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

[MateDow]

Re: Re: Tankettes

Originally posted by Copper Nicus

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.

I think that this is a good viewpoint for keeping that model in the game. It gives the minor countries something that doesn't kill their supplies and fuel with not too much research. I think that IRL, a country trying to develop their own tanks and armored doctrines would build entire units of tankettes if it would improve their logistical situtation as much as tankettes do in CORE. It wouldn't make sense to have entire divisions of great war tanks running (slowly walking ) around in division strength if you saw the example of the Germans in Poland. Someone would have to realize that these little faster tanks would stand a better chance than lumbering tanks. MDow

 

[Steel]

Aren't tankettes too fast though? Their tactical speed was probably ok, but did they really have the operational range to justify speed 12? Do we have any historical examples of tankette unit organisation, was it typically with 1-2 regiments of infantry and 1 regiment of tankettes?

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Steel
Aren't tankettes too fast though? Their tactical speed was probably ok, but did they really have the operational range to justify speed 12? Do we have any historical examples of tankette unit organisation, was it typically with 1-2 regiments of infantry and 1 regiment of tankettes?

They probably are a little fast.

If I had to guess, I would sya that it was probably 1 company of tankette attached to a battalion of infantry. That would give about a 1 to 4 ratio for tankettes to infantry. That is just my guess though, it has no historical documentation. MDow

 

[McNaughton]

I was thinking about this too, but was thinking about Great War tanks, and that they were never used in a large divisional scale (even at Cambrai the 300+ tanks were used peicemiel), but more like individual troops and companies spread out among infantry forces.

However, the reasons why Tankettes and Great War tanks were never/rarely ever used in large formations probably goes a lot toward doctrinal use of armoured vehicles. By the time the Armoured Division was accepted, both Great War tanks and tankettes were either totally removed from the inventory or a nation posessed so few AFV's they couldn't create an armoured division. Yet, even their physical state does a lot to hamper their inclusion as the main unit of an armoured force. GW tanks are slow, and designed as infantry support, and would not fare well as a large unit, and tankettes are so weak defensively and offensively that they might as well make divisions of armoured cars for what effectiveness they had (yet, should this stop you from trying? It didn't stop the Italians, until they ran into British tanks).

I think that Tankettes deserve a higher rate of speed primarily due to their own weight. Most tanks were not required (even during an offensive) to continually march on their own power. They tended to break down, or need maintenance, then were shipped up the line on rail or transport. 3-4 Tankettes weigh just about as much as one Basic Medium Tank, and were much easier to transport on rail or motor recovery vehicles.

----------

I was trying to determine wether or not GW tanks should be included as divisions or not, then came to the conclusion "what would be the very basic tank that every nation could build?". That became the tankette. Then I thought "not every nation had the ability to build, or even posessed one tankette even by 1940, so why should that be the basic tank for everyone in 1936?". So I scrapped that thought.

However, what we might want to think about is wether or not tank divisions should be given to each nation directly in 1936, or if possible do what was done with Mechanized Divisions, and have tanks arrive only after researching an applicable doctrine that not everyone has (like Armoured Division Doctrine). Maybe the earliest forms of tanks should only be used as infantry support (adding stats to Infantry/Motorized such as +Soft Attack, Ground Defense, recon, etc..), and only Light and Medium tanks should be used for armoured divisions?

----------

So, I say we either:

#1. Keep GW tanks, tankettes and Infantry Support tanks as they are (i.e., do nothing). This won't be so bad, as they are relatively worthless vehicles compared even to BLT's, but give every nation an option to create an armoured division from day one if they REALLY wanted, but it isn't too realistic.

#2. We eliminate the armoured division from the original production option and have it arrive through a doctrine and that armoured divisions are only composed of Light and Medium tanks, and have GW tanks (eliminate early and late GW and just have GW tank), tankettes and infantry tanks act as battalions/companies directly attached to infantry units. This is much more realistic, as most nations posessed tankettes or some form of basic infantry tank that was spread out in their infantry but didn't have the numbers or the ability/desire to create an armoured division.

