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

[McNaughton]

As was mentioned, top speeds are one thing, average sustainable speed and endurance is a completely different thing. Tigers were also much heavier, resulting in transport via. rail being that much more difficult and expensive. All too often the big and heavy tanks would shed a track or get stuck due to the weight involved.

I too am against heavy tanks (we already have them in the implementation of Infantry Tanks and Heavy Tank Battalions), and would perfer concentrating on making a balanced and historic tech tree than one with what if options. I say we address Heavy Tanks after we come up with more conclusions regarding the basic format of the tech tree (i.e., gold tech time and cost, as well as doctrines).

Realistically, it comes down to people wanting Tiger tanks, and all this effort to come up with a unit type that is desired primarily for just one nation (there is not a similar cry for Russian heavy tanks, and no other nations have heavy tanks with reputations) is a bit much to ask for in my opinion.

 

[McNaughton]

Reports on new tech tree costs

I have been testing the new tech trees and gold tech costs a fair amount in the past few days.

I have experienced a lot of success.

My changes are a bit simpler than Szun's, and reflect a balance between the original set up and the new one in cost and time.

All Gold techs take 360 days to research. The AI has no problem with this, even with early basic techs.

Gold techs cost various amounts, depending on their total cost in the original makeup. The way I calculated this was:

(example Infantry gold techs original)
180 Days X 20 IC = 3600 total IC spent

(infantry gold techs new)
3600 total IC spent / 360 Days = 10 IC
So the new cost will be 10 IC

(example some Armour gold techs origilan)
350 Days X 20 IC = 7000 total IC spent
7000 / 360 Days = 19.444
So the new cost will be 19 IC

I lowered Italy's gold tech research from 1.00 to 0.90, and they seem to be doing much better (albiet are not shooting massively ahead).

I have modified the AI files and created peacetime AI's so that these nations will tend to focus less on producing military units that are contingent on tech level (for example, I have removed fighters and tanks from the build schemes), because it makes no sense to have these nations build massive air forces of obsolete units. They tend to focus primarily on getting industry and electronics techs that will help them during the war, as well as attaining basic technology in tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry so when they get their wartime AI files, and start building tanks and aircraft they will build Basic aircraft and tanks that are significantly more effective than Pre-war tanks and aircraft.

 

[unmerged(18202)]

Originally posted by McNaughton
Realistically, it comes down to people wanting Tiger tanks, and all this effort to come up with a unit type that is desired primarily for just one nation (there is not a similar cry for Russian heavy tanks, and no other nations have heavy tanks with reputations) is a bit much to ask for in my opinion.

This is what has me chawing a hole in my lip all the time, and I agree with you completely, McN. It is time to vent:

There was no country that built any meaningful number of super heavy tank divisions in World War II, and I do not care how ultra cool and wonderful and neato people think it is to have tank divisions who have Great Big Numbers even when nothing of the sodding sort happened in the sodding war. There is no point in mod makers wasting the slightest bit of time catering to powergaming that simply gratifies someone's sense of UberPanzerMensch. The targeted result should be for the big nations to be able to have heavy tank support battalions by mid-war, provided they research very diligently in that direction, and if the game even allows Big Macho Maus Divisions, the damn things should cost not merely an arm and a leg, but one nut and a couple of internal organs.

Furthermore, any WWII super heavy tank division should have the speed of an injured snail, should be exceptionally vulnerable to air attack due to its molasses speed and difficulty of concealment, and should drink oil like Coke.

There. I feel much better now.

jkk

 

[Steel]

Re: Reports on new tech tree costs

Originally posted by McNaughton
for example, I have removed fighters and tanks from the build schemes), because it makes no sense to have these nations build massive air forces of obsolete units

This is the direction we had already taken with the Soviet AI and the reason for some changes I had made in the Italian AI. Can you make sure the latest files you've got are attached in the wiki, if you are comfortable with them then put it on the Integration page.

