Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

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.
IMO the modular assembly tech branch should be somehow related to some naval tech. The way it is now, even the landlocked countries have to learn how to build transport ships faster in order to progress with their oil conversion techs.
Cheers
 
Just a little question: is flag communication going into the electronics tech tree? :)
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Just a little question: is flag communication going into the electronics tech tree? :)
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Nope, as it's not "general" use of electronics, but classic "application" on the tank warfare field.

In fact, basic flag should be industry tech ("syntetic material") and textbook how too use it should be a doctine ("Fighting Illiteracy in Army"). ;)
 
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
:rofl:

Nope, as it's not "general" use of electronics, but classic "application" on the tank warfare field.

In fact, basic flag should be industry tech ("syntetic material") and textbook how too use it should be a doctine ("Fighting Illiteracy in Army"). ;)
Click to expand...
Well, "basic flag" requires a "basic wood conversion" as a prerequisite. :D
Cheers
 
Turrets, radios, flags, wood, paper, stone, dirt...

Whatever..

I would suggest we just have an 'Improved Turret' with some bonuses. This keeps us from having ahistorical German panzers with 1-man turrets running around. And besides, 1-man (or two-man, as the case was made previously) were already the standard. It was the improved turret that was the hottie application. So I think we should just have that one application.

Secondly, I think we should scrap flags. Again, I believe that was the default method of communication that existed before even 1936. If you feel the need for it - and I am easy whichever way - then it should be a simple app that goes in with Great War tanks or the corresponding new level for v0.7. And probably a prereq of sorts for something or rather.

Finally, radios. The case can be made that radios could provide a boost in almost all areas - ORG, attack, defense, you name it. But we have our doctrine vs. technology separation on the ORG bonus (which I think is pretty cool), so we don't mix them. If it's an ORG bonus (doctrine) then there must be just the one doctrine as I can't see the justification of multi-level docs for radios. I believe over all things tank coms should give a boost to ORG, and a fairly mightly one at that.

Here's what would be cool - we could have one technology in the form of 'Basic Command Tank' that imparts a certain combat bonus (attack/defense) and then we could make that a prereq for our tank com doctrine (which imparts the ORG benefit). The Command Tank comes in around Basic Tanks or so.

I even have some awesome pics for the Command Tank and Radio doctrine.

-PK
 
Re: Turrets, radios, flags, wood, paper, stone, dirt...

Originally posted by Phil K
(...)I would suggest we just have an 'Improved Turret' with some bonuses. This keeps us from having ahistorical German panzers with 1-man turrets running around. And besides, 1-man (or two-man, as the case was made previously) were already the standard. It was the improved turret that was the hottie application. So I think we should just have that one application.

Secondly, I think we should scrap flags. Again, I believe that was the default method of communication that existed before even 1936. If you feel the need for it - and I am easy whichever way - then it should be a simple app that goes in with Great War tanks or the corresponding new level for v0.7. And probably a prereq of sorts for something or rather.(..)
Click to expand...

Many of those techs might look like not neccessary, but IMO are very good to represent difference of research levels at the start of scenario.

Even if we add the techs that will become default for almost every country, it's still really cool to see those - let's face it, most of the people that play HoI game 1 year after the premiere are history buffs who simply love details like that. :D
 
I agree with you on that.

But what are you going to do? Are you going to break the unwritten rule of ORG vs combat bonus that we have?

In addition, you still have to look at what I mentioned earlier - are you really going to research something that gives you a mere 2% ORG increase? I don't know about you, but I never research the Combat Med stuff aside from the theory level. It's just too piddling. Now if you make a big bonus towards the end of those radio techs, then you are looking at something worthwhile.

You still have to answer if it should all be upgradeable. IMO, if you have a small bonus AND it has to be upgradeable, then you will never get the player to go for it. He will be running around with ahistorical tanks all game long.

Finally, you will still come back to finding a way to appease the separation of Church (ORG) and State (combat bonus) issue.

Which is why I simply tried to streamline it. I always like levels of advancement, but this one seemed to difficult to factor.

Btw, I believe Combat Med needs overhaul. That stuff is just too important to the vitality of a fighting force and the current small-time bonuses don't reflect the vital aspect of advanced medicine. Not to me, at least. And there is an area where we have crossed over the separation issue, come to think of it. Well, I really don't know where we stand on the Combat Med thing for v0.7, so I'd love to hear it.

-PK
 
Digging up old bones

Sorry if I missed this one earlier -

could someone explain why we have SuperHeavy tanks but not the standard heavy tanks?

