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.
Established AI research paths

I would like to point something out. I know we are in the process of tech tree overhaul, but this is something for future consideration:

When an AI country has been given a specific pattern for research in any given tech area, it tends to efficiently research that area (to the best of its ability). This tends to truly strengthens the AI nation's war capability.

When they don't have a specific research path to follow, IC are lost researching what are senseless or ineffective techs for that country, thereby weakening the country's war capability and lethality. We've all checked into HANDSOFF games to see some nation's AI dinking away at what would prove to be ineffective techs for that particular nation's military or economy.

What I'd like to see at some point - when the tech overhaul is complete - is a group-wide effort to create full research paths for things such as electronics and other research branches for the AI. A few levels of, say, electronics research combined with other complementary techs can make an AI nation a much greater foe.

This is something I started in on a while back, and Steel has seen some of my work. However, it became impossible and ludicrous to continue in light of the tech tree overhaul. I would like to take it up again when the overhaul is complete but cannot do all that work on my own.

Basically what it entails doing is creating one standard logical research path for a generic AI country for each research branch. Then this path can be used as a commonsense basis for tweaking according to certain individual nation's (USA, Germany, USSR, etc) historical and logical needs. This allows us to then plug such basic paths into other nation INC files that don't necessarily need to have unique paths created for them, thereby making the AI research much more efficient.

And thereby creating a much more intelligent overall AI in terms of IC use in tech research.

-PK
 
Re: Established AI research paths

Originally posted by Phil K
(...)Basically what it entails doing is creating one standard logical research path for a generic AI country for each research branch. Then this path can be used as a commonsense basis for tweaking according to certain individual nation's (USA, Germany, USSR, etc) historical and logical needs. This allows us to then plug such basic paths into other nation INC files that don't necessarily need to have unique paths created for them, thereby making the AI research much more efficient.

And thereby creating a much more intelligent overall AI in terms of IC use in tech research.

-PK
Click to expand...

Fully agree on that one. In fact, I suggest any tech tree modder (so far we have MDow - Navy + subs, McNaughton - artillery + industry, PKunzipper and me - air tech tree + air doctrines) to create some generic research paths (like short range fighters development, naval air development and so on) developed and noted those during the design stage.

That would make work much easier - and we in fact will have an edge over the players, who would have to find those by themselves. :D

After getting initial lists of research paths (so far some are posted on wiki in Book of Knowledge) we can use those as elements of AI's, customizing those to playability/historical needs.
 
Re: Established AI research paths

Originally posted by Phil K
I would like to point something out. I know we are in the process of tech tree overhaul, but this is something for future consideration:

When an AI country has been given a specific pattern for research in any given tech area, it tends to efficiently research that area (to the best of its ability). This tends to truly strengthens the AI nation's war capability.
...(snip)...
And thereby creating a much more intelligent overall AI in terms of IC use in tech research.

-PK
Click to expand...

While I was working on the MP mod, I found that when nations lacked MP, they put effort 100% toward research. I then found that things were unbalanced, and they were designed to be functioning at 50% or less in research, resulting in them being far ahead in certain areas, and far behind in others. I rebalanced the tech ratio's, and designed some 'generic' tech trees (only up to improved) for specific regions based on historic development and necessity.

Here is what I did (similar to those posted on the WIKI), and it worked very well. Once you sift through what is neccessary from what isn't, applying this to nations is easy. Some of the larger ones need more modifications because they have the IC and some minor nations won't get all of the frills and just the basics.

I found that organizing it like this, with options and areas labeled makes it very easy to apply these for actual nations, so modders know exactly what they need to input without having to look in another area.

Code: 
	# Infantry: General Balanced between all types
	1100 1200 1201 1203 1301 1205 1206 1207 1202 1204 # Basic Small Arms
	1300 1303 1302 1304 # Combat Medical Service
	1400 1401 1976 1403 # Improved Small Arms
	1500 # Improved Battlefield C3I
	1600 1601 1602 # Improved Logistics