 

[McNaughton]

Re: Re: Reports on new tech tree costs

Originally posted by Steel
This is the direction we had already taken with the Soviet AI and the reason for some changes I had made in the Italian AI. Can you make sure the latest files you've got are attached in the wiki, if you are comfortable with them then put it on the Integration page.

I am still doing some tests, as production it is giving me some strange results. France is done, Italy is nearing completion, but the UK is giving me trouble (because they and the Commonwealth are researching too much, so I am trying to spread research out better). Japan still feels too weak. I have given them priority for a basic light tank as well as for fighters and bombers, but most priority toward Industry, Infantry and Artillery, however even French Divisions are stronger than Japanese divisions (in soft firepower).

Minor nations are easier to do, basically concentrate primarily on infantry and industry techs, plus doctrines.

Hopefully soon I will have something that can be posted on wiki, but currently things are not as balanced as they should.

Tech research paths are done (up to Improved, I don't think I need to go further, but I eventually may add on more paths), and it is just a matter of determining proper tech ratio's to optimize things historically and game-wize for these nations.

 

[unmerged(18738)]

I think the current heavy tank battalion concept is great. Forget the hangups on Tiger tanks - I could comment on that but Paradox has made it clear certain comments are not allowed.

Current tech tree is pretty awesome. And I am sure it will get better.

-PK

 

[Szun]

Odd how the world changes, first I say the battalions are great and ppl post against me.
Now I try helping to find a solution and I barely can dodge the posts thrown at me
I personly dont NEED hvy tank divisons...

but what in 9 hells has a tigertank to do with content not allowed in the forums? (confused)

As for Soviet hvy tanks, well, I dont know them to well, I do know of the KVI and KVII and neither was a very good tank if u ask me.
Other then that, SU didnt come up with a good hvy until IS II, if U want to call him hvy.
US didnt even manage to produce a good medium, but thats a differant story.
So if we talk about Hvys it comes to Char Bis and Tigers and the first was produced around 300, the later , incl all classes even Jagdtiger, ~1300 were build in WW2. But also Germany had 24 panzerdivisons in 41 and u easiely end up with 90+ in the game.
I am well aware its ahistorical, to point it out once more, that Hvy tanks were deployed in divisons.

Ok nuff said.

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Szun
Odd how the world changes, first I say the battalions are great and ppl post against me.
Now I try helping to find a solution and I barely can dodge the posts thrown at me
I personly dont NEED hvy tank divisons...

but what in 9 hells has a tigertank to do with content not allowed in the forums? (confused)

As for Soviet hvy tanks, well, I dont know them to well, I do know of the KVI and KVII and neither was a very good tank if u ask me.
Other then that, SU didnt come up with a good hvy until IS II, if U want to call him hvy.
US didnt even manage to produce a good medium, but thats a differant story.
So if we talk about Hvys it comes to Char Bis and Tigers and the first was produced around 300, the later , incl all classes even Jagdtiger, ~1300 were build in WW2. But also Germany had 24 panzerdivisons in 41 and u easiely end up with 90+ in the game.
I am well aware its ahistorical, to point it out once more, that Hvy tanks were deployed in divisons.

Ok nuff said.

Nobody was trying to single you out, as there is a large number of people who want the Tiger tank back in the game, based mainly because they like the Tiger tank, not that it would necessarily add a needed dimension to the game.

 

[Szun]

Re: Reports on new tech tree costs

Originally posted by McNaughton
I have been testing the new tech trees and gold tech costs a fair amount in the past few days.

I have experienced a lot of success.

My changes are a bit simpler than Szun's, and reflect a balance between the original set up and the new one in cost and time.

All Gold techs take 360 days to research. The AI has no problem with this, even with early basic techs.

Gold techs cost various amounts, depending on their total cost in the original makeup. The way I calculated this was:

(example Infantry gold techs original)
180 Days X 20 IC = 3600 total IC spent

(infantry gold techs new)
3600 total IC spent / 360 Days = 10 IC
So the new cost will be 10 IC

(example some Armour gold techs origilan)
350 Days X 20 IC = 7000 total IC spent
7000 / 360 Days = 19.444
So the new cost will be 19 IC

I lowered Italy's gold tech research from 1.00 to 0.90, and they seem to be doing much better (albiet are not shooting massively ahead).

