I threw together a United Commonwealth by editing a Canadian Jan 1st '36 save game for an AAR I plan on doing at Pdox and everything is working perfectly except for one thing, I can't build heavy cruisers and I can't understand why. :unsure:
I've got the tech
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg251%2FTim811%2FTroubleshoot.jpg&hash=963c26dd9e5dd4eab7921065bf368044b7206666)
The code for heavy cruisers looks the same as for light cruisers.
Quote
battleship = { 1 0 }
light_cruiser = { 2 1 0 }
heavy_cruiser = { 2 1 0 }
battlecruiser = { 1 0 }
destroyer = { 2 0 1 }
carrier = { 2 1 0 }
escort_carrier = { 0 }
submarine = { 0 }
nuclear_submarine = { 0 }
transport = { 0 }
But I can't build them. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg251%2FTim811%2FTroubleshoot1.jpg&hash=0933262d2ced8242c8c3a7a1aa884621e43bfce3)
Posting a link to the save would be useful.
I don't know, why can you?
Next time, put the freaking game name in the fucking title.
Quote from: ulmont on April 14, 2009, 10:59:21 AM
Posting a link to the save would be useful.
I'll see if I can attach it to gmail file.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 14, 2009, 11:08:41 AM
Next time, put the freaking game name in the fucking title.
Fixed. :rolleyes:
QuoteWhy can't I build heavy cruisers? HOI2DD
Operator error.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2009, 11:16:27 AM
QuoteWhy can't I build heavy cruisers? HOI2DD
Operator error.
While I assume I made some kind of mistake somewhere, but that doesn't really help me unless I know what it is.
ulmont, sent you the file
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 11:24:37 AM
ulmont, sent you the file
Take a look at the "allowed_divisions" section of the file. Here's England:
Quote from: ENG
allowed_divisions = {
infantry = yes
cavalry = yes
light_armor = yes
armor = yes
marine = yes
bergsjaeger = yes
garrison = yes
hq = yes
militia = yes
interceptor = yes
strategic_bomber = yes
tactical_bomber = yes
transport_plane = yes
battleship = yes
light_cruiser = yes
heavy_cruiser = yes
battlecruiser = yes
destroyer = yes
carrier = yes
escort_carrier = yes
submarine = yes
transport = yes
}
And here's Canada:
Quote from: CANallowed_divisions = {
infantry = yes
cavalry = yes
light_armor = yes
armor = yes
garrison = yes
hq = yes
militia = yes
interceptor = yes
tactical_bomber = yes
battleship = yes
light_cruiser = yes
destroyer = yes
carrier = yes
submarine = yes
transport = yes
}
adding a "heavy_cruiser = yes" line should fix it. You will end up needing to do the same for the other types of units at some point.
Quote from: ulmont on April 14, 2009, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 11:24:37 AM
ulmont, sent you the file
Take a look at the "allowed_divisions" section of the file. Here's England:
Quote from: ENG
allowed_divisions = {
infantry = yes
cavalry = yes
light_armor = yes
armor = yes
marine = yes
bergsjaeger = yes
garrison = yes
hq = yes
militia = yes
interceptor = yes
strategic_bomber = yes
tactical_bomber = yes
transport_plane = yes
battleship = yes
light_cruiser = yes
heavy_cruiser = yes
battlecruiser = yes
destroyer = yes
carrier = yes
escort_carrier = yes
submarine = yes
transport = yes
}
And here's Canada:
Quote from: CANallowed_divisions = {
infantry = yes
cavalry = yes
light_armor = yes
armor = yes
garrison = yes
hq = yes
militia = yes
interceptor = yes
tactical_bomber = yes
battleship = yes
light_cruiser = yes
destroyer = yes
carrier = yes
submarine = yes
transport = yes
}
adding a "heavy_cruiser = yes" line should fix it. You will end up needing to do the same for the other types of units at some point.
Thanks :hug:
Shouldn't the computer automatically do that though once I've researched the technology?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 12:07:22 PM
Shouldn't the computer automatically do that though once I've researched the technology?
I think that's the difference between 'activate_unit_type' and 'new_model'. The first one I think only fires for the baseline tech, and I'm assuming you started with great war heavy cruiser tech. After that, new techs are just giving you new models of a type you aren't allowed to build.
No. As with all Paradox games, you are required to edit the source code. :)
Also, what the hell is this?
Airborne?
Quotebergsjaeger = yes
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
Also, what the hell is this?
