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.
The problem with Poland AI is not because it is unable to research, but that its economy collapses due to shortages of resources. The MP mod can get the AI to research like mad until war nears, but I notice that it doesn't matter how much of their IC they could devote to research if most of it is missing due to resource shortages shutting it down.

I have tested the longer research times and shorter research costs, and it does work very well. It slows down a bit of the 'cheating' by humans who can no longer zip through certain tech areas, and it actually is better for the AI.
 
Originally posted by Halibutt
That's exactly the problem. Human player can do relatively well, but I bet the AI (not the polish since it does not develop tanks, AFAIR, at all) after developing the amphibious tanks goes for all the appliances before reaching the basic tanks... (and due to lack of badly needed triggers in the ai files we can't force it to develop only up to certain level).
Cheers
Click to expand...

The problem with some nations that never develop tanks in HoI is that most nations are handicapped too much. Poland was actually on the verge of finishing development for the 7TP (which was basically a modified imported British Vickers 6 Ton) in 1936. Actually, Poland was well ahead of most nations in the development of tanks and tank theory, and suffered in WW2 by the war starting well before they were able to implement all of their technology.

This problem is also in other minor nations. Belgium, for example, had their T.13 and T.15 tanks in full production in 1935, yet don't even have tankettes in the game. The same goes with Sweden and Japan, who have their starting armour tech drastically limited.

Also, most nations did have some basic amphibious tank experience, even with just the purchase of a few amphibious tank prototypes (at least giving them some limited testing experience). I think that most major nations should have the 'Gold' Amphibious tank tech researched, even if they don't have basic tanks yet.

This is one of the reasons why we should keep techs within one tech area (i.e., don't expand tank tech beyond two tech areas, or else the AI cannot handle it, while a human player can).

We have to be very careful in how we develop the tech tree, to not make it challenging for the Human yet not impossible for the AI to tangle between 4 tech trees just to get one tank model.
 
Armor_tech

What looks strange, "improved engine" says, that it allows "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests", and "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests" says, that it requires "improved engine". But in fact that is not true. You can research "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests" without. So maybe a litte mistake in the tech file?
 
Originally posted by Lennox
Hmm, I remember She[ had this in his tank mod. How do you remove deactivate techs(just for the armor)?
Click to expand...

Enter the file armor_tech.txt in CORE-mod\db\tech directory, find appropriate tank model, remove all the lines with deactivate command.

Warning - that will lower AI ability to build only those neccessary tanks, so try to use in limited fashion.
 
Re: Armor_tech

Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
What looks strange, "improved engine" says, that it allows "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests", and "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests" says, that it requires "improved engine". But in fact that is not true. You can research "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests" without. So maybe a litte mistake in the tech file?
Click to expand...

You mean, that it's mentioned in the description of the tech, or it's visible in the pre-req window? :confused:

If it's the first option, I'll correct that (we still find those nasty leftovers from vanilla HoI). If the second one, it's quite weird...
 
Re: Armor_tech

Hi CN, what solves the problem is removing 2301, 2302, 2303 from required = { } under 2314 in armour-tech.txt. It was just a misleading display error with no effect on the tech tree. To see that, just click on "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests" and e.g. "Improved Gear" and look under "requires" and "allows".
 
Re: Re: Armor_tech

Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
Hi CN, what solves the problem is removing 2301, 2302, 2303 from required = { } under 2314 in armour-tech.txt. It was just a misleading display error with no effect on the tech tree. To see that, just click on "Basic Medium Tank Prototype Tests" and e.g. "Improved Gear" and look under "requires" and "allows".
Click to expand...


Ok, will check that, hope that part stayed intact... (currently I work on seriously modded armor_tech.txt file, closer to 0.7 then to 0.63 - tank turrets, suspension types, armoured cars and so on... :D).
 
