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

[unmerged(12804)]

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?

Yes, it is unreasonable. The engineering behind making simple pile reactors for demonstrating criticality and for plutonium production is not at all the same as making industrial nuclear power plants with steam turbine-generators. It wasn't until 1953-54 that basic prototype reactors were used in the Navy's Nautilus submarine and the Army's SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir. And these were only about 10 MW in electrical capacity! The first commercial power plants in the early 1960's were only about 100 MWe - not exactly the power source "too cheap to meter" to warrant a 25% boost to a nation's industry. It wasn't until the 1970's that 1000 MWe baseload plants were being built. Even then, and now, it's questionable whether a 25% "boost" is realistic.

Why so long? Unlike simple pile reactors, power plants require extensive instrumentation and control systems, safety systems, fuel management processes, operator training, etc., etc., etc. It's an iterative process that takes years to acquire experience in design engineering, construction techniques, operating procedures, and everything else. That stuff is not acquired in a lab someplace with a small team of Manhatten Project geniuses. The theory is easy; it's the implementation that's hard.

My recommendation as a nuclear engineer: break up 8972 Industrial Nuclear Power Plants into smaller sequential projects.
First would be Prototype Nuclear Power Plants, taking 5-10 years to develop a test reactor with no industry boost. Next would be Small Industrial Nuclear Power Plants taking another 5-10 years to achieve and providing a 5-10% boost. Finally would be Large Industrial Nuclear Power Plants taking another 5-10 years to achieve and providing a 10-20% boost. That's just a swag.

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.

What, into the 1960's and 1970's? That's what we're talking about for Industrial Nuclear Power Plants. This stuff would not have been achievable in the 1940's, and not until the late 1950's at the earliest. As the title suggests, the game's current simulation of nuclear power is vastly overstated. It needs to be toned down considerably.

 

[SykoNurse]

Re: Vastly Overstated Industrial Nuclear Power Plants

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
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!

zis is going into ze tecktree discussion

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by pzgndr
What, into the 1960's and 1970's?

Yes.

 

[unmerged(19967)]

Why were Advanced Light Tanks and all Heavy Tanks removed....

from the Armor Tech Tree (or condensed into tank battalions)?

I really miss being able to have the option to change history and develop these techs.

Thanks in advance!

 

[h345]

because no their were no heavy tank divisions in WW2
there were only like 100 heavies in a tank division

 

[unmerged(19967)]

I know -- but I miss researching Tigers -- and there could have been Heavy Tank divisions if the resources were available....

 

[h345]

i miss the heavies as well but CORE strides for historican accuracy so they were left out

 

[McNaughton]

Should heavy tanks be included as Divisional scale units the relative actual cost should be heavy when compared to medium tanks (i.e., you would get 2 Medium Tank Divisions for the cost of every 1 Heavy Tank Division, but a Heavy Tank Division wouldn't be 2x as powerful as a Medium Tank Division). Heavy tanks were called heavy because they had stronger armour than the average medium tank, was much slower, and firepower was very similar. Heavy tanks were in almost every case difficult to produce and very expensive, and not tactically sound. It was not just a tactical realization that they wouldn't work well in divisions, but also economic as a Medium Tank Division would ride circles around a Heavy Tank Division in tactical combat. They were not suited for mass production as well as medium tanks.

Realistically, the cost of a Heavy Tank division would never warrant its implementation, the cost comparison would fall in favour of the medium.

Light tanks were rarely used in large formations after the sufficient development and realization that medium tanks were just as easy to produce, yet substantially more effective in all combat roles. The main dilemma against medium tanks early in the war was that Western Industries were not yet suited for the mass production of any heavier vehicle, and light tanks were the easiest to get into quick production. Once wartime economies took shape, the slightly more difficult to produce medium tanks were more effective, along with the development of reliable engines. Again, it comes down to cost effectiveness.