Airborne?
Quotebergsjaeger = yes
Mountain troops <_<
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
Also, what the hell is this?
Mountain. Airborne is "paratrooper".
Quote from: Ape on April 14, 2009, 12:22:29 PM
Mountain troops <_<
Really should have been "gebirgsjaeger", right?
Quote from: ulmont on April 14, 2009, 12:25:45 PM
Quote from: Ape on April 14, 2009, 12:22:29 PM
Mountain troops <_<
Really should have been "gebirgsjaeger", right?
Nope.
"gebirgsjaeger = jawohl"
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 12:11:25 PM
No. As with all Paradox games, you are required to edit the source code. :)
Save game files != source code
By the way, I've been looking for some British Empire/Commonwealth, Australian and South African propaganda posters and am having a hard time. I found a bunch of good Canadian posters though. :Canuck:
Anyone know where I can find some?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 03:46:06 PM
By the way, I've been looking for some British Empire/Commonwealth, Australian and South African propaganda posters and am having a hard time. I found a bunch of good Canadian posters though. :Canuck:
Anyone know where I can find some?
They were all over the place in the Commonwealth states from 1939-1945. You should look in one of those.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2009, 04:09:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 03:46:06 PM
By the way, I've been looking for some British Empire/Commonwealth, Australian and South African propaganda posters and am having a hard time. I found a bunch of good Canadian posters though. :Canuck:
Anyone know where I can find some?
They were all over the place in the Commonwealth states from 1939-1945. You should look in one of those.
Thanks Raz :rolleyes:
Interesting stats of the day, in '36 the Commonwealth has a bigger base IC than Italy (73>65) and a larger actual IC than Britain! (84>74) :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2009, 04:09:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 03:46:06 PM
By the way, I've been looking for some British Empire/Commonwealth, Australian and South African propaganda posters and am having a hard time. I found a bunch of good Canadian posters though. :Canuck:
Anyone know where I can find some?
They were all over the place in the Commonwealth states from 1939-1945. You should look in one of those.
Thanks Raz :rolleyes:
Interesting stats of the day, in '36 the Commonwealth has a bigger base IC than Italy (73>65) and a larger actual IC than Britain! (84>74) :lol:
I am Helping!
Quote from: ulmont on April 14, 2009, 12:25:45 PM
Really should have been "gebirgsjaeger", right?
no actually gebirgsjäger <_< same with fallschirmsjäger, must not forget the umlaut, it's very important :mad:
The Poles folded and gave up Danzig. Will the Germans eventually attack anyways or will I have to load up as the Germans and attack?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2009, 11:03:56 PM
The Poles folded and gave up Danzig. Will the Germans eventually attack anyways or will I have to load up as the Germans and attack?
They should but no guarantees; I would give them a month, if they haven't done it by then they will need a kick in the ass.
They declared war 2 days the bastards, but the Poles fold over Danzig must reduce the Germans beligerance because it's only 14. I don't think the allies will declare war yet! :mad:
And I was right, I had to force things to ahead myself. Now both the Japanese and Germans are unusually strong. <_<
Anyone who wants to follow my exploits can do so here. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9539373#post9539373
Why would you want to build a heavy cruiser? Either a light cruiser or a dreadnought is what you should be building.
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 06:55:17 AM
Why would you want to build a heavy cruiser? Either a light cruiser or a dreadnought is what you should be building.
Dreadnoughts are too expensive and take forever to build, I can build three cruisers in the time it takes to build one battleship.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 16, 2009, 08:57:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 06:55:17 AM
Why would you want to build a heavy cruiser? Either a light cruiser or a dreadnought is what you should be building.
Dreadnoughts are too expensive and take forever to build, I can build three cruisers in the time it takes to build one battleship.
OK, but why not build light cruisers? A light cruiser is more powerful and effective in combat than a heavy cruiser.
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 10:29:32 AM
OK, but why not build light cruisers? A light cruiser is more powerful and effective in combat than a heavy cruiser.
Admiral Doorman might disagree.
In a night/limited visibility fight, you are probably right. In daylight with vis over 10 miles, you wouldn't be.
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 16, 2009, 08:57:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 06:55:17 AM
Why would you want to build a heavy cruiser? Either a light cruiser or a dreadnought is what you should be building.
Dreadnoughts are too expensive and take forever to build, I can build three cruisers in the time it takes to build one battleship.
