Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Divisions - Structural improvements

(Hopefully, this is in the right place. Someone please slap me down if it isn't. My apologies, as well, if it's been covered before...)

(re title - I was going to say "organisational", but in HoI that'd get confusing. <g>)

As it stands, in HoI, an infantry division is an infantry division; it can have brigades attatched, which are more units attatched by higher command permanently than organic units, but otherwise remains the same structure - in most cases, the triangular three brigade of three battalion layout, I suppose. In CORE, the Germans can redesign this layout, with the '44 Infantry doctrine; historically, the US did (armoured divisions in 1942, infantry in 1939 - the latter strongly German influenced, interestingly), but this is harder to implement given the wide variety of armoured unit versions.

What I'm thinking of is something similar to the Divisional Recon Battalion tech - a doctrinal approach towards "internalising" assets to divisions, and then an land tech to improve all divisions of a type. CORE has made some moves towards this - the Heavy Tank battalions are an excellent idea, and really delighted me when I started playing it this morning (Tiger divisions always seemed conceptually silly). I see the brigades as being more representative of a single large group of those units attatched by High Command, and the tech improvements suggested here being the equivalent of changing the

Historically, in Europe, most US divisions had a tank battalion or tank-destroyer battalion (all had towed AT battalions, IIRC) added; most US armoured divisions had attatched AA and tank-destroyer battalions.

There's an infantry support tank tech as it stands; I see this as the equivalent of attatching a battalion of assault guns (note it's only soft attack it improves), rather than attatching a standard (as in, similar to those in an armoured division) tank battalion.

So, suggestion:

(I'll put this in "plain", rather than try to write it as a techfile entry; I'd just confuse myself horribly <g>)

*****

Divisional Tank Battalions.
Prequisites: [Basic Med. Tank Prototype] (for the tanks)
and [Combined Arms Warfare Doctrine] (for the concept)
Effect: for both Inf & Mot: +1 Hard Attack (U), +1 Ground
Defence (U), +1 Soft Attack (U), +10d & 1 IC to construct
(U), +0.1 supplies (U), +0.1 fuel consuption for mot (U).

Potentially, after this:

Improved Divisional Tank Battalions.
Prequisites: [Imp. Med. Tank Prototype] (for the tanks)
and [Divisional Tank Battalions] (it's an upgrade)
Effect: for both Inf & Mot: +1 Hard Attack (U)
+1 Ground Defence (U)

Advanced Divisional Tank Battalions.
Prequisites: [Adv. Med. Tank Prototype] (for the tanks)
and [Imp. Divisional Tank Battalions] (it's an upgrade)
Effect: for both Inf & Mot: +1 Hard Attack (U)
+1 Ground Defence (U)

This means that you can continue improving the quality of the attatched tanks by upgrading - to +3 HA, +3 GD, +1 SA - but have the same supply/construction cost throughout. Alternately, these could increase as well - essentially as with the Heavy Tank battalions. Not sure what costs to attatch, though.

*****

There's already a tech for recon battalions, and many, many ones for improving artillery, AA and AT units - if a unit doesn't intrinsically possess these, then these probably should be considered as representing corps-level units in combat. Engineers are already abstracted by a lot of land techs. It seems reduntant to add techs for any of these :)
 
Armor - Mine Discharger question

Searched, but nothing on mine discharger.

Question: as it currently stands, the Armor Level 7 App 'Mine Discharger' gives a Soft Attack +1 increase to Armor.

In my mind, I would think that it should be a Ground Defence +1 increase instead. True, it was used against infantry during the attack as much as in a defending role. But primarily it was a defense for the armor itself (regardless of attack/defense stance) so my thought would be it should still go towards the actual survivabilty (GD) of the unit. Survivability being the keyword here, not it's attack ability.

-PK
 
Shimgray,

I like your thoughts and I think more needs to be done to represent this organization improvement. I am still trying to get my thoughts around your proposal and it's effects on the game.

On looking through the techs I realize that both Mot and Mech types get huge increases from the tank destroyer applications. Light TD's themselves (three apps at Level 4) gain a total of +3 to each type. Then, too, you have the Assault Gun apps that continue to boost Mot/Mech units. Huge increases all together. Still, no increases for the foot divisions at any point, which is appropriate.

Therefore, I would propose that the Divisional Tank Battalions only affect Infantry and not Motorized. While Motorized is obviously superior to the footers, IMO they (Mot.) don't need the additional increase. That may not represent everything historically from an organizational standpoint, but I am seeing it more as a game balance issue. I would also point out that perhaps the gain should increase from what you've proposed, but again I am not sure.

I apologize if I've not properly conceived of what you are trying to replicate. That's a distinct possibility, if not a surety! :)

But I love your ideas. Organizational apps/techs are great!

-PK
 
The Soviet Airborne Forces

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, because the Soviet Union had most of the basic airborne stuff well before 1936. They were indeed the pioneers. Here's some info you can look at: Soviet Jump Boys.

