At the end of the day when I'm playing as Zhukov I just want to see the tanks rolling down the streets, the military marches blasting through the radios and megafones and soviet flags everywhere, everytime, on everything
The New Order: Last Days of Europe - An Axis Victory Cold War Mod for HoIIV
- Thread starter Lonely Knightess
- Start date
- Status
Feel like that's more characteristic of Tukhachevsky than Zhukov, but to each their own i guess.
brooklyn99
Banned
I'd say comparing Thatcher with Authsoc Sablin is apt. Not so much with Libsoc, but even then, Sablin still bears a monopolistic hold on power and for all that he democratizes, that is constrained to the lower levels and isn't so inclined to put his own position as General Secretary (which is still tied to an executive role in state leadership) up to vote. Besides, my point in comparing them to begin with, was to address those who see Thatcher revolving the state around herself as, in a vacuum, displeasing, yet not levy that same criticism to sablin himself.
My claim on Thatcher being Britain's strongest path is based on the statements of one of Britain's devs (who also happens to be active in this thread as well):
Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities
Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.
discord.com
Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities
Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.
discord.com
Whether her strengthening of Britain is actually worthwhile the downsides that comes with her domineering rule is, of course an open question. But she isn't going about on a vain, quixotic quest that makes her path a decisively negative one.
Again, I am going to have to check with them in terms of their reasoning.
I know that at one point the ULTRA team tried to combine their Light Tanks and Medium Tanks into new Battalions, ones which were focused again on more historical patterns; LT Battalions were made up of (60) Light Tanks and (15) Medium Tanks, MT Battalions vice versa. For some reason they reversed course from that, something about the game not liking the combination.
If possible I would combine the IFV's into the Mechanized formations in much the same way rather then having them entirely replace the APCs.
I'm going to attach some comparisons between TNO and ULTRA below when it comes to their Artillery and Tanks; I set both comparisons to 1945 tech which may not have been the correct decision, not being sure how TNO worked out the Stats for its equipment. Their Tanks are also Nation-Unique, and in using the United States as the base I didn't know whether to use the 1945 model or the MBT base. With the full data maybe you can draw some conclusions that I am missing.
It is a strange omission, but it should go a long way to making Marines more desirable when compared to Mechanized and Air Assault Divisions beyond their traditional Amphibious role. As the US it would be great to employ them in Africa once you reach the Rainforests, but you are always at risk of being out maneuvered.
Isn't there a way to restrict the conditions Support Companies will be made available as a choice?
Last edited:
@brooklyn99 @Matryoshka
To summarise, yes Thatcher's claims of being the fifth great power and all are nonsensical. But she knows that. Thatcher can through policy and pragmatism turn her England into a secondary power (that is, her England is capable of dealing with actual great powers in the isles on even footing, just not worldwide)and she is the only British unifier who can do this. She can't bring Britain back into the sun, but she can have it persevere in the twilight rather than sink back into the shadow.
Thatcher's England is the strongest it can be, much as Macmillan's is the most stable (insofar as you can walk from Newcastle to London and have no potshots taken at you) and Wilson/Jellicoe's are the best for rights and freedoms and such.
That said some of the other England's are also reasonably powerful (Stirling and Birch) its just that they lack the reach or diplomatic options of Thatcher.
To summarise, yes Thatcher's claims of being the fifth great power and all are nonsensical. But she knows that. Thatcher can through policy and pragmatism turn her England into a secondary power (that is, her England is capable of dealing with actual great powers in the isles on even footing, just not worldwide)and she is the only British unifier who can do this. She can't bring Britain back into the sun, but she can have it persevere in the twilight rather than sink back into the shadow.
Thatcher's England is the strongest it can be, much as Macmillan's is the most stable (insofar as you can walk from Newcastle to London and have no potshots taken at you) and Wilson/Jellicoe's are the best for rights and freedoms and such.
That said some of the other England's are also reasonably powerful (Stirling and Birch) its just that they lack the reach or diplomatic options of Thatcher.
