-
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.
"Some" tips/remarks on the tech tree
Okay, here you go; some remarks on that tech tree (wich is looking quite good already):
-I think there should more early techs in all categories, great war ones that is: it would help in making differences between basic industrial nations and nations in wich there was little development of any kind (tibet, bhutan, nepal, ethiopia,...)
-the nation-specific techs are an excellent idea, we should build on that one; for example American units would use more supplies than normal while Russian units would use less than normal; other examples would be terrain bonusses; russian units should be a lot better in artic warfare (after Finnish winter war ofcourse), forest warfare and some other things; swiss would be really good in mountain warfare, britain would be quite good in desert warfare (colonial experience) and so forth. But these positive effects should also have their negative effects. Finns and Swedes should suck in desert or jungle warfare for example... Note that these have nothing to do with equipment or tactics to use as these are (and should) be researchable; it are only terrain experience modifiers wich should enable most nations to fight better in their own natural habitat.
-tanks: currently you can have entire divisions of Tigers, Köningstigers or even Maus tanks! This would never happen in reality therefore I suggest making heavy tanks add to defense, soft- and hardattack but lower a division's speed and increase the cost/buildtime for divisions wich have a battalion of these in them. I would also think of reorganizing medium tanks like this:
-pre-war medium: like the early pz III, pz 38 (t), M3 General Lee and BT 5/7
-early war medium: like the early PZ IV, late PZ III , T34/76 and the first Shermans
-mid-war medium: like the late PZ IV, t34/85 and late Shermans
-late-war medium: like the Panther and t44
this would make tank models more historically correct amongst other things (researchable should be one normal model and one short-barrel model per type)
-electronics and industry techs: there should be more much more and they should somehow have a larger impact instead of what they are now
-ships: these look really good but I don't know what to think of escort carriers; if you do it in this fashion the AI will build these instead of normal carriers, maybe make it a bonus for transports (better airdefence/airattack); could you also add the size in millimeters (between brackets) for the inches of ships; this also counts for some artillery techs.
-there are still quite a lot of descriptions wich are faulty or too short; i also think there should be given more historical examples per tech instead of just those of one nation (ships and planes just too name a few); maybe you could ask to use Exel's mod for this?
-artillery: currently it is the higher the caliber of a gun the better but there was also a distinct quality difference wich isn't used in any way; just look at tank guns... I think early, basic, improved, advanced and post-war tank (others too?) guns should be added and they should be made prerequisite for certain gun and tank types (and would have effects on upgrade)
And last but not least:
-mechanized divisions; maybe they are there a bit too soon and they should be put somewhere in the tech tree before being allowed to be built
There you go! Have fun!
Dennis.
Okay, here you go; some remarks on that tech tree (wich is looking quite good already):
-I think there should more early techs in all categories, great war ones that is: it would help in making differences between basic industrial nations and nations in wich there was little development of any kind (tibet, bhutan, nepal, ethiopia,...)
-the nation-specific techs are an excellent idea, we should build on that one; for example American units would use more supplies than normal while Russian units would use less than normal; other examples would be terrain bonusses; russian units should be a lot better in artic warfare (after Finnish winter war ofcourse), forest warfare and some other things; swiss would be really good in mountain warfare, britain would be quite good in desert warfare (colonial experience) and so forth. But these positive effects should also have their negative effects. Finns and Swedes should suck in desert or jungle warfare for example... Note that these have nothing to do with equipment or tactics to use as these are (and should) be researchable; it are only terrain experience modifiers wich should enable most nations to fight better in their own natural habitat.
-tanks: currently you can have entire divisions of Tigers, Köningstigers or even Maus tanks! This would never happen in reality therefore I suggest making heavy tanks add to defense, soft- and hardattack but lower a division's speed and increase the cost/buildtime for divisions wich have a battalion of these in them. I would also think of reorganizing medium tanks like this:
-pre-war medium: like the early pz III, pz 38 (t), M3 General Lee and BT 5/7
-early war medium: like the early PZ IV, late PZ III , T34/76 and the first Shermans
-mid-war medium: like the late PZ IV, t34/85 and late Shermans
-late-war medium: like the Panther and t44
this would make tank models more historically correct amongst other things (researchable should be one normal model and one short-barrel model per type)
-electronics and industry techs: there should be more much more and they should somehow have a larger impact instead of what they are now
-ships: these look really good but I don't know what to think of escort carriers; if you do it in this fashion the AI will build these instead of normal carriers, maybe make it a bonus for transports (better airdefence/airattack); could you also add the size in millimeters (between brackets) for the inches of ships; this also counts for some artillery techs.
