 30 Days, and 4 IC in the last 30 Days.

However, we have to assume that IC cost is consistent, and we should look at total cost to really determine the price.

A unit at 10 IC for 120 Days = 1200 total IC used to produce the unit
A unit at 10 IC for 90 Days = 900 total IC used to produce the unit

Cost is one thing, time is another. While I don't have 0.11 files on hand, I do have 0.2 files, and I know that the Garrison Division is cheaper (based on total IC), with the Reserve Division (2 Regiment) being as inexpensive (based on total IC) than a Regular (2 Regiment) Division.

The problem happens when modifiers come into play (minister primarily).

Say you get a 10% Reduction of Infantry cost. That completely messes things up.

A unit at 9 IC for 120 Days = 1080
A unit at 10 IC for 90 Days = 900

You can see the problem where Regular will meet the same total cost as Reserve if you get enough minister modifiers in play.

To summarize, you cannot just look at cost, but cost * time to figure out the true cost of a unit.

xxxxxxxxxx

The reasoning behind Italy and Russia, and later most nations throughout the world, having Reserve over Regular is not because of the quality of troops, but actually due to the amount of equipment. Checking TO&E of these nations, they lacked heavy equipment in the same numbers as most other major nations.

Lets look at Germany and Italy

German 1941 Division
50 Artillery
60 Anti-Tank

Italian 1941 Division
36 Artillery
8 AT Guns
8 AA Guns

The Italian Division is notably deficient in heavy equipment. While a comparable German and French Division is not.

But, comparing time X IC of Reserve and Infantry, the results are not really different: all two going on 720-735.
In any case, it is more "nonsense" such a low cost we have for a highly skilled division like Airborne, comparing to Infantry.

Many German divisions in 1941 were equipped only on the paper with such heavy weaponry: e.g., in the game standards, German 1939 infantry divisions were 98, which 62 Infantry and 36 Reserves; many divisions even in 1944, especially the ones on the Western Front, were Reserve and not Infantry for their lacking of heavy weapons men and training, even if they fought in a much better way than other divisions of other Countries (Allies' too).
Italian divisions were "officially" worse: this was due to Pariani reform, which in 1938 reduced divisional forces (2 infantry regiments instead of 3, less artillery and almost all field one) but to get a cheaper Army for peace-time, this is the point that I liked to make out.

 

[McNaughton]

But, comparing time X IC of Reserve and Infantry, the results are not really different: all two going on 720-735.
In any case, it is more "nonsense" such a low cost we have for a highly skilled division like Airborne, comparing to Infantry.

Many German divisions in 1941 were equipped only on the paper with such heavy weaponry: e.g., in the game standards, German 1939 infantry divisions were 98, which 62 Infantry and 36 Reserves; many divisions even in 1944, especially the ones on the Western Front, were Reserve and not Infantry for their lacking of heavy weapons men and training, even if they fought in a much better way than other divisions of other Countries (Allies' too).
Italian divisions were "officially" worse: this was due to Pariani reform, which in 1938 reduced divisional forces (2 infantry regiments instead of 3, less artillery and almost all field one) but to get a cheaper Army for peace-time, this is the point that I liked to make out.

Sorry, but they are different.

1930 Regular 2-Regiment

5.3 x 120 = 636 IC total

1930 Reserve 2-Regiment

5.3 x 90 = 477 IC total

The Regular Division costs almost 1/3 More than the Reserve Division... I don't see your connection.

Lets see 1939 Airborne vs 1939 Infantry

1939 Regular 2-Regiment

7.42 x 120 = 890.4

1939 Airborne 2-Regiment

7 x 150 = 1050

So, what'e the problem here? Airborne costs 160 more total IC than a comparable regular infantry division. They aren't cheaper, they just appear so because total cost is lower, but time is much greater.

xxxxxxxxxx

Regarding Reserve and Regular, I didn't say that every German division must be regular, and every Italian must be reserve (many Italian units are Regular if you look), but the most common formation will be so. The German player would be a fool not to develop Reserve formations, as they are extremely useful in holding quiet areas (better than Garrison, as they can manoever).

