This is already represented by the capture of the enemy supply stockpile. Remember that supply points in HoI aren't just food and ammo for troops, they are also weapons, guns, vehicles, aircrafts and spare parts!
-
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.
This is already represented by the capture of the enemy supply stockpile. Remember that supply points in HoI aren't just food and ammo for troops, they are also weapons, guns, vehicles, aircrafts and spare parts!
One thing that I can tell you is that the AI will only spend 50% of remaining IC on industry, UNLESS it doesn't have the MP to make stuff. I have noticed increased tech levels for Canada, Australia, and the UK because of my modded low MP levels, but even with these nations sharing tech, and developing it at 100% efficiency (they don't have resource problems and very little in production), but they still don't have everything they should by 1939 (they don't share everything, as the British had Vickers Light Tanks, and the best the Commonwealth had was Advanced Great War Tanks). Yet, we cannot, nor is it desireable, to limit every nation down to very low MP (how else will Germany mobilize?).
I still think that a few limited tech selling events, and revamping the starting tech of some nations (for example Belgium had a working domestic 47mm AT Gun in 1935, and the British 2 Pdr was developed in 1935 as well), will get some of the minor, and even lesser major nations with reasonable amounts of technology. These nations recieved military equipment in such high amounts that it was standardly deployed in all forces, so I think it meets the requirements (i.e., having a few SMG's and some blueprints vs. having enough SMG's to equip the entire army and the ability to supply and replace through domestic production). Tanks are a different story. All you need is a working example, or prototype, which is basically what "Light/Medium Tank Prototype Tests" tech is, which is creating prototypes and testing them. It won't give you tank production overnight, but it will allow you to skip a few steps in the process of developing a tank, which is what minor nations need, and why so many tanks were sold as prototypes to other minor nations instead of them starting from scratch and developing their own.
I still think that a few limited tech selling events, and revamping the starting tech of some nations (for example Belgium had a working domestic 47mm AT Gun in 1935, and the British 2 Pdr was developed in 1935 as well), will get some of the minor, and even lesser major nations with reasonable amounts of technology. These nations recieved military equipment in such high amounts that it was standardly deployed in all forces, so I think it meets the requirements (i.e., having a few SMG's and some blueprints vs. having enough SMG's to equip the entire army and the ability to supply and replace through domestic production). Tanks are a different story. All you need is a working example, or prototype, which is basically what "Light/Medium Tank Prototype Tests" tech is, which is creating prototypes and testing them. It won't give you tank production overnight, but it will allow you to skip a few steps in the process of developing a tank, which is what minor nations need, and why so many tanks were sold as prototypes to other minor nations instead of them starting from scratch and developing their own.
Last edited:
I would like to put forward the case (again) about increasing the technology of many starting nations to represent their nation's actual level of technology in 1936.
I understand why things are done, but looking at test games, the concern that giving too many techs to these nations will result in them ahead in technology does not pan out.
Looking at France
They start with Basic Medium Tanks and Basic Light Tanks in production, yet not the technology to research them, nor even the technology to research tankettes. By 1940 they have developed most of the Tankette research, but very little of the basic tech. This tech they should already have had in 1936, not just getting in 1940.
Other minor nations had the ability to produce tankettes in 1936 in history (Belgium produced their T.13 [Basic Light Tank 30mm) and T.15 tanks (Tankette .50) in 1935/36), yet are still forced to have WW1 era tanks in their armoured divisions in 1940.
Also, I think that AI tech research paths need to be reworked as well. I see many nations researching the tech "Advanced Tanks" while they still have not even started working on researching any practical Basic Tanks (neither light or medium). Nations are also hindered in getting Basic Light Tanks by the fact that very few have tankette research done.
Many nations have technology that is impossible for them to have, or don't have technology that they actually posessed. How can the French and Russians have a Basic Medium Tank if they don't have the basic materials or technology to research them in the first place? I understand that there is a concern that these nations will just shoot ahead in technology, but that is not happening with the AI. I say, if a nation has a certain technology, they should have the bits that lead up to it.