	# Armour: Medium Tanks No Infantry Support or Light Tank
	2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 # Great War
	2100 2101 # Interwar Tanks basic (-2101 Optics)
	2200 # Amphibious Tanks
	2300 2301 2302 2303 2314 # Basic Tanks (2208 Desert Combat, 2316 BMT 30mm, 2317 BMT 40mm, 2318 BMT 50mm, 2319 BMT 70mm S)
	2400 2990 2401 2402 2407 # Improved Tanks basic (-2401 Optics, -2402 Radio, 2408 IMT 40mm, 2409 IMT 50mm, 2410 IMT 70mmM, 2981 IMT 70mmL, 2503 IMT 80mm)
	2500 # Tank Applications (2934 Applice Armour, 2501 Basic Armour Skirts, 2984 Engineering Tanks, 2994 Remote Controlled Tank)

	# Armour: Medium Tanks, Infantry Support
	2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 # Great War
	2100 2201 2202 2203 2101 2985 2993 # Interwar Tanks basic (-2101 Optics)
	2200 # Amphibious Tanks
	2300 2301 2302 2303 2314 # Basic Tanks (2208 Desert Combat, 2316 BMT 30mm, 2317 BMT 40mm, 2318 BMT 50mm, 2319 BMT 70mm S)
	2400 2990 2401 2402 2407 # Improved Tanks basic (-2401 Optics, -2402 Radio, 2408 IMT 40mm, 2409 IMT 50mm, 2410 IMT 70mmM, 2981 IMT 70mmL, 2503 IMT 80mm)
	2500 # Tank Applications (2934 Applice Armour, 2501 Basic Armour Skirts, 2984 Engineering Tanks, 2994 Remote Controlled Tank)

	# Armour: Light Tanks
	2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 # Great War
	2100 2201 2202 2203 2101 2985 2993 # Interwar Tanks basic (-2101 Optics)
	2200 # Amphibious Tanks
	2300 2103 # Basic Tanks (2104 BLT MG, 2105 BLT 20mm, 2106 BLT 30mm, 2107 BLT 40mm)
	2400 2990 2401 2402 2209 # Improved Tanks basic (-2401 Optics, -2402 Radio, 2210 ILT 20mm, 2211 ILT 30mm, 2212 ILT 40mm)
	2500 # Tank Applications (2934 Applice Armour, 2501 Basic Armour Skirts, 2984 Engineering Tanks, 2994 Remote Controlled Tank)

	# Electronics: Computers and Communications
	3000 3100 3103 3104 3006 3007 # Decimetric Radar
	3200 3204 3205 3206 # Binary Code
	3300 3301 3302 # Frequency Modulation	
	3400 3404 3405 3406 # Resonance Magnetron
	3500 3505 # Centimetric Radar
	3600 3601 3602 # Telemetric Guidance

	# Electronics: Computers and Radar Detection and Encryption
	3000 3103 3104 3006 3007 # Decimetric Radar
	3200 3201 3202 3207 # Binary Code
	3300 3301 3302 # Frequency Modulation
	3400 3401 3402 3403 3407 # Resonance Magnetron
	3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3506 # Centimetric Radar
	3600 3601 3602 # Telemetric Guidance

	# Industry
	4100 4103 4104 # Plastics
	4200 4203 # Catalytic Cracking
	4300 4303 # Polymerisation
	4400 # Assembly Mass Production (4401 Vehicle, 4402 Ship, 4403 Aircraft, 4404 Rocket)
	4500 4501 4503 # Improved Plastics
	4600 4601 # Hydroforming
	4700 4701 # Catalytic Polymerisation
	4800 # Modular Assembly Construction
	4900 4901 # Fluid Catalytic Cracking
	4940 4941 # Iso-Octane and Alkylate Process
	4970 4972 4973 # Cold Polymerization

	# Submarines:
	

	# Navy: ASW priorities and light vessels Goal: Destroyers and Transports
	6200 6310 6300 6400 6524 6500 6518 6307 6517 6521 6522 6612 6610 6611 6600 6716 6719 6700 6800 6908 6909

	# Bombers: Tactical and Strategic Bombers (no paratroopers)
	9000 9002 9003 9005 9006 9104 9105 9107 9108 # Basic Tactical and Strategic Bombers
	9100 # Paratroopers (insert here)
	9200 9301 9302 9304 9305 # Basic Ordinance and Equipment
	9300 9402 9405 9506 9507 9403 9406 9509 9510 # Improved Tactical and Strategic Bombers

