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.
Originally posted by MateDow
Only happened twice in recorded history as far as I know :D MDow
Click to expand...

When was it? I only know about the Yamato & co. attacking those escort carriers.

Well, there was a 1930s US fleet problem in which a carrier stumbled into a cruiser force and was considered sunk, but I suppose you mean an actual fight?!

Oh! The HMS Glorious, right?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
When was it? I only know about the Yamato & co. attacking those escort carriers.

Well, there was a 1930s US fleet problem in which a carrier stumbled into a cruiser force and was considered sunk, but I suppose you mean an actual fight?!
Click to expand...


Hey Gwalcmai, you should check your pm box :)
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
When was it? I only know about the Yamato & co. attacking those escort carriers.
Click to expand...

You have the right ones. The Battle off Samar when the Japanese Combined fleet caught the US Invasion Force with their escort carriers and the sinking of the HMS Glorious by the Scharnhorst. Those are the only actual times that I know of carriers being engaged by surface ships. MDow
 
Originally posted by aeternum
Hey all,

what happend with the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. I cant seem to find them anymore. They got removed from CORE?


aet
Click to expand...

Yes, since there were no divisions equipped entirely of Tiger Tanks (or heavy tanks, for that matter) they were removed. Heavy tanks were deployed in Battalion sized units, while Medium tanks were the ones that were deployed en-masse in Divisions.
 
Originally posted by aeternum
Hey all,

what happend with the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. I cant seem to find them anymore. They got removed from CORE?


aet
Click to expand...

Yeap, Tigers are out, although you can always develop heavies battalions as an upgrade to your panzer divs.

Not to mention great post-war tanks and... LEOPARD I (TADA!)! :D
 
Wanted to ask why Winter War Experience doctrine yields such a meager max org increase? Five percent seems paltry to me. When in fact it was a significant crucible for the Soviets.

I believe it should be at least a 10% increase. The Arctic Warfare doc gives a 15% increase but that is training. Nothing like the cauldron of battle to increase knowledge and experience.
 
Well I noticed the same thing but its not the overpowered subs its the AI chargeing with fleets and no DDs in it or the DDs are 1000 ton DDs with subdetect 2.
I killed 5 BBs and a carrier with no DDs in fleet just now and lost 1 out of 3 subs (org 27). the only thing in the British fleet that survived was a sub. My org went close to 0 after a few days ( :D ) so I pull my 2 remaining subs out.
A player would never enter a battle with subs with no escorts in fleet. My BB/CV fleet allways have DDs with them.
 
Originally posted by Szun
Well I noticed the same thing but its not the overpowered subs its the AI chargeing with fleets and no DDs in it or the DDs are 1000 ton DDs with subdetect 2.
I killed 5 BBs and a carrier with no DDs in fleet just now and lost 1 out of 3 subs (org 27). the only thing in the British fleet that survived was a sub. My org went close to 0 after a few days ( :D ) so I pull my 2 remaining subs out.
A player would never enter a battle with subs with no escorts in fleet. My BB/CV fleet allways have DDs with them.
Click to expand...

I think it some combination of the two. I have seen combat between destroyers and submarines that still can last for days. The advantage of 1.05c is the subs tend to focus on the escorts rather than the fleet within. This tends to reduce the losses to capital ships from submarines (assuming the AI has sent out destroyers). But, the submarines are still doing too much damage and engaging in combat for too long. Hopefully we will find a solution for that before 0.7 comes out. Further lowering of org and defence ratings will probably help in that regard. MDow
 
Armor tech tree change

Armor techtree:

problem for AI with armor:

AI builds Armor units, but when it have better tech does it upgrade those? I dont think so. (correct me if I am wrong)

What is a Tank divison?:

A tank divison in WWII was a formation of mobile infantry and armored units. German 'Panzer Division' had aprox:
1 Tank regiment
1 mech regiment
2 mot regiment
+ battalion size units like recon/logistics

differant nations had differant size divisons so maybe make 3 tankunits to pick from like 'undersized' normal and 'oversized', USA had 2x the tanks in a divison but the tanks were weaker (yes the sherman was a cheap tank in more then 1 way, olny the UK upgraded 'firefly' was a good version)

My idea to change the techtree:

Instead of haveing tank X to build as a divison make it a vanila tank divison that gets upgraded with new techs like infrantry.
e.g. researching light tank 20 mm adds +1 grounddefense +1 hard attack +1 softattack and so forth.