I am well aware of the relation between nations. Indeed, one nation's Reserve may end up being better than another nation's regular division (depending on doctrine, and doctrine choices). I am also aware of the Pariani Reform, which unfortunately happens in 1938, but we cannot switch from Large Division to Small Division halfway in the game (so either Italy is stuck with large or small divisions the entire game). There will be significant changes in future CORE2 versions, notably the starting OOBs will be completely redone, with significant initial reductions, and most likely mobilization events resulting in the creation of units that were at cadre strength in peacetime, but can be built to full strength in wartime.

 

[McNaughton]

Also, airborne units tend to lack a lot of the expensive and heavy equipment that a regular infantry unit would have. The numbers I posted above are in place with 0.2 factors (where I removed motor transport from Infantry, to be added via a technology).

Airborne had less trucks, heavy guns, etc., the things that really cost a lot of money. Sure, they were well trained, but you also didn't have to construct the expensive heavy equipment for them either. You didn't have nearly as many AA and AT guns, nor would your artillery arm be as extensive (maily relying on significantly cheaper mortors and light pack artillery).

I couldn't justify having Airborne cost more, especially since regular infantry had much more heavy equipment, which was VERY expensive.

 

[unmerged(49243)]

Hmm. What happened to the oldautosave? This one messed up one of my games. Britain decided to choose a nutty path in the Sudetenland crisis (it seems that this happens pretty often) and the whole game went pretty much messed up. When I noticed, a month had already passed since sudetenland and nothing could really be done... Another strange event, btw, is that Russia very often goes to war with Japan in Manchuria, this, with no exceptions, has resulted in Russia annexing Manchuria and Japan annexing Mongolia. Strange.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

The reasoning behind Italy and Russia, and later most nations throughout the world, having Reserve over Regular is not because of the quality of troops, but actually due to the amount of equipment. Checking TO&E of these nations, they lacked heavy equipment in the same numbers as most other major nations.

Lets look at Germany and Italy

German 1941 Division
50 Artillery
60 Anti-Tank

Italian 1941 Division
36 Artillery
8 AT Guns
8 AA Guns

The Italian Division is notably deficient in heavy equipment. While a comparable German and French Division is not.

What would be your figures for a Soviet division?

i really think my idea for variable manpower for starting divisions would be good - though i recognize it's not doable with the current setup.
Maybe if you CORE guys forwarded the suggestion it might carry a bit more weight?


Link to the brilliant idea forwarded by this humble poster.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=233714

 

[JRaup]

The variable MP thing is not going to happen, at least not until there's an HoI3, if then.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Sorry, but they are different.

1930 Regular 2-Regiment

5.3 x 120 = 636 IC total

1930 Reserve 2-Regiment

5.3 x 90 = 477 IC total

The Regular Division costs almost 1/3 More than the Reserve Division... I don't see your connection.

Lets see 1939 Airborne vs 1939 Infantry

1939 Regular 2-Regiment

7.42 x 120 = 890.4

1939 Airborne 2-Regiment

7 x 150 = 1050

So, what'e the problem here? Airborne costs 160 more total IC than a comparable regular infantry division. They aren't cheaper, they just appear so because total cost is lower, but time is much greater.

xxxxxxxxxx

Regarding Reserve and Regular, I didn't say that every German division must be regular, and every Italian must be reserve (many Italian units are Regular if you look), but the most common formation will be so. The German player would be a fool not to develop Reserve formations, as they are extremely useful in holding quiet areas (better than Garrison, as they can manoever).

I am well aware of the relation between nations. Indeed, one nation's Reserve may end up being better than another nation's regular division (depending on doctrine, and doctrine choices). I am also aware of the Pariani Reform, which unfortunately happens in 1938, but we cannot switch from Large Division to Small Division halfway in the game (so either Italy is stuck with large or small divisions the entire game). There will be significant changes in future CORE2 versions, notably the starting OOBs will be completely redone, with significant initial reductions, and most likely mobilization events resulting in the creation of units that were at cadre strength in peacetime, but can be built to full strength in wartime.

Now I changed a minister, and without his bonus infantry costs something more.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Also, airborne units tend to lack a lot of the expensive and heavy equipment that a regular infantry unit would have. The numbers I posted above are in place with 0.2 factors (where I removed motor transport from Infantry, to be added via a technology).

