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

[McNaughton]

There were just three things I noticed in the tech tree which 'might' need some attention. It is more a matter of a possible change of order than anything.

Looking at these sets of techs, I think that their order should be reversed:

1205 # Basic Divisional Signal Command System
1206 # Basic Corps Signal Command System
1207 # Basic Army Signal Command System

From my understanding of the intention of this tech tree is that first you learn Divisional Signal Commands, then Corps Signal Commands, then Army Signal Commands. However, this theorises that this command system is developed from the lower levels up.

However, in most cases, Army Command devleops first, then Corps Command, then Divisional Command. The chain of command and control tends to start at the top (i.e., have strong Army command), then works its way down (then Corps and then Division). Rarely have I ever heard of an army that had excellent Divisional Signal Command Systems while their Army and Corps HQ's were using older systems, usually it is the other way around, usually due to cost and prestige (it is easier to supply new techniques/equipment to the Army command than multiple Division commands, plus Army commanders have more clout than Divisonal commanders and can demand and get the most up to date equipment).

I know it is just picky, but it just didn't seem right when I started researching them in the game (i.e., my divisions had a better idea of the bigger strategic picture than my army and corps commanders)

 

[MateDow]

Various Topics

I am going to wade in here on a couple of the topics that were just brought up.

I think that the heavy tank division should be an available option. In our quest to make options available for players, we have included some units that weren't actually built, but were possible. The ability for the player to define their own reality is a good thing. If we have a player out there that believes that the super heavy battalion or division is what they want, it should be there. It will take some work to make the models work out so the AI won't be running around with super-heavy divisions, but it isn't impossible.

The air-to-ground rocket should have a tactical benefit.

I had never thought about the order of development for the command systems. It does make sense that command and control would evolve from the top down rather than the bottom up. I confess that those are some of the last techs that I research due to their cost vs return. They just aren't at the top of the priority list. MDow

 

[Steel]

Good points

Good point about having both divisions and battallions for the heavies and super-heavies. If the battallion tech is ahead of the division tech, then the AI will research battallions (also we can guide this with tech paths) so there shouldn't be any need to change the model numbers.


About C3 techs, they are parallel research projects (ie 1207 does not require 1206). It's certainly possible to make top-down pre-reqs but is it definitely justified?


BTW, I made a last minute change for v0.6 to increase their effect in game (groud_def_eff modifier) because I share the concern that they were not worth the investment cost.

 

[Halibutt]

Re: Various Topics

Originally posted by MateDow
(...)I think that the heavy tank division should be an available option. In our quest to make options available for players, we have included some units that weren't actually built, but were possible. The ability for the player to define their own reality is a good thing. If we have a player out there that believes that the super heavy battalion or division is what they want, it should be there. It will take some work to make the models work out so the AI won't be running around with super-heavy divisions, but it isn't impossible.(...)

Maybe the easiest solution would be to attach the heavy division tech to some other tank division? This way we won't have the heavy division as the last one in the queue (and the first one in production priorities for AI) - ever.
Cheers

 

[MateDow]

Re: Re: Various Topics

Originally posted by Halibutt
Maybe the easiest solution would be to attach the heavy division tech to some other tank division? This way we won't have the heavy division as the last one in the queue (and the first one in production priorities for AI) - ever.
Cheers

I think if we work it as we did the naval models, just give it a low number that won't come up until after lower models have been done. If a heavy division was model 1 and super-heavies were model 2, the AI would never build them. We could also have an 'if = AI' event that disables the tech so that it can't be wasted research. That is assuming that the loophole for that command continues to work. MDow

 

[Steel]

Re: Re: Re: Various Topics

Originally posted by MateDow
I think if we work it as we did the naval models, just give it a low number that won't come up until after lower models have been done. If a heavy division was model 1 and super-heavies were model 2, the AI would never build them. We could also have an 'if = AI' event that disables the tech so that it can't be wasted research. That is assuming that the loophole for that command continues to work. MDow

As long as the battallion tech disables the division tech I don't think you'll need to renumber all the models or have deactivation events.

 

[Steel]

Unit speed increases

For v0.7 I want to look at fractional speed increases. I've run some tests with Japanese infantry and using speed increases <1 works fine. This will allow us to fine-tune movement speeds in the game rather than have the rather large speed differences used so far.

My focus will initially be on land units, I'd appreciate if others can look at air and naval units.

 

[MateDow]

Re: Unit speed increases

Originally posted by Steel
For v0.7 I want to look at fractional speed increases. I've run some tests with Japanese infantry and using speed increases <1 works fine. This will allow us to fine-tune movement speeds in the game rather than have the rather large speed differences used so far.

My focus will initially be on land units, I'd appreciate if others can look at air and naval units.

Right now, the naval unit speeds are in knots for what they were historically. Has anyone heard what 1 unit of speed is equal to? If it does turn out to be 1 unit = 1 mph then we are in pretty good shape. If it turns out to be a metric unit or some random HoI unit, then we will have to fine tune. MDow

 

[Pkunzipper]

Copper and I will modify air unit stats together with the air tech tree.

