C.O.R.E. Tech Tree: Land units, techs and doctrines

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by nachinus
Ive made a bit more rehearsal about combat. You were right Copper, land combat works fine, battle lengths are fine and loses ratio is fine too. What seems to unbalance all is air support.
(...)

You are absolutely right - that's why planes are totally reworked in 0.6.

1) Cost - higher.

2) Availability - Improved planes need doctrine to be build,

3) Attack effectiveness - lower,

4) Fighters vs bombers - fighters are now visibly better.

5) Night effectiveness of tactical attacks - close to zero (new modifiers).

6) Bad weather attacks - serious drop of effectiveness.

That's for 0.6. Usually it works fine - even Yankees with their B-26 Mitchell's got problems with 'fast kill' of Nationalists divisions.

Still got some ideas for 0.7 including carrier CAG's, light/heavy fighters and other stuff... Stay tuned!

 

[nachinus]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
You are absolutely right - that's why planes are totally reworked in 0.6.

1) Cost - higher.

2) Availability - Improved planes need doctrine to be build,

3) Attack effectiveness - lower,

4) Fighters vs bombers - fighters are now visibly better.

5) Night effectiveness of tactical attacks - close to zero (new modifiers).

6) Bad weather attacks - serious drop of effectiveness.

That's for 0.6. Usually it works fine - even Yankees with their B-26 Mitchell's got problems with 'fast kill' of Nationalists divisions.

Still got some ideas for 0.7 including carrier CAG's, light/heavy fighters and other stuff... Stay tuned!

Excellent, Copper!! You seem to have everything under control

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by nachinus
Excellent, Copper!! You seem to have everything under control

Will see - so far it works just on one machine... But I hope we will release 0.6 someday...

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Base MP Costs

How come the MP cost for Mountain Divisions are 6, militia is 7 and reg inf is 8 in Core .52? I would think that special divions (marines/mountain/paras) should be 20-30% higher than regular infantry divisions to simulate the more rigorous selection criteria for personnel.

 

[jdrou]

Re: Base MP Costs

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
How come the MP cost for Mountain Divisions are 6, militia is 7 and reg inf is 8 in Core .52? I would think that special divions (marines/mountain/paras) should be 20-30% higher than regular infantry divisions to simulate the more rigorous selection criteria for personnel.

HoI's 1.05b patch even made that change: mountain/marines are now 13MP and paras are 15MP. (Inf/Mot/Mech are all 10.)
However, I think C.O.R.E. may be trying to emphasize the "light" nature of the specialized divisions. Those costs seem rather low to me though. They may just be leftover from when actual costs were double what was in the unit files.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Re: Base MP Costs

Originally posted by jdrou
HoI's 1.05b patch even made that change: mountain/marines are now 13MP and paras are 15MP. (Inf/Mot/Mech are all 10.)
However, I think C.O.R.E. may be trying to emphasize the "light" nature of the specialized divisions. Those costs seem rather low to me though. They may just be leftover from when actual costs were double what was in the unit files.

I think you are close to the right answer - basic infantry div is more MP demanding because of 'heavy' character, and 'light infantry' usually got lower MP cost (excluding paratroopers) then standard G.I.'s.
To be honest I don't think that following vanilla pattern blindly is good idea in case of CORE - we have done too many modifications (like drop of manpower, other costs of divs, new techs, and more to come in 0.6...) that some changes 'imported' from latest patches could make more harm.
I still like the latest fuel usage change - have to test it in game...

Below you will see infantry build stats in CORE 0.6. Basic idea was:

1) infantry - moderate cost, high manpower demand (important especialy when replenishments are needed), moderate time.

2) bergsjager - higher cost (training, equipment), similar manpower demand (less people, but higher standard), a bit longer time (training).

3) marine - higher cost, higher manpower demand (marine divs were not smaller than inf., higher standard), seriously longer time of training (in game marines are visibly better, thanks to more bonuses/techs - it have to be balanced).

4) paras - balance, balance... even after all the changes, paras are still powerfull, as they can make "strategic paradrop".

5) militia - cheap, fast and MP similar to infantry (more people, but lower standard - it will alsohelp to simulate high rate of casualties among those units).