-there are still quite a lot of descriptions wich are faulty or too short; i also think there should be given more historical examples per tech instead of just those of one nation (ships and planes just too name a few); maybe you could ask to use Exel's mod for this?
-artillery: currently it is the higher the caliber of a gun the better but there was also a distinct quality difference wich isn't used in any way; just look at tank guns... I think early, basic, improved, advanced and post-war tank (others too?) guns should be added and they should be made prerequisite for certain gun and tank types (and would have effects on upgrade)
And last but not least:
-mechanized divisions; maybe they are there a bit too soon and they should be put somewhere in the tech tree before being allowed to be built
There you go! Have fun!
Dennis.
Re: "Some" tips/remarks on the tech tree
IMO current version some way helps that matter - techs like HMG and mortars and generally higher starting techs for ALL european countries make HUGE difference vs countries like Ethiopia or Nepal. Check this out - in current version every EU coutry got light and medium mortars, HMG, 30mm infantry guns... It makes difference.
If you got any ideas for early techs to add to 0 level - go ahead, it would be interesting thing to spice up game.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that all european nations have to be bad in different climate zone - just look at Africa Corps. Adding US some more supply and fuel usage would be easy, as well as mutain bonus for Switzerland and Austria. Finns already got right doctrine, as Russkies would get this too. But again - we have to be very, very carefull in that.
Great idea! It would be really good step to make game more historical - but also, very, very big change in all game mechanics. I suggest to make first version with heavy/light tank divs and meanwhile I will try to make version according to your idea.
Yes, but I'm not real expert on those fields - there was tread on this subject sometime, but now it looks totally abandoned.
Wait for new version of mod with MDow naval tree - some mayor changes are on the way.
Just give me list of mistakes, I'll make corrects.
Better way would be giving some industrial techs as prerequisites for that - for now industrial tree is rather "oil and rubber" tree.
So, what doctrine should activate it? For now it's motorized warfare. It's a pity that tank divs are active from the start...
Thanks for your feedback - and give me some more info about new version posted on the website.
Cheers,
IMO current version some way helps that matter - techs like HMG and mortars and generally higher starting techs for ALL european countries make HUGE difference vs countries like Ethiopia or Nepal. Check this out - in current version every EU coutry got light and medium mortars, HMG, 30mm infantry guns... It makes difference.
If you got any ideas for early techs to add to 0 level - go ahead, it would be interesting thing to spice up game.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that all european nations have to be bad in different climate zone - just look at Africa Corps.
Adding US some more supply and fuel usage would be easy, as well as mutain bonus for Switzerland and Austria. Finns already got right doctrine, as Russkies would get this too. But again - we have to be very, very carefull in that. Great idea! It would be really good step to make game more historical - but also, very, very big change in all game mechanics. I suggest to make first version with heavy/light tank divs and meanwhile I will try to make version according to your idea.
Yes, but I'm not real expert on those fields - there was tread on this subject sometime, but now it looks totally abandoned.
Wait for new version of mod with MDow naval tree - some mayor changes are on the way.
Just give me list of mistakes, I'll make corrects.
Better way would be giving some industrial techs as prerequisites for that - for now industrial tree is rather "oil and rubber" tree.
So, what doctrine should activate it? For now it's motorized warfare. It's a pity that tank divs are active from the start...
Thanks for your feedback - and give me some more info about new version posted on the website.
Cheers,
Re: "Some" tips/remarks on the tech tree
I have just finished debugging the new naval tech tree. It should go out across the ether to Copper Nicus tonight. One of the changes is the Escort Carriers are now model #2 which should mean that the AI will build fleet carriers and better which have the higher numbers. I have made the default units for the tech tree metric (except for nautical miles which have km in brackets). There are a lot of early techs (6 levels) that will be required for minor nations to research or be given to play with the big boys.
Hopefully you aren't one of the translators. The new naval tech tree has at least a half screen (on the tech research page) of information for each development. Some of it propbably gets too technical... but it happens. Hopefully this answers some of your questions. Thank you for the feedback. MDow
I have just finished debugging the new naval tech tree. It should go out across the ether to Copper Nicus tonight. One of the changes is the Escort Carriers are now model #2 which should mean that the AI will build fleet carriers and better which have the higher numbers. I have made the default units for the tech tree metric (except for nautical miles which have km in brackets). There are a lot of early techs (6 levels) that will be required for minor nations to research or be given to play with the big boys.
