What's single player CORE like when playing as a major power?

[Mr_B0narpte]

I ask because I can't play it myself, my (ancient) laptop cannot handle the awesomeness of CORE! I'll (hopefully) be getting a new laptop next month that will be able to handle it, but would just like to find out what others think of the 1936 CORE campaign as any of the major powers. Questions pop to mind, such as: How (and when) has the war started and ended for you? Was it much of a challenge? Has the AI been able to perform successful amphibious invasions?

 

[Blecky]

As there is a major overhaul of CORE in progress (and there will be a public beta hopefully in the next few days/weeks), we all are waiting to find out how the changes work out. The current version .50 poses more of a challenge than AoD vanilla, but there have been several weaknesses regarding AI, esp. naval AI. Therefore I would wait until the beta is out and try it yourself, it´s sure worth it

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Ah ok, sounds exciting! Perfect timing as well as I'll be getting the new laptop in a few weeks time

 

[Amallric]

For me, correct OOBs and the tech tree are the biggest achievement of CORE. It is very difficult to go back to the vanilla tech tree or the slightly modified vanilla tech tree of most of the other mods. War usually outfolds in the historical manner, with some additional events that may bring alternative outcomes, but generally do not. I do not think there is any challenge in the game as a major power against the AI; maybe Japan vs America in late-game can be different, but I doubt it(never tried myself though). The USA can perform massive naval landings with infantry and tanks, but as always AI fleets are vulnerable because single TPs are sent without escort. Japan is more so-so, sometimes they are very aggressive and attack India and Australia, but at the same time can very well ignore the Philippines for some reason.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

For me, correct OOBs and the tech tree are the biggest achievement of CORE. It is very difficult to go back to the vanilla tech tree or the slightly modified vanilla tech tree of most of the other mods.

Yeah that is a big bonus, but (I'm guessing) the AI would mess up these OOBs?

War usually outfolds in the historical manner, with some additional events that may bring alternative outcomes, but generally do not.

Interesting, I prefer to play historically so that's good for me.

I do not think there is any challenge in the game as a major power against the AI

Oh, really? That's pretty disappointing What makes it so easy?

maybe Japan vs America in late-game can be different, but I doubt it(never tried myself though). The USA can perform massive naval landings with infantry and tanks, but as always AI fleets are vulnerable because single TPs are sent without escort. Japan is more so-so, sometimes they are very aggressive and attack India and Australia, but at the same time can very well ignore the Philippines for some reason.

Is the TP problem a hardcoded thing? Well on the plus side, at least the Japan AI can be flexible in its strategy and it's great to hear the USA AI can do massive amphibious invasions.

 

[Amallric]

Yeah that is a big bonus, but (I'm guessing) the AI would mess up these OOBs?

Well at least the units themselves are still there. It is mostly a flavour thing anyway, so what happens in the AI countries(which you cannot see) is less important.

Oh, really? That's pretty disappointing What makes it so easy?

As a major power you have practically unlimited possibilities. You can always achieve decisive advantage by concentrating yourself at one field while the AI will spread its efforts. You will only be very rarely surprised by the AI to the point that you'll have to change your plans(and if that happens, you'll probably just reload anyway lol). Also, the game is balanced to produce historical results in handsoff mode - AI vs AI. Of course, if one country is taken over by a player, this is going to tilt the balance, and this design philosophy does not allow for artificial increase in difficulty like in the 3rd reich mod.
CORE is harder than vanilla though. I guess, if playing the Soviet Union in vanilla will lead you to steamroll the Germans as soon as the war is declared and probably get to Berlin in a couple of months, in CORE you'll probably achieve a stalemate but not much more for the first year. (I haven't tried this in the most recent versions so I can be wrong)

Is the TP problem a hardcoded thing?

Well more like a lack of hardcore if anything, but yes it's not a CORE thing.

Well on the plus side, at least the Japan AI can be flexible in its strategy and it's great to hear the USA AI can do massive amphibious invasions.

With 1000 IC, some aggressivity is to be expected.