I understand why things are done, but looking at test games, the concern that giving too many techs to these nations will result in them ahead in technology does not pan out.
Looking at France
They start with Basic Medium Tanks and Basic Light Tanks in production, yet not the technology to research them, nor even the technology to research tankettes. By 1940 they have developed most of the Tankette research, but very little of the basic tech. This tech they should already have had in 1936, not just getting in 1940.
Other minor nations had the ability to produce tankettes in 1936 in history (Belgium produced their T.13 [Basic Light Tank 30mm) and T.15 tanks (Tankette .50) in 1935/36), yet are still forced to have WW1 era tanks in their armoured divisions in 1940.
Also, I think that AI tech research paths need to be reworked as well. I see many nations researching the tech "Advanced Tanks" while they still have not even started working on researching any practical Basic Tanks (neither light or medium). Nations are also hindered in getting Basic Light Tanks by the fact that very few have tankette research done.
Many nations have technology that is impossible for them to have, or don't have technology that they actually posessed. How can the French and Russians have a Basic Medium Tank if they don't have the basic materials or technology to research them in the first place? I understand that there is a concern that these nations will just shoot ahead in technology, but that is not happening with the AI. I say, if a nation has a certain technology, they should have the bits that lead up to it.
All those things are anti-human players blocks. In SR those levels are added and most of the thime GER run Tigers II in 1939 there...
We can add many techs to the minors, but adding all the starting techs to the mayors results in weird results when human commands them. While I agree, that in balanced development it's impossible to get pre-war levels of development in any army, the fact is that humans almost never develop in that way.
And I can't find good solution for that - removing levels, while leaving actual techs that make certain weapons ready to production seems as a good solution for now.
I also fully support the idea to create events to simulate technology trade between majors and minors. As an example, I will list the various equipment and designs that Yugoslavia purchased or obtained from 1936 to 1941:
1. Hawker Fury Mk. II (planes and designs) from Britain
2. Bristol Blenheim Mk. I (planes and designs) from Britain
3. Dornier Do-17K (designs) from Germany
4. Messerschmitt Bf-109 E (planes and designs) from Germany
5. Hawker Hurricane Mk. I (planes and designs) from Britain
6. SIAI Savoia Marchetti SM-79-I (designs) from Italy
7. Renault R-35 (designs and tanks) from France
The CORE version of these historical purchases could offer an option for the seller to sell or deny the request. Some of these events could also offer alternative versions of purchases for the buyer. These should give Yugoslavia all the technologies to build basic interceptors, basic tactical bombers, basic torpedo planes and naval bombers, as well as basic light tanks.
In the cases of Bristol Blenheim Mk. I, Messerschmitt Bf-109 E and Renault R-35, enough equipment was actually purchased to form on fighter unit, one tactical bomber unit, and one armored division.
I am going to be working on these events for the next version of my Yugoslav events pack. I can only assume similar information can be dug up for other minor nations. Btw, all of this was found in Crazy Ivan's HoI mod.
As for problems with technological development being too fast for majors, I suggest we make doctrines cheaper but taking longer to develop. Same as someone suggested, applications should take longer and be more expensive if they actually require many new things to be manifactured (artillery), and be cheaper and take a shorter time if they are easy to deploy (SMGs I think).
Zerli
Zerli
1. Hawker Fury Mk. II (planes and designs) from Britain
2. Bristol Blenheim Mk. I (planes and designs) from Britain
3. Dornier Do-17K (designs) from Germany
4. Messerschmitt Bf-109 E (planes and designs) from Germany
5. Hawker Hurricane Mk. I (planes and designs) from Britain
6. SIAI Savoia Marchetti SM-79-I (designs) from Italy
7. Renault R-35 (designs and tanks) from France
The CORE version of these historical purchases could offer an option for the seller to sell or deny the request. Some of these events could also offer alternative versions of purchases for the buyer. These should give Yugoslavia all the technologies to build basic interceptors, basic tactical bombers, basic torpedo planes and naval bombers, as well as basic light tanks.