Hopefully you aren't one of the translators. The new naval tech tree has at least a half screen (on the tech research page) of information for each development. Some of it propbably gets too technical... but it happens. Hopefully this answers some of your questions. Thank you for the feedback. MDow
Re: Re: "Some" tips/remarks on the tech tree
Will do, expect a pm/mail any day now (maybe do this for every, except naval wich is already done, tech field?)
Will do
Will do, expect a pm/mail any day now
(maybe do this for every, except naval wich is already done, tech field?)Well, Afrika Korps is disputable but you must admit they fought worse there than in the rest of Europe; and I think it had more to do with strategy and equipment as I don't think the average German soldier during that age was used to fight in such conditions. British forces who lived and worked in Egypt for years however would be alot better in desert conditions and would therefore be more suitable for deset combat; strategy and such ofcourse changed that. Another idea would be to make Japanese defence higher and make Kamikaze fighters to have atleast another prerequistite (a certain plane level) and maybe add rocket kamikazes and kamikaze boats; they would also probablly have lower supply use than most forces. Same for Chinese units I think; maybe lower organization.Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Hmmm, I'm not sure that all european nations have to be bad in different climate zone - just look at Africa Corps.
Sounds okay to me, but I think light tank divisions did exist at the time...
Maybe put some life in it again?Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Yes, but I'm not real expert on those fields - there was tread on this subject sometime, but now it looks totally abandoned.
Will doOriginally posted by Copper Nicus
Wait for new version of mod with MDow naval tree - some mayor changes are on the way.
Maybe I should wait for 0.2; then I'd have a better overview.
Sounds fine; IMO the industrial and electronic trees have too little importance at the moment, they should be almost as important as doctrines IMO, construction techs for example should come in different levels as well.Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Better way would be giving some industrial techs as prerequisites for that - for now industrial tree is rather "oil and rubber" tree.
Operational Warfare Doctrine? Or maybe make some new techs; same should be done for tanks as they weren't used in divisions by default.Originally posted by Copper Nicus
So, what doctrine should activate it? For now it's motorized warfare. It's a pity that tank divs are active from the start...
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Thanks for your feedback - and give me some more info about new version posted on the website.
Cheers,
Will do
Re: my mech solution
Yes, I was thinking about it too... but what with other nations? France had mechanized divisions since the start of war. Same with USSR.
I know that 80% of players play Germany, but we should think about the others as well.
I think I just put it a bit higher in doctrine tree - Mechanized HQ's looks suitable...
Yes, I was thinking about it too... but what with other nations? France had mechanized divisions since the start of war. Same with USSR.
I know that 80% of players play Germany, but we should think about the others as well.
I think I just put it a bit higher in doctrine tree - Mechanized HQ's looks suitable...
Last edited:
I posted these suggestions on a separate thread both in the C.O.R.E. forum and in the suggestions/wishes/ideas/tweaks forum, but as Steel suggested, I will post them here as well.
1. Add prototype techs as requirements for the next level (tanks and aircraft). For example so that you need basic interceptor prototype before you can research improved interceptor and basic light tank prototype before being able to research improved light tank.
2. Some techs should grant experience bonuses (either directly or by increasing the exp gain). Combat Training Team doctrine for example.
3a. Some new unit classes would be needed and some current ones should be redefined. For example early heavy tank tech would be needed (for T-35, Char 2C, Neubaufahrzeug...) as well as early fighter (for I-16, F3F and maybe Hurricane, pre-war fighters would then represent solely bi-planes). A carrier fighter class would also be an excellent addition if it's possible to implement one. Naval bombers could be either 1) combined with torpedo bombers or 2) removed while tactical (medium) bombers would take their place by receiving their naval attack values (most naval bombers were sub-version of land-based medium bombers anyway).
3b. Some unit names need to be changed. For example dive bombers to ground attack planes (this because very few countries had actual dive bombers, but instead ground attack planes such as IL-2) and tactical bombers to medium bombers.
4. Model names need to be changed. I will offer my list for all model names when I get the work done.
1. Add prototype techs as requirements for the next level (tanks and aircraft). For example so that you need basic interceptor prototype before you can research improved interceptor and basic light tank prototype before being able to research improved light tank.
2. Some techs should grant experience bonuses (either directly or by increasing the exp gain). Combat Training Team doctrine for example.
