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.
john heidle said:
Doesn't anyone else care that the 50 AT and the 75 AT have the same hard attack values except for AT brigades?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've been busy for a while, had no time to answer...
Your previous post seems very reasonable to me. I just have to contact McNaughton, creator of the 0.7 artillery tech tree - maybe there was some more reason behind similar stats of 75 and 50mm AT guns...
 
Anti-Tank weaponry is a difficult thing to determine, especially when you look beyond the popular weapons.

I assume you are comparing the German 50mm and 75mm Long Anti-Tank Guns. The problem is, is that this represents only a small portion of guns of these ranges. The German 50mm was comparable to the Soviet 76.2mm Anti-Tank Guns, primarily since they were both early weapons. Take the British 57mm Anti-Tank gun, which was substantially superior to the German 50mm Anti-Tank Gun, as well as the Soviet 76.2mm, yet comparable to American 75mm Tank Guns. Unfortunately, the tech tree cannot represent the differences of AT guns in this respect. Early 50mm guns were inferior to late 50mm guns, but if you compare the weapons based upon the timeframe developed, it didn't matter a whole lot if your guns were 50mm or 75mm in 1941, or even in 1944.

Reports stated that the British 57mm Gun had almost exactly the same penetration power as the US 75mm Gun. However, due to the fact the 75mm had a better HE shell, and that having all allied tank guns use the same ammunition was good for supply, the British tank guns switched to 75mm.

In the scale of HoI, the difference between the 50mm (early and late) and the 75mm (early and late) are minimal, when you take into account divisions usually had a few dozen of the guns. It might warrant the 75mm gaining an extra SA value, but as the tech tree stands now, it would drastically overweight it by giving it a +2 HA.
 
After thinking about the narrower issue of how to simulate the various 50 to 75 AT guns that had widely different AT capabilities, I think a different approach is needed. The 50/75 ATs are the last anti tank guns in CORE 0.7 for the historically most numerous divisions in the game (regular inf and motor inf). But the current setup stops most of their antitank development in 1941: “it didn't matter a whole lot if your guns were 50mm or 75mm in 1941, or even in 1944.”

Tanks developed a lot in that period as did anti tank measures, but in CORE 0.7 there are no further AT developments except wire guided rockets or building different kinds of divisions (mech inf div or building divisions with AT brigades). As Germany the last (Advanced) Tube-Launched Rocket can be completed by December 1940 while the 50/75 AT can be researched in 1939 (though that might change in future revisions).

Between 1941 and 1944, Panzers developed a lot and all countries scrambled to come up with more effective antitank measures. The game needs a different way to account for AT measures over a three+ year period rather than just focusing on the specific parameters of a variety of historical AT guns that ranged from 50 to 75 mm. There’s more to simulating this aspect than arguing about how to represent a wide variety of historical AT guns with differing capabilities. That’s why I think some other kind of change is needed: this was not a static period for antitank measures.

My original proposal was “By being able to research both the 50 AT and the 75 AT, this would increase the HA of inf and motor inf by +1, the mech inf by +2 (+1 for the AT and +1 for the tank destroyer), and an AT brigade by +1 HA (anyone building AT brigades would always opt for the 75 AT rather than the 50 AT).” If both could be developed I would also put them into different artillery levels to give a time period distinction.

Another alternative would be to have a new doctrine (Corps level Anti Tank Bn?) that would allow for the creation of anti tank battalions that would be used by inf and motor inf. Historically both the USA and Germany used a lot of independent AT bns that had AFVs (I’m uncertain about how the Brits and the Red Army organized their AT AFVs). Guderian want AFV bn for each Germany leg infantry unit but there were never enough German AFV ATs. Most of the time these AFV AT Bn were kept at the corps or army level. Since that cannot be directly represented in the game, perhaps a new doctrine giving +1 HA to both inf and motor inf could be used to represent this.