In the cases of Bristol Blenheim Mk. I, Messerschmitt Bf-109 E and Renault R-35, enough equipment was actually purchased to form on fighter unit, one tactical bomber unit, and one armored division.
I am going to be working on these events for the next version of my Yugoslav events pack. I can only assume similar information can be dug up for other minor nations. Btw, all of this was found in Crazy Ivan's HoI mod.
As for problems with technological development being too fast for majors, I suggest we make doctrines cheaper but taking longer to develop. Same as someone suggested, applications should take longer and be more expensive if they actually require many new things to be manifactured (artillery), and be cheaper and take a shorter time if they are easy to deploy (SMGs I think).
Zerli
Zerli
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
All those things are anti-human players blocks. In SR those levels are added and most of the thime GER run Tigers II in 1939 there...
We can add many techs to the minors, but adding all the starting techs to the mayors results in weird results when human commands them. While I agree, that in balanced development it's impossible to get pre-war levels of development in any army, the fact is that humans almost never develop in that way.
And I can't find good solution for that - removing levels, while leaving actual techs that make certain weapons ready to production seems as a good solution for now.
I totally agree, but I also am on the mind that if someone is going to abuse the system, then it is their fault that they have tigers in 1939. Unfortunately, as it stands now you HAVE to focus on just a few things to get at historic levels for some of your military for most nations (including some majors).
Or, we could add time blockers, which means that no matter how much industry you focus on something, it will still take them X amount of time (minimum) to research it. Or, in order for you to have Tigers, you need other techs beyond tanks and guns (i.e., war experience doctrines, certain industry techs to develop stronger armour and armour techniques, etc.) that may not require loads of industry (i.e., achievable only for the biggest of nations), but will just require time (something that may cost 1 IC, but takes 150 Days).
Also, most of the changes that I propose are for tech strapped nations. I proposed very little for Russia and Germany. Moreso for nations like France, Sweden, Belgium, etc. France, for example, is a powerful nation, but a minor-major nation. After everything, it has only about 50 IC to devote to research in 1936 (That being noting else is produced). I have noticed that very little headway anywhere is made by France (they have the same aircraft in 1940 that they have in 1936), and mainly are just researching things that provide techs they already have. I am not promoting giving Germany loads of tank techs, but to balance out all nations, and see how the AI does.
Last edited:
We have to be very careful in determining what should be sold as a tech, and what should be sold as advanced units.
Also, what tech's to sell are important. If Poland bought light tanks from England, what techs should they get?
Should they get +Basic Tanks +Improved Gear +Improved Engine +Improved Suspension +Basic Light Tank Prototype Tests, or just give them +Improved Gear +Improved Engine +Improved Suspension +Basic Light Tank Prototype Tests so if they want to research Medium Tanks they must research Basic Tanks?
We should really look to see if this was just not a limited occasion (i.e., selling a nation a few artillery peices), or a major purchase (i.e., selling a nation enough SMG's to equip their entire army vs. equipping just a few batallions). For example, the Italian 47mm AT Gun turned out to be the standard Romanian AT weapon in the early part of WW2. It was used in sufficient numbers that it was not a fluke or weapon used only in a few units. The Belgians purchased 8 AMC-35 tanks, but this does not mean that they had the ability to produce them, or that they were in enough numbers to affect the entire nation's armoured divisions.
Also, there should probably be better designed Alliance sharing events. It sometimes looks too random while playing, and there are a lot of holes and minor allies are still way behind. I understand why Hungary and Romania should be far behind Germany, but Australia, New Zealand and Canada should not be far behind the UK. The interesting thing is how connected these industries were. Vickers Industries had plants in both the UK and Canada, resulting in both nations having the same armour technology (in fact, for a while with the Ram II Canada had superior tank tech than the UK). Things like Aircraft, Infantry, Tank and Artillery tech should be better shared (i.e., getting the rights to produce Hurricane fighters in Canada was almost immediate), since a Commonwealth division had the same TOE as a UK division.