Infantry (basic):
	cost 					= 5
	buildtime	 			= 90
	manpower 				= 10 #+2

Bergsjager:
	cost 					= 7
	buildtime	 			= 120
	manpower 				= 8 # +2

Marine:
	cost 					= 7 # Equipment
	buildtime	 			= 150 # Elites
	manpower 				= 12 #+2

Paras:
	cost 					= 18
	buildtime				= 180
	manpower 				= 12 #Elites

Militia:
	cost 					= 2
	buildtime	 			= 45
	manpower 				= 7

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Looks good to me thanks.

 

[jdrou]

Yes, the three "+2" changes make it look much more reasonable.

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Airborne Tank Problem

Core 0.53 & 1.05b (NA)

With the 0.53 release Airborne Tank doesn't have the (real) required prerequisits: Basic Air Transport & Airborne Glider Training. I've brought this up before here I think.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Airborne Tank Problem

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
Core 0.53 & 1.05b (NA)

With the 0.53 release Airborne Tank doesn't have the (real) required prerequisits: Basic Air Transport & Airborne Glider Training. I've brought this up before here I think.

I'm pretty sure that earlier you were talking only about "Mechanized Airborne Doctrine".

But ok, it seems reasonable.

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

I will, if you like, propose an updated interconnection of supporting airborne related techs. It is prone to rushing in 0.531 by humans. Since the AI doesn't build paras it should slow down the human use of paras which should be a good thing.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
I will, if you like, propose an updated interconnection of supporting airborne related techs. It is prone to rushing in 0.531 by humans. Since the AI doesn't build paras it should slow done the human use of paras which should be a good thing.

Seems fine to me - but we would have also re-check OOB's of some 'parachute pioneers' like USSR and Germany (and probably add some techs to make them able develop their historical airborne ability on time). Especially USSR.

 

[Gwalcmai]

A question on the 'standard ammunition' tech. How standardized must that ammunition be? Shouldn't the UK have that tech at the start? After all, every british light weapon I know of used the .303 Brtitish. SMLE, Lewis LMG, Vickers MG, the BREN... And that policy in the UK forces came from WWI.

But maybe I'm wrong about that tech...

 

[Halibutt]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
A question on the 'standard ammunition' tech. How standardized must that ammunition be? Shouldn't the UK have that tech at the start? After all, every british light weapon I know of used the .303 Brtitish. SMLE, Lewis LMG, Vickers MG, the BREN... And that policy in the UK forces came from WWI.

But maybe I'm wrong about that tech...

Well, this tech looks really strange. Most countries I know (Poland included) were using standarized caliber since WWI...
Cheers

 

[nachinus]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
A question on the 'standard ammunition' tech. How standardized must that ammunition be? Shouldn't the UK have that tech at the start? After all, every british light weapon I know of used the .303 Brtitish. SMLE, Lewis LMG, Vickers MG, the BREN... And that policy in the UK forces came from WWI.

But maybe I'm wrong about that tech...

You forgot the SMGs:
Sten: 9mm Parabellum
Thompson: .45 ACP

But yes, the smg category is the only one that didnt use standarizaed ammo in the UK army.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Originally posted by Halibutt
Well, this tech looks really strange. Most countries I know (Poland included) were using standarized caliber since WWI...
Cheers

I undertand Germany wasn't, but I could be very wrong. And then there's the case of Portugal, who had standardized caliber to the same extent as the Brits (as the POR army was armed with SMLE, Lewis and Vickers) but in '37 decided to give that up and change the rifle to K98.

Originally posted by nachinus

But yes, the smg category is the only one that didnt use standarizaed ammo in the UK army.

Did many armies reach a higher level of ammo standardization during WWII? If not, this tech does seem a little off.

 

[Irsich]

Re: Re: Re: Base MP Costs

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
I think you are close to the right answer - basic infantry div is more MP demanding because of 'heavy' character, and 'light infantry' usually got lower MP cost (excluding paratroopers) then standard G.I.'s.
To be honest I don't think that following vanilla pattern blindly is good idea in case of CORE - we have done too many modifications (like drop of manpower, other costs of divs, new techs, and more to come in 0.6...) that some changes 'imported' from latest patches could make more harm.
I still like the latest fuel usage change - have to test it in game...

Below you will see infantry build stats in CORE 0.6. Basic idea was:

1) infantry - moderate cost, high manpower demand (important especialy when replenishments are needed), moderate time.

