-
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.
No need to be sorry! I can say that I'm not very good at the development of aircraft during WWI, so any help would be appreciated, the only thing that I want to do myself is compiling the tree (and the only reason for that is to make it similar to the other trees). 
So keep on talking!
/Johan
So keep on talking!/Johan
Aircraft in WWI are also a topic were I don't know very much . Ich had loan a book with types at the moment which may be helpful.
While I' asking is another reason : navytechs and doctrines . This is an area where I'm very fit in . And because you had not so much time in the next month but I had very much time till October ( and only 30 events still on my list).
Should I code the Naval or the naval doctrines tree??
And second, what do you think about the negative modifier techniques for the mutinies ??
Spocky
While I' asking is another reason : navytechs and doctrines . This is an area where I'm very fit in . And because you had not so much time in the next month but I had very much time till October ( and only 30 events still on my list).
Should I code the Naval or the naval doctrines tree??
And second, what do you think about the negative modifier techniques for the mutinies ??
Spocky
I haven't been able to read through all stuff you guys have written, so I have no idea about the mutinies-stuff, but if my collegues liked it, then there is no reason for me to stop the idea (if it doesn't turn out to be to complicated or something).
The naval tech tree and the naval doctrines are almost completely done, sorry for you, but you could always help improving them later on.
/Johan
The naval tech tree and the naval doctrines are almost completely done, sorry for you, but you could always help improving them later on.
/Johan
A few suggestions on aircraft techs, then. Also have a look at my post on the previous page, listing my suggestions for aircraft models, and on page 4 of this thread for lighter-than-air techs.
1. Principles of Flight Includes the techs Primitive Aerodynamics then Gliders. No benefits, just pre-requisites for later techs. Second-rank industrial powers would be at this level at the start of the game.
2. Powered Flight Includes the techs Primitive Aero-Engine (needs Internal Combustion Engine as a prerequisite), Airscrew, Primitive Airframe. A classic example/picture would be the Wright Flyer. Again, no direct benefits. Most first-rank powers would be at this level at the start of the game.
3. Primitive Aircraft Allows the aircraft unit Reconnaissance Plane to be built. (As with standard HoI, I'd suggest you first have to develop a prototype, then research the actual aircraft model.) Represents aircraft such as the French Farman or British Shorthorn and Longhorn. Germany, France and Britain should be at this level at the start of the game; maybe Russia, not sure about Austria and the USA.
4. Armed Aircraft Includes the techs Bombs (which may need a prerequisite Aerial Fuses) and Machine Guns (may need prerequisites from the Infantry tech tree). Gives an AA factor to the Recce Plane, and allows the unit Basic Bomber to be built. Represents the first armed aircraft. Italy should have developed the gold tech at the start of the game (they were the only country in 1914 to have already used aircraft in combat).
5. Basic Combat Aircraft Design Includes the (expensive) tech Synchronised Machine Guns. Also includes Basic Engine, Basic Airframe, Basic Aerodynamics.
6. Basic Combat Aircraft Development Allows the units Basic Scout Fighter, Basic Two-Seat Fighter, Basic Seaplane. Classic example: the Fokker Eindecker.
7. Multi-engined Aircraft Requires Engine Synchronisation, Improved Aerodynamics, Improved Structural Materials. Allows the units Basic Strategic Bomber, Basic Escort Fighter. Classic example: the Gotha.
8. Improved Combat Aircraft Design Includes Improved Engine, Improved Airframe.
9. Improved Combat Aircraft Development Allows the units Improved Scout Fighter, Improved Two-Seat Fighter, Improved Escort Fighter, Improved Seaplane, Improved Bomber. Classic examples: Albatros, Sopwith Triplane, Nieuport 17.
10.Ground Attack Aircraft Includes Advanced Structural Materials, Advanced Engine, Armour Plate. Allows units Improved Strategic Bomber, Ground Attack Aircraft. Classic example: Handley Page 0/400.