I seems like an idea, but AI's will be stopped by that even more. Right now AI got ablity to build most of it's historical units (in case of France at least), while humans have to work hard to get more than that.
True, same goes with Italy. But to be honest, I not worked on R&D ratios and priorities of those nations - I focused on the mayor-mayor nations. IMO many problems can be solved by the right R&D paths. But not all - in case of France AI will use only 25 IC for R&D (50%), so it has to be focused. And every new unit AI builds, supply use rise, so 25 IC will be only starting value...
But there is difference between historical goals and playablity goals.
If we want make France historical, we have to focus on:
Air (light + heavy), tanks, navy.
If we want make France challening, we have to focus on:
Land doctrines, Infantry, Artillery.
In case of France I prefer historical appoach, since they are suppose to be easy prey.
What do you think?
Aircraft
Less attention has been put toward aircraft.
I have noticed that the AI also does not focus much on them. Even with reduced MP and more IC devoted to research with my MP mod, the UK still only has the Spitfire I by 1940, and France still uses their 1936 aircraft.
Here is a list of some major aircraft and when they either began production, or their prototype was developed
Hurricane 1937 (prototype was made in 1936)
Spitfire 1938
MS.406 1938
D.520 1939
Bf.109 1938
He.112 1936 (prototype)
However, very few of these nations even have Basic Engines researched in HoI, yet they are supposed to have developed these aircraft just a few year(s) later, or even had prototypes completed that year. Also, yet again, Germany has more tech than any of the other nations in this field, even though their fighter development was no more advanced than Englands, and in many respects (especially bombers) was actually behind both England and France.
I am going to go through techs for majors, and post some suggestions, as I am not going to force anything. IMO, basically, anything can be abused. If we handicap every nation like it is now, a human player who abuses the system will still have Basic Tanks while everyone else is still using Tankettes or Great War Tanks, rather than having Advanced Tanks while everyone else has Basic Tanks like they would if everyone was increased to historic levels. No matter how we start every nation, humans can always cheat and be ahead in some aspects, I say those who want to cheat can cheat, but those who research a balanced program can have what they should have when they should have it.
Less attention has been put toward aircraft.
I have noticed that the AI also does not focus much on them. Even with reduced MP and more IC devoted to research with my MP mod, the UK still only has the Spitfire I by 1940, and France still uses their 1936 aircraft.
Here is a list of some major aircraft and when they either began production, or their prototype was developed
Hurricane 1937 (prototype was made in 1936)
Spitfire 1938
MS.406 1938
D.520 1939
Bf.109 1938
He.112 1936 (prototype)
However, very few of these nations even have Basic Engines researched in HoI, yet they are supposed to have developed these aircraft just a few year(s) later, or even had prototypes completed that year. Also, yet again, Germany has more tech than any of the other nations in this field, even though their fighter development was no more advanced than Englands, and in many respects (especially bombers) was actually behind both England and France.
I am going to go through techs for majors, and post some suggestions, as I am not going to force anything. IMO, basically, anything can be abused. If we handicap every nation like it is now, a human player who abuses the system will still have Basic Tanks while everyone else is still using Tankettes or Great War Tanks, rather than having Advanced Tanks while everyone else has Basic Tanks like they would if everyone was increased to historic levels. No matter how we start every nation, humans can always cheat and be ahead in some aspects, I say those who want to cheat can cheat, but those who research a balanced program can have what they should have when they should have it.
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
I seems like an idea, but AI's will be stopped by that even more. Right now AI got ablity to build most of it's historical units (in case of France at least), while humans have to work hard to get more than that.
True, same goes with Italy. But to be honest, I not worked on R&D ratios and priorities of those nations - I focused on the mayor-mayor nations. IMO many problems can be solved by the right R&D paths. But not all - in case of France AI will use only 25 IC for R&D (50%), so it has to be focused. And every new unit AI builds, supply use rise, so 25 IC will be only starting value...
But there is difference between historical goals and playablity goals.
If we want make France historical, we have to focus on:
Air (light + heavy), tanks, navy.
