Re: Re: generic tech sharing event?
Can the event check to see what techs we already have so we don't get what we already know?
Can the event check to see what techs we already have so we don't get what we already know?
-
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.
US Aircraft Exports to France
Armyknife:
There are various events (depending on who is president) which gives the US player a choice on how liberally to sell arms to the Allies between the outbreak of the war and the fall of France. This comes across as greater or lesser number of new IC in the USA.
Also, France ordered 270 A-20's under the DB-7 model number. Belgium ordered an unspecified number of aircraft as well. France fell before all could be delivered, but Britain picked them up as the Boston I (DB-7), Boston II (DB-7A) and Boston III (DB-7B). Given that production numbers far exceed actual deployed unit quantities, this would barely be enough to equip one HOI air unit for a significant period of time.
Armyknife:
There are various events (depending on who is president) which gives the US player a choice on how liberally to sell arms to the Allies between the outbreak of the war and the fall of France. This comes across as greater or lesser number of new IC in the USA.
Also, France ordered 270 A-20's under the DB-7 model number. Belgium ordered an unspecified number of aircraft as well. France fell before all could be delivered, but Britain picked them up as the Boston I (DB-7), Boston II (DB-7A) and Boston III (DB-7B). Given that production numbers far exceed actual deployed unit quantities, this would barely be enough to equip one HOI air unit for a significant period of time.
The French air force is particularly strange. I have found accounts that over 700 Moraine Saulner's were in service in 1940, I can find very few active units, nowhere close to the 700. The French air force was very small in September 1939, with their industry really going to bloom in 1941 (I have seen some predictions that were based upon 1940 trends, which would have had France as a powerhouse in 1941). The French production of fighters and bombers really shot up from 1939 to 1940. I would say, at maximum, about 1/10th of all French warplanes were imported. Most of the US aircraft were kept in North Africa, which is why there were high numbers of US planes in their inventory in 1942.
About 1 fighter group, and 1 bomber group, maximum, would be recieved before the Fall of France. Also, probably only a maximum of another bomber and another fighter would have been sent, had the war been more favourable and France remained in the conflict. Domestic production would have surpassed need (French tank and air production was superior to England from 1939-1940). US lend lease was important only because France was expanding so fast.
About 1 fighter group, and 1 bomber group, maximum, would be recieved before the Fall of France. Also, probably only a maximum of another bomber and another fighter would have been sent, had the war been more favourable and France remained in the conflict. Domestic production would have surpassed need (French tank and air production was superior to England from 1939-1940). US lend lease was important only because France was expanding so fast.
That sounds about right. A lot of the US planes were relatively light patrol planes that represented minimal differences from civil airliners. The DB-7 was a full-bore basic tactical bomber, but I think it would be part of that undelivered bomber unit that McNaughton suggested.
Yeah, the Hawk 75's made their mark during the battle of France, but the imported bombers were still being formed in time for the battle. Also, it wouldn't be tech sharing, as France had the technology to build these aircraft (in fact, theirs were better), but just a matter of needing equipment at that period of time.
Then could an event be written that allows us to choose which to send and which to receive?
I would like to just toss my two cents in on this. I have never seen the commonwealth nations having problems with being so far behind the UK that their units are worthless, however this is a constant problem for germany and her various minor allies.
I know that taking the German minors, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and to a lesser degree Italy, upto a better tech level would be ahistorical. Yet without constant tech pumping by Germany the minors are worthless. I find as Germany it is allways a better option to go ahead and DOW and annex all the balkans. With Yugo, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria out of the way you up your IC's by ~150, with Frick as minister. The cost to garrison the Balkans is a paltry 15 infantry, I prefer 3 infantry per beach since this can hold off ~10 divisions on the defense on a beach which will provide ample time to get reinforcements there.
Unless the German minors can be brought upto a level where they are useful then allowing them into the Axis only hurts the German player, god help the AI.
My proposition is this. Have a german event fire when germany researches every "gold" tech in infantry, armor, artillery and land doctrine. This event will then check to insure that the german minors are members of the axis, if they are then they receive the techs that germany has researched in those fields as follows, infantry 2 "gold" levels back, armor 3 levels back, artillery 2 levels back, and land doctrines 3 levels back.
Without some form of research grant to the minors they are nearly useless, they cant even hold a beach reliably. Germany is almost always better off with the IC's and resources of the balkans rather than have balkan allies.