 

[Hister]

@Mr_Bonaparte: It might be of interest to you checking out how playing Imperial Japan looks like in the latest iteration of CORE (0.60) not yet available to public due to internal beta stage. Just click on the link in my signature.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Well at least the units themselves are still there. It is mostly a flavour thing anyway, so what happens in the AI countries(which you cannot see) is less important.

True, when correcting the OOBs was it a matter of moving already existing units around or creating and removing units too?

As a major power you have practically unlimited possibilities. You can always achieve decisive advantage by concentrating yourself at one field while the AI will spread its efforts. You will only be very rarely surprised by the AI to the point that you'll have to change your plans(and if that happens, you'll probably just reload anyway lol).

Reloading takes the fun out of it IMO!

Also, the game is balanced to produce historical results in handsoff mode - AI vs AI. Of course, if one country is taken over by a player, this is going to tilt the balance, and this design philosophy does not allow for artificial increase in difficulty like in the 3rd reich mod.

Ah ok, IMHO, I'd prefer the philosophy of maximising the AI's potential at the expense of historical results but I do see why this is so. Plus, artificial or not, a challenge is great fun!

CORE is harder than vanilla though. I guess, if playing the Soviet Union in vanilla will lead you to steamroll the Germans as soon as the war is declared and probably get to Berlin in a couple of months, in CORE you'll probably achieve a stalemate but not much more for the first year. (I haven't tried this in the most recent versions so I can be wrong)

Ah, that's good. Once I am able to play CORE, I'll probably be USA or USSR first to first learn the game.

Well more like a lack of hardcore if anything, but yes it's not a CORE thing.

Oh ok, maybe this will be fixed in 1.08.

With 1000 IC, some aggressivity is to be expected.

Really? Is all that IC on the map, or is the US given off-map IC as well? What is the average total IC for the other majors?

@Mr_Bonaparte: It might be of interest to you checking out how playing Imperial Japan looks like in the latest iteration of CORE (0.60) not yet available to public due to internal beta stage. Just click on the link in my signature.

Thankyou, indeed it is of much interest to me.

 

[Amallric]

True, when correcting the OOBs was it a matter of moving already existing units around or creating and removing units too?

I think the CORE OOB's were created from scratch and are not the result of a "correction" of the OOB's of any version of vanilla. Actually some of them have been created years before AoD was even announced. Anyway, the basic idea behind them was to represent the divisions or equivalent units of every armed force in the state in which those were in january 1936. I actually checked the Japanese army and the Red Army and found that they have been modelled in a perfectly correct way, even if it can seem aberrant at first sight(32 cavalry divisions as the USSR...). As far as divisions/ships go, there is a perfect 1:1 equivalence with RL OOBs(this has been removed in 0.6 for some ships unfortunately). So those OOBs can not really be compared with the vanilla ones which are based on some kind of loose combination of plausibility, historical correctness and balance.
As for units over the size of a division, things get more complicated. We don't have a real command chain like in HoI3, so modelling corps and armies is quite difficult, and also rather pointless since both players and AI tend to shift divisions from one formation to another. Nevertheless, most of the starting units are grouped together in formations that mirror the RL armed forces organisation in a satisfactory manner; once the game starts it is up to you to maintain those plausible(but often less than optimal gameplay-wise) formations or reorganise your forces completely.

Ah ok, IMHO, I'd prefer the philosophy of maximising the AI's potential at the expense of historical results but I do see why this is so. Plus, artificial or not, a challenge is great fun!

The thing is, 3rd Reich mod is fine but cannot be used to play any country except Germany. CORE is supposed to be playable as any country. So massively overpowering one nation or another does not make much sense. Also I believe multiplayer is better challenge than any AI, as powerful as it may be.

Ah, that's good. Once I am able to play CORE, I'll probably be USA or USSR first to first learn the game.

I would actually recommend a smaller country such as Canada or Italy - it is easy to get overwhelmed with all those divisions and fleets. Canada is in fact quite potent, starting with a sizeable fleet of 8 transport squadrons that will allow for a lot of flexibility in naval landings, good tech teams and a safe position. If you play smart, you should even be able to field some tanks

Really? Is all that IC on the map, or is the US given off-map IC as well? What is the average total IC for the other majors?