	# Bombers: Tactical and Naval Bombers (no paratroopers)
	9000 9002 9005 9104 9105 9106 # Basic Tactical and Naval Bombers
	9100 # Paratroopers (insert here)
	9200 # Basic Ordinance and Equipment
	9300 9402 9405 9406 9507 9508 # Improved Tactical and Naval Bombers

	# Bombers: Tactical and Dive Bombers (no paratroopers)
	9000 9002 9005 9004 9104 9105 9001 9101 9102 # Basic Tactical and Dive Bombers
	9100 # Paratroopers (insert here)
	9200 9303 9304 # Basic Ordinance and Equipment
	9300 9402 9405 9506 9507 9401 9404 9503 9504 # Improved Tactical and Dive Bombers

	# Bombers: Paratrooper Pack (tech 9100)
	9100 9200 9201 9202 9203 9204 # Paratroopers

	# Bombers: General Balanced between all types
	

	# Fighters: Multirole Fighters (meant for weak nations for an effective fighter)
	10000 10002 10003 10004 # Basic Fighter Development Multirole
	10103 10104 10100 # Basic Aviation Multirole
	10200 10300 10305 # Improved Anti-Radar (engines)
	10400 10401 10402 # Early War Improvements Multirole
	10500 10504 10505 # Improved Fighters Multirole

	# Fighters: Multirole and Interceptor Fighters (meant for defensive nation)
	10000 10002 10003 10001 10004 # Basic Fighter Development Interceptor
	10101 10102 10103 10104 10100 # Basic Aviation Interceptor and Basic Fighter/Aviation Multirole
	10200 10300 10301 10305 # Improved Anti-Radar (engines)
	10400 10401 10402 # Early War Improvements Interceptor and Multirole
	10500 10502 10503 10504 10505 # Improved Fighters Interceptor and Multirole

	# Fighters: Interceptor and Escort Fighters (for air defence and long range escort)
	10000 10002 10003 10001 10005 # Basic Fighter Development Interceptor
	10101 10102 10105 10106 10100 # Basic Aviation Interceptor and Basic Fighter/Aviation Escort
	10200 10300 10301 10306 # Improved Anti-Radar (engines)
	10400 10401 10402 10977 # Early War Improvements Interceptor and Escort (plus drop tanks)
	10500 10502 10503 10506 10507 # Improved Fighters Interceptor and Escort

	# Fighters: Multirole and Escort Fighters (for offensive nation)
	10000 10002 10003 10004 10005 # Basic Fighter Development 
	10103 10104 10105 10106 10100 # Basic Aviation Multirole and Basic Fighter/Aviation Escort
	10200 10300 10305 10306 # Improved Anti-Radar (engines)
	10400 10401 10402 10977 # Early War Improvements Multirole and Escort (plus drop tanks)
	10500 10504 10505 10506 10507 # Improved Fighters Multirole and Escort

	# Artillery: Artillery and Anti-Aircraft
	14973 14003 14005 14008 14012 14013 # Basic Equipment and Ordinance
	14100 14007 14103 # Basic Artillery Pieces
	14200 14202 14106 14107 14208 14009 14205 # Self Propelled Artillery

	# Artillery: Tank Gun focus
	14973 14008 14009 14010 14011 # Basic Equipment and Ordinance (14003 14004 14207 70mm Short)
	14100 14105 14003 14005 14006 2884 14104 2886 14012 14013 14106 14107 # Basic Artillery Pieces
	14200 14201 14202 14206 14208 # Self Propelled Artillery

# 14973 is 12.7mm Machine Guns 14974 is 20mm Cannons for Aircraft

# SURVIVAL PACKS

	# Infantry: Survival Pack (basic infantry tech)
	1000 1001 1975 1100 1200 1300 1400 1201 1301 1204 1203 1401 1976 1974 

	# Armour: Survivial Pack (tankettes, to get a non Great War Tank)
	

	# Industry: Survival Pack (basic industry tech, to lower supply consumption)
	4000 4100 4103 4104

	# Fighters: Multirole Fighters (meant for weak nations for an effective fighter)
	10000 10002 10003 10004 # Basic Fighter Development Multirole
	10100 10103 10104 # Basic Aviation Multirole

	# Land Doctrines: Survival Pack (basic land doctrine tech, to get Great War techs)
	

	# Artillery: Survival Pack (basic artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-tank techs, low supply consumption)
	14000 14001 14973 14003 14004 14008 14010 14011 14006
 
Last edited:
P.S. One thing that I noticed while tinkering with the tech tree, is that nations tend to research FASTER if you get them to research the 'gold' techs before they start researching applied technology.