This doctrine should have pre reqs something like elastic defense and force concentration doctrine plus the development of at least a medium tank destroyer 75 which currently only benefits mech inf or AT brigades. BTW, if the either 75 or 50 choice is retained, then it has to be an 85 medium tank destroyer since the 75 tank destroyer can only be built if the 75 AT is chosen over the 50 AT. And this doctrine should not require an upgrade because nothing ‘permanent’ is being done to those divisions: these AT AFV bn are assigned on an as needed basis.

The other advantage of this doctrine approach is that it would give a strategic choice on this antitank issue. One could build new and different divisions to attack the better Panzers, or one could add to the capabilities of those divisions already in the field (or do both).

Either way there has to be some development of anti tank capabilities besides the wire guided AT missiles for regular inf and motor inf beyond the 50 AT. Most countries tried several ways besides Panzerschrecks to develop better antitank measures for the majority of their divisions after 1941. Something to simulate this is needed in CORE 0.7
 
It's interesting approach, but I think it's a bit too generalized (and based on the one nation experience - Germany). I agree that some infantry AT weapons are too easy to aquire (again - especially for the Germany), but it's not that it wasn't possible - German development of AT weapons was in fact very slow due to the lack of decent enemy, not beacuse it was very complicated issue (see Soviet F-22 and ZIS-3 guns). I would rather give some more prerequisites for AT infantry weapons. And don't forget about AT ammo, which also can rise AT ability of land units. So - adding more (doctrinal) prerequisites for individual AT weapons or moving them higher in infantry weapons tech tree should spread AT ability rise in time.

I generally see "battalions" system as the way to simulate things, that are not possible to achieve with existing brigades. AT weapons are not the case - adding one infantry/AT to 3 standard ones simulates better quality/more guns in standard divisions rather well. Late war plain infantry division got Hard Attack value around 15, which is approx. 1/2, 1/3 of GD of advanced tank division (with heavy tanks attached). Not bad, huh?
 
Further info re USA separate tank and tank destroyer battalions from:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/armor.aspx

Of the sixty-one separate tank battalions on 1 January 1945:

Thirty-one were in the ETO: the 70th (also served in Tunisia and Sicily as a light tank battalion), 191st (also served in Tunisia and Italy), 701st, 702nd, 707th, 709th, 712th, 735th, 736th, 737th, 738th MX, 739th MX, 740th, 741st, 743rd, 744th Light, 745th, 746th, 747th, 748th, 749th, 750th, 753rd (also served in Sicily and Italy), 756th (also served in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy as a light tank battalion, reorganized as a medium battalion 15 Dec 43), 759th Light, 761st, 771st, 774th, 778th, 781st, and 784th.

Six were in the MTO: the 751st, 752nd, 755th, 757th, 758th Light, and 760th

TANK DESTROYERS:

The seventy-three tank destroyer battalions active and their armament on 1 January 1945 were:

There were fifty-two in the ETO ...

Later, in North Africa in 1943, the TD battalions began to receive the first standardized TD gun, the M10. The M10 was based on a variant of the M4 tank chassis, was lightly armored, and had poor cross-country mobility and speed. However, its 3" gun, a development of the prewar AA gun, was quite powerful for the time. By early 1944 the first purpose-designed TD appeared, the M18, and began to slowly replace the M10. The M18 was more lightly armored than the M10, but had very good cross-country mobility and impressive speed. Furthermore, the gun was an improved 3", known as the 76mm, with a more powerful cartridge case and muzzle-break, giving it greater accuracy and hitting power. Finally, also in 1944, the M36 was deployed. The M36 utilized the same chassis as the M10, but mounted the powerful 90mm gun (also originally an AA weapon).
 
john heidle said:
I did not base this upon one nation. Both Germany and the USA had plenty of independant Anti tank Bn. The USA even had a bunch of independant tank Bn.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, I've never heard about AT brigades (regiments yes, but not brigades). Sometime ago McNaughton suggested to change AT brigades to tank brigades, but there was no enthusiasm for this idea as AT brigades units are very useful.