A fully mobilized USA indeed has nearly 1000 effective IC. This number is of course influenced by different factors, namely the mobilisation system implemented in CORE to represent the gradual gearing up for war of every country. Base IC number for the US is about 500, I believe most of those are on the map, as there are several provinces with 20+ IC there...Germany starts with 280 base IC(which becomes 500+ before Barbarossa), UK and USSR have 250, France 150, Japan and Italy 100 base IC.

 

[Hister]

As much as 500 IC sounds huge at the start of a campaign with USA you have to note that due to huge economical depression problems, great anti-war stance, amazing consumer goods need and very low available men power there isn't actually a very big space for warmongering IC-wise in the prewar years. You'll be able to improve your economy step by step and mainly be concentrated on naval aspects. When Japan declares war you will really feel and understand what means to awaken the beast!

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I think the CORE OOB's were created from scratch and are not the result of a "correction" of the OOB's of any version of vanilla. Actually some of them have been created years before AoD was even announced. Anyway, the basic idea behind them was to represent the divisions or equivalent units of every armed force in the state in which those were in january 1936. I actually checked the Japanese army and the Red Army and found that they have been modelled in a perfectly correct way, even if it can seem aberrant at first sight(32 cavalry divisions as the USSR...). As far as divisions/ships go, there is a perfect 1:1 equivalence with RL OOBs(this has been removed in 0.6 for some ships unfortunately). So those OOBs can not really be compared with the vanilla ones which are based on some kind of loose combination of plausibility, historical correctness and balance.

Ah ok, well as you said its great for historical flavour. I thought many people disliked the 1:1 naval ratio for ships, at least I got that impression reading other posts.

As for units over the size of a division, things get more complicated. We don't have a real command chain like in HoI3, so modelling corps and armies is quite difficult, and also rather pointless since both players and AI tend to shift divisions from one formation to another. Nevertheless, most of the starting units are grouped together in formations that mirror the RL armed forces organisation in a satisfactory manner; once the game starts it is up to you to maintain those plausible(but often less than optimal gameplay-wise) formations or reorganise your forces completely.

Again this is good for flavour. Has CORE edited the sizes of divisions (i.e. do infantry divisions still only use 10,000 manpower?)

The thing is, 3rd Reich mod is fine but cannot be used to play any country except Germany. CORE is supposed to be playable as any country. So massively overpowering one nation or another does not make much sense.

Ok, so no artificial difficulty, but, IMO, the AI's potential should be maximised and not be limited just for the purposes of having a historical result in the war. For instance, the UK AI should have the potential to invade the Balkans, Norway or Iberia should Spain or Portugal join the Axis, if the opportunity arises. Also the Third Reich Mod has also massively improved the AI's air combat, no more pointless ground attacks on well supplied troops, even during the 'Phoney war' period the UK and France are interterdicting my troops, attacking my airfields, bombing my industry and sending in fighters to protect their bombers.

Also I believe multiplayer is better challenge than any AI, as powerful as it may be.

Undoubtedly it is, but I can't even play CORE on single player for the moment. Also, a few months ago I tried 'vanilla' AoD online and my connection was so slow as my laptop couldn't handle the *intensity* of AoD's graphics :glare:

I would actually recommend a smaller country such as Canada or Italy - it is easy to get overwhelmed with all those divisions and fleets. Canada is in fact quite potent, starting with a sizeable fleet of 8 transport squadrons that will allow for a lot of flexibility in naval landings, good tech teams and a safe position. If you play smart, you should even be able to field some tanks

Ah ok, and also it would be kinda fun to see how the war does pan out AI vs AI.

A fully mobilized USA indeed has nearly 1000 effective IC. This number is of course influenced by different factors, namely the mobilisation system implemented in CORE to represent the gradual gearing up for war of every country. Base IC number for the US is about 500, I believe most of those are on the map, as there are several provinces with 20+ IC there...Germany starts with 280 base IC(which becomes 500+ before Barbarossa), UK and USSR have 250, France 150, Japan and Italy 100 base IC.