Sure, you could argue that you want it in the game, but the system of heavy tanks and late war light tanks does not work. The earlier HoI tech tree also assumed that it was a natural progression of Light->Medium->Heavy, when in reality Heavy tanks were useful in small numbers, Light tanks were useful when industries were not capable of producing any heavier tanks in high numbers or with any sense of reliability (say what you will about the Vickers VIB, its engine was significantly more reliable than the Coventaner or Crusader series tanks), and heavy tanks were designed primarily as infantry support, or were usually developed beyond the means for significant mass production of that time (i.e., mass producing the Matilda II in 1939, or the Tiger in 1943).

Basically, in 1939 the Sherman tank would have been considered a heavy tank (based on its armour and weight), in 1950 the Tiger would be considered a very slow medium tank (based on its armour and weight). The rating system evolves with an economy's ability to produce heavier vehicles more effectively and have them powered by more reliable engines, so they may not lose speed, but gain firepower and armour. Heavy tanks are basically designs that go above and beyond the limitations of current economies. They could be made, but never as effectively as the economically sound medium tank, which is based around utilization of the most efficient and effective machenery of its time on a vehicle that does not go above these limitations.

 

[MateDow]

Heavies and Lights

I do think that a player should have the option of building all light or heavy divisions. It should take some research to do though. And you are right, there would be a cost penalty as well. If you want a light division, it will cost as much as a standard division, but it will have less combat value, but it would move faster. A stratigic decision for the player. If you want a heavy division, it will cost more than twice the cost of a medium division, but move slower, but would be better for defence.

I think that CORE has allowed things that were possible, but not done (creation of nations) to give the player options for when he/she wants to go their own way. I think that this is just another aspect of that. We do need to make sure that this won't 'break' the AI if it is included again though. MDow

 

[Hessen Empire]

possible bug

Possible tech bug, 0.6 . Hopefully this is the right place.

As Germany, just completed level 1 Basic Air Transport.
So I decided to upgrade my transports.
It is costing 30IC ! for 59 days to upgrade the transports.

30ICs (per day) seems excessive for an upgrade of air transports, since building Battleships only costs 16 IC

I am assuming this is a CORE bug and not a HOI bug, but have not delved into the files.

 

[jdrou]

Re: possible bug

Originally posted by Hessen Empire
Possible tech bug, 0.6 . Hopefully this is the right place.

As Germany, just completed level 1 Basic Air Transport.
So I decided to upgrade my transports.
It is costing 30IC ! for 59 days to upgrade the transports.

30ICs (per day) seems excessive for an upgrade of air transports, since building Battleships only costs 16 IC

I am assuming this is a CORE bug and not a HOI bug, but have not delved into the files.

I don't think this is a bug; transports were recently made more expensive in both vanilla HoI (35-38 IC) and CORE (36-50 IC).

 

[unmerged(18738)]

...needs merging..

 

[unmerged(18738)]

I so want to say this...

WAD: Transport cost

Ahhh, that felt so... refreshingly powerful.

Transports were boosted because the paratrooper rush used by so many players needed to be curtailed. It is too easy to buy a few transports and paratroopers and just drop into basically undefended provinces for control. Not a realistic usage of airborne troops but unfortunately allowable in the game.

-PK

 

[SykoNurse]

Originally posted by Phil K
...needs merging..

about to do...

 

[Szun]

Hvy tanks and stuff

5 Sherman costed as much as 1 Panther
aprox 1300 tiger class tanks and ATs were build in ww2 by germany
Panther guns had more armor penetration as the Tiger I E 88L56 gun

Yet the Tiger pre Panther was the most feared tank on the field. Only a few Tanks had the power to knock out a tiger frontal, 1 was the British Sherman conversation 'Firefly'. (note it was british!)

