New Infantry Tech Tree
Hello all;
I'm interested in doing an entirely new Infantry tech tree, with changes to the Land Doctrines, Artillery, and Armor tech trees where they affect the Infantry.
I'd like to change it because the arrangement of techs is, to me, more than a little awkward and unrealistic. Many of the techs overstate the effect of some weapon innovations and understate others. (Examples, the flamethrower for overstated and the semi-auto rifle for understated.) The affects of many techs seem totally arbitrary. (Example, why dont improvements affect Cavalry? Is there any reason why Cavalrymen cant use an improved rifle or submachine gun?) I know our friend, MKSheppard, addressed this particular issue but I think it still needs work.
Another problem of the tech tree is that it doesn't accurately reflect the substantial differences in small arms quality and the profound impact that had on unit firepower. -Example- the Italians and the Japanese both had submachine guns, light MGs and GPMGs at the begining of 1936, but they were so bad that they added very little to the firepower of the units employing them. Italy's main battle rifle was the Mannlicher-Carcanno (sp) for Christ's sake!! How does that equal the British Lee-Enfield or the German K-98, or the Russian Moissan-Nagant (sp)? Not to mention that the US had the M1919 LMG, M2 HMG, M1917 BAR, Thompson SMG, .45 Auto Pistol, M1 Garand rifle, all by 1936.
The point I'm trying to make by highlighting these differences, is that a unit's ability both to attack and destroy the enemy, as well as its ability to defeat an attack is directly proportional to the accuracy, lethality, and volume of firepower that it can direct at the enemy. Period. True then - true now. However, if you're Italy or Japan and you have the 'Service Rifle' innovation, then you get the same benefit as another nation that has a much more technically competent small arms industry. Its seems that production quality played a role here too, but thats beyond the scope.
I need help. I need some way to address this and other issues with the Infantry tech tree that aren't too cumbersome. I'm thinking of expanding the 'Early Weapons' heading to include some of these inferior infantry, and infantry support weapons.
What do you think? Am I even on the right track? Please, post your thoughts. I really have a high regard for much of what I see posted and I am really looking forward to the feed back.