I know that taking the German minors, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and to a lesser degree Italy, upto a better tech level would be ahistorical. Yet without constant tech pumping by Germany the minors are worthless. I find as Germany it is allways a better option to go ahead and DOW and annex all the balkans. With Yugo, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria out of the way you up your IC's by ~150, with Frick as minister. The cost to garrison the Balkans is a paltry 15 infantry, I prefer 3 infantry per beach since this can hold off ~10 divisions on the defense on a beach which will provide ample time to get reinforcements there.
Unless the German minors can be brought upto a level where they are useful then allowing them into the Axis only hurts the German player, god help the AI.
My proposition is this. Have a german event fire when germany researches every "gold" tech in infantry, armor, artillery and land doctrine. This event will then check to insure that the german minors are members of the axis, if they are then they receive the techs that germany has researched in those fields as follows, infantry 2 "gold" levels back, armor 3 levels back, artillery 2 levels back, and land doctrines 3 levels back.
Without some form of research grant to the minors they are nearly useless, they cant even hold a beach reliably. Germany is almost always better off with the IC's and resources of the balkans rather than have balkan allies.
A word of suggestion to modders creating events that have tech and units gained, if you have a unit arrive in their force pool in the SAME event that they get technology, the unit will be composed of equipment in the inventory PRIOR to the event. It doesn't matter that after the event they will have this technology. For example, I kept on wondering why Hungary was building WW1 era tanks, when I had their panzer production down to zero. The problem is, in the even that gives them German equipment, the techs and units arrive in the same event, resulting in the unit being equipped with obsolete material (regardless of the fact that the event gave them new tech).
A way to solve this (annoying as it is), is to create a sub event, that ocurrs immediately after the get the event, which is the arrival of the new equipment. Even if the event ocurr's in the same hour, the new tech is ingrained in their system and this new unit will be of the latest technology.
I am going to totally revamp all of the existing tech sharing (mainly between Germany and the Balkans) to fix these problems, as well as to expand things (more than just tanks, Germany and Italy sent aircraft and small arms).
A way to solve this (annoying as it is), is to create a sub event, that ocurrs immediately after the get the event, which is the arrival of the new equipment. Even if the event ocurr's in the same hour, the new tech is ingrained in their system and this new unit will be of the latest technology.
I am going to totally revamp all of the existing tech sharing (mainly between Germany and the Balkans) to fix these problems, as well as to expand things (more than just tanks, Germany and Italy sent aircraft and small arms).
Azkor said:
What I think would be the ideal solution would be a chain of event like this one:
- Germany discovers technology A -> an event fires asking Germany if they want to share the now obsolete technology B with either of:
- All allies of Germany; or
- Only the closest allies of Germany; or
- No one.
- If either of the two above options is chosen, a confirmation event fires up.
- An event fires for each country that:
- If Germany chose the first option: is allied with Germany and is at war; or
- If Germany chose the second option: is allied with Germany, is at war, and has a paternal autocrat, fascist or national-socialist governement.
Idealy, this should be done for every country in the game (to take into account completely ahistorical situation), and for most technologies, and also be done for the USSR and the USA and/or United Kingdom.
The order the three options appears could then vary with the level of the technology (for higher levels, the default would be "only closest allies", for instance).
The problem is that this would lead to a huge amount of events: writing them is not the problem since that task could be mostly automated, but I am not sure the program will be able to tolerate this.
Now, off course, the number of events might be reduced by:
- Leaving out some of the countries.
- Reducing the number of technologies to be shared this way, or grouping them into packages.
While this is a nice idea, it's going to be a logistical nightmare in terms of scripting and triggers. We're talking a lot of events here. IMO, it would be better to condense as many of these as possible into "sales of technology" events, to keep them to a bare minimum. That way, every so often (8months to a year), a "package" can be sent to various allies, with some return for Germany (resources, supplies, etc).
JRaup said:
While I think that "packages" might actually be the way to go, I fail to see where the logistical nightmare would lie... One would just need a huge block of event ID numbers, a table listing the "trigger" technologies and the "triggered" technologies, a table with countries tags, and write a small program that would write the events: there are basically only three of them (a trigger event, a confirmation event and a technology transfer event), declines with different technology IDs and countries tags...