I have modified the AI files and created peacetime AI's so that these nations will tend to focus less on producing military units that are contingent on tech level (for example, I have removed fighters and tanks from the build schemes), because it makes no sense to have these nations build massive air forces of obsolete units. They tend to focus primarily on getting industry and electronics techs that will help them during the war, as well as attaining basic technology in tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry so when they get their wartime AI files, and start building tanks and aircraft they will build Basic aircraft and tanks that are significantly more effective than Pre-war tanks and aircraft.

Aie, the costs&time are very good!
It forces me to think more, to get resources, because the Industry is in 42 still pre 0.9 conversation.
Also a good thing is that the Tankgun 80 prereq 'Quality control' comes a lot later.
Overall its not so easy to get what U want and a Medium 80 wont be possible befor 42.
All in all its more balanced with it, even with the old AI , the player cant move to much ahead like befor.

 

[Szun]

Originally posted by McNaughton
Nobody was trying to single you out, as there is a large number of people who want the Tiger tank back in the game, based mainly because they like the Tiger tank, not that it would necessarily add a needed dimension to the game.

Yeap, and I took (I think is was Mdow who came up with it or was it U?) the idea of a High IC cost/long buildtime Hvy with stats that should be close to acurate.
It was a try to make those ppl happy without changeing the current techtree to much and not give them a big advantage.

I found, IF the hvy tank gets back in, that 1 Hvy for 3 normal divison sounds a fair trade.
Only problem is upgradeing.

P.S. did the superhvy get a change to battalion in the current techtree yet?

edit: btw, by the time I could build Imp. Hvy with tankgun 80 I also had the Adv. Medium rdy to build.

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Szun
Yeap, and I took (I think is was Mdow who came up with it or was it U?) the idea of a High IC cost/long buildtime Hvy with stats that should be close to acurate.
It was a try to make those ppl happy without changeing the current techtree to much and not give them a big advantage.

I found, IF the hvy tank gets back in, that 1 Hvy for 3 normal divison sounds a fair trade.
Only problem is upgradeing.

I totally agree with you, if they are to be implemented, they should be like you describe. It is just a matter of priority.

 

[Szun]

Originally posted by McNaughton
I totally agree with you, if they are to be implemented, they should be like you describe. It is just a matter of priority.

/nod

I am aware of that, and that post is on my comp as a txt file, so I can copy it in the forum again later too

 

[McNaughton]

Limited Tech Increases

Looking through starting nations tech, I have decided to post proposed tech increases. These are very limited (moreso than my previous requests).

BELGIUM:

2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2201 2202 2203 2986 2988 2103 2107
14009 14105

This gives them Tankette research (equivalent to their T.15 tanks developed in 1934), plus it gives them Basic Light Tank 30mm (equivalent to their T.13 tanks developed in 1935).

----------

CZECHOSLOVAKIA:

2986 2987

This gives them Tankette reserch (equivalent to their Tancik vz.33 developed in 1933)

----------

FRANCE:

2201 2202 2203 2986 14009 14011

This gives them Basic Gears and 40mm Anti-Tank Guns and 30mm Tank Guns (equivalent to their 47mm Anti-Tank Gun of 1934, and the 37mm Tank Guns)

----------

ITALY:

14010 14009

This gives them Tank Gun 20mm, Tank Gun 30mm, and Anti-Tank Gun 40mm (25mm Hotchkiss Tank Gun from 1934, and 47mm Anti-Tank Gun used in 1935)

----------

JAPAN:

2201 2203 2202 2986 2987 2103 2104

This gives them Tankette and Basic Light Tank MG (Model 94 Tankette, and the Type 92 Light Tank made well before 1935)

----------

POLAND:

14011
2103 2104 2106

This gives them Basic Light Tank MG and Basic Light Tank 30mm (7TP dw and 7TP jw, designed in 1935)

----------

SWEDEN:

2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2201 2202 2203 2103 2107
14009 14105

This gives them Basic Light Tank 30mm (equivalent to their L series of tanks developed in the early 1930s).