The reason is, if you get the AI to research the applied technology (i.e., Basic Gears and such before they research Amphibious then Basic Tanks) you have a lot of wasted IC, and start researching things that are not as requirements.

(This is based on a modified system where gold techs cost 10 IC and take 360 days).

Say you have 20 IC the AI dedicates toward armour research.

It researches all of the applied tech (gears, prototypes, etc...), using all of the 20 IC, and has completed all of the assigned tasks in their AI tech tree.

Next it starts the Gold tech, which costs 10 IC. It still dedicates 20 IC total, and uses the extra 10 to start researching things that are not on the tech tree (frills like AAMG, etc...), and does this for 360 days. I have seen tech trees completely researched because the AI has extra IC.

The best thing to do is to have Gold Techs as #1 priorities until you get to an area that requires a lot of research (i.e., Basic Tank area, where you get tanks, assault guns, etc...).

The first tech tree actually ends up researching more efficiently than the second one.

Code: 
# Armour: Medium Tanks, Infantry Support
2000 2100 2200 2300 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 # Great War
2201 2202 2203 2101 2985 2993 # Interwar Tanks basic (-2101 Optics)
# Amphibious Tanks
2301 2302 2303 2314 # Basic Tanks (2208 Desert Combat, 2316 BMT 30mm, 2317 BMT 40mm, 2318 BMT 50mm, 2319 BMT 70mm S)
2400 2990 2401 2402 2407 # Improved Tanks basic (-2401 Optics, -2402 Radio, 2408 IMT 40mm, 2409 IMT 50mm, 2410 IMT 70mmM, 2981 IMT 70mmL, 2503 IMT 80mm)
2500 # Tank Applications (2934 Applice Armour, 2501 Basic Armour Skirts, 2984 Engineering Tanks, 2994 Remote Controlled Tank)

# Armour: Medium Tanks, Infantry Support
2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 # Great War
2100 2201 2202 2203 2101 2985 2993 # Interwar Tanks basic (-2101 Optics)
2200 # Amphibious Tanks
2300 2301 2302 2303 2314 # Basic Tanks (2208 Desert Combat, 2316 BMT 30mm, 2317 BMT 40mm, 2318 BMT 50mm, 2319 BMT 70mm S)
2400 2990 2401 2402 2407 # Improved Tanks basic (-2401 Optics, -2402 Radio, 2408 IMT 40mm, 2409 IMT 50mm, 2410 IMT 70mmM, 2981 IMT 70mmL, 2503 IMT 80mm)
2500 # Tank Applications (2934 Applice Armour, 2501 Basic Armour Skirts, 2984 Engineering Tanks, 2994 Remote Controlled Tank)

This is just to keep things in mind when creating your own tech trees.
 
some weird stuff about planes and ships

Hi,

Here are some weird things I have seen about planes and fleets or that just doesn’t sound right. Certainly already discussed, but in case it wasn’t:

Planes left without protection in territories with a beach wiped out by a landing. Seen 6 Italian planes destroyed in Benghazi by one Australian division. The AI should may be try to keep the planes in a defended territory rather than not defended if there is a beach.

Planes on CV stay “above” the sea after fighting. They slowly loose their org because they don’t come back on the CV. Also seen Torpedo or Naval Bombers on their own in the middle of nowhere without any carrier.

Italian bombers have a bad tendency to fly to Russia or to try to go to Japan through Egypt. You sometimes can find them in China. Weird.

Once paratroopers are in their transport planes you can’t unload them until the org is back to 30. I understand that you can’t attack with them until 30 reached, but why can’t they be unloaded in your own territory?

Italian or Vichy planes have a bad tendency to stay in the middle of the Sahara instead of going back to more suitable places.

There is a very little difference between SR and MR Fighters. Personally I never spend any time on SR, because MR are more effective (tactical attack). Is that historical?

The AI has sometime the tendency to bomb with transport planes.