Knowing that speed (and so also attack and defence skills) can be fractional is very usefull, but I don't think an air units speed will ever be <1!

 

[Gwalcmai]

This is not incredibly important, but I would advise caution when fiddling around with tank model numbers. I'm mentioning this because of unit sprites. The sprites seem to be assigned to model numbers, so if CORE happens to assign Heavies to a light tank sprite number it will look really strange in the game.

With ships the model number juggling is fine because ships use only one sprite (except BBs, they use two). Tanks, OTOH, use 4 different sprites, and people have been carefully selecting sprites so they don't get a Tiger on screen when they build a PzI division.

I'll try this out to see if I can get a table of model/sprite level relations.

 

[unmerged(19967)]

Copying this post from the Discussion thread as suggested:

Well this is my first post (long time lurker) -- First and foremost, I want to say what a great job the C.O.R.E. team does.... I hope the follwing aids in the cause:

I have been doing quite a bit of reading and research on Paratroopers in WWII, and noticed that they do not receive all of the historical upgrades in HOI. There are three Artillery Tree upgrades missing:

1) US Airborne forces used the 75mm pack howitzer which is equivilent to the 70mm+ Mountain Gun in the game.

2) US Airborne forces were also equipped with a 105mm M3 "snub-nose" howitzer, which is the US 105mm M1 with the nose sawed off and lighter carriage. The closest in game I could compare this to would be the 90mm howitzer upgrade, maybe the 100mm Infantry gun. Maybe even create a new tech? I would be willing to help in gather the necessary data.

As a reference a typical US Paratrooper division in 1942 was made up of 1 Paratroop regiment, and 2 Glider regiments. There was also an attached Artillery regiment (made up of 1 Paratroop battalion, and 2 Glider battalions).

An artillery regiment had a total of 24 75mm pack howitzers, and 12 snub-nose howitzers. (I can give a more detailed breakdown if anyone is curious)

3) Also attached to the division was a glider-borne "antiaircraft" battalion. The antiaircraft battalion was actually utilized as an antitank battalion, however. It was equipped with the 57mm anti-tank gun (24 in total) -- the closest in-game equivilent being the 40mm+ anti-tank gun (unless a new tech is created once again).

I used the US Airborne as a standard, since by war's end, they were the most sophisticated and utilized airborne units in WWII. I compare it to using Germany as the standard-bearer for armor upgrades, even though not all the countries were that advanced (including the US).

By the way, in 1944 the US reorganized the divisions to 2 Paratroop regiments and 1 Glider regiment (with the same artillery make-up).

I hope I have put this suggestion in the correct thread, and I hope the suggestions are well received.

Thanks!

PS - Changes suggested in 1, 2, and 3 would be Artillery tree modifications. Reflecting the change from 1 para 2 glider to 2 para and 1 glider regiment within a division was more of a background reference, but could easily be represented in a Doctrine change. The change could include a better soft attack value and/or a boost to Org to represent the lack of success of glider landings.

 

[unmerged(18738)]

My concern is that these are American-only applications. Possible justification for Brit usage. Thing is, they'd have to apply to all paratrooper types, regardless of nationality.

The only way I know around that, with my limited HoI understanding, is the creation of a US Airborne doctrine. Which just might not be bad. But I can't see having three different doctrines for each level of bonus.

Or, we could create US-only airborne applications and give them a tech prereq ID of 99999 (or some other non-tech ID number) and then grant them with an event.

Still, it's a nation-specific issue. Anyone have other thoughts?

Kudos on the great research and thoughts, though!

-PK

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Phil K
My concern is that these are American-only applications. Possible justification for Brit usage. Thing is, they'd have to apply to all paratrooper types, regardless of nationality.

The only way I know around that, with my limited HoI understanding, is the creation of a US Airborne doctrine. Which just might not be bad. But I can't see having three different doctrines for each level of bonus.

Or, we could create US-only airborne applications and give them a tech prereq ID of 99999 (or some other non-tech ID number) and then grant them with an event.

Still, it's a nation-specific issue. Anyone have other thoughts?

Kudos on the great research and thoughts, though!

-PK

Well, since Ridgeway did state that we based tank technology on one of the top nations, then why not Airborne?

The only nations to develop large airborne forces were the USSR, USA, UK, GER, ITA. In each of these nations they were pretty elite, and in most cases (GER and ITA) they were used on the ground role very effectively, moreso than regular infantry. Sure, when Germany dropped their airborne forces they were very lightly armed (yet even they had recollless artillery).

Also, we must remember that the German paratroop formations were dropped in 1941, while US were dropped in 1944. Had the Germans had the glider technology and experience that the US forces had by 1944 I am pretty sure that they would have larger weapons with their drop force.

Maybe instead of adding bonus' to paratroopers when certain artillery techs are researched, these bonus' should only appear when certain glider tech is researched. No way would airborne use 105mm Howitzers if they are being dropped in fragile gliders that can hold half a dozen men.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by McNaughton
Well, since Ridgeway did state that we based tank technology on one of the top nations, then why not Airborne?