2) bergsjager - higher cost (training, equipment), similar manpower demand (less people, but higher standard), a bit longer time (training).

3) marine - higher cost, higher manpower demand (marine divs were not smaller than inf., higher standard), seriously longer time of training (in game marines are visibly better, thanks to more bonuses/techs - it have to be balanced).

4) paras - balance, balance... even after all the changes, paras are still powerfull, as they can make "strategic paradrop".

5) militia - cheap, fast and MP similar to infantry (more people, but lower standard - it will alsohelp to simulate high rate of casualties among those units).

[/code]

I'm a bit disa^pointed by the "super-marines effect from CORE. I think the whole special infantery div (Para, Mnt, Marines) have too be around the same training time and manpower cost and some tech may improve each model. Why are the Marine so strong (groundefense and softattack)? May be that was right in the US army but for the german for exemple i think their Paratroopers were real elites and commando units when if they should have developp Marines they won't have been as effectives as the US one were.

I know Marines get a bit more "heavy stuff" than the Paratrooper but Bergjaeger can get the same type of stuff. I my opinion all this units are Infantery troops wich get special equipement, entrainement and recruit and who are able to deal with a special mission (Landing, Mountains, Paradroops) but out of this they are "Infantery" with better recruitement who should have the same abilities at start. A good marines unit may took more time too train than a normal bergjaeger one but the opposite has to be true.
As Germany, I wich i could developp just "basic marines, landing unit" to delt with england/Norway landing and have the good paratroopers that's made great jobs in Holland (at high price i know..)

So, a same time and manpower cost for this 3 special type unit would be wise. Some tech the country can pick should improve each troops specifically after that. (Already existe with special materials and the rest...) The whole Marines thing seem really American view bias. That's maybe plain true for US but it didn't fit for all the country (french marines, pretty poor, Italian bergjaeger pretty good, german and British paratroopers real elites evens if they paid price...)

 

[JRaup]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
A question on the 'standard ammunition' tech. How standardized must that ammunition be? Shouldn't the UK have that tech at the start? After all, every british light weapon I know of used the .303 Brtitish. SMLE, Lewis LMG, Vickers MG, the BREN... And that policy in the UK forces came from WWI.

But maybe I'm wrong about that tech...

I asked one of my trusted gun-nuts about this, and checked things like "The Complete Guide to 20th century Military Small Arms." from what I have found, the following nations should have the standardized ammunition tech in 1936:

UK, plus Ireland, Poland, Australia, south Africa, New Zealand, and Canada
Germany
USA
USSR

Reasoning is thus:
1. UK (and CW), Germany, and USSR had all been using standarized ammo since the 1880's. Ie .303Enfield, 8mmMauser, etc. The US standardized in 1911 (.30-06).
2. These were the major industrial powers as well, with relatively stable political structures. Radical changes in military arms weren't done on a regular basis, or without a great deal of thought.
3. Difference between experimental and service weapons. while they all experimented with varying calibres, the vast majority never saw field service.
4. Standards existed for each category, service rifle, smg, pistol, MG, and even in art'y and tank rounds. One of teh major supply problems for France and Japan (neither of which had standardized until much later, ie after 1945), was the issue of how much of which ammo type to produce and ship where. Japan for example, had a mix of 6.6mm and 7.5mm rifles in teh army, with little to no consistency, even with in units. Thus small arms ammo supply was hit or miss.

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Suggestions for Airborne Doctrine Prerequisites

Suggestions for Airborne Doctrine Prerequisites:

12003 # Airborne Assault Doctrine should have 9201 # Gliders as a prerequisite.

12204 # Vertical Envelopment Doctrine should have 12003 # Airborne Assault Doctrine and 9202 # Airborne Glider Training as as prerequisites.

12203 # Mechanized Airborne Doctrine should have 12204 # Vertical Envelopment Doctrine as a prerequisite.

12404 # Airborne Invasion Organization should have 11205 # Triphibious Operations Doctrine and 9109 # Basic Air Transport as prerequisites.

This will interconnect the air doctrine tree better.

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Problem in Special Forces Doctrine

11510 # Special Forces Doctrine should NOT have 11504 # Elite Unit Doctrine as a Prerequisite, as 11504 is a Germany only Tech.