I know there's resource spillage in CORE, but surely the world's resources must have been drastically increased to make all this possible? Also, why does the UK have the same amount of IC as the USSR?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

As much as 500 IC sounds huge at the start of a campaign with USA you have to note that due to huge economical depression problems, great anti-war stance, amazing consumer goods need and very low available men power there isn't actually a very big space for warmongering IC-wise in the prewar years. You'll be able to improve your economy step by step and mainly be concentrated on naval aspects. When Japan declares war you will really feel and understand what means to awaken the beast!

Makes sense, very historical too.

 

[Amallric]

Ah ok, well as you said its great for historical flavour. I thought many people disliked the 1:1 naval ratio for ships, at least I got that impression reading other posts.

It was very difficult to get used to it for me too, but once I did, it was really great for flavour. A shame the game engine just wasn't able to handle them correctly. Well, in exchange we get heavy submarines and lots of attachements.

Again this is good for flavour. Has CORE edited the sizes of divisions (i.e. do infantry divisions still only use 10,000 manpower?)

To reflect the different sizes of divisions used by different countries, CORE has 2 sizes of infantry divisions: roughly speaking, triangulary and binary divisions(labelled in the game as 9-battalions and 6-battalions). Every country can build only one type of those, based on their historical tradition. So the British or the German would have larger divisions(which cost about 20 manpower) while countries that fielded smaller divisions such as Italy or the SU have access to the 6-battalion divisions, that are cheaper and weaker. Besides, the new "infantry regiment" attachment can model the last square divisions still around in 1936(mostly Japan), and the Garrison "division" actually represents a single Security regiment. So, pretty much all the usual sizes of units are covered. :happy:

Ok, so no artificial difficulty, but, IMO, the AI's potential should be maximised and not be limited just for the purposes of having a historical result in the war. For instance, the UK AI should have the potential to invade the Balkans, Norway or Iberia should Spain or Portugal join the Axis, if the opportunity arises. Also the Third Reich Mod has also massively improved the AI's air combat, no more pointless ground attacks on well supplied troops, even during the 'Phoney war' period the UK and France are interterdicting my troops, attacking my airfields, bombing my industry and sending in fighters to protect their bombers.

Not sure about the air war though I remember well how the AI teared my naval bombers to shreds over the North Sea more than once; but AI UK performing landings in the Mediterranean is a common occurence. Spain and Portugal are difficult(but not impossible) to get in the Axis, but they join by themselves if the Soviet Union goes on rampage by declaring war on Germany.

Undoubtedly it is, but I can't even play CORE on single player for the moment. Also, a few months ago I tried 'vanilla' AoD online and my connection was so slow as my laptop couldn't handle the *intensity* of AoD's graphics

Indeed, you pretty much need top-end machines in order to play CORE in multiplayer...

I know there's resource spillage in CORE, but surely the world's resources must have been drastically increased to make all this possible? Also, why does the UK have the same amount of IC as the USSR?

Actually in the last version there is an overflow of ressources. According to the last DD, the CORE team aims to address this issue by rebalancing the IC/resource distribution. The Soviet Union gets dozens of additional IC by events in the Five-year plan event chain - and you are of course free to build some additional IC yourself, as usual in a HoI game.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

It was very difficult to get used to it for me too, but once I did, it was really great for flavour. A shame the game engine just wasn't able to handle them correctly. Well, in exchange we get heavy submarines and lots of attachements.

Good trade off. How does the AI handle naval combat? I think I read in another post how the German AI is able to start sinking significant amounts of the UK's convoy as early as 1940, is this true?

To reflect the different sizes of divisions used by different countries, CORE has 2 sizes of infantry divisions: roughly speaking, triangulary and binary divisions(labelled in the game as 9-battalions and 6-battalions). Every country can build only one type of those, based on their historical tradition. So the British or the German would have larger divisions(which cost about 20 manpower) while countries that fielded smaller divisions such as Italy or the SU have access to the 6-battalion divisions, that are cheaper and weaker. Besides, the new "infantry regiment" attachment can model the last square divisions still around in 1936(mostly Japan), and the Garrison "division" actually represents a single Security regiment. So, pretty much all the usual sizes of units are covered. :happy:

Nice, this idea of unique units (or units specific to certain types of countries) is really good.