I agree wholeheartedly on the usage of heavy tank battalions - I think it's a great concept. I just don't understand why all of a sudden superheavy tanks should emerge as their own formation type. Just seems contradictory.

-PK
 
Submarine Techs and Units

Hello all,

playing HOI lately with CORE I noticed one thing: Every unit type is very diverse except one.... the Submarines. I definitely like the Surface Naval Tree, but the submarine tree is a bit, shall I say, shallow....

I have several ideas on improving this and would like to hear some comments on them:

1. Submarines where mass-produced items
2. There where several Types, which where produced at the same time, i.e. the German Type IIb, VIIb and IXa. or the US Barracuda and Narwhal class.

In game terms this would mean: there are several "states of improvement" on submarine similar to Tanks or Aircraft:

Post WWI Subs (US S-Class i.e, German Type II)
Interwar Subs (German Type VII and IX, US Narwhal Class, Barracuda Class, and P-Class)
Early War Subs (US T-Class, Gato-Class, German Type IIc, VIIc, IXd)
Late War Subs (US Tench-Class, Later Types of the German Type VII and Type IX)
Electrical Subs (Type XXI and XXIII)

Another thing would be Sub Torpedo development, like improving the contact detonator and removing the glitches in magnetic detonators.

As for the units, there would be some kind of short range sub with high camouflage but short range and lower attack values, one medium range, with high attack, medium range and higher detectability and longrange with similar attack, high range and low camouflage.

Any ideas, comments or improvements on that? I would like to know before starting to mod
 
Originally posted by Phil K
I agree with you on that.

But what are you going to do? Are you going to break the unwritten rule of ORG vs combat bonus that we have?
Click to expand...

This rule is already broken, but IMO all those "cracks in shell" are very reasonable. First, certain doctrines rise attack and defense. Secondly, some techs rise org. Since org is connected with ability to fight long (tenacity?), and not with "organization" per se, those cracks simply fit game system more then other solutions.

Originally posted by Phil K
In addition, you still have to look at what I mentioned earlier - are you really going to research something that gives you a mere 2% ORG increase? I don't know about you, but I never research the Combat Med stuff aside from the theory level. It's just too piddling. Now if you make a big bonus towards the end of those radio techs, then you are looking at something worthwhile.
Click to expand...

I don't develop that EARLY, only because it's costly and takes a lot of time. But when I get some spare R&D points - yes, I develop those.

About radios - it all depends on that, how serious effect we see as valid. Why defense, while IMO attack of the units was much more boosted by the good comunication? Defense is easier then coordination of the attack.

And we can disscuss it quite long - but IMO we should choose one approach for all tank communication techs , then stick to it in all the applications.

Example - in the new air tech tree I've changed all the bonuses from the navigation techs (so far those were bonuses to night/snow/rain attacks). Since during the WW II planes usually not operated at all when weather was bad, no matter how good navigated, those tech rise now org (since plane groups are now more able to reach target, not miss it) and fractional rise to strategical/naval bombers (since those were main recievers of those techs).

Originally posted by Phil K
You still have to answer if it should all be upgradeable. IMO, if you have a small bonus AND it has to be upgradeable, then you will never get the player to go for it. He will be running around with ahistorical tanks all game long.
Click to expand...

IMO techs that are connected with tank units, and would require serious change of the construction - yes. AI somehow handles that, besides armoured units are not that numerous, so there is no way that 80+ units simply dissapear to rearm. Infantry is whole different thing, though...

Originally posted by Phil K
Finally, you will still come back to finding a way to appease the separation of Church (ORG) and State (combat bonus) issue.
Click to expand...

Logic would be the best separator.

1) org is all about the ability to keep fighting, as well as ability reform faster/take less casualties (more goes to org then to strengh).

2) SD is all about ability to soak up the damage OR not get damage at all. So both good tactics as good armour can raise SD.

3) SA is all about ability to deal damage OR direct damage at critical point.


EDIT:

CORE 0.6xx is the last one with superheavy tank divisions. :D
 
The sub tech tree is being looked at by MateDow for inclusion in the v0.7 version. Join the discussion in the Tech Tree threads in this forum, read through the last couple of pages in each thread to get an idea of where we are going with this :)

Welcome to the team :cool:
 
Re: Submarine Techs and Units

Originally posted by Nephandus
Hello all,

playing HOI lately with CORE I noticed one thing: Every unit type is very diverse except one.... the Submarines. I definitely like the Surface Naval Tree, but the submarine tree is a bit, shall I say, shallow....