Main problem with "battalions" is the fact that after inventing those, all new units will have battalion attached. It's not that bad in case of tank divisions, as those are relatively rare, but infantry units (and probably motorized as well). I simply have no idea if it's neccessary to create new thing that will do basically the same as existing one, but is in many ways worse (with brigade you decide if you want it or not, with battalion - you always get it). :(

Anyone got opinion on that matter? I would like to see some more views on that before starting to code. :D
 
If memory serves me, the US experience with independent Tank Destroyer units was not very successful. Of course, that didn't stop them from continuing to exist and the US even deployed a few more after a less than positive report was issued about their effectiveness. Still, they did exist and were used in combat...
 
Here is my POV.

I personally think that HoI is at a strategic level where subtle differences in weaponry really doesn't, rather shouldn't, play a significant part. While getting my computer together, to continue the Sprites, I have been toying with new/revised infantry and artillery technologies. As it is now, it is confusing, and

Also, the main problem about Tank/Anti-Tank weaponry was not development, but rather deployment. Most nations had the ability to create advanced weaponry (50mm+) in the pre-war era. However, due to political reasons (keeping tank guns the same as anti-tank guns) pressured both the tank arm, and anti-tank arm, to use relatively obsolete weapons. The Germans were intent in installing a 50mm Tank Gun on their PzKpfw.III, but since the 37mm was already in use by the infantry, and the High Command felt what is good for the Infantry was good for the Tank Arm. The British planned to replace their 2 Pdrs with 6 Pdrs in 1940, yet it was better to continue producing the 2 Pdr in quantity instead of switching to the 6 Pdr, especially during the panic of late 1940.

One thing I am thinking about in this new tech tree is a combination of R&D and Production. Currently in HoI, once you research a product, it is instantly producable. You either get immediate improvements, or get them once you produce a new unit, with no real 'factory retooling' time. Maybe each major tech will require a research technology (i.e., develop the gun) and another tech would be a factory retooling technology (i.e., to produce the gun in quantity), or we could just increase the cost/time of the one tech to reflect both R&D and factory retooling.

I have done EXTENSIVE research on TOE's of every major nation in WW2, and learned a few things.

#1. Artillery equipment really didn't change much. Weapons were updated, but improvements came in the form of reliability, increased range, better accuracy, which can be represented in small increases.

#2. Infantry equimpent didn't really change much. Weapons were changed to ease production in most cases. 1944 SMG's didn't fire more rounds, more powerful rounds, or had longer range, they were just cheaper and in some cases more reliable (in many cases less).

#3. What changed most was deployment. Deploying 2 LMG per squad affected a division more than giving them a new LMG (the Bren and Lewis had almost exactly the same statistics).

Take this for example. The develompent of the Machine Gun had less impact in WW1 than the development of the Machine Gun battalion. Before the MG Bn, regular infantry Battalions had between 2-4 MG's. The MG Bn had 36 such guns, and their inclusion into the Division drastically increased its firepower (since Regular Bn MG's were replaced with LMG's). Submachine Guns were deployed one per squad early in the war. By the end of the war many nations had entire SMG Platoons/Companies, with others deploying 2-4 SMG's per squad.

The Current Technology Tree overrates the invention of new equipment. It gives value to equimpent that should have none, plus it represents only a limited view of equipment (this limited view is based upon every nation using the same equipment as Germany).

Here is a 'view' into what I think would make for a more realistic tech tree.

(Artillery, 3rd and 4th Gold Techs)

Code: 
14100 - 1930's MOTORIZED THEORY
	14101 - Improved Gun Carriage				[14006]
	14102 - Anti-Tank Artillery (40mm-50mm)		[14002 14101]
		(+1 HA +2 GD +0.02 Sup = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN, MAR, MIL)
	14103 - Anti-Aircraft Artillery (20mm-25mm)	[14001 14101]
		(+1 AA +2 GD +0.02 Sup = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN, MAR, MIL)
		(+1 AA Batteries)
	14104 - Railroad Gun					[14004]
		(+1 SA +10%FortAttack = A)
	14105 - Armour Piericing Round			[14102]
		(+1 HA = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN, PAR, MAR, ARM)
	14106 - Improved Field Artillery			[14006 14101]
		(+1 SA +2 GD = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN)
	14107 - Infantry Guns					[14106]
		(+2 SA +4 GD +0.01 Sup = MAR, PAR, MIL)