As far as I am aware most versions of the United Kingdom are going to relinquish their claims to their former Overseas Territories, out of political realities if nothing else. The only one who maintains those claims off the top of my head is Margaret Thatcher, but obviously she is not in a position to do much about them with the United States occupying virtually all of them; I imagine more of her attention is going to be drawn to Ireland, specifically the Unionists of Northern Ireland who yearn to reunite with their Anglican brethren.
There is a possibility that power-sharing akin to that which existed on the Ryukyu Islands from '52 to '72 might be attempted in any one of these locations, but the populations of these regions are far smaller then that and may well be dominated by their American garrisons. I don't believe there are enough people on any of these islands to really influence any negotiation in favor of the British, even if we were to assume that there wasn't a major demographic decline in the aftermath of the War.
Both of those division designs are extremely odd and off-meta because they don't have combat widths that are divisors of 40 (or whatever the per-attack-direction combat width is in ULTRA, if they changed it). Leaving that aside, though, the ULTRA tank division looks about as powerful as a 40-width tank division in base game or any other mod, with similar overall stats except for a poor organization. But this isn't really a big deal when you're packing 800 soft attack, which with modifiers probably easily goes up above 1000, and do relatively limited attacks instead of blitzes. Note that it would absolutely demolish the infantry division you have thanks to having breakthrough ("offensive resiliency") significantly greater than the infantry division's soft attack and hard attack adjusted for the tank division's hardness and enormous firepower. In other words, it gains you precisely nothing except that you remove one of the key aspects of modern warfare! In fact, those "40" width divisions actually require less manpower than a 40-width division would in base game (or TNO) and possibly less equipment, so that the changes being made incentivize you to build even more of them.
The ULTRA infantry division you have is an absolutely craptacular waste of time and industry, although it could somewhat easily be modified to be slightly less bad (by replacing one of the artillery battalions with an infantry battalion). Mostly that persuades me that artillery would be a complete waste of industry and research time in the mod. The meta would obviously be to build pure infantry divisions larded up with support companies to hold the line, and armor divisions to handle everything else. At most you might build enough artillery to fill support artillery companies, but that would be a distinctly secondary priority.
Which, it should be clear, is bad. Not only does it remove an actual reasonable choice from the game (right now, deciding whether to use 14/4s or some 40-width tank division is a genuinely significant choice, and you can make reasonable arguments either way depending on country and whether or not you're in single-player), but it makes one of the key supporting arms of actual real-life armies functionally useless. The game is already filled up enough with battalions and arms that saw use in reality but have little or only very specialized uses in-game (not even counting super-heavy tanks, which of course saw little use in reality), adding more just makes it even less similar to reality and renders the whole division design aspect pointless. You might as well just create a version of chess or Risk. It would have about as much connection with reality.
I'm not a modder, I'm a player who keeps track of what the meta is in base game and tries to adjust it for the unique conditions of mods (e.g., the fact that the combat battalions available in TNO are quite different than in base game). So I certainly don't know.
I'll try to put together some "equivalent" Combat Width Divisions, best as I can within the ULTRA limitations, for both Tanks and Artillery. I was trying to account for the total number of Battalions that ULTRA had, but in retrospect I should indeed have been trying to compare it to the traditional Meta compositions. At the very least that will give a more accurate picture in terms of what I should have been measuring.
Again the Tanks are weird as the equipment is not standard from country to country; the Tanks shown there are based on the ULTRA team's estimations of the M46 or M47 Patton. I mind need to manually crunch those numbers, provided they ever changed the base MBT in the game files.
Edit: Combat Width in ULTRA is (96) as opposed to (80).
So below I have tried to set up a handful of Divisions in both ULTRA and TNO according the present Meta in terms of templates; ULTRA makes it so that (40) Width Divisions are impossible, so those presented are all (20) Width instead.
The important factor is combat width per extra attacking direction, since common sense says that you want to fit as many divisions into your combat width as possible without going over, i.e. a whole number that is a divisor of the per-direction combat width. In base game, the extra width per additional direction is 40 (i.e., if you attack from two directions the combat width is 120, three 160, etc. etc.), ergo this is the number that you want to design around (not 80, although it is admittedly impossible to do so). Presumably in ULTRA the width per additional attacking direction is 48 (i.e., half of 96), ergo given that 40-width divisions are "impossible" you would design around 24-width divisions (not 20-width). The meta is built around assuming certain roles within the limits of fitting whole numbers of divisions into that combat width, therefore changing the combat width changes the meta.