Fleets staying in the middle of the sea with 0 org should go back to their naval base to restore a minimum of organisation.

Some fleets with 8 or 9 ships have leaders that only can command 1 ship.

A cargo transporting troops damaged should also have the troops also damaged.

That’s it. Bye. Speed.
 
Re: some weird stuff about planes and ships

Originally posted by speed
Hi,

Here are some weird things I have seen about planes and fleets or that just doesn?t sound right. Certainly already discussed, but in case it wasn?t:

Planes left without protection in territories with a beach wiped out by a landing. Seen 6 Italian planes destroyed in Benghazi by one Australian division. The AI should may be try to keep the planes in a defended territory rather than not defended if there is a beach.

Planes on CV stay ?above? the sea after fighting. They slowly loose their org because they don?t come back on the CV. Also seen Torpedo or Naval Bombers on their own in the middle of nowhere without any carrier.

Italian bombers have a bad tendency to fly to Russia or to try to go to Japan through Egypt. You sometimes can find them in China. Weird.

Once paratroopers are in their transport planes you can?t unload them until the org is back to 30. I understand that you can?t attack with them until 30 reached, but why can?t they be unloaded in your own territory?

Italian or Vichy planes have a bad tendency to stay in the middle of the Sahara instead of going back to more suitable places.

There is a very little difference between SR and MR Fighters. Personally I never spend any time on SR, because MR are more effective (tactical attack). Is that historical?

The AI has sometime the tendency to bomb with transport planes.

Fleets staying in the middle of the sea with 0 org should go back to their naval base to restore a minimum of organisation.

Some fleets with 8 or 9 ships have leaders that only can command 1 ship.

A cargo transporting troops damaged should also have the troops also damaged.

That?s it. Bye. Speed.
Click to expand...


All of which are vanilla HoI problems that cannot be resolved by the C.O.R.E. team, with the possible exception of differentiating between MR and SR squadrons.
 
Re: Re: Established AI research paths

Originally posted by McNaughton
(...)Here is what I did (similar to those posted on the WIKI), and it worked very well. Once you sift through what is neccessary from what isn't, applying this to nations is easy. Some of the larger ones need more modifications because they have the IC and some minor nations won't get all of the frills and just the basics.(...)
Click to expand...

What I meant was creating (updating) tech paths, when we change tech tree. For example, if we switch from superheavy divs to battalion, I would have to update GER tank research path posted on wiki (which includes 120mm+ SuperHeavy), and so on...

It's always easier for designer to describe his work, then for other ones to decipher it. ;)
 
Same page - good!

Glad to see we all recognize the importance of this.

I would suggest waiting until the entire tech tree is finalized officially just because it saves going back and redoing work. But that's just a suggestion. That's what I am doing, at least.

I also understand the benefit of the branch designer in laying out the basic research path. Very good. Also nice to include one or two people after an initial path is designed as they may point out a few related techs (other branches) that one might want to consider in the path somewhere.

Wow, McNaughton - you are like the McSizzle with those paths. They look incredibly like mine. Just more of 'em! :)

What you mentioned about the gold techs (theory levels) is pretty important. I came to see that as leapfrogging. Essentially what I would do (and even do as a player myself - I think it's key to approach it that way) is push ahead in the theory levels (gold) and scoop up desired applications (silver) shorthly afterwards, but hardly ever impeding the research of the next level. So the way I designed the AI tech research paths was to research one or two theory levels, scoop up a few applications, move on to a few more theory levels, then a few applications. Vital applications - such as when a computer application is available - is an immediate research. So you are pushing theory research ever forward but also enhancing the AI and giving it teeth to fight by scooping up applications at appropriate times.

One area I will concentrate on is Industrial and Electronics. These are indeed vital to boosting the AI's abilities in all areas.
 
I need to ask for a clarification about bolted cast and welded.
I asume I know what is ment but I want to be 100%

bolted?

a7v.jpg



Cast? >Shermanhull?

Welded I know for sure.

Asumeing those are right I have a question about productiontimes, Bolted vs. Cast...
Afaik, US M4 Sherman was fastbuild with cast Hull, Quality was on the lower end tho. Why would be bolted faster then cast?
I am not sure but I dont think any nation used bolted tanks in ww2 unless it was some minor nation with WWI tanks in service.