Airborne had less trucks, heavy guns, etc., the things that really cost a lot of money. Sure, they were well trained, but you also didn't have to construct the expensive heavy equipment for them either. You didn't have nearly as many AA and AT guns, nor would your artillery arm be as extensive (maily relying on significantly cheaper mortors and light pack artillery).

I couldn't justify having Airborne cost more, especially since regular infantry had much more heavy equipment, which was VERY expensive.

I know that Italian soldiers were not the best trained during the war, but a Folgore paratrooper training needed 26 times the money of a infantryman; but Airborne divisions not only had less heavy equipment, but also nearly a half men than an infantry division, so reconsidering it, actual cost could be right, except maybe for '35 paras which is very cheap (it is better to build '35 paras and then upgrade them!).

 

[poobah_1]

General suggestions:

- to write on all techs, all the techs needed for the research if these ones are not in the same window: e.g. I am going crazy on 1943 because I cannot research any middle-war plane (except interceptor - and even no early-war CAG), so I am trying to research all electronics, RADAR and air doctrine which could lead me to these techs, but without knowing which are the right ones;

FilTur,

I am in the same boat in 43 and not being able to research anything higher than mid-war interceptors. I looked at the required's and it all comes down to Military Design option being crossed out from the start. This has to be a bug;

I understand the option of taking two routes, one useing civilian designs and modifiing them, or going directly to military designs from the start. But after policy change the mid-war techs should be available. They are not.

Also, the later war fighters need the mid war fighters and the mid war fighters need the late war fighters, another bug in my opinion.

Maybe someone more learn'd than me in the mod can elaborate??

PooBah

 

[Archangel85]

FilTur,

I am in the same boat in 43 and not being able to research anything higher than mid-war interceptors. I looked at the required's and it all comes down to Military Design option being crossed out from the start. This has to be a bug;

I understand the option of taking two routes, one useing civilian designs and modifiing them, or going directly to military designs from the start. But after policy change the mid-war techs should be available. They are not.

Also, the later war fighters need the mid war fighters and the mid war fighters need the late war fighters, another bug in my opinion.

Maybe someone more learn'd than me in the mod can elaborate??

PooBah

research radar. Radar is the only off screen requirement for planes, whenever you see two or more requirements ON screen it usually means an OR requirement, meaning you have to get one of those.

 

[poobah_1]

research radar. Radar is the only off screen requirement for planes, whenever you see two or more requirements ON screen it usually means an OR requirement, meaning you have to get one of those.

hmm

How far? I have high end decimetric already.

Maybe a further suggestion...

If they requirements are either or then use a seperate color. Still doesn't answer the part about the fighters...why are the mid fighters required to have late fighters??

just doesn't make sense to me..

Poobah

 

[Archangel85]

I think radar refinements was the necessary tech. I know for sure that the techs can all be researched, researched them myself...


The fighter requirement is such an OR requirement. If you gain a significant advantage in one field of fighter craft, you can easly adapt these aircraft for other uses...

 

[Hagar]

Just for the record: Baylox is compiling a FAQ regarding these tech issues: http://web.telia.com/~u87541651/CORE2FAQ.htm

Tried your luck there?

 

[jsl]

Great War Demonstraions

I'm playing as Germany, and I've now got a few "Great War Demonstrations" events at 1936. Each time (expect the first one[?]) it has INCREASED my national dissent by 3. Is it supposed to increase it and not decrease??

 

[Archangel85]

I'm playing as Germany, and I've now got a few "Great War Demonstrations" events at 1936. Each time (expect the first one[?]) it has INCREASED my national dissent by 3. Is it supposed to increase it and not decrease??

The game has been out for about...2 years? And still they do it...I recommend reading the event text, it works exactly as its supposed to.

 

[Reveilled]

Okay, I'm a bit overwhelmed by the tech tree, and I'm not quite understanding the FAQ, perhaps, but here goes:

As Czechoslovakia, I'm an Industrial Economy, yet 1930 Electronics is not researched. As far as I can tell, 1930 Electronics is a prerequisite for Special Projects, and the prerequisite for 1930 electronics is Semi-Industrialised Economy, which I can't research. Help?