Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Units

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Here are the brigade attachments:

Code: 
# Heavy Weapons Section
model = {
	cost 			= 3
	buildtime	 	= 25
	manpower 		= 3
	softattack		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.3
}

# Artillery
model = {
	cost 			= 4
	buildtime	 	= 30
	manpower 		= 3
	softattack		= 2
	hardattack		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.4
}

# Siege Artillery
model = {
	cost 			= 6
	buildtime	 	= 80
	manpower 		= 4
	hardattack		= 2
	supplyconsumption	= 1
}

# Engineers
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 30
	manpower 		= 3
	maxspeed 		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.4
}

Are we keeping Siege Artillery, or can anyone think of anything to replace it? Nothing springs to my mind immediately, though.
 
Cavalry? An extra infantry brigade? Killer ninja? :)
 
Gwalcmai said:
Cavalry? An extra infantry brigade? Killer ninja? :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've read about killer ninjas in the trenches....although I might be wrong...

Maybe an 'Advanced Communications Attachment' - divisions always had problems with getting up to date orders because of the difficulties of communicating between the troops carrying out an attack and divisional or corps headquarters. Maybe this attachment could increase a division's speed and make its supply consumption more efficient.

Perhaps a 'Charismatic/Skilled Commander' attachment? It could increase a number of the division's skills while making it longer to construct and more expensive?

By the way, are we still clipping the speed of infantry? I have noticed that it is the same as the normal HOI.
 
Why get rid of siege artillery at all? I could understand dropping it if somebody had a really brilliant suggestion for a new brigade and we needed to make space - but not if all we're doing is scratching around for ideas.

All we'd achieve by reducing the speed of infantry from the standard HoI levels is to slow the whole game down. Is that what we want to do?
 
StephenT said:
Why get rid of siege artillery at all? I could understand dropping it if somebody had a really brilliant suggestion for a new brigade and we needed to make space - but not if all we're doing is scratching around for ideas.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this assume that my above ideas aren't brilliant? ;)

I cant really see a place for Siege Artillery, especially now that fortress infantry has been removed.

StephenT said:
All we'd achieve by reducing the speed of infantry from the standard HoI levels is to slow the whole game down. Is that what we want to do?
Click to expand...

Well I agree, I can't think why infantry in 1914 would have been slower than in 1936 - the logistics may have been more complex, but that would have been compensated by greater mobility.
 
Well, with the standard HOI values, Schlieffen's optimistic planning of advance is actually somewhat conservative, but we can keep the values. Later, if the general opinion is that armies are advancing too fast, we can reduce the speeds.
 
I'll elaborate on my two earlier suggestions:

Code: 
# Exceptional battalion commander
model = {
	cost 			= 6
	buildtime	 	= 60
	softattack		= 1
	hardattack		= 1
}

# Communications attachment
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 20
	manpower 		= 1
	maxspeed 		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= -0.2
}
 
An updated idea for a brigade attachment. This one does the novel thing of increasing organisation. :)

Code: 
# Communications attachment
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 20
	defaultorganisation 	= 5
	manpower 		= 1
	maxspeed 		= 1
}
 
I don't much like the idea of the exceptional battalion commander attachment. The chances of getting good commanders and bad commanders in the battalions should probably just even out and give you the standard divisions. I don't think it fits with the scale, the quality of command at battalion level is not something you should be concerned about when you're supposed to be controlling all the armies in all the fronts of the war. The communications brigade sounds better, especially as we now have three brigades adding artillery to the division, and a bit of variety would be good.
 
The idea of having to spend Industrial Capacity on building better battalion commanders amuses me - are these leaders cyborgs? :)

maria2.jpg
 
Here's a round up of the land units now:

MODEL_0_0 - Infantry

MODEL_1_0 - Cavalry

MODEL_2_0 - Guards Infantry
MODEL_2_1 - Attack Division

MODEL_4_0 - Female Tank
MODEL_4_1 - Male Tank
MODEL_4_2 - Light Tank
MODEL_4_3 - Cruiser Tank
MODEL_4_4 - Land Battleship
MODEL_4_5 - Modern Tank 40mm+
MODEL_4_6 - Modern Tank 70mm+
MODEL_4_7 - Modern Tank 100mm+

MODEL_5_0 - Light Infantry

MODEL_6_0 - Marine Infantry

MODEL_7_0 - Mountain Infantry

MODEL_8_0 - Militia/Levies
MODEL_8_1 - Reservists
MODEL_8_2 - Trench Division

Attachments:
Code: 
# Heavy Weapons Section
model = {
	cost 			= 3
	buildtime	 	= 20
	manpower 		= 3
	softattack		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.3
}

# Communications attachment
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 20
	defaultorganisation 	= 5
	manpower 		= 1
	maxspeed 		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= -0.2
}

# Artillery
model = {
	cost 			= 4
	buildtime	 	= 30
	manpower 		= 3
	softattack		= 2
	hardattack		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.4
}

# Engineers
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 30
	manpower 		= 3
	maxspeed 		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.4
}
 
Do we want the AI building countless trench divisions when it goes on panic mode?
 
Allenby said:
Here's a round up of the land units now:

MODEL_0_0 - Infantry

MODEL_1_0 - Cavalry

MODEL_2_0 - Guards Infantry
MODEL_2_1 - Attack Division

MODEL_4_0 - Female Tank
MODEL_4_1 - Male Tank
MODEL_4_2 - Light Tank
MODEL_4_3 - Cruiser Tank
MODEL_4_4 - Land Battleship
MODEL_4_5 - Modern Tank 40mm+
MODEL_4_6 - Modern Tank 70mm+
MODEL_4_7 - Modern Tank 100mm+

MODEL_5_0 - Light Infantry

MODEL_6_0 - Marine Infantry

MODEL_7_0 - Mountain Infantry

MODEL_8_0 - Militia/Levies
MODEL_8_1 - Reservists
MODEL_8_2 - Trench Division

Attachments:
Code: 
# Heavy Weapons Section
model = {
	cost 			= 3
	buildtime	 	= 20
	manpower 		= 3
	softattack		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.3
}

# Communications attachment
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 20
	defaultorganisation 	= 5
	manpower 		= 1
	maxspeed 		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= -0.2
}

# Artillery
model = {
	cost 			= 4
	buildtime	 	= 30
	manpower 		= 3
	softattack		= 2
	hardattack		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.4
}

# Engineers
model = {
	cost 			= 2
	buildtime	 	= 30
	manpower 		= 3
	maxspeed 		= 1
	supplyconsumption	= 0.4
}
Click to expand...


Implemented :)
Couple of questions though:
1. Are you sure the game allows for Model 2_1 or Model 8_2?
2. What happened to model 3_0 Fortress Infantry?
3. What exactly is "MODEL_23_2 Armored Transport"? Should not it be "Armed transport"?
 
Dibo said:
3. What exactly is "MODEL_23_2 Armored Transport"? Should not it be "Armed transport"?
Click to expand...

They have significant defence vaules - so I'd say that they should be 'Armed Transports' considering that they can inflict damage when attacked.
 
Something to point out regarding submarines.

They are expensive to research.

Low attack value.

Always gets annihilated by Grand Fleet.

Not worth the time and effort of researching at all.

Perhaps we should lower visibility a bit to simulate terrible submarine detection on both sides? As it is the German player has no reason to switch to submarines when building battleships are a far better option once France and Russia are gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back