----------

These techs are all fairly minor, but will give them a boost in areas that they should have a boost.

 

[MateDow]

Various Topics

Heavy Tanks/Light Tanks
I actually don't have a love affair with the heavy tank (maybe the light tank), but I do have an affair with units in general. If someone said that knights on horseback were a viable unit for HoI, I would push for their incorperation to give the player more options to build the type of units that fit his/her playing style. I think that the option should exist for the player to be able to build a heavy armor division because that is what they want to do, not necessarily because it is logical. If it is a matter of time, I will volunteer to help with the coding to get them into CORE because I like the concept of having them in there for build. If you feel that they are not useful or unhistorical, then don't waste the IC or the time for them.End of Sermon

Naval Doctrines
I am working on a new naval doctrines tree for the next version of CORE as a part of the overhaul of the tech trees. As part of that, I had the idea of a series of doctrine that would help recreate the historical differences between nations warships. An example of this would be "Speed Superiority Doctrine" that would cancel out "Protection Superiority Doctrine." This would help model the differences between like the Germans and Italians. The Italians believed that faster was better, and the Germans built ships with many compartments that were difficult to sink. For countries that didn't have this historical preference, it would give the player the ability to have some of the units fit their style of play. Most of these would be cancelling so you would have to decide early on whether to give carriers superiority or the battleship.

Technology Levels
I think that for some of the levels, the time should be less that for others. In the naval tree the first few levels (which allow catching up with the majors) are already decently common knowledge. I think that the cost and effort of those should be in the techs within the level. I can't say for the trees that don't deal with non-naval tech, but it should be cheaper for the 'catch up' techs than tech that was truely original. The total time difference could be made up with the techs that didn't come until after (or in some cases) well after the war.

Those are just some of my thoughts on the various topics that have come up today. MDow

 

[Szun]

I learned a lesson....
4x tankdivison with cost 34IC, at half strengh= 4400 supplys to get them to max str.
ouch

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Szun
P.S. did the superhvy get a change to battalion in the current techtree yet?

Yes, but I still try to find good way to implement it (and finally those will be probably more problem then relieve)...

Those tanks were so wrong in their whole concept - it's like Soviets returning to the T-35 or KV-2's heavies in 1945...

 

[Szun]

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Yes, but I still try to find good way to implement it (and finally those will be probably more problem then relieve)...

Those tanks were so wrong in their whole concept - it's like Soviets returning to the T-35 or KV-2's heavies in 1945...

Maybe if U make basic hvy Battalion a prereq, if U want it U must take it all
I agree that the 100 ton tanks had some drawbacks that prolly outway the hvy armor and big-guns...
Deployed defensive they could be worth it tho, but I dont see a use in offense for them. Beside only 2 or 3 tanks were build of the Maus E100 type befor the fall of berlin.
Leave them out?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Issue with 'Tankettes'

Tankettes may be a valid tanktype in history and the cheap tank for the poor countrys, but if U look at it as main divisonal force U can build tanks in numbers at a chaep price for nearly Infantry cost. Upgraded they aren't to bad in stats either ...

e.g. 7/15/5/14/6 in 1940 (with 10 IC goldtech change) Tankette +E
Fully upgrade they are fast as hell have grounddefense 25 to 30 and U can build like 200 of them for 1200 manpower

Benefit: fast/5IC cost (no brigade) 7IC cost with+E and Armored spearhead minister & Mass assembly/ Manpower 6 per divison/ buildtime 86 days with minister and Mass assembly/Hard target

Drawback: Weaker stats then other tanks

resume: Tankettes must be redone, the way they are is no good.
I dont have the answer of how to change them, all I know is that in my current game I aproach number 225 tankette build with 1600 manpower availible for restockings.