Can someone enlighten me pls ? :)


P.S. Welded isnt welded... it depends on the steel, as we all should know by now the SU tanks had more common steel plateing and were faster and easier to produce then german tanks. (but noway as fast as shermans)
1 thing wasnt mentioned in any techtree either(up to 0.61)... quality
U added a general tech 'Q. contoll' but noone thought about the quality of the guns produced. A 75mm isnt the same 75mm if the barrell has a 5% error margine and the other has only a 0.1% margine.(not easy to add I know)
1 more thing, SU tanks had Alumnum(sp?) engines useing Diesel fuel, wich made the tank a lot lighter then a german counterpart useing 'steel' engine. Not sure if U want to incooperate that into the techs tho. Dont think its to easy to do.

Szun
 
Originally posted by Szun
I need to ask for a clarification about bolted cast and welded.
I asume I know what is ment but I want to be 100%

bolted?

a7v.jpg



Cast? >Shermanhull?

Welded I know for sure.

Asumeing those are right I have a question about productiontimes, Bolted vs. Cast...
Afaik, US M4 Sherman was fastbuild with cast Hull, Quality was on the lower end tho. Why would be bolted faster then cast?
I am not sure but I dont think any nation used bolted tanks in ww2 unless it was some minor nation with WWI tanks in service.

Can someone enlighten me pls ? :)


P.S. Welded isnt welded... it depends on the steel, as we all should know by now the SU tanks had more common steel plateing and were faster and easier to produce then german tanks. (but noway as fast as shermans)
1 thing wasnt mentioned in any techtree either(up to 0.61)... quality
U added a general tech 'Q. contoll' but noone thought about the quality of the guns produced. A 75mm isnt the same 75mm if the barrell has a 5% error margine and the other has only a 0.1% margine.(not easy to add I know)
1 more thing, SU tanks had Alumnum(sp?) engines useing Diesel fuel, wich made the tank a lot lighter then a german counterpart useing 'steel' engine. Not sure if U want to incooperate that into the techs tho. Dont think its to easy to do.

Szun
Click to expand...

The US M3 Lee had a bolted hull/turret, the British Crusader and Covenanter had bolted hulls/turrets, Italian tanks (light and medium) were bolted, Czech tanks were bolted, etc.. They suffered from a general weakness as hits that wouldn't penetrate would often shake the bolts loose. Some tanks were known to fall apart because of High Explosive shells hammering the tank so hard that the bolts would shake out, while a more solidly built tank (cast or welded) would hold up better.

Early US cast hull tanks were sub-par, but generally, cast hull tanks, like the Matilda, Somua S-35, Ram II, and early T-34 tanks were extremely strong due to their armour being cast in solid pieces, yet, they all suffered from difficulty of being produced in quantity. The problem with the Serman was that it was a 'fast-built cast hull', while the other more successful tanks took a lot longer.

It may be generalized, but I think that a general outlook is ok with a macro-scale game.

Interesting about the quality control, I think that is what I was trying to get with the different hull types and suspension. A weak yet cheap and fast to produce version vs. an expensive and slow producing tank but is better quality, and a middle of the road design that doesn't change anything.

I guess a tech could be added symbolizing engine quality by decreasing cost by increasing supply and fuel consumption (bad engines), or increasing cost by decreasing supply and fuel consumption (good engines). I don't know if we want to have too many technologies just for tanks (that are outside of the tank tree).
 
Last edited:
Attack and Defense Values

I posed this question on the naval tree and I figured that I would ask it here to get some reactions...

Should the range of values that are assigned for defense and attack rating be expanded? Right now the naval tree has a range of 1 to 22 for all of the classes. If we expand the total range, that would allow for finer distinctions between classes.

If this is something that is desirable, what would be a realistic range for all of the tech trees so that units for different classes aren't overpowered compared to one another? MDow
 
Re: Attack and Defense Values

Originally posted by MateDow
I posed this question on the naval tree and I figured that I would ask it here to get some reactions...

Should the range of values that are assigned for defense and attack rating be expanded? Right now the naval tree has a range of 1 to 22 for all of the classes. If we expand the total range, that would allow for finer distinctions between classes.

If this is something that is desirable, what would be a realistic range for all of the tech trees so that units for different classes aren't overpowered compared to one another? MDow
Click to expand...