Tigers were formed in 'Schwere panzer Abteilung 501, 502' (Hvy Armor unit/Battalion) Consisted of 1 Tiger company (I think 6 tigers 2 per platoon 3 platoons..could be more) and 2 PIII companys +logistics. Those Abt. were used as 'Fireworkers' on a Army LvL deployment. Wereever there was a enemy breakthrough the Tigers were sent to fix it.

Mentioning the speed of hvy tanks, well the tiger had a topspeed of 40 Kp/h , the PzIII had about the same aprox 45kp/h, while the Panther was a bit faster but not much.
If U look at KVI and KVII yes..those were slow like hell, KVI had topspeed of 28kp/h KVII aprox 35 kp/h. But also those tanks werent thought for antitank use rather for 'Soft' attack infantry support. the KV Tanks had high caliber short barreled guns.I think the KV 2 had a 120mm or so.

From my point of view, no Hvy tank divison should be in use. There was never a divison with mostly hvy tanks in ww2 nor were the Light tanks in late war used as fighting units rather as recon. That is the main reasoning behind the Hvy Tank battalions and Adv. light tank recon battalion.
Tiger maus ...germany build 3..yes 3 tanks of that type, they helped defend Berlin.

The Main tankforce were in Germany: PIII/ PIV
USA: Sherman (cheap, easy to build and easy shot down) USA build 1 sherman every 5 min.
SU: T34/T44 later IS2/IS3 but most numbers were T34s

Imagine that germany build a total of 90,000 armor vehicles in ww2. Incl tanks, Jagdpanzer and halftracks. Tank totals around 30,000 while 13000 were PzIII.
SU build 80 to 90k T34...
I would say nice ratio on the german side.
Did I mention that 2 Tigers and 3 '88 guns made a sherman battalion run like hell defending a pass in africa? (longest killshot recorded 2500m from a high postion, Tiger kills a sherman.)
nuff nubers...
I think the extra battalions are the best way to display the actual use of the tanks , adv. light or Hvy.

Szun

P.S. Leopart II weights 50 tons +/-..nah Tigers would not be considered medium tanks, slow yea!, a Panther had 45 tons and it all aimed at the development of the Main battle tank in the 50 ton range also known as E50..and in Core MBT. But then U cant compare WW2 Tanks with tanks used today.
Also Germany developed a logistic model for all tanks, useing mostly the same parts from E10, E25, E50 to E100 so the Sparepartproblems werent to hvy. The US for one had the same Eletro genetrator in the trucks then they used in some tanks for example.The Opel Blitz and the PzIII had no comon parts.
edit: bah typos and lots

 

[Pkunzipper]

Except for super-heavy tank divison that very probably will be removed in the next CORE version it is not possible to build an heavy tank division! With the right tech discovered they represent only a battalion in a Med.Tank division.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

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.

Really, that's amazing! Maybe after version 1 we should all do it officially , if we think C.O.R.E. is huge now

- MVSN

P.S. So I guess a reduction in doctrine techs isn't favourable?

 

[unmerged(18202)]

Re: I so want to say this...

Originally posted by Phil K
Transports were boosted because the paratrooper rush used by so many players needed to be curtailed. It is too easy to buy a few transports and paratroopers and just drop into basically undefended provinces for control. Not a realistic usage of airborne troops but unfortunately allowable in the game.

That, in my view, was enough rationale for the boost--but there was another IIUC, namely: it really does take a massive number of aircraft to emplane a full airborne division, and those planes have normal jobs essential to the war effort the 99% of the time they aren't dropping jumpers. I think the hefty cost partly reflects the massive investment that airborne forces entail.

jkk

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by mvsnconsolegene
P.S. So I guess a reduction in doctrine techs isn't favourable?

It was raised a while back (six weeks ago maybe) but the discussion didn't really take off. The approach suggested then was an overall reduction in tech cost, but not tech time. This would allow minors to keep up better with tech development and reduce the impact on them from the partial investment problem. It's something for v0.7 I think.

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

FYI:

I've opened a Nuke tech thread on Wiki's TechMod project Forum