Given the absolute crap breakthrough provided by artillery in the screenshots you show later, the on-meta infantry division for ULTRA (assuming we're not using space marines or other semi-exploits) would then be a 12/0 division, with artillery in the support company at most. The extremely poor breakthrough means that designing your infantry divisions around any kind of offensive role is a pointless waste of time that will just lead to heavy losses, and since the only purpose of artillery is to enable offensives there is no reason to build them at all. The only purpose of these infantry divisions is to be a beef wall to hold off enemy forces while your tanks and CAS/attack helicopters do all the real work. The only remotely sensible offensive force would be a tank division of probably 4/6, that is 4 tank battalions and 6 mechanized battalions (in the TNO context, where there isn't as much reason to use motorized in your tank division). This would probably be able to thrash the infantry divisions pretty well, although I'm not 100% sure since you just reposted the tank divisions you designed earlier.
Given that 20 (or, in this case, 24-width) divisions generally have limited offensive potential in any case, though, this would probably mostly end up recreating WWI, with a series of very limited offensives to break individual defensive lines and very slowly attrit the enemy through overruns and encirclements, with maneuver warfare only taking place once the enemy army has been functionally destroyed. This would be great if this was a WWI mod, but it is actually representing modern warfare, which is far more focused on rapid offensives, breakthroughs, and maneuver. Therefore, the changes being proposed would just make the combat system and division design less realistic and appropriate for the time period.
Last edited:
I was reading up on the real-life Himmler, and it turns out Faithful Heinrich had a daughter.
Apparently, she became an ardent Nazi supporter after WW2; her friends said "that Gudrun created a "golden image" of her father, to atone for the father she wished she had". Himmler regularly cheated on his own wife. Wowzers.
I wonder what Panzer would do with her living in Burgandy? Can anyone spin-off any interesting TNO events? Perhaps a contrasting event where we are shown Himmler being happy with his daughter, but the story is interlaced with the perspective of a concentration camp prisoner?
Apparently, she became an ardent Nazi supporter after WW2; her friends said "that Gudrun created a "golden image" of her father, to atone for the father she wished she had". Himmler regularly cheated on his own wife. Wowzers.
I wonder what Panzer would do with her living in Burgandy? Can anyone spin-off any interesting TNO events? Perhaps a contrasting event where we are shown Himmler being happy with his daughter, but the story is interlaced with the perspective of a concentration camp prisoner?
I remember when she died, there was a note of how she had went on a rambling for hours on a tribunal denying the holocaust some time before and the judge replied that the saddest part of the whole episode was that he had a woman on her late 80s with a perfect health saying atrocious things like that, she seems like the naive optimistic like Eva Braun
Cold Southern Springs sub mod for TNO have announced a demo to be released within the next following months:
Cold Southern Springs: Illusions' End.
The demo will bring 4-5 years of content to the ABC countries (Argentina, Brazil & Chile).
Cold Southern Springs: Illusions' End.
The demo will bring 4-5 years of content to the ABC countries (Argentina, Brazil & Chile).
As someone with citizenship in a country with a parliamentary rule, the devs did a great job in gameplay mechanics.
As someone from the Land Down Under I agree though our Parliament is a lot more stable somehow
You're lucky. Our parliament isn't stable in the last couple of years.
Last edited:
chankljp
Donor
1:26
'The worst of all democracies is better than the best of all dictatorships.'
Considering that this is from a video about the ways that the democracy mechanics for a country that will be reforming itself from fascism works.... Why do I have a sinking feeling that under the right condition, Italy could end up as one of the aforementioned 'worst of all democracies'?
Alternatively, despite the upcoming rework of Italy's continued fascism path under Scorza, perhaps the country can become a 'best of all dictatorships' if you max out the amount of reforms that you carry out?
- Status