14150 - 1930's MOTORIZED THEORY ARMY AND CORPS
	14151 - Divisional Howitzer Batallion		[14008]
		(+5%MtnAtk +5%MtnDef +5%HillAtk +5%HillDef = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV)
	14152 - Regimental Light AT Company			[14002]
		(+1 HA +0.01 Sup = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN)
	14153 - Corps Heavy AA Regiments			[14003]
		(+1 AA = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN, ARM)
	14154 - Standardized Artillery Ammunition		[14054 14108]
	14155 - Artillery Anti-Tank Guns			[-14156 14102]
		(+2 HA = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN
	14156 - Infantry Anti-Tank Guns			[-14155 14102]
		(+5%ORG = INF, MOT, MEC, CAV, MTN
	14157 - Camouflaged Netting				[14057 14108]
		(-10% Army detection chance them)
 
Oh well... I was relatively satisfied with current artillery tech tree. :)

I see that general idea presented in the post above is moving from "tech oriented" system of upgrades to more "organization oriented" one. My opinion on that is same as it was in time when we discussed similar change to the tank tech tree - it's very good from historical point of view, but it's somehow unclear and hard to comprehend gamewise. You don't have all those obvious "focal points" - normally you know that something named "70mm" is probably better then "40mm", but when you have to choose between "field telephone service" and "bicycle recon squad"... ;) Of course artillery tech tree thanks to the lack of models is not so complicated, but still...

As I see it now, tech trees (in general) in CORE need changes in:

1) land/air doctrines - cost/time modification to fit in new system (it's ready for integration in 0.72) and possibly more developed ones (especially in case of air) with more cheap and detailed doctrines,

2) modified nuclear tech tree - same reason as in point (1). Besides, original nuclear tech tree is somehow oversimplified.

3) Adjusting unit values to achieve better SA:GD ratios. New CORE versions we will use combat modifier that effectively stops fighting at night as well as seriously slows down fighting in snow - that will result in better results for attacker (no extreme night losses), so it have to be balanced by higher GD values. IMHO 1:4 for the early war infantry units and 1:3 for late war ones should work fine there, especially when we consider the fact, that late war units will have much better ground efficiency and numerous terrain modifiers raising their ability to deal damage.

One of the most important results of that is the fact that battles will usually last longer.

4) Adjusting unit values to achieve more realistic HA(infantry):GD(tank) ratios. Right now early war HA:GD ratio for 1939 infantry and basic medium tank depending on the country is like 1:4 to 1:3. Later it rise fast, closing to 1:1,5 ratio, then it settles on 1:2 or 1:2,5. Not very logical, but it's partially due to the reasons mentioned above (too early bonus from 50/70mm AT guns, too early individual AT infantry weapons).

Of course we can add to this list "organizational oriented" system of upgrades, but if we do this, we should consider doing it for all land tech trees (infantry/tank/artillery), not only artillery.

McNaughton said:
(...)I have been toying with new/revised infantry and artillery technologies. As it is now, it is confusing, and
(...)
Click to expand...

BTW, could you finish this sentence? :)
 
Let me start again, finishing that sentence.

The Old Technolgy Tree (vanilla and my modifications) was full of techs that really didn't make sense, and connections that were confusing. You shouldn't have to research Combat Medical Service (Gold Tech) to get Improved Infantry Weapons (Gold Tech). Also, it wasn't like nations had all-or-nothing. Take the Specialist Warfare techs which annoy me to no end. For one, in order for a nation to get anywhere (if they start from scratch) they need the Specialist Warfare Gold Tech. It makes no sense to have this as a requirment for other technology areas, and it makes no sense for these technologies to be isolated.