Someone wrote somewhere a "tech sharing" mod that works with the "steal_tech" command. Based on this, I quickly wrote one that works the same way, but with an added "trigger" event that asks the major power, for each of its allies minor countries, whether this minor country should received techs or not, and, if the answer is positive, fires the event for that minor with the steal_tech command.
There is one such event for each pair of (one of the three main major power, minor country) every six months, which already makes quite a bunch of events (10 000 or more, don't remember exactly), but this is quite manageable, and does not slow the game at all... Off course, the catch is that with this system, there is no offset for those events... which would not be the case here.
So, no, the real question is whether or not the program would be able to handle an event bigger amount of event with offsets...
Tnerual said:
10,000 events?! That's more than a few. Given this, with the current number of events already in CORE, with more of a historical necessity, this already makes it unmanagable. The game engine is going to choke for people on systems that aren't top of the line, as we are already seeing this (memory spikes, other hangs, CTDs). So, minimize the number events as much as possible. You also need to account for any ahistorical situations, as you wouldn't want Germany selling techs to a member of the Allies. Plus, you have to determine what if anything is historical. That's going to be a litmus test for these. Right now, there are some events that do this (Tank techs mostly to Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria). Add to this, it in some ways restricts what a human player can do, and can force them to make a bad choice. Then there is the AI also. What will this do to the Eastern front? I know from playing Germany, and liberally sharing my techs, that this kills the Soviets early and often. It also will keep an Allied landing from ever being successfull. On the whole, a few additional "sales" to the Axis minors isn't a bad idea, and should be done. But not anything as massive as this.
JRaup said:
You might be right, yes.
Now, please note that:
- Those 8 603 (just checked) events where running just fine along with C.O.R.E. 0.532;
- This was on an iBook with a 700 MHz PowerPC G3, so nothing spectacular;
- I was really surprised when I ran it the first time, because I experienced no noticeable slow-down at all...
As far as in-game effects are concerned, what I noticed, playing as Germany, was mainly that it made the Western Allies somewhat stronger... while not really changing much for Germany proper (other than not having to bother manually sharing techs every 7 days).
On the other hand, doing something like explained above would require, for each technology:
- Three "trigger events" (one for Germany, one for the Soviet Union, and one for the UK and/or USA), and
- Six "confirmation events" (one "for all allies" and one for "closest allies only" for each of those three sharing powers),
- One "effect event" for each country in the game.
Leaving out Rockets and Nuclear which shouldn't be shared anyway, this leaves us with around 580 technologies, I think. This means that taking all of them into account individually would require something like 140 000 events, which is an order of magnitude higher than what was tested there...
What's more, those event would need:
- More complex trigger conditions; and
- An offset.
So, working with "packages" seems mandatory. 40 of them would mean around 10 000 events, which might be too much in this case given those last two points, but I think it might be worth a try...
Finaly, to give a better idea about what I have in mind, here is what one of those "effect event" would look like:
Code:
#########################################################################
# 1223221 - Tibet gains technology " Desert Warfare Equipment" (Tech id : 1105)
#########################################################################
event = {
id = 1223221
random = no
country = TIB
trigger = {
NOT = { technology = 1105 }
OR = {
AND = {
alliance = { country = TIB country = ENG }
OR = {
AND = {
event = 1223113 # UK chose to share with closest allies only
alignment = democratic
government = democratic
}
event = 1223114 # UK chose to share with all allies
}
}
AND = {
alliance = { country = TIB country = GER }
OR = {
AND = {
event = 1223116 # Germany chose to share with closest allies only
alignment = fascist
government = fascist
}
event = 1223117
}
}
AND = {
alliance = { country = TIB country = SOV }
OR = {
AND = {
event = 1223119
alignment = communist
government = communist
}
event = 1223120
}
}
}
}
name = "Technology Transfer - Desert Warfare Equipment"
desc = "We just received the Desert Warfare Equipment technology from our allies..."
style = 0
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1938 }
offset = 300 # Check for trigger conditions every 300 days - No need for more, as the whole process should take time
deathdate = { day = 30 month = december year = 1947 }
action_a = {
name = "Ok!"