11. Advanced Combat Aircraft Design Includes Advanced Aerodynamics, Advanced Airframe.
12. Advanced Combat Aircraft Development Allows the units Advanced Scout Fighter, Advanced Two-Seat Fighter, Advanced Escort Fighter, Advanced Seaplane, Advanced Bomber, Advanced Strategic Bomber, Improved Ground Attack Aircraft. Classic examples: Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Camel, Vickers Vimy.
1. Principles of Flight Includes the techs Primitive Aerodynamics then Gliders. No benefits, just pre-requisites for later techs. Second-rank industrial powers would be at this level at the start of the game.
2. Powered Flight Includes the techs Primitive Aero-Engine (needs Internal Combustion Engine as a prerequisite), Airscrew, Primitive Airframe. A classic example/picture would be the Wright Flyer. Again, no direct benefits. Most first-rank powers would be at this level at the start of the game.
3. Primitive Aircraft Allows the aircraft unit Reconnaissance Plane to be built. (As with standard HoI, I'd suggest you first have to develop a prototype, then research the actual aircraft model.) Represents aircraft such as the French Farman or British Shorthorn and Longhorn. Germany, France and Britain should be at this level at the start of the game; maybe Russia, not sure about Austria and the USA.
4. Armed Aircraft Includes the techs Bombs (which may need a prerequisite Aerial Fuses) and Machine Guns (may need prerequisites from the Infantry tech tree). Gives an AA factor to the Recce Plane, and allows the unit Basic Bomber to be built. Represents the first armed aircraft. Italy should have developed the gold tech at the start of the game (they were the only country in 1914 to have already used aircraft in combat).
5. Basic Combat Aircraft Design Includes the (expensive) tech Synchronised Machine Guns. Also includes Basic Engine, Basic Airframe, Basic Aerodynamics.
6. Basic Combat Aircraft Development Allows the units Basic Scout Fighter, Basic Two-Seat Fighter, Basic Seaplane. Classic example: the Fokker Eindecker.
7. Multi-engined Aircraft Requires Engine Synchronisation, Improved Aerodynamics, Improved Structural Materials. Allows the units Basic Strategic Bomber, Basic Escort Fighter. Classic example: the Gotha.
8. Improved Combat Aircraft Design Includes Improved Engine, Improved Airframe.
9. Improved Combat Aircraft Development Allows the units Improved Scout Fighter, Improved Two-Seat Fighter, Improved Escort Fighter, Improved Seaplane, Improved Bomber. Classic examples: Albatros, Sopwith Triplane, Nieuport 17.
10.Ground Attack Aircraft Includes Advanced Structural Materials, Advanced Engine, Armour Plate. Allows units Improved Strategic Bomber, Ground Attack Aircraft. Classic example: Handley Page 0/400.
11. Advanced Combat Aircraft Design Includes Advanced Aerodynamics, Advanced Airframe.
12. Advanced Combat Aircraft Development Allows the units Advanced Scout Fighter, Advanced Two-Seat Fighter, Advanced Escort Fighter, Advanced Seaplane, Advanced Bomber, Advanced Strategic Bomber, Improved Ground Attack Aircraft. Classic examples: Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Camel, Vickers Vimy.
Last edited:
I would suggest giving France, Britain, and Germany the prototype and the actual aircraft model. But give Russia, Austria, and the USA just the prototype.
That looks pretty good, but I have a couple misgivings: With all those techs costs will have to be well balanced to make sure the air "sideshow" doesn't hurt the actual war. Also, you've cut development at about the end of war, even a bit earlier. If the mod is supposed to last to '24, it would be nice to have some sort of development to do during that time. Besides, if the war had lasted a bit longer aircraft development during that later period would have probably been faster. And, considering HOI usually allows development a bit ahead of the time frame should make TGW allow development up to the tech level of, say, 1926/27. Maybe a merger of the 'design' and 'development' levels should be made if there's a limit to the number of levels in the tree.