I would like to re-explain what my proposed tech tree offers.

#1. A revised and balanced set of techs.

Instead of most of the technologies being found at the beginning of the Technology Trees, each era is balanced out. There are similar numbers of Great War techs as they are Post-War techs. This makes late war researching more interesting, as it offers you similar bonus' as early war. Instead of 70 techs per area, there are about 80 techs (which means more areas to research).

#2. Uniform Eras.

Each Era is based upon a template. Each Era encompasses about 12-16 technologies between two gold techs. It is designed for easy modding, in both the INC files and AI files, and is logically devised.

Base Infantry Tech Era

**00 - Gold Tech #1 Equipment R&D
**01 - Key Component (like Smokeless Cordite, Gas Recoil, etc.)
**02 - Light Weaponry (like Rifles, Submachine Guns, etc.)
**03 - Heavy Weaponry (like Machine Guns, etc.)
**04 - Support Weaponry (like Mortors, Anti-Tank Rockets, etc.)
**05 - Logistics (reduction of supply use)
**06 - Signals and Command (decrease their surprise on us)
**07 - Medicine (like MASH units, Casualty Clearing stations, etc.)

**50 - Gold Tech #1 Equipment Deployment
**51 - Heavy Weaponry Units (like MG Bns, SMG Companies, etc.)
**52 - Special Forces (like Pioneers, Engineers, Commandos, etc.)
**53 - Battalion Recon Division (like Cavalry Bn, Armoured Car Bn, etc.)
**54 - Battalion Recon Corps (like Cavalry Bn, Armoured Car Bn, etc.)
**55 - Option A*
**56 - Option B*

*Each Deplyment era (infantry and artillery) has a customization option of either tech A or tech B. Things like choosing to have old equipment used in militia divisions, or have it deployed for regular forces, to have one artillery gun (i.e., British using just 25 Pdr) or mixing up artillery (i.e., France using the 75mm and 155mm), or increasing HA (anti-tank rifle platoons) or SA (infantry gun platoons).

Modders would know that every Infantry tech, be it 1001, 1101, or 1501 will be that era's 'Key Component'. This makes creating INC files and AI tech trees much easier.

#3. Elimination of the 'odd' Gold techs.

Removing the Specialist Warfare Equipment Gold area was done by dividing up its bonus' in other techs. Instead of getting just Jungle Warfare from the Jungle Warfare Equipment, the new Medical techs (one per era) face small increases of % in fighting and moving in harsh terrain. I think this makes more sense as increasing the health of your soldiers makes them fight better in harsh terrain than giving them shorts. It gives the medical tech some teeth behind it, and gets rid of some techs that don't make much sense.

#4. Increase in equipment affects not only supply use, but cost.

Since there are key techs in each tree, we can have certain techs increase the cost in both IC as well as MP (such as adding a specialist battalion to a division) transport weight and supply. This will require the decrease in cost of original divisions to make up for the fact that the better equipped a division, the more it costs.
 
Semi-Lobster said:
Shouldn't Denmark have the 12.7mm tankette? Of course they shouldn't have any tanks but they should have the tech
Click to expand...

hmm what are you basing this on. I dont remember reading about a danish tank project.

Ghost_dk
 
McNaughton, I agree with every idea that makes the tech tree more organized/easier to understand for the player. :D

Personally I like the way it was done in old tank mod we used as a base for our tank tech tree, basically it was something like:

Golden Tech with new models/vehicles (new generation of vehicles)
Golden Tech with new upgrades (introduced roughly at the same time),
Golden Tech with new models/vehicles (next generation of vehicles),
and so on...

In fact new air tech tree is organized in similar way. When I plan new tech tree I usually break golden techs on the "years", then attach technologies that "fit" there.