If we want make France challening, we have to focus on:
Land doctrines, Infantry, Artillery.
In case of France I prefer historical appoach, since they are suppose to be easy prey.
What do you think?
I agree with your reasoning, and end goal (I want a historic approach as well), but I don't feel that we necessarily have to sacrifice certain aspects to get it.
I have been able to drastically increase AI research in peacetime. I limited the starting MP, and monthly MP gain so very low levels. The AI doesn't have any MP to build untis like Infantry Divisions (which eat up a lot of IC and later supply), so it actually spends a much higher % on Research. I have seen AI nations go up to as high as spending 100% of all surplus industry on research. France could get up to about 50 IC devoted to research (up to about 80 when all ships are done), with production limited to just ships that are being built. However, even with this increased IC toward research, they still are behind in areas that they should be higher in.
Correct R&D paths, as well as reduced IC costs can even the playing field, but it only goes so far for minor and minor-major nations. The thing that I have noticed is that the major-major nations tend to be 'ok' in regards to technology (even there we have some major deficiencies), but everyone else just seems to be backwards, including France. The nation that tends to do the best is Germany, but this nation also has some of the highest IC in the game, and also tends to have more technology in 1936 than most other nations.
I would perfer to have time restraints improved so nations cannot have advanced technology too early than to limit starting tech for all so no human player can abuse the system, but you shouldn't have to abuse the system to get what you should get, we should reward following the correct path.
----------
One way I was thinking about rewarding a balanced tech research program is to have it work in phases. You have a long period of time where you invest time for little reward, then you have a quick period where you get a lot. This is already in place in HoI, but currently it not only takes a long time, but it costs a lot too. I think that if we increase the time by about 1/4, but drastically cut the cost (by about 80%), then this would limit nations speeding ahead, but not limit their ability to research.
This would balance things, as even with Germany if you have 100 IC to devote to research, and all you have are these transition techs (i.e., "Basic Tanks"), you will spend only about 40 IC to get all of them, but you will still have to wait 360 Days. Larger minor nations could also afford 40 IC for 360 Days, and won't be left behind significiantly, since they all have to wait 360 Days. Germany will eventually get ahead, but not significantly.
This would stop abusing one field, since while you were working on level 4 tanks (at level 1 for everything else to get this) , everyone else has level 2 techs in all other areas. Level 2 techs are significantly advanced over level 1 techs that your Infantry and Air Force is getting stomped. Sure, you have great tanks, but you heavily sacrificed a balanced army to get tigers in 1942 (since mimimum time limitations will make it completely impossible to get them in 1939).
Last edited:
Vastly Overstated Industrial Nuclear Power Plants
This is absurd in HOI:
This tech costs: cost = 40 and time = 210 which is a total of 8400 ICs. The payoff is a 25% industry boost. Roughly this is a 250 IC/day boost if you are the US. In this example the US recoops the investment pays off in 34 days (based on a prior 1000 IC base).
Let's look at the US Commercial Nuke Power History: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/milestones/nuclear.html
The summary is that it was 18 YEARS from the Trinity Test to the FIRST commercial Nuke Power in the US!
Maybe the stats should be cost = 44 and time = 5400 and the effect be a 10% boost to IC, which would be extremely generous!
This is absurd in HOI:
This tech costs: cost = 40 and time = 210 which is a total of 8400 ICs. The payoff is a 25% industry boost. Roughly this is a 250 IC/day boost if you are the US. In this example the US recoops the investment pays off in 34 days (based on a prior 1000 IC base).
Let's look at the US Commercial Nuke Power History: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/milestones/nuclear.html
The summary is that it was 18 YEARS from the Trinity Test to the FIRST commercial Nuke Power in the US!
Maybe the stats should be cost = 44 and time = 5400 and the effect be a 10% boost to IC, which would be extremely generous!