command = { type = gain_tech which = 1105 }
}
}OK, I see where you want to go with this. even so, I think that narrowing it down even further in terms of what techs get shared, and to whom, will go far. IMO I think that this should only apply the usual suspects, especially for the Axis and the Allies. the soviets aren't all that big into exportation of arms in the period (unlike in the imediate post-war world), so I'd forget about those events entirely, excepting what's in already. USA Tech sharing should probably be placed into Lend-Lease events, as that's where most of it came from anyway. The Allies beyond teh USA, don't really need any events. The UK is quite generous with the Allies (even the minor ones), and most of the other CW nations, and even France will give out techs. Plus, there were a number of "military missions" by the UK, USA, USSR, Germany, and Italy that should give techs as well, and many aren't in CORE yet. So, given all that, we'd be looking at a series of events for Germany to share some techs with their allies. Even so, I perosnally think this should be more for the AI than a human player. It forces a decision that is in many ways, ahistorical, no matter which option is chosen. As a help for the AI, I think this will be great, but isn't so hot for human players.
Last time massive tech sharing was tested the feedback was very clear that it was unbalancing. A typical example is China joining the Allies in 1936 which then stops any Japanese invasion completely due to total Chinese superiority at no cost to China or the Allies.
Looking at 'tech sharing' I think that historically it was VERY limited in scope.
I have created (am creating) about 100+ events dealing with tech sharing (new events, plus replacements) that are more 'generic' and are based also upon historic plausibility.
Would England waste time giving technology to Tibet? I don't think so, so why waste time/effort on them?
What we have to look at are the key nations. The key minor allies that were either supplied with equipment, or would have been should they have joined a particular side. These are mainly European nations.
With just a few events, trading limited technology, you can get minor nations up to par regardless of the side that they join, and without loads of events (so it is less leading than the current tech sharing that aid nations only if you follow history, i.e. Bulgaria only gets tech if they join the Germans, but nothing if they join the Soviets). Tech sharing/selling really is limited in scope, and can be simply applied if done well.
There is an existing automatic tech sharing system in place between allies. What we just need to do is to provide key technologies (tanks, planes, guns) instead of random techs.
Tech sharing under specific circumstances representing historic or plausible (i.e., what if nation X joined alliance Y instead of alliance Z) that provide limited and specialized technology is really the best option.
I have created (am creating) about 100+ events dealing with tech sharing (new events, plus replacements) that are more 'generic' and are based also upon historic plausibility.
Would England waste time giving technology to Tibet? I don't think so, so why waste time/effort on them?
What we have to look at are the key nations. The key minor allies that were either supplied with equipment, or would have been should they have joined a particular side. These are mainly European nations.
With just a few events, trading limited technology, you can get minor nations up to par regardless of the side that they join, and without loads of events (so it is less leading than the current tech sharing that aid nations only if you follow history, i.e. Bulgaria only gets tech if they join the Germans, but nothing if they join the Soviets). Tech sharing/selling really is limited in scope, and can be simply applied if done well.
There is an existing automatic tech sharing system in place between allies. What we just need to do is to provide key technologies (tanks, planes, guns) instead of random techs.
Tech sharing under specific circumstances representing historic or plausible (i.e., what if nation X joined alliance Y instead of alliance Z) that provide limited and specialized technology is really the best option.
McNaughton said:
Without having ever studying the question, I would say you are probably right on this: transfer of military technologies was limited in scope (and still is).
Massive transfer of technology within the game would thus clearly be, per see, unhistorical...
On the other hand, the research model used in HoI is also quite unrealistic. While the technology tree is actually quite nicely done (even more so when using C.O.R.E.), the idea that a massive use of IC has to be used to make any kind of technological progress is completely out of whack ,or, at the least, the balance between production costs, supply (and maintenance) costs and research costs is completely wrong...
At the same time, there should also be some sort of “discount” in research costs, for technologies that have already been discovered and implemented by others...
End result: the technological gap between major and minor nations doesn’t stop growing, from something quite realistic at the start –because such a gap was existing- to something really excessive towards the end of the game.
This, in turn, makes minor allies more of a liabilities than an asset, at least past 1940 or so, and remove almost most interest from the already limited diplomatic element of the game...
For a human player, the solution is to engage into some regular technology sharing with its minor allies, to turn them into something a little bit less fragile. That solution works quite well with the game as it stands. Unfortunately,
- It means one have to remember to go into a round of “tech sharing” every 7 game-days, which fast become really tedious since the ergonomics of the game are so great...