3a. Some new unit classes would be needed and some current ones should be redefined. For example early heavy tank tech would be needed (for T-35, Char 2C, Neubaufahrzeug...) as well as early fighter (for I-16, F3F and maybe Hurricane, pre-war fighters would then represent solely bi-planes). A carrier fighter class would also be an excellent addition if it's possible to implement one. Naval bombers could be either 1) combined with torpedo bombers or 2) removed while tactical (medium) bombers would take their place by receiving their naval attack values (most naval bombers were sub-version of land-based medium bombers anyway).
3b. Some unit names need to be changed. For example dive bombers to ground attack planes (this because very few countries had actual dive bombers, but instead ground attack planes such as IL-2) and tactical bombers to medium bombers.
4. Model names need to be changed. I will offer my list for all model names when I get the work done.
Last edited:
This might make the game a little harder for the majors (namely the soviets, Germany and US of A), but will make the game with the minors even more historically inacurate. Note that the majority of countries simply bought a license to build an aircraft or even bought the planes. They didn't need any prototype to improve them (like in case of romanian IAR-80, for instance).
Can this be implemented?
Pre war biplanes went out of service in the early thirties in most countries. In Poland the last biplane left active duty in 1933. And I think the difference between the naval bomber and the torpedo bomber should still be there (with the difference that a torpedo bomber should represent an carrier-based fighter-bomber, as it was in reality).
Again, I'm afraid this is coded too deep inside the game system to be changed. But maybe I'm wrong...
Try at the model names thread, they're already working on this.
Cheers
Copper Nicus
I'm not knowledgeable about France's military armarment in 1936. Were there truly mechanized divisions or were they motorized infantry with tank formations? If the later the armored division would model them accurately. (See my example of a Panzer division breakdown in the above thread.)
Personally I tend to think the Mechanized Division shouldn't be in the game at all or as a late-game upgrade to the motorized division as the ultimate result of what the US began to use towards the end of the war in their Combat Command Taskforces.
How to properly do this for those of us who'd like a little more accuracy in the gameing model is my ultimate goal.
I chose to go higher with the activation since it was only after much fighting that one, the need for the unit only came about from war experience, and two the proper equipment simply wasn't there in numbers until the end. I added the halftrack statistical changes to the armored division to refelect said division's prority in getting equipment to allow its infantry to keep up with the tanks. A begining Armored Divisions infantry would start out on trucks, then some early halftracks, and get better equipment as the war progressed.
Comments?
Patrick
I'm not knowledgeable about France's military armarment in 1936. Were there truly mechanized divisions or were they motorized infantry with tank formations? If the later the armored division would model them accurately. (See my example of a Panzer division breakdown in the above thread.)
Personally I tend to think the Mechanized Division shouldn't be in the game at all or as a late-game upgrade to the motorized division as the ultimate result of what the US began to use towards the end of the war in their Combat Command Taskforces.
How to properly do this for those of us who'd like a little more accuracy in the gameing model is my ultimate goal.
I chose to go higher with the activation since it was only after much fighting that one, the need for the unit only came about from war experience, and two the proper equipment simply wasn't there in numbers until the end. I added the halftrack statistical changes to the armored division to refelect said division's prority in getting equipment to allow its infantry to keep up with the tanks. A begining Armored Divisions infantry would start out on trucks, then some early halftracks, and get better equipment as the war progressed.
Comments?
Patrick
Last edited:
Re: Copper Nicus
Cheers
It's exactly opposite. There shouldn't be tank divisions in the early divisions as most of the world addopted the french system of "division legere mecanisee" or an "fast division" which seems exactly what "mec inf" is for.
Cheers
Maybe so, but this is one reason why there should be some kind of armaments trade system. So the minors could actually buy their goods from majors without researching them by themselves.
Nope. Germany for instance used He51 until Bf109E was in active service in large quantities. And that happened in 1938-39. Soviet Union used it's I-153 bi-planes long til 40's. And many minors used bi-planes thoughout the war. The pre-war class is already there for bi-planes (it has a bi-plane icon...), it's just a matter of getting a new early fighter class for planes like I-16 and F3F that weren't bi-planes, but not yet quite as advanced as Spitfire, Bf109 or MiG-3.
I'm not saying that naval bomber class should be scrapped completely, just that it could be integrated into medium (tactical) bomber class. Just simply give the medium bomber the naval attack values (or so that they increase when you research naval aviation techs). The so-called naval bombers were merely just slightly modified variants from their ground attack cousins (Ju88, B-25, He111...), and there were only a few specialized naval bombers.