I know the para thing can be used to wallop the AI, but historically speaking what the Soviets should have are:

Infantry Research
Paratrooper Warfare Equipment - Level 2 App

Industrial Research
Nylon - Level 5 App

Heavy Aircraft Research
Gliders - Level 3 App
Paratroopers - Level 3 App
Basic Air Transport - Level 2 App

Air Warfare Doctrines
Vertical Envelopment Doctrine - Level 3 App

The aforementioned is what they did know (I can't be sure on Nylon but the CORE makes it a prereq for Paratrooper Warfare Equipment).

However, I wouldn't give them any of the other organizational researchs such as Airborne Assault Training or Airborne Glider Training, nor would I give them the associated Level Theories that the tech apps or doctrines came from. They need to develop these themselves. Otherwise it is REALLY out of control for Soviet power.

But I wanted to just throw that out there for the historical aspect. I think it should occur. The thing is, the AI won't use it and it really only benefits the human player. But that's something they (say, Germany) should need to contend with. I believe we've made paratrooper armies a rather expensive luxury. And I'm not sure a Soviet player would really use it all that much considering what a pain it is to lose an 18IC cost unit like a paratrooper or a 35 IC cost Transport plane!!

-PK
 
Originally posted by Phil K
[(...)The aforementioned is what they did know (I can't be sure on Nylon but the CORE makes it a prereq for Paratrooper Warfare Equipment).(...)
Click to expand...
They didn´t have it. It was invented in 1936 in the USA and became popular in most of Europe before 1939, but the Sovs couldn´t steal the technology. All of their parachutes were made of pure silk (imagine the cost...)
Cheers
 
Pure silk?!? Wow, imagine that you'd rather sleep in your parachute than your pathetic little rollsack or whatever they called it.
 
Phil:

I think you're probably right; in a "game balance" sense, giving these to mot would be excessive. The major factor that tipped it that was was that the major users of this were the US, who almost invariably used motorised divisions.

That's probably abstracted well enough by the fact that the mot. divisions already get TD/AG bonuses, which I managed to forget... so this would most likely represent the decision to provide armoured support to all infantry, not just the motorised ones.

Yeah, with vanilla infantry only is better; I think you're right.

How about Marines? The US certainly attatched tank battalions by later in the war; IIRC the only other country to field proper Marine divisions was Japan, and I'm not sure if they did. [Re. the other types - Paras already have tanks represented (not that, historically, they were much good), and it's conceptually silly for mountain units. Militia are meant to be cheap and cheerful, so it wouldn't make sense for them :)]

[Oh, and regarding silk 'chutes - there's a remarkable number of women who got married in the 40s and 50s in lovely white silk "military-surplus" dresses in Europe... <g>]
 
Andrew,

I think the thing with Marines would be great. The soft attack factor would be great to represent the impact of armor in the Pacific.
 
Land Doctrines

[Quick question - can a tech alter current dissent levels? I've not seen it done, so I doubt it, but...]

Hey.

In one of the mods - Stony Road, I think - there's a doctrine which represents the creation of special forces units - the UK Commandos, or the US Rangers.

The interesting thing about this is that whilst it gives some advantages - similar to recon units, I think - it has a clear disadvantage, in that it lowers infantry organisation, representing the fact that these units (together with other elites - the paras and Marines) sucked up a lot of men who would have been excellent NCOs, and by doing so damaged the small-unit leadership of the infantry in general. (There are historians who vehemently argue that the formation of the Commandos was one of Churchill's worst ideas...)

It got me to thinking, and here's a couple of draft doctrines (they're not really doctrines so much as decisions, but...) which are slightly odd. I've left out specifics, these are ideas to bat around.

1/ Form Military Youth Organisations
This represents organisations similar to the Hitler Youth, or the Soviet... um... Young Pioneers? Essentially, this sets up a program where the nation's youth are given rudimentary firearms training, some drilling, military-styled sporting exercises; it's nationwide, so moderately expensive, and takes quite a while to set up. But it's damn useful once you have it... especially when you start scraping the barrel.
Effects:
* Reduces build time for infantry, mot. & militia divisions (if your conscripts can take orders and hold a gun, it saves time) moderately - say 5 days.
* Improves organisation of militia by 5%; the military training is minimal by the standards of line units, but in a hastily-raised militia unit they are noticeably better than would be obtained with your average sixteen-year-old barrel scraping.

[Alternately, especially for Germany, this might work better as a unique tech, given by an event... when did the HJ form?]

2/ Curtailing Universities
IIRC, the UK universities stayed in operation, although with slightly reduced intakes, through the war; this was probably a beneficial decision, though it did mean the brightest of your potential conscripts were kept out of your grasp for a few years (and then tended to find a safe niche anyway). This doctrine is essentially a political whim, and shouldn't take too long or be too costly... although it will hurt in the long run. (It's not closing the Universities, they'd stay on, but it would keep them closed to undergraduates).
Effects:
* Improves infantry organisation by 3%; this represents the fact that your officer corps now has a bigger pool of Bright Young Things (tm) to choose from in the recruitment pool, benefiting the combat arms.
* Adds ~3% to R&D times/costs (maybe too high?); this is the payoff, as by diverting the students to the army you're preventing many of them from ending up in research labs, coupled with a degree (ho, ho) of disruption at the universities - which did play a relatively significant part in research.