I have several ideas on improving this and would like to hear some comments on them:

1. Submarines where mass-produced items
2. There where several Types, which where produced at the same time, i.e. the German Type IIb, VIIb and IXa. or the US Barracuda and Narwhal class.

In game terms this would mean: there are several "states of improvement" on submarine similar to Tanks or Aircraft:

Post WWI Subs (US S-Class i.e, German Type II)
Interwar Subs (German Type VII and IX, US Narwhal Class, Barracuda Class, and P-Class)
Early War Subs (US T-Class, Gato-Class, German Type IIc, VIIc, IXd)
Late War Subs (US Tench-Class, Later Types of the German Type VII and Type IX)
Electrical Subs (Type XXI and XXIII)

Another thing would be Sub Torpedo development, like improving the contact detonator and removing the glitches in magnetic detonators.

As for the units, there would be some kind of short range sub with high camouflage but short range and lower attack values, one medium range, with high attack, medium range and higher detectability and longrange with similar attack, high range and low camouflage.

Any ideas, comments or improvements on that? I would like to know before starting to mod
Click to expand...
this and Steel's answer merged.
 
I was thinking about radios and turrets to be desireable because they would be so cheap to research. I was thinking about them costing about as much as tank Gears, Engines and Suspension (which cost 7 IC for 60 Days). Only a few nations really developed (independently) large turreted tanks, as most minor nations relied primarily on purchased vehicles or indigenous designs with small turrets.
 
Costs and times...

There is also one thing that were are very used to by default tech tree (or by "copy&paste" method of modding ;)) - standard costs and times of techs.

It's probably the thing more for 0.8+ versions, be should really reconsider less standard times for techs. IMO there is serious difference between, for example, time/cost relation of prootype stage of development and it's implementation IRL.

Besides 8 IC all around is simply boring. :D
 
Re: AI upgrading

I have noticed that both Germany and France (at minimum) always upgrade their armoured formations (probably Russia too). Germany starts with PzKpfw I and France starts with AMR-33's, but by 1940, the Germans ONLY have the PzKpfw IV, and France has only Char D-2's. They do upgrade armour, but I have not seen Infantry or very many aircraft upgrades.

Also, many nations will start with 3+ man turrets to begin with, or will be very close in researching it. It shouldn't be that difficult for Germany to get this tech, especially if it adds +5 organization to a major attack force in its army.
 
Re: Costs and times...

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
There is also one thing that were are very used to by default tech tree (or by "copy&paste" method of modding ;)) - standard costs and times of techs.

It's probably the thing more for 0.8+ versions, be should really reconsider less standard times for techs. IMO there is serious difference between, for example, time/cost relation of prootype stage of development and it's implementation IRL.

Besides 8 IC all around is simply boring. :D
Click to expand...

To add to this, it seems like the AI does better with cheaper yet longer time consuming technology than expensive and short techs.

For example, they seem to do better if a tech costs 5 IC for 200 Days than 10 IC for 100 Days
 
Re: Re: Costs and times...

Originally posted by McNaughton
To add to this, it seems like the AI does better with cheaper yet longer time consuming technology than expensive and short techs.

For example, they seem to do better if a tech costs 5 IC for 200 Days than 10 IC for 100 Days
Click to expand...


That would be because of the partial IC accrual bug.
 
Re: Re: Costs and times...

Originally posted by McNaughton
To add to this, it seems like the AI does better with cheaper yet longer time consuming technology than expensive and short techs.

For example, they seem to do better if a tech costs 5 IC for 200 Days than 10 IC for 100 Days
Click to expand...

All the prototypes/project techs in new air tech tree are handled this way. :D
I'm also going to switch some costs to "short time, serious cost" (like 45 days/30 IC) mode as well, to better represent cost of putting prototypes on the production lines. That will need some serious testing, though...
 
Re: Re: Re: Costs and times...

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
All the prototypes/project techs in new air tech tree are handled this way. :D
I'm also going to switch some costs to "short time, serious cost" (like 45 days/30 IC) mode as well, to better represent cost of putting prototypes on the production lines. That will need some serious testing, though...
Click to expand...

The one problem with this is nations that only have about 20-50 IC to devote to research, and in order to get one prototype all other research is probably stalled. Possibly testing will find that the AI can handle this, but I have seen it get stumped on other things. It is too bad we cannot have one tech tree for the AI and one for a human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back