The second option will probably be the most historic (Italy used them in large forces only once or twice, and they appear to be the only ones), yet will take away some of the gameplay of players as they lose the armoured division (for most nations) until they get that doctrine, and research a Medium or Light tank (if this is even indeed possible). It will make getting a basic light tank more important than it currently is, as it is a cheap way in getting a tank that can be used in an armoured division instead of having to research a medium tank (those extra gears, suspension and engine). Most players think that they have a 'workable' armoured formation in tankettes/infantry tanks, and will be willing to spend the time/effort to skip BLT and research BMT, but when you don't have any armoured force up to this point, you might consider getting a BLT just to actually get an armoured unit out there.

It will also cut down the used tank models by another 4 (resulting in a total of 8 tank models not used!)

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Steel
Aren't tankettes too fast though? Their tactical speed was probably ok, but did they really have the operational range to justify speed 12? Do we have any historical examples of tankette unit organisation, was it typically with 1-2 regiments of infantry and 1 regiment of tankettes?

This is the largest tankette force I have been able to find:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/g_itawna.htm

The Italian Armour Brigade in the Sidi-el-Barrani area consisted of 275 vehicles:

220 light tanks (L3)
55 medium tanks (M11/39)

Even though the unit was not totally tankettes, the majority of vehicles were. I have no idea if units were then split off to the infantry, or if the Brigade had generic infantry attached (the term brigade hints that they do not, or only a battalion or two of infantry attached).

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by McNaughton
#2. We eliminate the armoured division from the original production option and have it arrive through a doctrine and that armoured divisions are only composed of Light and Medium tanks, and have GW tanks (eliminate early and late GW and just have GW tank), tankettes and infantry tanks act as battalions/companies directly attached to infantry units. This is much more realistic, as most nations posessed tankettes or some form of basic infantry tank that was spread out in their infantry but didn't have the numbers or the ability/desire to create an armoured division.

I thought Copper had tried this and found it doesn't work...

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Steel
I thought Copper had tried this and found it doesn't work...

That's what I feared. I think it would be best to keep everything as is then. Tankettes are an important choice for very minor nations to have a fast exploit unit other than cavalry, and at least pretending that their army is modern.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Steel
I thought Copper had tried this and found it doesn't work...

Not sure if 1.05c doesn't change that (it enables sea transports activation).

True, that would be the best (since "real" tank divisions were created in 1936-37 period - first German panzer divisions had no panzers for the first 2 years of their existence), but it requires:

1) deactivation of tanks in inc file,

2) activation of those by the technology.

When I tested it last time, first one worked, but the effect was permanent. Activation command simply didn't work.

 

[jdrou]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Not sure if 1.05c doesn't change that (it enables sea transports activation).

Exactly what about this did not work before? I thought transports were always deactivated until you got the tech; problem I'm aware of is that this only applied to human, not AI. AI could build transports even if they were not activated.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by jdrou
Exactly what about this did not work before? I thought transports were always deactivated until you got the tech; problem I'm aware of is that this only applied to human, not AI. AI could build transports even if they were not activated.

That is the way that I understand the problem. No transports only limits a human player. I do not know if it would apply to tanks as well. If we can't disable tanks, then we should allow a minor nation to build an armor division if they want. If you look at a minor vs minor situation, then GW tanks vs the guys infantry could be overwhelming. I think that it is historically possible. MDow

 

[unmerged(20705)]

Both options are historical. Tankettes were used in most cases only as attachement to other units but some countries tried to force new doctrine of armored force.

Maybe this is the clue. Technology of tankettes as a technology dont inflict directly any specyfic use of tankettes.

I've read discussion from 20s about perspectives of motorization of infantry and cavalry. In most cases idea of motorization was only "looking for new gadgets" They have seen motorization usefull only if dense net of roads is available. For them main motorization problem is need of separate supply and repair units network and lack of mobility in low road terrain.

As main support unit theyu have seen not tankettes (same mobility) but tachankas (3 horses towing car with HMG) It looks strenge but maybe then use of tankettes is only the question of doctrine.

Maybe we could have both reality and flexibility to both choices by leaving tankettes tech only as activator for "armored units" doctrine. Doctrine of armotred support was in fact activated by 1WW technology of tanks.