I remember reading up, either on this thread or another, is that technology didn't really increase firepower to the rates that HoI currently does. Realistically, looking at most nations, their equipment did not change drastically from 1939 to 1945. The main differences were armour and aircraft. Artillery remained virtually the same (only the deployment, number and support changed), small arms were generally the same, etc.

I think that things like ships, aircraft and armour should face big changes, but infantry should not face a doubling of their firepower (which vanilla HoI has) throughout the process of researching during the war. Currently, in my artillery mod, infantry units (which gain the most, not including artillery brigades) face a total increase of 7 Soft Attack (3 of which are great war artillery techs). Most of the other bonus' that I use are % increases in special areas (like desert attack, urban defense, mountain movement, etc...), which I find are better representations about what certain equipment offers than +1 Soft Attack. I think that Infantry tech should grow at very slow rates, and not be drastically different from start to finish.
 
thx for the explaination McN!
I wasnt sure if I translated 'casted' right, but infact I was.

To the Sherman cast-armor, well it may have been better then bolted (now that I know what tanks used that) but I read , years ago, that Sherman crews were near deff when a shell hit the tank. because of the 'Bell' effect of the Hull.
U may have noticed I was never and will never be a fan of the sherman type tank (guess it was obvious :D )

I think I save me more coments on the new techtree till I actually see it in 'action'. I belief I have to few infos to contribute effective atm.

Szun

p.s.
Interesting about the quality control, I think that is what I was trying to get with the different hull types and suspension. A weak yet cheap and fast to produce version vs. an expensive and slow producing tank but is better quality, and a middle of the road design that doesn't change anything.

What i ment with quality was that the german guns for example did hit where the gunner was aiming at , while on the soviet side that wasnt allways the case do to lower quality productions.
2nd hand info from my Father, coming from a friend of him who was part of a 'Jagdpanther'-crew:' German tanks did hit with the 2nd shot most of the time, sometimes with the first and rarely later. The soviets on the other hand needed a avrg. of 3 to 4 shots to score a hit'
I guess the crew training had something to do with that to, but also the 'Zeis'-optics in the german tanks.


I remember reading up, either on this thread or another, is that technology didn't really increase firepower to the rates that HoI currently does. Realistically, looking at most nations, their equipment did not change drastically from 1939 to 1945. The main differences were armour and aircraft. Artillery remained virtually the same (only the deployment, number and support changed), small arms were generally the same, etc.

I think that things like ships, aircraft and armour should face big changes, but infantry should not face a doubling of their firepower (which vanilla HoI has) throughout the process of researching during the war. Currently, in my artillery mod, infantry units (which gain the most, not including artillery brigades) face a total increase of 7 Soft Attack (3 of which are great war artillery techs). Most of the other bonus' that I use are % increases in special areas (like desert attack, urban defense, mountain movement, etc...), which I find are better representations about what certain equipment offers than +1 Soft Attack. I think that Infantry tech should grow at very slow rates, and not be drastically different from start to finish.

I totaly agree!
I find that apraoch way more realistic then the current system.
Even though 70% of all looses were do to Artillery fire in WWII, I doubt a '39 infantry divison had only 25% fightingpower compared to a '43 divison with all those bonuses in the game.
As for ships, i think a little differance should be, e.g. between Treaty and posttreaty all it changes is speed, wich in my eyes its near to worthless in the game. In RL WW2 speed could be a huge advantage in seebattles, to bad that cant be simulated correctly.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Szun
To the Sherman cast-armor, well it may have been better then bolted (now that I know what tanks used that) but I read , years ago, that Sherman crews were near deff when a shell hit the tank. because of the 'Bell' effect of the Hull.
Click to expand...
Well, usually they were not deaf when a shell hit the hull, but dead. They didn't call it the 'Ronson' for nothing. Its only virtue prior to the E8--which had just that extra punch needed in its gun--was a significant one: easily produced in great quantity. Had Germany been able to do a better job of mass production, it would have gone very hard with the western Allies.