Example:

Code: 
Level 0 Great War Experience – Air (6 IC – 180 days)

Basic Air Operations Coordination 12008

Early AA Defense Coordination Systems 12009

Trio Formation Tactics 12001

Great War Air Operations Infrastructure 12010

Naval Air Formations 12011


Level 1 Interwar Doctrines – Air (6 IC – 360 days, 1936-1938 period) – most nations got this level at the start of scenario

Bomber as Decisive Weapon 12103

Bomber as Tactical Support 12002 (former “Blitz”)

Close Support Experimentation 12104

Destroyer Fighter Doctrine 12105

Airborne Assault Doctrine *12003

Prewar Airborne Transport Pilot Training *12016

Early Radar Defense Systems Experimentation 12106

Point Anti-Air Defense Doctrine 12004

Carrier Based Airgroups 12005

Shortened Training Regime 12007

Extended Training Programme 12008



Level 2 Early War Experience – Air (6 IC – 720 days, 1938-1940 period)

12101 # "Home Chain" Doctrine

12102 # Sheltered Airfields Organization

*12015 # Divisional Airborne Maneuvers

12201 # Combat Training Team Doctrine 

12203 # Mechanized Airborne Doctrine

12204 # Vertical Envelopment Doctrine

12206 # Forward Units Air Support Operations


Level 3 Early Combat Tests – Air (6 IC – 720 days, 1940-1942 period)

12304 # Large Scale Air Operations Coordination

12401 # Wingman Doctrine

12202 # Carpet Bombing Doctrine

12205 # Area Anti-Air Defense Doctrine

*12017 # Wartime Airborne Transport Pilot Training



Level 4 Late War Experience – Air (6 IC – 720 days, 1942-1944 period)

12301 # Air-Land Battle Doctrine

12302 # Radar Scout Doctrine

12303 # Bomb-Runner Doctrine

12402 # Effective Close Air Support

12403 # Terror Bombing Doctrine

12405 # Early Electronic Air Warfare 


Level 4 Late War Combat Testing – Air (6 IC – 720 days, 1944-1946 period)

12404 # Airborne Invasion Organization

12502 # Air Superiority Doctrine

12503 # Fighter-Bomber Missions Doctrine

12504 # Effective Air Missions Command System

12505 # Semi-Modern Air Defense System

If you mean doing similar changes to the infantry/artillery tech trees, I see no problem with that. I guess infantry needs changes much more then artillery - in 0.71 artillery tech tree I can easily decide, how to develop weapons I want, in infantry I rarely use any R&D strategy. Still, it might be just me...
 
Ghost_dk said:
hmm what are you basing this on. I dont remember reading about a danish tank project.

Ghost_dk
Click to expand...

Denmark ordered a number of FP-4's and FP-5's. They where based on the Carden-Loyd Patrol Car Mk VI. They where of very poor quality andtheir tracks fell off frequently. But it was cheap to build and use. Maybe they should have the 7.92mm tankette instead. Here's the FP-5.

FP5.jpg
 
Semi-Lobster said:
Denmark ordered a number of FP-4's and FP-5's. They where based on the Carden-Loyd Patrol Car Mk VI. They where of very poor quality andtheir tracks fell off frequently. But it was cheap to build and use. Maybe they should have the 7.92mm tankette instead. Here's the FP-5.

FP5.jpg
Click to expand...

You learn something new every day. I thought we were completely out of such verhicle's :D

Ghost_dk
 
Do you guys consider the "great patriotic war" event done? Because when i wrote it it was supposed to have similar events for Germany(tanks, planes) and Japan(planes) too... US should also have one, but they dont really need it..
 
hesp said:
Do you guys consider the "great patriotic war" event done? Because when i wrote it it was supposed to have similar events for Germany(tanks, planes) and Japan(planes) too... US should also have one, but they dont really need it..
Click to expand...

A GPW event for Germany will be in the next version.

Ghost_dk
 
hesp said:
Do you guys consider the "great patriotic war" event done? Because when i wrote it it was supposed to have similar events for Germany(tanks, planes) and Japan(planes) too... US should also have one, but they dont really need it..
Click to expand...

About Japan - see the post above.

As for the USA, as you mentioned, they don't need that - to balance their IC they have series of dissent causing events in 1936-1938 period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back