I don't see any particular problem with modelling it on American forces other than the obvious fact that they were latecomers. Might be better to model it on Russian or German forces for the 1936-1941 time frame and then American thereafter.

Maybe instead of adding bonus' to paratroopers when certain artillery techs are researched, these bonus' should only appear when certain glider tech is researched. No way would airborne use 105mm Howitzers if they are being dropped in fragile gliders that can hold half a dozen men.

Nice idea, but it doesn't make sense for paras used in the leg infantry role.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

re: Some Thoughts...

Every now and again I find myself in a position where I'm thinking about Hearts of Iron when I really shouldn't. Mostly it's about inane things like; "How many divisions should I leave to defend mainland Italy." I was thinking about having a mobile defence army of 9 divisions of calvary, tankettes, and motorized to serve as a backup to the beach gaurds when I thought of something about HoI that really irritates me.

I.C.'s are everything in this game; and unlike Europa Universalis where technologies and doctrines were relative to the size of the country, in Hearts of Iron we have a system where everything is Static. This is completely unrealistic, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it.

As a small country, it is completely impossible to compete. You have countries like Luxemburg on the one end and Germany and the Soviet Union on the other. ( I'm not saying Luxemburg should be able to defeat Germany ), and all the countries in the game falling somewhere along the dimension between these two poles.

Does anybody find it odd that in order to analyse the great war one has to spend the quivalent of rming, training, deploying around 10 divisions? For a game that is priding itself on realism we have a BIG BIG problem here. Now, I understand that certain problems are hardcoded, but I was wondering if people think that we should and/or address this problem.

The answer I am assuming is a drastic reduction of I.C.'s for doctrine Techs across the board. For the hard techs (this mm gun, that mm gun) I think things are fine and realistic. Now, perhaps the TIME of research could be increased...

I just think that when playing as England, Japan, Italy, etc... the game as it stand basically says that it is impossible to train your army as well as germany...the distances in organization are SO high by '45 that if Germany is still in the game, all allies except the United States might as well call it quits. If you think this is realistic, tell that to the Common Wealth defenders of Tobruk! Or the Canadian troops in Belgium and the Netherlands ( or ask the people they fought ).

- MVSN

Just some thoughts,

- MVSN

P.S. Good idea, bad idea? Impossible?

 

[unmerged(18738)]

You are starting to get into what MathGuy is attempting to do with his mod. Which we are considering. I just don't know where it currently stands. Haven't heard from him in awhile.

-PK

 

[unmerged(19967)]

Maybe instead of adding bonus' to paratroopers when certain artillery techs are researched, these bonus' should only appear when certain glider tech is researched. No way would airborne use 105mm Howitzers if they are being dropped in fragile gliders that can hold half a dozen men.

Remember this a reduced form of the 105mm howitzer. It only weighed 2400 hundred pounds due to the reduction in the barrel and carriage. It did, however; fire the standard 33 pound projectile to approximately 8000 yards.

Only one snub-nose howitzer would fit in one glider, the jeep tows and ammo trailers would come in separate gliders.

Later in the war, when transport resources were more plentiful (around 6 June 1944), the snub-nose howitzers (M3 105mm) would be dropped in with the initial assault, with the standard M1 105mm howitzers coming in with the "tail" of the divisions. The M1s would also have new tows to replace the jeeps -- 3/4 ton or 2.5 ton trucks. (The "tail" was often dropped on D+2 or 3, or in the case of D-Day, came in across the channel)

I do like the idea of glider research being related to the artillery research, but they should co-exist with one another. That is, one has to research the Glider tech first, then the Artillery techs become available to research.

 

[Steel]

Re: re: Some Thoughts...

Originally posted by mvsnconsolegene
The answer I am assuming is a drastic reduction of I.C.'s for doctrine Techs across the board. For the hard techs (this mm gun, that mm gun) I think things are fine and realistic. Now, perhaps the TIME of research could be increased...

Hmm... Are you aware of the fact that v0.6 has research cost adjustments for every country in the game?

Bhutan:

    	research_cost_app = 0.80 
    	research_cost_theo = 0.50 
    	research_time_app = 1.00
    	research_time_theo = 1.00

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

Hmm... Are you aware of the fact that v0.6 has research cost adjustments for every country in the game?

No, I did not. However, even so I still believe that the doctrines SPECIFICALLY cost way too much in terms of 'industrial capacity'.

Learning how to increase your armies organization does not take 'factories'. Researching Nuclear Weapons costs ICs, I can see that. MY comments were not directed towards 'hardware' based researched (Computers, Industrialization, etc.) but towards the doctrines.

- MVSN

 

[Gwalcmai]

I agree with that. I really don't see why it is expensive to research the doctrines. I can easily understand why it takes TIME to research new tactics, I just don't see why you have to use massive amounts of industry to figure out that you should (for instance) organize your merchant shipping into convoys and escort them. Portugal and Spain were doing that in the 16th century, how difficult can it be? You have to think up new ways to distribute the ships to do it efficiently, but that takes a small team of officers and some scraps of paper, not the entire production capacity of your country working around the clock.

And those cost modifiers just gave me an idea...