I don't think so. The names are listed in the tech txt files. At least it would be quite easy to experiment if changing any of those has any effect.
Nope. There's no event command for increasing experience and the command to increase skill doesn't increment but rather changes the skill (ie value = 1 sets skill to 1 rather than increase it by 1) so it's useless. Logged it as a bug yesterday.
Re: Copper Nicus
A bit higher activation of Mech Division is not a problem, but I don't think that activating them by very advanced doctrine is good. Two reasons:
1) Germany got very good starting doctrines, so they will be able to get mech divisions almost right away (ahistorical).
2) Some nations had mechanized divs (tank regimens combined with mobile infantry) at the start of war. And AI is aboslutelly unable to get high level doctrines in reasonable time - in result, whole US Army would use motorized divs instead.
A bit higher activation of Mech Division is not a problem, but I don't think that activating them by very advanced doctrine is good. Two reasons:
1) Germany got very good starting doctrines, so they will be able to get mech divisions almost right away (ahistorical).
2) Some nations had mechanized divs (tank regimens combined with mobile infantry) at the start of war. And AI is aboslutelly unable to get high level doctrines in reasonable time - in result, whole US Army would use motorized divs instead.
Excel@:
I'm going to add some more conditions needed for geting higher level techs, prototypes of low tech eqipment are among them (as well as some industry techs).
Renaming particular units is quite easy - I understand that I'm free to use your work (namemod)?
Changing name of the TYPE of unit is totally different - it's hardcoded.
About planes... Still much to do with land techs. But later I would try to review it as well.
I'm going to add some more conditions needed for geting higher level techs, prototypes of low tech eqipment are among them (as well as some industry techs).
Renaming particular units is quite easy - I understand that I'm free to use your work (namemod)?
Changing name of the TYPE of unit is totally different - it's hardcoded.
About planes... Still much to do with land techs. But later I would try to review it as well.
So the AI has to be changed.
Renaming particular units is quite easy - I understand that I'm free to use your work (namemod)?
Changing name of the TYPE of unit is totally different - it's hardcoded.
Well we'll have to request the name changes into official HoI then. But if you add a completely new unit class (let's say early heavy tank for example) how do set the name for it? Shouldn't it be possible then to change the names of default unit classes the same way?
Also, I had a little conversation with EmperorDennis in irc yesterday, and among other things the removal of super-heavy tanks came up. How about replacing the super-heavy tank class with semi-modern tanks (M47 Patton, T-54, etc.)? Super-heavy tanks could be made as an additional brigade attachment - if possible - or scrapped completely. They were merely prototypes and design practices and none were ever build in large quantities anyway.
And about planes. Is the current (default) way of handling fighters satisfactory, or should the current three classes be redefined someway or perhaps a fourth fighter class added?
I will offer my models.csv list as soon as it's finished. It will be an improved version of Deserteur's work (there are quite a few spots there I don't like) and plane names will be taken from my (improved) Air Force mod.
I'm not sure if we talk about the same - by new class I uderstand new type of units (like tank division (class) with particular units (light tank, medium, ipoved medium and so on). You can't create new classes (or change their names), you can only add units in existing class.
Semi-modern (at least 50ties semi-modern) tanks are already there - other changes Denis sugested are on the way (no brigades, just a change of statistics - brigades are hardcoded).
Check MKSheppard tech tree - CORE is based on that.
I like the way it is (but there is 4th class added, semi-modern).
Ok. For now we have some problems with implementation of new naval tree, but when we find the bug first test version will be released.
With unit class I meant for example basic interceptor, advanced medium tank, improved dive-bomber, etc. So is it possible to change those names? If yes, then I'd like to see dive bombers changed to ground attack planes (or something similar) and tactical bombers changed to medium bombers.
And what I meant with the fourth fighter class and changes to existing ones was something like this:
interceptor - Bf109, Spitfire
fighter-bomber - Hurricane, LaGG-3
multi-role fighter - Bf110, Mosquito
escort fighter - P-51, Yak, Fw190
And what I meant with the fourth fighter class and changes to existing ones was something like this:
interceptor - Bf109, Spitfire
fighter-bomber - Hurricane, LaGG-3
multi-role fighter - Bf110, Mosquito
escort fighter - P-51, Yak, Fw190
Ok, then it's possible - it's modified in models.csv file (not in unit files, names in those are only in REM lines). Ok, I'll remember that.
About planes - fighter-bomber and multirole fighter is basically the same, isn't it?