OK, but why not build light cruisers? A light cruiser is more powerful and effective in combat than a heavy cruiser.
Why? :huh:
One would think with heavier guns and a longer range the Heavy Cruiser would be.
Anyways, it's not like I'm not building light cruisers, I'm building both. Read the AAR.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 18, 2009, 10:11:27 PM
Why? :huh:
One would think with heavier guns and a longer range the Heavy Cruiser would be.
Anyways, it's not like I'm not building light cruisers, I'm building both. Read the AAR.
A 6" gun is effective out to about 22-24 thousand yards, while an 8" gun can fire out to about 30 thousand yards. However, it was fairly uncommon from cruiser engagements to take place at extremely long range.
Now, eight RN 8" guns have a throw weight of 2048 lbs, while twelve RN 6" guns have a throw weight of 1344 lbs. However, the 8" gun would fire at about 3 salvos per minute, while the 6" gun would fire at twice that. With the smaller gun, you're trading a slight loss in range for a slight increase in throw weight per minute and a large increase in rate of fire. A light cruiser also usually has a small speed advantage, allowing it to control the engagement.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2009, 07:04:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 10:29:32 AM
OK, but why not build light cruisers? A light cruiser is more powerful and effective in combat than a heavy cruiser.
Admiral Doorman might disagree.
Why? He had heavy both types of cruisers at his disposal. I would say that Doorman would tell me not to get into a night battle with the Japanese before the advent of radar.
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2009, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 18, 2009, 10:11:27 PM
Why? :huh:
One would think with heavier guns and a longer range the Heavy Cruiser would be.
Anyways, it's not like I'm not building light cruisers, I'm building both. Read the AAR.
A 6" gun is effective out to about 22-24 thousand yards, while an 8" gun can fire out to about 30 thousand yards. However, it was fairly uncommon from cruiser engagements to take place at extremely long range.
Now, eight RN 8" guns have a throw weight of 2048 lbs, while twelve RN 6" guns have a throw weight of 1344 lbs. However, the 8" gun would fire at about 3 salvos per minute, while the 6" gun would fire at twice that. With the smaller gun, you're trading a slight loss in range for a slight increase in throw weight per minute and a large increase in rate of fire. A light cruiser also usually has a small speed advantage, allowing it to control the engagement.
How does the thicker armor factor in?
And comment on my AAR :contract:
I think you'd like the scenario I've constructed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2009, 11:33:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2009, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 18, 2009, 10:11:27 PM
Why? :huh:
One would think with heavier guns and a longer range the Heavy Cruiser would be.
Anyways, it's not like I'm not building light cruisers, I'm building both. Read the AAR.
A 6" gun is effective out to about 22-24 thousand yards, while an 8" gun can fire out to about 30 thousand yards. However, it was fairly uncommon from cruiser engagements to take place at extremely long range.
Now, eight RN 8" guns have a throw weight of 2048 lbs, while twelve RN 6" guns have a throw weight of 1344 lbs. However, the 8" gun would fire at about 3 salvos per minute, while the 6" gun would fire at twice that. With the smaller gun, you're trading a slight loss in range for a slight increase in throw weight per minute and a large increase in rate of fire. A light cruiser also usually has a small speed advantage, allowing it to control the engagement.
How does the thicker armor factor in?
It generally doesn't. Both types of cruisers are generally lightly armoured enough that either shell will penetrate. Moreover, there usually isn't really all that great a difference in the armour anyways.
Hey Tim, I'm thinking of starting up this old dog and playing as the Reds. Any idea what mods I should load on this game?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
Hey Tim, I'm thinking of starting up this old dog and playing as the Reds. Any idea what mods I should load on this game?
What does that have to do with cruisers?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2009, 11:33:39 AM
How does the thicker armor factor in?
We really are talking about comparing 10,000 ton heavy cruisers against 10,000 ton light cruisers, in which case they will be equivalently armored.
There is a reason why there was a hiatus in building the 8" cruiser - it was because everyone realized that the few circumstances in which the superior range and punch of the 8" gunl outweighed the superior rate of fire of the 6" gun were few and far between.
The Japanese generally conceded that their re-arming of the Haguros and Aobas was a mistake. The Battle of the Java Sea is the only battle I can think of where the heavies managed to outfight the lights, and that was because the weather cooperated and there was no air present to disturb the spotting planes of the Japanese heavy cruisers.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
Hey Tim, I'm thinking of starting up this old dog and playing as the Reds. Any idea what mods I should load on this game?
