It is currently Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:37 pm



Welcome
Welcome to Victoria 2 multiplayer forum.


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
I'm keeping this separate from the doctrine discussion since we have already agreed on that doctrines need a rework. This thread is for suggestions on other things to incorporate.

Now for my suggestions, I'd love to just use my mod as a base and incorporate any changes that are in the zero mod that is not already incorporatedone. However, I can see that it may be unappealing since it changes a lot, so here are my suggestions to be incorporated into Zero mod.

1. Raj manpower change: Basically through the Raj focus tree and the UK focus tree the Raj can get 20% more cruitable population factor, this puts the roughly historical # of soldiers and makes the Raj much more fun to play.

2. Resource tweaks, this is a case that I just moved around resources I added to be more historical, but the total number of Oil and Rubber is identical to Zero Mod.

3. Give Tanks/TD a fort attack bonus. Currently ATG get a fort attack bonus and Adding this bonus could help reduce the pure strength of Fort walls.

4. Mechanized cost reduction: Seriously 1939 medium tanks are cheaper than 1939 Mechanized, and are better at everything but, defending! This change also encourages mobility more.

5. Split synthetic Rubber and Oil into two techs and two building types.

6. A few more late game techs, that I've added (infantry weapons IV etc) so the tech tree isn't finished by mid 1944. Now we might never play that long but the additions don't hurt.

Feel free to add your own suggestions and comment on mine. Again I volunteer to do any required molding. (All of the above can actually just be lifted straight from my mod's working version)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:01 pm
Posts: 28
wouldnt it be easier to just integrate the changed focus trees into your mod?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
It would be, though, I'm unsure if everyone wants to use it. I will be releasing an update this week hopefully and then I can post a Changelog for people to look over to see if they would be OK with using it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:54 pm
Posts: 68
Otto von Saxony wrote:
It would be, though, I'm unsure if everyone wants to use it. I will be releasing an update this week hopefully and then I can post a Changelog for people to look over to see if they would be OK with using it.


I'd love to use your mod. We should integrate some impassable terrain to it as well, though, if you haven't already.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:03 pm
Posts: 19
One thing that I think we should still change with the mod is that communist focuses are underpowered as in the communist branch of the focus trees for the commonwealth nations are bad, and the generic communist branch is still too weak. I have been working on a mod to fix this, and you can incorporate any of my changes into your mod/zero mod if you want. So far I have buffed the communist branches of every commonwealth focus tree and made changes to the generic one. Having a good communist tree for commonwealth nations likely won't be relevant often, but the generic tree certainly will.

Also I support all of the listed changes from Otto's mod.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:00 am
Posts: 28
To be clear, your mod is zero mod right?

I'm good with like 10% for #1, the limiting factor on Raj should be factories not manpower. 20% is a lot though, especially considering UK can recruit using Raj manpower.

#2 is fine as long as it's nothing dumb

#3 absolutely, but light tank/TD should be almost no bonus, medium some bonus, heavy a lot of bonus, and super heavy should be a **** ton. Tank destroyer should also have more of a bonus in each category than the normal variant of the tank.

#4 I agree, but you're forgetting that mech inf. baseline has 60 org while med armor. baseline has 10 org. So it's more of a comparison mech infantry vs motorized than it is mech infantry vs med armor. In which case mech is still pretty ****. The changes I would make here:
Mech 1: Speed 10 instead of 8, Cost 7 instead of 12.
Mech 2: Cost 9 instead of 13
Mech 3: Cost 11 instead of 14

#5 I'm against, it just nerfs synths which are already pretty **** for everyone other than Germany. Germany doesn't need another nerf.

#6 I'm against too, mainly because it's just gonna clutter up the tech screens and if everyone already has all the 1944 tech's then that's fine, it becomes more of an army game than a tech game at that point which I'm ok with.

Also want to see sahara impassable become part of the base mod, except that it shouldn't ever be narrower than 3 provinces across so that we don't need house rules on fort spamming like we have in the current game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:54 pm
Posts: 68
Yodoodles wrote:
One thing that I think we should still change with the mod is that communist focuses are underpowered as in the communist branch of the focus trees for the commonwealth nations are bad, and the generic communist branch is still too weak. I have been working on a mod to fix this, and you can incorporate any of my changes into your mod/zero mod if you want. So far I have buffed the communist branches of every commonwealth focus tree and made changes to the generic one. Having a good communist tree for commonwealth nations likely won't be relevant often, but the generic tree certainly will.

Also I support all of the listed changes from Otto's mod.


I mean how is communist generic weak? +5 division org and +2% recruitable population is pretty good. Fascist gets 4% recruitable pop and -10% training time (which is really not useful anymore considering everyone can get -25% from continuous focus eventually).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:00 am
Posts: 28
Commie focus tree is good, agree with you. No changes needed there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:03 pm
Posts: 19
Sothar wrote:
Yodoodles wrote:
One thing that I think we should still change with the mod is that communist focuses are underpowered as in the communist branch of the focus trees for the commonwealth nations are bad, and the generic communist branch is still too weak. I have been working on a mod to fix this, and you can incorporate any of my changes into your mod/zero mod if you want. So far I have buffed the communist branches of every commonwealth focus tree and made changes to the generic one. Having a good communist tree for commonwealth nations likely won't be relevant often, but the generic tree certainly will.

Also I support all of the listed changes from Otto's mod.


I mean how is communist generic weak? +5 division org and +2% recruitable population is pretty good. Fascist gets 4% recruitable pop and -10% training time (which is really not useful anymore considering everyone can get -25% from continuous focus eventually).


It is definitely better than the base game but personally I would strongly prefer the fascist bonus there. The continuous focus does not make the 10% training time obsolete; 35% training time reduction is great, especially when the extra manpower allows you to go longer before enacting conscription laws that increase training time. If it were for a major nation I would prefer the org to the manpower and training time, but as a minor nation, I am much more worried about just being able to get sufficient troops.

With our current game setup with barely enough people to play the majors, it really doesn't matter that much if the focus is weaker, but we would want to consider it more if we had a large game where the focuses could influence who joins which faction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Mod Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:54 pm
Posts: 68
Yodoodles wrote:
Sothar wrote:
It is definitely better than the base game but personally I would strongly prefer the fascist bonus there. The continuous focus does not make the 10% training time obsolete; 35% training time reduction is great, especially when the extra manpower allows you to go longer before enacting conscription laws that increase training time. If it were for a major nation I would prefer the org to the manpower and training time, but as a minor nation, I am much more worried about just being able to get sufficient troops.

With our current game setup with barely enough people to play the majors, it really doesn't matter that much if the focus is weaker, but we would want to consider it more if we had a large game where the focuses could influence who joins which faction.



What would you want to change then?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
suspicion-preferred