C.O.R.E. : Technology tree - support, ideas, problems...

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Mortu
[B

b) a diesel engine (doctrine?) tech towards the end of the tech tree for diesel tank engines (I think diesel engines became common in the post-war / MBT era), given to the USSR at the beginning and a diesel application tech which USSR wither researches or gets via an event to get the actual benefits (and other countries may research in late 40's)?

Thanks.
~Mortu [/B]

I think that it could be a part of the tech tree somewhere near the middle around Improved Medium Tanks. If you tie it into a doctrine you could make it expensive enough to represent the philosophy change that is associated with going from gas to diesel engines. I think that the tech would give maybe a bonus of +1 to defense and make fuel comumption 80% of that with a gas engine. That would be the trade off for researching (or having) this tech. MDow

 

[McNaughton]

Before we go adding any more technology I think we need to decide what should go where.

What is the scope of certain tech areas?

I noticed in the recent revised infantry tech tree, that a lot of ideas that we were going to incorporate for the new industry tech tree (motorized supply transport) are applied in this tree instead of the industry one.

It was proposed that my specialized suspension and armour mods should go in the industry tree, but we already have things like Gear, Engine, Suspension, and now Diesel Engine in the Armour tech tree, and wouldn't it be following the current train of logic (keeping tech in specialized tech trees?) by putting it into the Armour tech tree?

I think we should decide exactly what each tech area represents, and what should go there. Would my new armour techs be better placed in the Industry or Armour area? Would the new supply techs be better placed in the Infantry or Industry area? How do we determine where the cutoff are without crippling the AI by having too many inter tech tree connections?

Does Industry represent more than just heavy industry and chemistry? Should we apply things that positively affect supply and Fuel (i.e., -0.02 supply/fuel use), and positively affect construction time (i.e., -10 Days) and costs (i.e., -1 IC) in the Industry Tech Tree? I think we should sort these things out before we apply technology randomly from field to field.

 

[Szun]

My thoughts on diesel etc...

Whats is diesel? well in general its light Heating oil, wich mean, useing that to fuel engines gives a wider 'Petrolum based fuel' usage.
Adding a converting bonus for SU wont help the soviets much, because they produce just enough coal for aprox 700 IC.
Maybe adding 25% more 'oil' to the provinces would reflect that better, but if conquered it would throw it off again.
A reduction in Oil use for SU tanks may be the best aproach and could be added to 'POLITICAL CONTROLL OF THE ARMY' doc

Szun

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by McNaughton
(...)I think we should decide exactly what each tech area represents, and what should go there. Would my new armour techs be better placed in the Industry or Armour area? Would the new supply techs be better placed in the Infantry or Industry area? How do we determine where the cutoff are without crippling the AI by having too many inter tech tree connections?

Does Industry represent more than just heavy industry and chemistry? Should we apply things that positively affect supply and Fuel (i.e., -0.02 supply/fuel use), and positively affect construction time (i.e., -10 Days) and costs (i.e., -1 IC) in the Industry Tech Tree? I think we should sort these things out before we apply technology randomly from field to field.

Ok, here is suggested order of tech organization ("tech manifest"? ):

1. Technology belongs to the certain tree, if the effects of it affect mainly area covered by that tree.

2. If effects affect more then 1 tech tree branch, decision is taken based on previous experience with similar techs, discussion the forum and on the analisis of AI capability to develop it.

3. If effects are general or hard to qualify, the tech belongs to one of "civilian techs" - industry, electronics or nukes.

4. If the tech is closer to concept, then to phisical aspects of warfare/production, then it should belong to one of doctrinal trees.

And answering directly to the diesel tech problem - I see it in Industry techs, on Mass Production level, although Improved Tank Prototype should be a prerequsiste. With long time of developement and low cost, we can ensure that SOV get it faster (via event) and others - much later...

 

[Szun]

Tanktechtree, compromise

I had a idea last night.
The discution about 'doctrine apraoch' and 'tankmodels' was going on not long ago. So I thought we could combine both. But it has 1 drawback...we would need about 90 or so 'tankmodels' to cover it.
Here a example:

'Medium Tank 70L Divison with Improved Hvy Tank battalion'

prereq: Imp medium tank 70L, Imp. Hvy tank Battalion *any doctrine sutible

To cover all posible combinations the modellist would get very extensive, but it would give what both sides in the discution want, noticeable tankmodels and Divisonal 'freedom'.
The only problem I see is that after medium tanks we allready pass the 4th sprite treshhold, but beside that...
Light tankdivisons are also possible without looseing a recon tank battalion, just dont combine them together as a divison.

what U think?

 

[JRaup]

Originally posted by McNaughton
How about instead of advanced and improved small arms weaponry we add the following in the "Assembly Mass Production" area? This would simulate exactly what is happening when you develop improved weapons, without having countless techs to research them individually.

application = { # Small Arms Assembly Construction Process
	id = 4405
	name = "Small Arms Assembly Construction Process"
	desc = TECH_APP_INDUSTRY_5_1_DESC
			
	required = { }
	chance = 90
	cost = 12
	time = 150
	neg_offset = 30
	pos_offset = 60
			
	effects = {

		command = { type = build_cost which = infantry when = now value = -1 }
		command = { type = build_time which = infantry when = now value = -10 }
		command = { type = build_cost which = marine when = now value = -1 }
		command = { type = build_time which = marine when = now value = -10 }
		command = { type = build_cost which = paratrooper when = now value = -1 }
		command = { type = build_time which = paratrooper when = now value = -10 }
		command = { type = build_cost which = bergsjaeger when = now value = -1 }
		command = { type = build_time which = bergsjaeger when = now value = -20 }
	}
}

Looks good. we should probably have a pre-req of teh basic versions though. No sense in getting these bonuses without having the baisc stuff.