All the Russia's is an awesome mod, although you won't be playing the Reds there.
How about the Kaiserriech mod? You can play the Combined Syndicates of America and fight the Second American Civil War. They're kind of like the Reds.
If you really want a challenge as the Reds, play the Turtledove World War beta. The Soviet strategic situation seems untenable to me.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 08:21:06 PM
There is a reason why there was a hiatus in building the 8" cruiser - it was because everyone realized that the few circumstances in which the superior range and punch of the 8" gunl outweighed the superior rate of fire of the 6" gun were few and far between.
It's interesting to note that other than the Americans (who could afford to be conservative and wasteful) and the Germans (who had no idea what they were doing), nobody built any heavy cruisers after the early 1930s. I suppose you could take into account the rearming of the Mogamis and the redesign of the Tones, but that was part of the whole Japanese 'light battlecruiser' concept, and Japanese surface thinking was somewhat odd. Even the American wartime heavy cruisers were pretty much AA boats. The idea of a heavy cruiser as a surface combattant was largely gone by the the late 30s, and war experience bore that out.
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 08:21:06 PM
There is a reason why there was a hiatus in building the 8" cruiser - it was because everyone realized that the few circumstances in which the superior range and punch of the 8" gunl outweighed the superior rate of fire of the 6" gun were few and far between.
It's interesting to note that other than the Americans (who could afford to be conservative and wasteful) and the Germans (who had no idea what they were doing), nobody built any heavy cruisers after the early 1930s. I suppose you could take into account the rearming of the Mogamis and the redesign of the Tones, but that was part of the whole Japanese 'light battlecruiser' concept, and Japanese surface thinking was somewhat odd. Even the American wartime heavy cruisers were pretty much AA boats. The idea of a heavy cruiser as a surface combattant was largely gone by the the late 30s, and war experience bore that out.
They seem to be useful in game though, and that's all I'm concerned with.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2009, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 08:21:06 PM
There is a reason why there was a hiatus in building the 8" cruiser - it was because everyone realized that the few circumstances in which the superior range and punch of the 8" gunl outweighed the superior rate of fire of the 6" gun were few and far between.
It's interesting to note that other than the Americans (who could afford to be conservative and wasteful) and the Germans (who had no idea what they were doing), nobody built any heavy cruisers after the early 1930s. I suppose you could take into account the rearming of the Mogamis and the redesign of the Tones, but that was part of the whole Japanese 'light battlecruiser' concept, and Japanese surface thinking was somewhat odd. Even the American wartime heavy cruisers were pretty much AA boats. The idea of a heavy cruiser as a surface combattant was largely gone by the the late 30s, and war experience bore that out.
They seem to be useful in game though, and that's all I'm concerned with.
Your lack of concern with naval history is troubling. You disappoint me.
I can see from posts here that somebody is using a different definition of Heavy Cruiser that I do. I thought the main gun defined the category of cruser (6" being the cut off).
Quote from: Viking on April 20, 2009, 10:22:52 PM
I can see from posts here that somebody is using a different definition of Heavy Cruiser that I do. I thought the main gun defined the category of cruser (6" being the cut off).
That's pretty much it. Generally speaking, 8" guns are a heavy cruiser, while 6" or less is a light cruiser. There's a few odd ones made in Britain or Japan, heavy cruisers with 7.9" or 7.5" guns.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2009, 08:42:23 PM
How about the Kaiserriech mod? You can play the Combined Syndicates of America and fight the Second American Civil War. They're kind of like the Reds.
Have you played that mod yet? It seems to have a million files associated with it. Do I really need them all?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 20, 2009, 10:34:52 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2009, 08:42:23 PM
How about the Kaiserriech mod? You can play the Combined Syndicates of America and fight the Second American Civil War. They're kind of like the Reds.
Have you played that mod yet? It seems to have a million files associated with it. Do I really need them all?
I haven't played it, but I've seen quite a few AARs of it and IIRC it's made by the same folks who made All the Russia's, which I have played. Ask around on the Pdox forum.
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 09:43:22 PM
It's interesting to note that other than the Americans (who could afford to be conservative and wasteful) and the Germans (who had no idea what they were doing), nobody built any heavy cruisers after the early 1930s. I suppose you could take into account the rearming of the Mogamis and the redesign of the Tones, but that was part of the whole Japanese 'light battlecruiser' concept, and Japanese surface thinking was somewhat odd. Even the American wartime heavy cruisers were pretty much AA boats. The idea of a heavy cruiser as a surface combattant was largely gone by the the late 30s, and war experience bore that out.