So on maybe this way:

Great War tanks tech activates ->
Tanks Support doctrine (expensive tech adding bonuses to infantry units, available for nations which produced tanks historically)
(this may be splitted to some technologies as i.e. cavalry tank/infantry tank and recon tank)

another doctrine is "Armored Units" which let produce armored units composed by different tanks - prewar, or tankettes or light tanks - depending on reached technology
Historically This technology was not accepted by every country or not implemented because of lack of enought strong tanks.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by jdrou
Exactly what about this did not work before? I thought transports were always deactivated until you got the tech; problem I'm aware of is that this only applied to human, not AI. AI could build transports even if they were not activated.

Deactivation block worked (no tank divs in building menu), but activation via tech didn't. And it still not work, as I tested that yesterday.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Transports, dive bombers and mech inf don't work like that, do they? They don't require being specifically deactivated, they are so by default and require a certain tech to be activated. (Or am I wrong in this?) Are they special cases?

 

[jdrou]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Transports, dive bombers and mech inf don't work like that, do they? They don't require being specifically deactivated, they are so by default and require a certain tech to be activated. (Or am I wrong in this?) Are they special cases?

Yes they seem to be special cases.
I believe that all units that don't require being activated by tech in the original game CAN'T be activated by tech. Probably the 'activate_unit_type' tech command has the units it can affect hardcoded. (BB, CV, transports, mot., mech, para, marine, rockets)

 

[unmerged(20827)]

Re: Re: Questionable Description from v0.62

Originally posted by jdrou
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.

Here is a list of all Heavy Arty used by Germany in WW2 - hope it's useful. I didn't include captured equipment. If anyone's interested in other stuff - AA,AT, Light Arty- drop me a line.


15.0 cm sFH 13 (old WW 1 equipment, only used by second line units)
15.0 cm sFH 18 (standard equipment)
15.0 cm sFH 18M (modification of sFH-18 with muzzle brake and renewable barrel liner)
15.0 cm sFH 18/40 (sFH 40 barrels on sFH 18 carriages)
15.0 cm sFH 18/43 (a sFH 18 development to accpt bag charge with sliding-block breech)
15.0 cm sFH 36 (development of sFH 18 with shorter barrel and a carriage made of alloy)
15.0 cm sFH 40 (new design, not accepted for service)
15.0 cm sFH 42 (late name of sFH 18/40)
15.0 cm sFH 43 (Krupp project, sFH 44 barrel with K 44 carriage)
15.0 cm sFH 43 (Skoda project)
15.0 cm sFH 44 (Krupp project)
15.0 cm K 16 (old WW 1 equipment, not in front line use)
15.0 cm K 18 (standard equipment)
15.0 cm K 39 (ordered by Turkey but production diverted to the Wehrmacht)
15.0 cm SK C-28 in Mörserlafette (Barrel of 15 cm Naval gun on the carriage of the 17.0 cm K 1
15.0 cm Hochdruckpumpe Kanone (multichamber Kanone, experimental)
17.0 cm K 18 in Mörserlafette (one of the best guns of the WW 2)
21.0 cm lange Mórser (old WW 1 equipment, not in front line use)
21.0 cm Mörser 18 (Uses the same carriage of the 17.0 cm K 1
21.0 cm K 38
21.0 cm K 39 (Skoda built 21 cm K-52, ordered by Turkey but produced for Germany)
21.0 cm K 39/40 (revised K 39)
21.0 cm K 39/41 (another revision of the K 39)
21.0 cm K L/50 (Krupp design, not accepted for service)
24.0 cm H 39 (Skoda design for Turkey, but production diverted to the Wehrmacht)
24.0 cm H-39/40 (Development of H 39, changes for simplification of production only)
24.0 cm K L/46 (Krupp design, only a very few made, scaled.up 15.0 cm K 39)
24.0 cm K 3 (Rheinmetall design but Krupp produced)
24.0 cm K 4 (Developed by Krupp by OKH request to replace the K 3, but not completed)
28.0 cm H L/12 (Pre WW 1 design, reportedly used at Sevastopol siege in 1942)
35.5 H M-1 (Only 5 built, design with dual recoil system and 360º traverse)
42.0 H Gamma (old WW 1 equipment, used at Sevastopol siege)

K: Kanone (Gun)
SK: Schiffs Kanone (Naval Gun)
H: Haubitze (Howitzer)
sFH: schwere Feld Haubitze (Heavy Field Howitzer)
The name Mörser was used by the Germans to class the howitzers of high calibre.