Not sure about the air war though I remember well how the AI teared my naval bombers to shreds over the North Sea more than once; but AI UK performing landings in the Mediterranean is a common occurence.

Interesting, do the UK's landings normally succeed? How does the North African campaign pan out?

Spain and Portugal are difficult(but not impossible) to get in the Axis, but they join by themselves if the Soviet Union goes on rampage by declaring war on Germany.

That's historical, how is it made difficult, just by a low percentage of accepting alliance or are there events for the Iberian countries to join? That's from 'vanilla' AoD, if the USSR declares war on Germany virtually all of Europe is completely willing to join the Axis.

Indeed, you pretty much need top-end machines in order to play CORE in multiplayer...

Really, I know there have been big improvements in graphics but surely they can only go so far in AoD?

Actually in the last version there is an overflow of ressources. According to the last DD, the CORE team aims to address this issue by rebalancing the IC/resource distribution.

Yeah I read they plan to increase the total IC by 10% but leave the resources as they are.

The Soviet Union gets dozens of additional IC by events in the Five-year plan event chain - and you are of course free to build some additional IC yourself, as usual in a HoI game.

I suppose the Soviet AI massively builds IC and infra upto a point?

 

[Amallric]

Good trade off. How does the AI handle naval combat? I think I read in another post how the German AI is able to start sinking significant amounts of the UK's convoy as early as 1940, is this true?

Well convoys are more an AI vs AI thing, as the player would rarely be affected by that kind of thing. Unfortunately as long as there are no significant improvements to the way convoys work they are bound to remain a purely flavour thing.
Convoys aside, naval battles in CORE are pretty violent. Ships are very powerful(about 60 sea attack for the superheavy battleship) and deal massive damage in very short amounts of time. Moreover, build times and costs of ships are massively increased as compared to vanilla, so they really are precious. A battleship can take no less than 5 years to be built. AI fleets are known to wander in enemy coastal waters and destroying isolated flotillas with port strikes. However, since this is a highly tactical aspect of the game, a human player can reasonably expect to win against the AI, at least in the long term.

Interesting, do the UK's landings normally succeed? How does the North African campaign pan out?

Well they follow the new AoD behaviour, i.e. gathering a sizeable force in a nearby location then performing a mass landing with around ten divisions including armor. Americans act pretty much in the same way. Against a player, there are few chances of success of course but they can wreak havoc before being suppressed. About the North African campaign, not much extraordinary stuff, except for frequent Italian landings in the Holy land.

That's historical, how is it made difficult, just by a low percentage of accepting alliance or are there events for the Iberian countries to join? That's from 'vanilla' AoD, if the USSR declares war on Germany virtually all of Europe is completely willing to join the Axis.

Well I guess this vanilla AoD mechanism is what happens there. Unfortunately there are not that many events in CORE: some things got extremely detailed event chains(even too detailed, I believe, no need for an event for every new generator installed on the Grand Coulee dam) and other are left compeletely out of scope. There is still no working UK surrender event, for instance.

Really, I know there have been big improvements in graphics but surely they can only go so far in AoD?

Not graphics, they didn't change, but CORE requires significantly more calculating power then vanilla - it's a question of processor frequency.

I suppose the Soviet AI massively builds IC and infra upto a point?

No real way to make it do that as far as I know alas - most of the industrialisation is being made by event as I said.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Well convoys are more an AI vs AI thing, as the player would rarely be affected by that kind of thing. Unfortunately as long as there are no significant improvements to the way convoys work they are bound to remain a purely flavour thing.

What do you mean? Surely sinking all or the vast majority of the UK's convoys would cripple its ability overseas. Or does the UK have an enormous amount of convoys?