Garrison Troops

Did we ever come to some conclusion about the feasibility of making a specific garrison division that would have a very low movement and low attack ratings? I saw the original thread, but glancing through the discussions, I didn't see a resolution. MDow
 
Re: Re: Re: Armor_tech

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Ok, will check that, hope that part stayed intact... (currently I work on seriously modded armor_tech.txt file, closer to 0.7 then to 0.63 - tank turrets, suspension types, armoured cars and so on... :D).
Click to expand...

I corrected this, just changed everything to 2201, 2202, 2203, etc..
 
Re: Garrison Troops

Originally posted by MateDow
Did we ever come to some conclusion about the feasibility of making a specific garrison division that would have a very low movement and low attack ratings? I saw the original thread, but glancing through the discussions, I didn't see a resolution. MDow
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that is what the Militia unit is supposed to be anyway. Since we are not sure how well the AI will use/abuse them, I think that tweaking militia would be best instead of creating a new unit type.
 
I was thinking about this:

Guerrila Warfare Doctrine
Pre-Req: Guerrila experience (disabled for most nations)

Gives +5 Militia Org, +1 SA, +1 Movement (all to miltia only)

I was thinking about this for nations like ComChi, Phillipines, Eire, USSR, Poland, Finland, Cuba, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, and Greece. All others would have the pre-req disabled in their inc files.
 
Ok, the Manpower mod is 'done' and subject to testing, and the Artillery Tech mod is done as well. I am just going to finish up some modifications to the INC files to correspond to changes with the MP mod and Artillery/Tank Tech mods, as well as work on finishing the AI research trees for Artillery and am going to be able to work on other tech areas.

I think that we should get all of the tech trees under a similar research program. For example, the Gold techs should take time, but cost less. I have found a good formula that works. Maximize the time to 360 (usually 2x existing time at 180) and minimize the cost to around 10 (usually 1/2 existing cost at 20). Some techs, like armour, have expensive techs already, that cost 20 for 350 days. Revising the gold techs will be the easiest, then we can work on personalizing the silver techs.
 
Questionable Description from v0.62

artillery tech id = 14302 "Field Artillery Gun 170mm+"
Is German K18 bad example for this model? It was 149.1mm Gun, better suited for Field Artillery Gun 150mm+
 
Originally posted by McNaughton
(...)I think that we should get all of the tech trees under a similar research program. For example, the Gold techs should take time, but cost less. I have found a good formula that works. Maximize the time to 360 (usually 2x existing time at 180) and minimize the cost to around 10 (usually 1/2 existing cost at 20). Some techs, like armour, have expensive techs already, that cost 20 for 350 days. Revising the gold techs will be the easiest, then we can work on personalizing the silver techs.
Click to expand...

Expanding that formula, I sugest keeping 20 IC cost on the 3 last levels of every branch, while 360 days should be default time for every golden tech.

Exceptions - tanks (higher cost starts a bit earlier), nukes (high cost should stay, current times are quite ok) and rockets (in case of rockets 12/360 on the earlier levels should be better).

McNaughton, I'm in the middle of "air mod (with HARD CORE and tank mods)" and "MP mod integration" and I've noticed that Japan it heavily outnumbered by the Nat China, and MP mod only makes this difference even more significant. Playing Japan, I wasn't able to support my units with enough manpower to cover their losses, and I was constantly fighting 2-3 bigger forces of NatChi. While it was quite fun for human player (it's 1940 and I still fighting NatChi), I hardly believe AI controlled Japan is able to deal with that.

We can deal with that either by:

- rising initial JAP MP pool,

- rising initial MP growth rate,

- removing Japan (just like USSR and GER) from the MP mod.

IMO second solution is the best.
 