 

[JRaup]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Ok, here is suggested order of tech organization ("tech manifest"? ):

1. Technology belongs to the certain tree, if the effects of it affect mainly area covered by that tree.

2. If effects affect more then 1 tech tree branch, decision is taken based on previous experience with similar techs, discussion the forum and on the analisis of AI capability to develop it.

3. If effects are general or hard to qualify, the tech belongs to one of "civilian techs" - industry, electronics or nukes.

4. If the tech is closer to concept, then to phisical aspects of warfare/production, then it should belong to one of doctrinal trees.

why that's so simple, it's genius! This is a greta way to sort and categorize any new, and even existing techs. Kudo's to the Slaaneshi tech Priest!

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Artillery tech tree

"Tank Gun 70mm+(long)" (14977) does require according to "artillery_tech.txt" { 14400 14976 14205 }, but in the game it says that "Improved Artillery Pieces" (14400) are needed twice.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by JRaup
why that's so simple, it's genius!

I worked some time in administration, got talent to write obvious things...

Originally posted by JRaup
(...)Kudo's to the Slaaneshi tech Priest!

Slaaneshi?!

Skulls for the skull throne of Khorne!!!

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Ok, here is suggested order of tech organization ("tech manifest"? ):

As an addendum to your manifesto, I think that an idustrial tech is one the deals with process of manufacture not design. For an example, stamped parts for rifles are a process change to the rifle more than a technological change. Modular construction of ships is a process change. Adding diesel engines would be a technology change and that would come under the armor tech. That should make things as clear as mud. MDow

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Artillery tech tree

Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
"Tank Gun 70mm+(long)" (14977) does require according to "artillery_tech.txt" { 14400 14976 14205 }, but in the game it says that "Improved Artillery Pieces" (14400) are needed twice.

Oh yes, minor bug - 14400 should not appear in pre-req' list, then 14400 will be visible only once. Thanks for info!


MateDow@: Hmmm, you are probably right, in that case diesel should go to Improved tanks level of the tank tree, although suspension/armor techs should stay in Industry (as those are methods of production, not designs per se).

 

[JRaup]

Slaaneshi?!

Skulls for the skull throne of Khorne!!!

It's all fun and games until the righteous forces of our beloved Emperor send you back to the nether regions of the warp where you belong! And I know nothing about that Tzeentch altar in the basement....

As an addendum to your manifesto, I think that an idustrial tech is one the deals with process of manufacture not design. For an example, stamped parts for rifles are a process change to the rifle more than a technological change. Modular construction of ships is a process change. Adding diesel engines would be a technology change and that would come under the armor tech. That should make things as clear as mud. MDow

Yeah, this makes sense. Process versus design. A good tweak MateDow. And as CN also agrees, I think that we have our sorting method figured out. More or less...

 

[unmerged(6537)]

Minor bug

Copper ...did you notice my post in 6.0 discussion thread

re: helicopter carrier and merchant freighter problem/fix?

For possible inclusion in 6.3.

And I hope I am right on this.

Apologies to all if I or my mess of files is in error.

:wacko:

 

[unmerged(18738)]

Should we be adding in the SA +1 for marines for 30mm Inf Gun? Or do marines not get the gun at all?

 

[The Yogi]

It would make sense to let marines and paras benefit from the smaller calibre guns since they were lighter and easier to move around, but not from the larger caliber stuff (they would have kept the smaller weapons after the regular army troops got bigger weapons).

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Minor bug

Originally posted by Budgie
Copper ...did you notice my post in 6.0 discussion thread

re: helicopter carrier and merchant freighter problem/fix?

For possible inclusion in 6.3.

And I hope I am right on this.

Apologies to all if I or my mess of files is in error.

:wacko:

Yeah, I"ve seen that, but I leave all the naval adjustments to MateDoW, he's the skipper...

 

[McNaughton]

I am trying to think about the 'other' units, like Mountain, Paratrooper and Marine in regards to what they should use (in connection to the "Should Marines use the 30mm IG?)

For Mountain, I think that they should benefit from special Mountain Artillery Guns (75mm-100mm), as well as regular heavy artillery (120mm-150mm), and super-heavy artillery (170mm-200mm).

Paratroopers should be based upon a model used for airborne assaults, not the German equivalent of heavy infantry used later in the war. They should have light artillery (30mm+ Infantry Gun), plus recioless weaponry (70mm+, plus the new 100mm+ and 85mm+).

Marines should be based upon using marines as amphibious assault units. They should benefit from light artillery, like the 30mm+, plus lighter infantry artillery (75mm-100mm) that could operate from a limited zone such as a beachead.

 

[The Yogi]

Keep in mind the difference between Infantry guns or field guns - ie direct fire support guns - and indirect fire artillery, such as howitzers. Marines, Mountain Infantry and Paras would be able to use only the smallest types of Infantry guns, but Marines and Mountain Infantry could probably benefit from all but the heaviest Artilley types - there's no need to carry the big guns up the mountain.

 

[unmerged(18738)]

Vehicle radios

Where do we stand in the tech tree overhaul in regards to the impact of vehicle (especially armor) radios?

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Vehicle radios

Originally posted by Phil K
Where do we stand in the tech tree overhaul in regards to the impact of vehicle (especially armor) radios?

Vehicles - nowhere.

Planes - navigation + radios will raise org and in case of CAG's + naval/strategical bomber - naval attack/surface attack. No more nonsense of raised night/rain/snow attack...