Notes

- The 17.0 cm K 18 and the 21.0 cm Möresr 18 use the same carriage.
- The 21.0 cm K 521 (r) was conceived by Skoda and exchanged by Germany after the ocupation of Czechoslovakia against raw materials
- The 20.3 cm H 503 (r) has many versions and many of them used by the Germans

 

[Steel]

The 70mm+ Recoilless Gun has Paratroopers as a pre-req. This stops nations from developoing AT Recoilless Rocket Launcher and Wire-Guided AT-Missile tech unless they have Paras... intentional? Seems odd to me.


Napalm Bombs benefit only Tac Bombers but requires Improved Heavy Bomber Prototype Tests (ie Strat Bomber / Transport development). Definitely looks wrong to me. Also shouldn't the benefit apply to Div and Strat bombers as well?


Incendiary Bombs benefit only Strategic Bombers. Perhaps the benefit (or 50% of it) should apply to Tac Bombers as well (for strat bombing missions only).

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Steel
The 70mm+ Recoilless Gun has Paratroopers as a pre-req. This stops nations from developoing AT Recoilless Rocket Launcher and Wire-Guided AT-Missile tech unless they have Paras... intentional? Seems odd to me.

Fully agree. Paras should possibly be replaced by some late war doctrine (Elastic Defense?).

Originally posted by Steel
Napalm Bombs benefit only Tac Bombers but requires Improved Heavy Bomber Prototype Tests (ie Strat Bomber / Transport development). Definitely looks wrong to me. Also shouldn't the benefit apply to Div and Strat bombers as well?

Not in the 0.7 tech tree. Use pre-req from the files I posted on wiki.
Strategic bomber were usually using Incendiary Bombs, not napalm - since in 0.7 Strategic bombers got enough bonuses from other techs (like Grand Slam & Toll Boy bombs) I suggest not giving them more. We could give them tactical bonus though...

Originally posted by Steel
Incendiary Bombs benefit only Strategic Bombers. Perhaps the benefit (or 50% of it) should apply to Tac Bombers as well (for strat bombing missions only).

Good observation, I fully agree with that.

I'll post the updated version of heavy_air_tech file on the wiki with the rest of the gfx files for 0.7...

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Steel
The 70mm+ Recoilless Gun has Paratroopers as a pre-req. This stops nations from developoing AT Recoilless Rocket Launcher and Wire-Guided AT-Missile tech unless they have Paras... intentional? Seems odd to me.

Well, the Recoilless Gun was developed for use for paratroopers, and this tech was then applied to Recoilless Rocket Launchers. Virtually every nation that Recoiless Rocket Launchers and Wire-Guided AT-Missiles had paratroopers.

Basically, without paratroopers there would be no need/incentive/driving force behind the development of a Recoilless Gun, as it would not have a role in their military. Recoilless Rocket Launchers was a merger between AT-Rocketry tech and Recoilless Guns. If nobody had paratroopers, there would never have been a reciolless gun, and thereby never a recoilless rocket launcher. Tech developed for paratroopers was later to be discovered to have an applied use for other fields, but without paratroopers the recoilless gun would never have been necessary to develop.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by McNaughton
Well, the Recoilless Gun was developed for use for paratroopers, and this tech was then applied to Recoilless Rocket Launchers. Virtually every nation that Recoiless Rocket Launchers and Wire-Guided AT-Missiles had paratroopers.

Basically, without paratroopers there would be no need/incentive/driving force behind the development of a Recoilless Gun, as it would not have a role in their military. Recoilless Rocket Launchers was a merger between AT-Rocketry tech and Recoilless Guns. If nobody had paratroopers, there would never have been a reciolless gun, and thereby never a recoilless rocket launcher. Tech developed for paratroopers was later to be discovered to have an applied use for other fields, but without paratroopers the recoilless gun would never have been necessary to develop.

I understand the original rationalisation but it does not IMHO make much sense that when you want to trade AT missile tech to another nation you must first go "here you are, now you can build paras". Either remove the para pre-req for recoilless (add a doctrine instead) or remove the recoilless pre-req for AT missiles (perhaps that's a better choice).

 

[bizkit]

while i was playing Blitzkrieg (it s another ww2 game) i saw a 600mm Karl - a giant mortar which is a bit slow but very effective.but theres no Karl in Hoi in artillery techs.why? and could somebody put it?