I think the main problem is the bonuses give out by secondary techs. Atm U gain a lot of HA/SA/GD so U would end up with a good tank with starting stats: 0 0 0

75% of the stats should be in the tankclass itself, and only 25% should be bonuses, how to acomplish that..I dont know...
Is a 0.5 bonus possible instead of 1s?
If yes, then thats maybe the answer, reduceing all techs to 0.5 and increase the tankclasses accordingly.
Not sure if thats the way to go..just a thought.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Szun
Maybe if U make basic hvy Battalion a prereq, if U want it U must take it all
I agree that the 100 ton tanks had some drawbacks that prolly outway the hvy armor and big-guns...
Deployed defensive they could be worth it tho, but I dont see a use in offense for them. Beside only 2 or 3 tanks were build of the Maus E100 type befor the fall of berlin.
Leave them out?

I'll make those battalion like bonus, but every player would have to carefully consider, if he really wants it (Speed -3, -4?)...

Originally posted by Szun

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Issue with 'Tankettes'

Tankettes may be a valid tanktype in history and the cheap tank for the poor countrys, but if U look at it as main divisonal force U can build tanks in numbers at a chaep price for nearly Infantry cost. Upgraded they aren't to bad in stats either ...

e.g. 7/15/5/14/6 in 1940 (with 10 IC goldtech change) Tankette +E
Fully upgrade they are fast as hell have grounddefense 25 to 30 and U can build like 200 of them for 1200 manpower

Benefit: fast/5IC cost (no brigade) 7IC cost with+E and Armored spearhead minister & Mass assembly/ Manpower 6 per divison/ buildtime 86 days with minister and Mass assembly/Hard target

Drawback: Weaker stats then other tanks

resume: Tankettes must be redone, the way they are is no good.
I dont have the answer of how to change them, all I know is that in my current game I aproach number 225 tankette build with 1600 manpower availible for restockings.

I think the main problem is the bonuses give out by secondary techs. Atm U gain a lot of HA/SA/GD so U would end up with a good tank with starting stats: 0 0 0

75% of the stats should be in the tankclass itself, and only 25% should be bonuses, how to acomplish that..I dont know...
Is a 0.5 bonus possible instead of 1s?
If yes, then thats maybe the answer, reduceing all techs to 0.5 and increase the tankclasses accordingly.
Not sure if thats the way to go..just a thought.

Not sure of 0.5 stats changes, will test though...

On the other hand, I was working on this subject when I started revamping air tech tree (same problem) and the only way I see it is adding some bonuses to the tank class stats + adding those techs as a pre-requisites.

It's not the perfect solution (it makes all tanks a bit unified), but it might work. It also give us a chance to better design/balance overall stats line of the tank models.

Example:

We want to get rid of bonuses from sloped armour and improved tracks. We make them "upgrade-free", but rise of the stats from those is added to all improved+ classes (sloped armour) or advanced+ (tracks). Also, sloped armour is now pre-req for improved tanks, and tracks - for advanced ones.

It also makes R&D a bit more spread, but it's not that good due to the "unified tanks" - now all the improved tanks will be sloped armoured (not true in case of UK and GER tanks) and so on...

 

[Szun]

Well see it that way, german tanks had facehardend steel as armorplateing witch isnt in the techtree. So if they have sloped armor instead thats ok. US tanks on the other hand had the cheapest steel (not sure how 'grauguss' is translated) and the SU tanks had sloped but noneharded steel. In the end it works out.
As for the tankettes, I wait for 0.62? then

edit: it all would be easier if we could have a 'Tank Brigade' addon

 

[unmerged(12058)]

Hi chaps - excellent work on CORE.

There's just one thing that's always slightly concerned me - considering the makeup of an armoured division (ie: that a significant portion of its combat effectiveness comes from infantry), should they not become more effective with improving infantry techs? I appreciate that modding this would require a certain amount of rebalancing to avoid overpowering armour but is it worth considering?

--Loops.