3/ Expand Army General Staff.
Does pretty much what it says on the tin. More HQ-level officers, working in all fields from intel to logistics, mean that your army runs better; the payoff, of course, is that it fights worse, because every smart guy sitting at a desk means you have one less smart guy with a gun.
Effects:
* Lowers infantry organisation by 3%
* Improves army detection, surprise ~5% all divisions.
* Reduces supply usage by 0.1 all divisions.

Thoughts?
 
Originally posted by Phil K
Pure silk?!? Wow, imagine that you'd rather sleep in your parachute than your pathetic little rollsack or whatever they called it.
Click to expand...
Well, AFAIR the Brites used silk chutes until after the war as well. But this is slightly OT...
Cheers
 
About militia, and it never getting bonus from techs:

I can see why militia doesn't get org bonus. If they're supposed to be second-line poorly equiped troops raised in a hurry, they shouldn't become great fighting machines.

But they never get any advantage from tech. If, for instance, service rifle makes a great difference in regular infantry, shouldn't it make a difference in militia too? Or is it assumed that a country would go out of it's way to build several distinct rifle models to equip militia when it only makes one to equip the regulars?

Also, there could be a couple of arty techs that give militia a bonus. Think of it as the regular army getting the new fangled infantry guns and parting with the old unwieldy beasts to equip the militia.

Maybe we should aim to make high tech militia reach the level of combat efficiency the vanilla tankette division has when it is researched.

That last remark was prompted by this. Have you noticed that it is faster, cheaper and better to build tankette divisions than militia divisions? Maybe militia should get at least the ability to reach the combat stats of a tankette division after a good deal of research has been made.

This post is a bit messy, sorry about that. What do you think?
 
Hmmm. OK, then, ignore my rambling. I'll look more attentively next time... :eek:

EDIT: Ah, I see, they just don't get any from arty. In fact, they hardly get any soft-attack. High-tech militia seems to be more a tank-killing machine than an infantry division. Any chance for a +1 soft_attack somewhere?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Hmmm. OK, then, ignore my rambling. I'll look more attentively next time... :eek:

EDIT: Ah, I see, they just don't get any from arty. In fact, they hardly get any soft-attack. High-tech militia seems to be more a tank-killing machine than an infantry division. Any chance for a +1 soft_attack somewhere?
Click to expand...

Submachine guns, assault rifles... Still, without artillery they are worse then even very weak infantry units.
Late war militia still sucks, but the most important change is that it got a bit better defense. Reasons - check out the MathGuy threads. Very educational. :)
 
Re: Divisions - Structural improvements

Originally posted by shimgray
((...)There's an infantry support tank tech as it stands; I see this as the equivalent of attatching a battalion of assault guns (note it's only soft attack it improves), rather than attatching a standard (as in, similar to those in an armoured division) tank battalion.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the country - in case of countries that mainly utilized tanks in their infantry divisions those are tanks, in case of assault guns users - those are assault guns. Examples of the first group - France, USSR before the 1942, UK. Second group - Germany, USA.

The idea of inf. div. tank battalions development is not bad, but if we implement it, we should make it really costly, as it was in reality. So - increased supply and fuel use of inf. div. should be included, plus, in some cases, also IC cost of inf. division should be rised.

There is one problem though - once invented, the effect can be removed. So - if you got inf. div. tank battalion, you got it permanently, and ALL the next inf. divs will have it. That can cause problems for AI (when the price/supply cost of unit will suddenly rise).
 
Unit naming

I have a question for all of you that play CORE both on a regular and irregular basis...

For model names of tanks and other land combat units, do you prefer to just have the name of the unit (ie M4 Sherman) or do you prefer to add a description to the end of the name (ie M4 Sherman (Basic Med. Tank))? The additional information would help the player that tends to not play a single country enough to get confortable with their unit types, but players that play a country regularly know which units are which. We are working on the new Models text and would like to know which you prefer. Thank you for your help. MDow
 
You should expand the addition of model definition to planes, ships instead of restricting it to tanks.
 
I like having the unit level information included (such as Basic Tank or whatever).

I am not always familiar with what level a model may be considered by CORE standards, so it helps.

-PK
 
A few suggestions...

I'm playing on the 0.532 of C.O.R.E. (which actually is my first time and I'm quite impressed)

On the StugIII tank battalion... I noticed it requires a 40mm gun rather than the 75mm short barrel version which doesn't make that much sense considering the early stugs used the short barrel 75mm. Also... Perhaps anti-tank battalions using the long barreled 75mm could be added with more or less independant divisions.

Second (I might be just nit picking here), but the Panzerfaust (tube rockets) is on the same level as the MG42, but the MG-42 came into full swing in 1943 which although tube rockets were being put into the field as fast as possible they didn't get readily available until 1944.

And perhaps there can be a different between Panzerfausts 30s, 60s, and 100s although that might be over board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back