Our tank destroyers were more comparable in their classes. Open-topped, with all the attendant issues, but with powerful guns that really hurt, and always turreted. I don't think we built a turretless TD model. That does have ups and downs; a turretless AFV cannot, for example, be messed up with a jammed turret, and it can have a lower profile. Even so, on the whole, the Axis had a lot more reason to fear our TDs most of the time than our tanks, at least until mid-44 or whenever the E8 arrived.

jkk
 
Originally posted by McNaughton
(...)I guess a tech could be added symbolizing engine quality by decreasing cost by increasing supply and fuel consumption (bad engines), or increasing cost by decreasing supply and fuel consumption (good engines). I don't know if we want to have too many technologies just for tanks (that are outside of the tank tree).
Click to expand...

Besides alluminium diesel engines were used only by Soviets, most of the countries didn't use tank diesels at all, not mentioning alluminium ones. Also, Soviet diesel can't be described in standard quality terms "bad engine/good engine" - it was lighter, more expensive, harder to develop, but also less reliable then German engines. Does it mean that it was good or bad?

Don't think if such specialized tech should be added to the tech tree.
 
Originally posted by Szun
(...)What i ment with quality was that the german guns for example did hit where the gunner was aiming at , while on the soviet side that wasnt allways the case do to lower quality productions.
2nd hand info from my Father, coming from a friend of him who was part of a 'Jagdpanther'-crew:' German tanks did hit with the 2nd shot most of the time, sometimes with the first and rarely later. The soviets on the other hand needed a avrg. of 3 to 4 shots to score a hit'
I guess the crew training had something to do with that to, but also the 'Zeis'-optics in the german tanks.
Click to expand...


Don't think if it's totally comparable - mobile AT's are defensive weapons, so it's easier for them to hit then for attacking side. I suggest this link for some comparison (although it's also vets stories... ;)).

Also both sides had totally different tactics - Soviets were quite eager to use "tank charge", move that was never part of German tank tactics. When you ride your T-34 40-50km/h though the field, you don't have too much time/chance to aim. You just run, then hit the enemy and try to finish him off on the point-blank range (good example is the Prokhorovka battle).

Originally posted by Szun
I totaly agree!
I find that apraoch way more realistic then the current system.
Even though 70% of all looses were do to Artillery fire in WWII, I doubt a '39 infantry divison had only 25% fightingpower compared to a '43 divison with all those bonuses in the game.
As for ships, i think a little differance should be, e.g. between Treaty and posttreaty all it changes is speed, wich in my eyes its near to worthless in the game. In RL WW2 speed could be a huge advantage in seebattles, to bad that cant be simulated correctly.
Click to expand...

We still have to keep the balance of game though - while firepower of infantry division has not rised considerably, it ability to absorb the attacks - yes. It's not that at the late war stages light units like paras were not able to stop/slow down tanks/mechanized units (Market-Gerden, Bastogne), so we have to agree, that infantry units were in fact upgraded seriously. So, we simply should more frequently rise surface defence of units. It's somehow reflected by the modification of infantry weapons I posted on the wiki...

Whole other thing is the question of upgrade/basic stats ratio. Right now, as Shun stated, it's perfectly easy to make "uber-tankette" based on the tankette 0.5 upgraded with optics, armor, tracks, sloped armour, smoke grenades, AA guns, and so on... It's total nonsense, but it's very hard to remove, since we CAN make upgrades with values below 1, but those are VISIBLE on the screen as ZERO (tested on recent armoured cars modification).

So we have two options:

1) use upgrades lower then 1 (0.5, 0.25 and so on), but the players will be somehow puzzled by that (many posts on the forum to answer... :(); in that solution we can safely balance model stats, as those will be less dependant on the upgrades.

2) use upgrades in current form, but in some cases remove bonus at all, while adding the value to stats of models and add those upgrades as the prerequisites to the various tank models. This approach is very restrictive for players interested in "free-play" - it limits their ability to customize their machines. Also it's ahistorical - while SOV improved tanks had sloped armour, GER tanks hadn't and so on...

So which one should we choose?
 
I don't agree on the subject of infantry not improving in firepower. Compare early war infantry to late war infantry and you'll see that the amount of heavy equipment (AT, mortars, field and infantry guns, MG's) has increased significantly for the late-war infantry. I do agree that artillery technology did not increase drastically on the hardware side. but on the tactics level and on things like tabulated firing data, communication and response times, artillery improved drastically during wwII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back