Re: Questionable Description from v0.62

Originally posted by unknown
artillery tech id = 14302 "Field Artillery Gun 170mm+"
Is German K18 bad example for this model? It was 149.1mm Gun, better suited for Field Artillery Gun 150mm+
Click to expand...
I believe there were two K18s: Rheinmetall-Borsig 150mm/L55 introduced 1938 and Krupp 17cm/L50 introduced 1941. I was only aware of the 17cm until I did a Google search on German K18 just now. EDIT: apparently there was also a Krupp 105mm/L60 K18.
Some info here.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Expanding that formula, I sugest keeping 20 IC cost on the 3 last levels of every branch, while 360 days should be default time for every golden tech.

Exceptions - tanks (higher cost starts a bit earlier), nukes (high cost should stay, current times are quite ok) and rockets (in case of rockets 12/360 on the earlier levels should be better).

McNaughton, I'm in the middle of "air mod (with HARD CORE and tank mods)" and "MP mod integration" and I've noticed that Japan it heavily outnumbered by the Nat China, and MP mod only makes this difference even more significant. Playing Japan, I wasn't able to support my units with enough manpower to cover their losses, and I was constantly fighting 2-3 bigger forces of NatChi. While it was quite fun for human player (it's 1940 and I still fighting NatChi), I hardly believe AI controlled Japan is able to deal with that.

We can deal with that either by:

- rising initial JAP MP pool,

- rising initial MP growth rate,

- removing Japan (just like USSR and GER) from the MP mod.

IMO second solution is the best.
Click to expand...

I will tweak the MP growth, both initial and when they go to war with China. I am leaning toward giving them 100% growth when they are at war with China (i.e., don't have it growing in stages).

Ok, done and posted on the Wiki in 0.7 Integration.

PS. I created a discussion thread in the Wiki in 0.7 Release called Manpower Mod, so discussion can be focussed there. Also instead of increasing their growth during peacetime, I increased the MP pool increase when they go to war (by about 100, which should more than compensate any MP growth beforehand). This should keep enough MP reserves to rebuild any damaged units, plus create a wack of new ones.
 
Last edited:
Tankettes

Regarding tankettes techs:

I dont know how it was in western armies but AFAIK in Polish an Russian army tankettes were never used as separate armored units.

They were added with armored cars to infantry, cavalry, motorized and armored units as long recon companies

They were also frequently used to support attacking infantry with theirs MG and light cannotns able to destroy enemy MG points.

In September '39 campaign happend then tankettes armed in 20mm FK-A guns operated as ad-hoc organized fast antitank unit but it was never a part of doctrine of use of tankettes.

Proposal:

- tankettes tech dont add new unit of tankette
- for INF, CAV, MOT, ARM tankettes tech add +1 SA, and some modifier showing opportunity of long range recon(?).
- tankettes needed organization of new logistic structures for repair and fuel supply and made units more dependand on repair and fuel centers:
for INF, CAV +0,1 fuel consumption, +0,2 supply consumption
for MOT, ARM +0,1 fuel cons. +0,1 supply consumption

whats yours opinion?
 
Re: Tankettes

Originally posted by korzon
Regarding tankettes techs:

I dont know how it was in western armies but AFAIK in Polish an Russian army tankettes were never used as separate armored units.
Click to expand...

I know.
On the other hand, Italian army (and in some way Japaneese too) used large formations of tankettes.

Also German PzIA is very "tankette-like", but but let's leave that case... ;)

Originally posted by korzon

Proposal:

- tankettes tech dont add new unit of tankette
- for INF, CAV, MOT, ARM tankettes tech add +1 SA, and some modifier showing opportunity of long range recon(?).
- tankettes needed organization of new logistic structures for repair and fuel supply and made units more dependand on repair and fuel centers:
for INF, CAV +0,1 fuel consumption, +0,2 supply consumption
for MOT, ARM +0,1 fuel cons. +0,1 supply consumption
Click to expand...

Those units already rise recon of the whole army. As for the other stats, well, IMO tankette company added on the divisional/corps level can't add even +1 SA. :(

On the other hand, separate unit allows player to build very weak, but at least fast tank divisions and creates sort of "bridge" between GW-tank and basic light tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back