Convoys aside, naval battles in CORE are pretty violent. Ships are very powerful(about 60 sea attack for the superheavy battleship) and deal massive damage in very short amounts of time. Moreover, build times and costs of ships are massively increased as compared to vanilla, so they really are precious. A battleship can take no less than 5 years to be built.

Very much like in RL then, (arguably) at the cost of a certain amount of playability. Even though the Bismarck took just over four years to complete.

AI fleets are known to wander in enemy coastal waters and destroying isolated flotillas with port strikes. However, since this is a highly tactical aspect of the game, a human player can reasonably expect to win against the AI, at least in the long term.

Well that can be said of any game against the computer, it's inevitable the player will find an easy way to defeat the AI so long as they persist with the game.

Well they follow the new AoD behaviour, i.e. gathering a sizeable force in a nearby location then performing a mass landing with around ten divisions including armor. Americans act pretty much in the same way. Against a player, there are few chances of success of course but they can wreak havoc before being suppressed. About the North African campaign, not much extraordinary stuff, except for frequent Italian landings in the Holy land.

I guess that's good, even if in RL all major amphibious invasions played by the UK and USA were planned extensively and always ended in success. The Italian landings are caused by the UK not placing any units there, which would easily be solved by some editing of the AI.

Well I guess this vanilla AoD mechanism is what happens there. Unfortunately there are not that many events in CORE: some things got extremely detailed event chains(even too detailed, I believe, no need for an event for every new generator installed on the Grand Coulee dam) and other are left compeletely out of scope. There is still no working UK surrender event, for instance.

Really? That is surprising! I could help with events if the CORE team would let me. For the UK surrender event, I'd suggest to make it trigger if Germany captures all of the British isles with Canada, New Zealand and Australia continuing the war, India declaring its independence and neutrality, South Africa, Oman, Bhutan and Nepal also becoming neutral. I've also made an event where Germany can exert political pressure on Ireland in the event the Axis control the British isles.

Not graphics, they didn't change, but CORE requires significantly more calculating power then vanilla - it's a question of processor frequency.

Ah ok, would a good quality laptop be able to handle that?

No real way to make it do that as far as I know alas - most of the industrialisation is being made by event as I said.

Really? The AI USSR can and does industrialise manually before war in 'vanilla' AoD.

 

[Tegetthoff]

Regarding surrender events:

We are leaving this for later intentionally, since there are so many aspects to change in the early stages.

There has been some work on the standard German surrender events. It was only a rewrite of the existing vanilla events, fixing some of the most glaring problems. Any deeper modification would need a complete bottom-up rewrite with a country by country release for the post-war situation. This will ahve to wait.

UK surrender events are pretty low on the list, also because the conditions are very hard to define.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Regarding surrender events: We are leaving this for later intentionally, since there are so many aspects to change in the early stages.

What type of aspects?

UK surrender events are pretty low on the list, also because the conditions are very hard to define.

Fair enough, I just find the 'vanilla' surrender event virtually pointless (where the UK has to lose 75% of its IC and VPs) because by that point you might as well annex it. But if the CORE team/community ever do come up with a consensus on what would trigger a UK surrender event, I'd be happy to make it. Or any other events for that matter.

 

[Hister]

I really like people with the know-how that offer their services to the team so thank you Mr_Bonaparte! But as much as I know the devs they often politely refused such offers and suggest submods to be made- I suppose there's often more work involved in checking and fixing other people's work then your own - is this one of the reasons why is this so?

 

[Hagar]

I really like people with the know-how that offer their services to the team so thank you Mr_Bonaparte! But as much as I know the devs they often politely refused such offers and suggest submods to be made- I suppose there's often more work involved in checking and fixing other people's work then your own - is this one of the reasons why is this so?

It's true any changes are discussed before being implemented. But that doesn't mean we aren't open to ideas... Many of the submods contribute to CORE itself, usually in part. We focus on the big picture, submods are usually beefing up a specific area (and usually tend to overdo things a wee bit, if only just by focusing on that specific area). Just ask cegorach with his submod - a lot of his stuff did end up within CORE itself, just not all of it. That doesn't mean his input and his efforts aren't appreciated, quite the opposite in fact...