- It puts the AI at an even bigger disadvantage against a human player, since said AI will not beef its allies in the same way.
All of this to say I think that whether or not those technology transfer where, per see, reaslistc or not should necessarily be what matters. I see it as a choice between:
- ”Realistic” technology sharing only, with “unrealistic” weak minor countries; or
- ”Unrealistic” technology sharing, with minor countries of a more “realistic” strength.
... knowing that none of those are really fully satisfactory, and that other issues should also comes under consideration (the most important being play balance).
McNaughton said:
I agree that Tibet should be left out of this, along, I would guess, with other Asian minors.
On the other hand, most –if not all- European nations should be included, so as to avoid that they fall hopelessly behind... and, I guess, most of American minors should be too...
That still leaves us with quite a bunch of countries...
McNaughton said:
The technology packages to be traded should include, I think:
- Most Infantry technologies, including Artillery technologies relevant to infantry units;
- Some (i.e. when they really become obsolete for the major power) Tank, and Aircraft technologies, and related Artillery technologies;
- For potential naval powers only, some Marine and Submarine technologies.
Electronics, Nuclear and Rockets should probably left completely out. I would also leave most Doctrines out (unless they are required as prerequisites for something that should be shared, maybe, or maybe the most basic ones when the major power is getting really far ahead?). I am less sure about what to do with Production...
Those tech sharing events should be triggered by the technology level of the main allied major power...
The tech tree has been massively over-hauled for v0.7, this includes major changes to the IC cost of development.
Looking at their TOE's, minor nations really did have little change from their military inventory from 1939-1945. Nations like Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. generally used the same weapons that they did in 1945 that they did in 1939. The main changes come in the form of armour and aircraft, and even these are never top of the line (except for some Me. 109-G's given in 1943).
As Steel said, there is a major tech tree overhaul. This makes tech sharing a bit easier, as there is no longer the massive increase of stats based upon gaining a wack of small techs. There are no longer 6+ artillery guns which you research and all implement into your army early in the game.
Minors are never, nor should never, be the equal of the master nation. The only real exception to this rule is the Commonwealth. They recieved top of the line equipment, and in uniform amounts, so that they almost completely emulated their mother country. Very few nations could match this.
Tech sharing should not give nations access to the entire tree, but pockets of it. They will get the specified equipment, but not the techs in-between. It is basically a stop-gap in order to get these nations from using Great War tanks, and Pre-War aircraft, plus some limited increases of troop strength.
Also, in HoI there is a lot of potential manipulation of the game. Sure, it is easier to conquer instead of use minors, but it is also making it easier on yourself. Realistically these minors were pretty much 'useless' compared to your own military, so why not exist with this realistic handicap instead of creating an unrealistic balance?
The tech sharing I have tested does improve the minors. Giving them just basic weaponry (even if it is light tanks and fighters) really does improve their performance. Sure, they are not quite as useful should you annex them and use their MP/IC, but they now are able to take on other minor nations (since they have improved equipment), and are able to at least hold off against majors (until you come and save them).
As Steel said, there is a major tech tree overhaul. This makes tech sharing a bit easier, as there is no longer the massive increase of stats based upon gaining a wack of small techs. There are no longer 6+ artillery guns which you research and all implement into your army early in the game.
Minors are never, nor should never, be the equal of the master nation. The only real exception to this rule is the Commonwealth. They recieved top of the line equipment, and in uniform amounts, so that they almost completely emulated their mother country. Very few nations could match this.
Tech sharing should not give nations access to the entire tree, but pockets of it. They will get the specified equipment, but not the techs in-between. It is basically a stop-gap in order to get these nations from using Great War tanks, and Pre-War aircraft, plus some limited increases of troop strength.
Also, in HoI there is a lot of potential manipulation of the game. Sure, it is easier to conquer instead of use minors, but it is also making it easier on yourself. Realistically these minors were pretty much 'useless' compared to your own military, so why not exist with this realistic handicap instead of creating an unrealistic balance?
The tech sharing I have tested does improve the minors. Giving them just basic weaponry (even if it is light tanks and fighters) really does improve their performance. Sure, they are not quite as useful should you annex them and use their MP/IC, but they now are able to take on other minor nations (since they have improved equipment), and are able to at least hold off against majors (until you come and save them).