My worry with cutting the cost of research is what that will do for the size of armies and navies. Right now we still have problems with massive militaries running around the world. Freeing up more industry for builds would result in unrealistic OOBs. This might not be a problem for the AI, but a human player that could have his units and research too? It could be a problem. MDow
Re: Vastly Overstated Industrial Nuclear Power Plants
It seems to me that is a little long. The entire game is only about 4300 days long. I think that maybe 1000 days would be the upper limit. MDow
It seems to me that is a little long. The entire game is only about 4300 days long
. I think that maybe 1000 days would be the upper limit. MDow
I say make it uber expensive, so that only the richest of nations will be able to profit from the benefits.
Re: Re: Vastly Overstated Industrial Nuclear Power Plants
You ar emissing the point that this tech should just be removed.
Originally posted by MateDow
It seems to me that is a little long. The entire game is only about 4300 days long
You ar emissing the point that this tech should just be removed.
Don't forget about Germans...
Counting only the cost of this tech without counting the prerequsites is a bit tricky - whole nuke tree is costly as hell, while gains are sometimes not tha great (killing stack of 30 units at the best, while no human player will destroy strategic target, since he won't be able to use it in the future).
We shouldn't make this tech to costly, but we can make some more techs, that are needed for nuclear energy production. Right now you can make nuke plants just like that - but when you add some more pre-requisites...
Re: Re: Re: Vastly Overstated Industrial Nuclear Power Plants
There's many players who use the No Time Limit mod with C.O.R.E. and like to continue the game into post-WW2 conflict. I don't think we should remove the tech but I think it might be a good idea to break it down into a couple of separate techs.
There's different approaches to this but just as an example we could break it down into five separate techs with the bonus being +2, +4, +6, +8, +10 respectively. Rather than focus it on reactor types this would be a representation of larger and more numerous nuclear power plants being built. The first two techs would be relatively affordable (representing one or a few reactors) with the last three representing nationwide power plants (ie 5-10 year projects base time, this is modified by some R&D modifiers of course).
There's many players who use the No Time Limit mod with C.O.R.E. and like to continue the game into post-WW2 conflict. I don't think we should remove the tech but I think it might be a good idea to break it down into a couple of separate techs.
There's different approaches to this but just as an example we could break it down into five separate techs with the bonus being +2, +4, +6, +8, +10 respectively. Rather than focus it on reactor types this would be a representation of larger and more numerous nuclear power plants being built. The first two techs would be relatively affordable (representing one or a few reactors) with the last three representing nationwide power plants (ie 5-10 year projects base time, this is modified by some R&D modifiers of course).
Re: Re: Re: Vastly Overstated Industrial Nuclear Power Plants
I don't agree. The potential is there for a player/nation to focus their research on tech that historically wasn't as important. The first step of the nuclear bomb research was the development of a stable reaction under the stadium at the University of Chicago. If the US has chosen to pursue the potential of nuclear power then instead of a nuclear weapon, is it unreasonable that the development would have been completed by 1946? The US had no incentive to develop a new power source. They had numerous hydroelectric power plants and large reserves of coal for power generation. If a nation without the reserves of electrical power had the opportunity, I think it would have been different. Look at how quickly France went over to nuclear plants once the technology was available. I think we should leave the option there for the research. I would make it a seperate path of technology so the player has to choose whether they will develop the technology for a weapon or power development. Spread some techs through the entire tree that need to be researched so the time frame is similar to what it takes to develop "The Bomb." MDow
I don't agree. The potential is there for a player/nation to focus their research on tech that historically wasn't as important. The first step of the nuclear bomb research was the development of a stable reaction under the stadium at the University of Chicago. If the US has chosen to pursue the potential of nuclear power then instead of a nuclear weapon, is it unreasonable that the development would have been completed by 1946? The US had no incentive to develop a new power source. They had numerous hydroelectric power plants and large reserves of coal for power generation. If a nation without the reserves of electrical power had the opportunity, I think it would have been different. Look at how quickly France went over to nuclear plants once the technology was available. I think we should leave the option there for the research. I would make it a seperate path of technology so the player has to choose whether they will develop the technology for a weapon or power development. Spread some techs through the entire tree that need to be researched so the time frame is similar to what it takes to develop "The Bomb." MDow