I also saw that SP Arty is on Upgrade..well that may be ok if all countrys where human controlled but not with the AI inability to upgrade. I would change that back to normal bonus not with upgrade or the AI tanks are to weak.
Same goes for Tank destroyers, SP rocket arty and Assaultguns.

I have an isue with : Imp. Med Tank 70 L and Imp Med. Tank 80.
I think the only 70L in history that could be called impoved tank was the sherman firefly, but that came into service in '43 or so.
Also the T34/85 wasnt in service at that start of the war in the east. I would put both as an improvement to the other imp. med tanks, like U got to have one with 40, 50, or 70mm (M) in order to research it.Or add more prereqs to it like combined arms landdoc, but remove the 'deactivate xxx' from it so U can have 70M and 70L because U need more to gain the 70L.
In my techtree I doubled nearly all 'gold' techs so if U need 600 days for advanced tanks to research its worth the IC to improve from 70M to 80mm.

those are my thoughts about the tanktechtree for now.
I know changeing the armor divisons like I mentioned it is a lot of work. But I think it would make sense. A tank divison wasnt put out of service 3 month only because they got 200 new tanks delivered.

Szun

P.S. sorry for missspellings and typos
 
Originally posted by MateDow
I think it some combination of the two. I have seen combat between destroyers and submarines that still can last for days. The advantage of 1.05c is the subs tend to focus on the escorts rather than the fleet within. This tends to reduce the losses to capital ships from submarines (assuming the AI has sent out destroyers). But, the submarines are still doing too much damage and engaging in combat for too long. Hopefully we will find a solution for that before 0.7 comes out. Further lowering of org and defence ratings will probably help in that regard. MDow
Click to expand...

if U ask me it makes sense in some way how it works now...U cant fight what U dont see. CAs and BBs just dont have the means to fight subs and at a early game ('40 or so) the AI doesnt have the DDs with good subdetect.
I give U a example for ships that arent detected.
I had 6 subs at the entrance to skaggerak (sp?) 3 dds and 1 sub in Skag, 3 dds and 1 sub at kopenhagen and 3 subs at rostock and a fleet of 8 transports, 1 CV and 3 cruisers sliped through?
My subs had seadetect 4, the DDs had 3 and subdetect 5, 1 fleet hat a VA with spotter, the subs had seawolf commanders.
How can I miss a CV? (btw they never got home again after I spotted them)
 
Re: Armor tech tree change

Originally posted by Szun
AI builds Armor units, but when it have better tech does it upgrade those? I dont think so. (correct me if I am wrong)
Click to expand...

I have seen the AI upgrade takes. It is actually pretty good at upgrading tanks (better than me). It is pretty efficient at rotating units through for upgrade.


My idea to change the techtree:

Instead of haveing tank X to build as a divison make it a vanila tank divison that gets upgraded with new techs like infrantry.
e.g. researching light tank 20 mm adds +1 grounddefense +1 hard attack +1 softattack and so forth.
Click to expand...

It isn't very realistic. The same model of tank won't get a benifit from every gun, transmission, and improvement. I think that many players enjoy getting to have different types of tanks to build and use. Part of what makes the current tech tree realistic is you have to weigh whether you get the tank that you have the gun for, or do you wait until a larger gun is available. I makes the player make some tough choices about now or later.


I also saw that SP Arty is on Upgrade..well that may be ok if all countrys where human controlled but not with the AI inability to upgrade. I would change that back to normal bonus not with upgrade or the AI tanks are to weak.
Same goes for Tank destroyers, SP rocket arty and Assaultguns.
Click to expand...

The AI does a good job of upgrading. It probably spends too much of its IC on upgrading IMO.


I have an isue with : Imp. Med Tank 70 L and Imp Med. Tank 80.
I think the only 70L in history that could be called impoved tank was the sherman firefly, but that came into service in '43 or so.
Also the T34/85 wasnt in service at that start of the war in the east. I would put both as an improvement to the other imp. med tanks, like U got to have one with 40, 50, or 70mm (M) in order to research it.Or add more prereqs to it like combined arms landdoc, but remove the 'deactivate xxx' from it so U can have 70M and 70L because U need more to gain the 70L.
In my techtree I doubled nearly all 'gold' techs so if U need 600 days for advanced tanks to research its worth the IC to improve from 70M to 80mm.
Click to expand...