Ovarall, I agree, though I would note that the Mk 16 8" US gun + shell + turret (on
Witchita and the
Baltimores) was sufficiently superior to the 6" gun on the
Clevelands that the decision to build ships with these weapons was not conservative at all. There is no doubt that the
Baltimores would have defeated any other cruiser in the world in a stand-up fight.
I don't understand what Tim's AAR has to do with the important discussion regarding cruisers.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2009, 07:28:24 PM
Ovarall, I agree, though I would note that the Mk 16 8" US gun + shell + turret (on Witchita and the Baltimores) was sufficiently superior to the 6" gun on the Clevelands that the decision to build ships with these weapons was not conservative at all. There is no doubt that the Baltimores would have defeated any other cruiser in the world in a stand-up fight.
I would say that the Baltimores don't have any real contemporaries. Everybody else ended their design of heavy cruisers in the early 30s (except for the Germans who, as mentioned, were retarded), and so the Baltimores stood alone in speed, armour and firepower, especially with the the US superheavy shells. American fire control systems make it even more lop-sided. Of course, the lighter guns still have the advantage of rate of fire (except for the Des Moines-class), but with radar fire-control, that doesn't matter as much.
I think that American wartime construction could handle any non-American warship out there, except maybe in the destroyer class, where some late-war construction could probably handle a Fletcher.
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
I don't understand what Tim's AAR has to do with the important discussion regarding cruisers.
I'm just attention whoring for comments. :cry:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2009, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
I don't understand what Tim's AAR has to do with the important discussion regarding cruisers.
I'm just attention whoring for comments. :cry:
Then you should have more naval combat in your AAR.
Bleh. I tried playing the game but it kept crashing. <_<
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2009, 10:29:31 PM
Bleh. I tried playing the game but it kept crashing. <_<
Which mod are you using?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2009, 10:08:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2009, 05:32:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2009, 10:29:31 PM
Bleh. I tried playing the game but it kept crashing. <_<
Which mod are you using?
:huh: Is it all patched up? I never had a problem with it?
None.
What about your computer's specs?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2009, 07:38:20 PM
Good enough to play Eu3.
Weird, check the patch and if that doesn't work, reinstall it.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2009, 10:29:31 PM
Bleh. I tried playing the game but it kept crashing. <_<
When and how does it crash?
Did you rename the avi folder?
No. I didn't rename the folders or mess with the game. It seems to crash when I defeat Finland (I was playing the "Waking the Giant" scenario). Finland can go Stalinist and become an ally of the Soviets. However some Finnish units seem to be under German control and don't revert back to the control of Finland. The result is there are Finnish units (flying the Finnish flag) who are in the axis and some in the Comintern. I think it's crashing when they fight one another.
Well that didn't work. This game never ran right for me. <_<
Hey raz and others,
Gamers gate has HOI II and it's two expansions for $9.99 this weekend.
Quote from: katmai on April 24, 2009, 03:48:27 AM
Hey raz and others,
Gamers gate has HOI II and it's two expansions for $9.99 this weekend.
Really? I got it for free. :whistle:
Quote from: katmai on April 24, 2009, 03:48:27 AM
Hey raz and others,
Gamers gate has HOI II and it's two expansions for $9.99 this weekend.
Tempted. I didn't like the basic game much, but am tempted to play with the expansions and mods.
Quote from: grumbler on April 24, 2009, 05:05:39 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 24, 2009, 03:48:27 AM
Hey raz and others,
Gamers gate has HOI II and it's two expansions for $9.99 this weekend.
Tempted. I didn't like the basic game much, but am tempted to play with the expansions and mods.
Same, i have the Original and never picked up the two xpacs, getting them for $9.99 seems reasonable to me.
Get the gfx mods and unit gfx for flavour. :)
It's still a quite fun game.
Downloading the two add-ons now.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 09:19:11 AM
Downloading the two add-ons now.
So did you like it? I thought the changes made in Doomsday were quite good. :)
Do they still offer Armageddon unpatched from gamersgate?
If so, remember to patch, or naval warfare will be even brokenerer than before.
Raz,
I still fire it up onnce a month and give it a go.
D/L all the patches and I use also use Stoney Road for some flavour.
Works like a charm until around '45-6 then it starts to slow down big time. :(