The deactivation is what makes the choices difficult. To use your above example, you could build the T-34/76 as your Improved Medium Tank, and the T-34/85 as your Advanced Medium Tank as your gun technology improved.

What does the doubling of the time do? Right now, you start to see Improved Medium Tanks in 1941 for Germany and the Soviet Union. It takes a lot longer for the US to get to that level if you keep up with aircraft and naval tech. If you want to blitz armor and artillery, your other techs will suffer. MDow
 
well my game is tankheavy, I dont use many bombers so I dotn research them until i got spare IC.
I focus on:
Infantry tech
Armor
Industry
Electronics
Arty
Light Air
and now and then I drop in Subs or naval techs

I have constantly tank tech in the research so i got armor much sooner then U mentioned it.
With my arty on top of the reserach all the time, I rather suspend Inf tech a bit, I got the gun I want long befor I got the tank.

if the AI handles upgrades well, fine then that problem is down the road. I thought he didnt.

I doubled researchtimes so I can have, with constant research, super hvy tanks in 45 for example. not earlier.
In vanila HoI I had basic hvy tanks in late 39, including the needed Land docs. It is always my goal to have lots of tanks its my type of playstyle.
If U run into me one day in a MP expect lots of tanks :D
 
Re: Re: Armor tech tree change

Originally posted by MateDow
I have seen the AI upgrade takes. It is actually pretty good at upgrading tanks (better than me). It is pretty efficient at rotating units through for upgrade.

>> good :D

It isn't very realistic. The same model of tank won't get a benifit from every gun, transmission, and improvement. I think that many players enjoy getting to have different types of tanks to build and use. Part of what makes the current tech tree realistic is you have to weigh whether you get the tank that you have the gun for, or do you wait until a larger gun is available. I makes the player make some tough choices about now or later.

>> they will if that model adds more bonuses then the weaker

The AI does a good job of upgrading. It probably spends too much of its IC on upgrading IMO.

>> didnt know , I will watch it more closely

The deactivation is what makes the choices difficult. To use your above example, you could build the T-34/76 as your Improved Medium Tank, and the T-34/85 as your Advanced Medium Tank as your gun technology improved.
>>> I would have t34/85 at the time I could have it all the time..where is the dificulty?

What does the doubling of the time do? Right now, you start to see Improved Medium Tanks in 1941 for Germany and the Soviet Union. It takes a lot longer for the US to get to that level if you keep up with aircraft and naval tech. If you want to blitz armor and artillery, your other techs will suffer. MDow
Click to expand...

look above :D

p.s. oh I should mention how I normaly aproach tank building with vanila core:
I build 60 vanila infantry from '36 to '37
at the point I get vehicle mass production I build 20 to 30 fighters (basic) and then 60 to 120 tankett divisons
In late 38 I take 12 to 15 tankets and upgrade them to imp med tank 80 mm, or more. for poland 15 tanks are plenty. by the time I want to invade france I have about 30 to 50 tankdivisons handy and the rest in upgrade. In between I drop in some subs and DDs to have soem fleet.
After the fall of france I got the resources to build some BBs, and bombers. By the time SU dows me I got 120 tank divisons, 120 inf divison and some mot and mech (10 to 20 each) incl 30 to 40 fighters and up to 30 bombers. No game is the same so i cant really say for sure. If USA joins early i build more fighters to cover the incoming bombers for example.
other ppl may research less straight but I dont.

Tanks have the bst IC to Manpower to firepower ratio
Even with increased cost its still worth building tanks over Mech.
To my knowledge 1 tankdivison is easiely worth 3 to 5 infantry divisons in fighting power.
Oh btw that is when I play germany. I build a lot more infatry if I play SU :D 400+ or so
 
Last edited:
tech suggestion

Every time I see Finland in the Winter War, they get whomped on. Of course, that eventually did occur, but not before the Finns gave the USSR one hell of a bloody, frostbitten nose. My view is that a Russo-Finnish war can ultimately have but one ending, but if that war happens in winter the Finns should be exceptionally obstinate, inflicting heavy casualties.

The Finns don't have Basic Submachinegun at start, but they did have a variety of subguns including some homegrown ones, particularly suited to the swift-striking Finnish mode of warfare. They didn't have the Lahti anti-tank rifle for the Winter War, a fine weapon for its type, but the game of course starts in 1936 and there's ample time for them to research it or not as they elect in time for any Continuation War.

What the Finns uniquely had was 'Sisu,' the Finnish national ethic, which could translate as 'rugged individualism', and a lot of inventiveness in weaponry. Two examples are the famous Molotov cocktail and the klorihartsi, a pipe grenade used to detrack tanks. Both took balls the size of grapefruits to use, but that wasn't a problem in the Finnish armed forces.

Thus, I guess I'm interested in commentary on several tech possibilities, always bearing in mind that the tech balance is a delicate one that we should not casually screw with.

1) Give them Basic Submachinegun at start.

2) New Finland-specific tech: Sisu Ethic, analogous to Bushido Code or Verdun Experience for Japan and France. It could perhaps do one/some/all of the following:

--give a couple of points of org bonus
--give a small bonus in snow/blizzard to supplement the existing Finnish possession of snow and ice fighting techs
--add a point of anti-tank attack to reflect the effective use of backyard weapons
--lower supply consumption by 0.1 for infantry, which would really help the Finns because they have a hell of a time eking out what they've got, and while we can give them a bigger stockpile, that gets questionable from a realism standpoint at some juncture.

If I have my history or culture wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected. I'm just soliciting input: does anyone like this idea, and if so, which aspects of it do you think should be considered?

jkk
 
I dont think it would make any diff...
If U trow 60 divisons on 6 dug in units the resolt is claer unless they sit in a size 10 fort.
it never took me more then 2 to 3 month to annex finnland with SU (inf walk slow in low infra)

I know the finns gave the soviets a hard time in the winterwar, so I guess it wont hurt to add something like that.
On the other hand, I dont think Finnland is that importend to have a unique tech for them. basic submachinegun sure why not.

p.s. did U ever attack 30 divisons with 138 divisons? :D
Took me 15 hours (gamehours) to annihilate the 30 divisons and they werent surounded either.
 
Originally posted by Szun
well my game is tankheavy, I dont use many bombers so I dotn research them until i got spare IC.
I focus on:
Infantry tech
Armor
Industry
Electronics
Arty
Light Air
and now and then I drop in Subs or naval techs

I have constantly tank tech in the research so i got armor much sooner then U mentioned it.
With my arty on top of the reserach all the time, I rather suspend Inf tech a bit, I got the gun I want long befor I got the tank.

if the AI handles upgrades well, fine then that problem is down the road. I thought he didnt.

I doubled researchtimes so I can have, with constant research, super hvy tanks in 45 for example. not earlier.
In vanila HoI I had basic hvy tanks in late 39, including the needed Land docs. It is always my goal to have lots of tanks its my type of playstyle.
If U run into me one day in a MP expect lots of tanks :D
Click to expand...

Well, you don't expect us to change the mod just to fit your play style? ;) :D
But seriously - if we double times, it will:

a) seriously complicate AI research,
b) limit minors even more,
c) make game hard only for one pearticular tactics.

Right now, on Hard/V. Hard levels most of the time I observe historical development of tanks - T-34 in 1940, Pz-IVF2 in 1942, Crusader in 1940-41 and Cromwell in 1943... I don't want to go back to the vanilla HoI stage when Allies were randomly upgrading their tanks from medium to light... :rolleyes:

Honestly, I see tank tree pretty much complete right now. More work awaits in air/sub/industry sections though...
 
Re: tech suggestion

Originally posted by jkkelley
1) Give them Basic Submachinegun at start.

2) New Finland-specific tech: Sisu Ethic, analogous to Bushido Code or Verdun Experience for Japan and France. It could perhaps do one/some/all of the following:

--give a couple of points of org bonus
--give a small bonus in snow/blizzard to supplement the existing Finnish possession of snow and ice fighting techs
--add a point of anti-tank attack to reflect the effective use of backyard weapons
--lower supply consumption by 0.1 for infantry, which would really help the Finns because they have a hell of a time eking out what they've got, and while we can give them a bigger stockpile, that gets questionable from a realism standpoint at some juncture.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure about giving them SMG from the start, but perhaps we should look at pre-reqs to ensure it's actually possible for them to reach SMG tech by 1939 (via research or if necessary events).

I think a case can be made for many nations about making do with makeshift material and fighting the enemy with unusual tactics ("bomb" dogs comes to mind ;) ) so I'd rather not open that particular can of worms. Did you test any of these variants to see if it makes a difference in AI vs AI games?

One thing to keep in mind is that we may be revising GD upwards in future versions, which would tend to make battle durations longer and thus inflict vastly higher attrition losses on Soviet forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back