The question is, how quickly do players normally advance through the tech tree? Since the full campaign game is 12 years and most of the tech trees have 12 levels, I'm guessing one level per year is the recommended speed?
In other words, the techs I've put at level 11-12 probably won't be developed until the 1920s anyway, unless a player decides to research nothing but aircraft. Remember, "basic", "improved" and "advanced" are just abstract terms; we could easily say that the Sopwith Camel is just an "improved scout" and make the model name for the British advanced scout a Sopwith Snipe (the standard RAF interceptor in the early 1920s). The questions are:
1) Is it a good idea to have several gold techs at the start of the tree to go through before aircraft units can be built, so these will only appear in 1916 or so? (I think so)
2) Are three levels of aircraft enough, or do we want to add more models (the equivalent of WW2's "prewar" and "semi-modern")? Bear in mind that keeping the same 12 levels of the tech tree will mean that the new models will have to be crammed in closer together, so the effect of doing this will mean that once you actually get aircraft half-way through the game, you'd be researching new models and having to upgrade your units more frequently than in standard HoI. (I'd be happy to go either way on this: what do others think?)
In other words, the techs I've put at level 11-12 probably won't be developed until the 1920s anyway, unless a player decides to research nothing but aircraft. Remember, "basic", "improved" and "advanced" are just abstract terms; we could easily say that the Sopwith Camel is just an "improved scout" and make the model name for the British advanced scout a Sopwith Snipe (the standard RAF interceptor in the early 1920s). The questions are:
1) Is it a good idea to have several gold techs at the start of the tree to go through before aircraft units can be built, so these will only appear in 1916 or so? (I think so)
2) Are three levels of aircraft enough, or do we want to add more models (the equivalent of WW2's "prewar" and "semi-modern")? Bear in mind that keeping the same 12 levels of the tech tree will mean that the new models will have to be crammed in closer together, so the effect of doing this will mean that once you actually get aircraft half-way through the game, you'd be researching new models and having to upgrade your units more frequently than in standard HoI. (I'd be happy to go either way on this: what do others think?)
I'd go with the five level models, but make both the extra levels post-war. And review the classic examples, because there's a large gap between the Eindekker and the Camel in your tree, while IRL the Eindekker is a mid-1915 plane while the Camel started flying in combat in the winter of 1916. (Before the Sopwith Triplane, BTW). Maybe a progression of 'early-war', 'mid-war', 'late-war', 'early post-war', 'post-war'. Rename for a better feel.
I'm working over the naval part of the models.csv for this mod. Can someone point me to a list of the naval and ship technologies that I should use. Is the list at the beginning of this thread still relevant?
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
There may be something a little further into the thread than that initial post.
In any case, all work is open to modification, so press on
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I'd go with the five level models, but make both the extra levels post-war. And review the classic examples, because there's a large gap between the Eindekker and the Camel in your tree, while IRL the Eindekker is a mid-1915 plane while the Camel started flying in combat in the winter of 1916. (Before the Sopwith Triplane, BTW). Maybe a progression of 'early-war', 'mid-war', 'late-war', 'early post-war', 'post-war'. Rename for a better feel.
Oops. the page I was looking at when I wrote this had the dates in which the Camel and the Tripe entered combat switched. Sorry. The idea for number of levels stands, though.
I thought Naval doctrine tech was looking a tad thin on the ground....
Here's a few suggestions to fit somewhere:
Mahan doctrine - favouring battleships
Corbett doctrine - indirect approach and blockades
Tsushima analysis - prerequisite for Dreadnoughts
Commerce raiding - bonus for some cruisers perhaps
Here's a few suggestions to fit somewhere:
Mahan doctrine - favouring battleships
Corbett doctrine - indirect approach and blockades
Tsushima analysis - prerequisite for Dreadnoughts
Commerce raiding - bonus for some cruisers perhaps
I do not know if anyone has read this thread: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101944
But Mathguy, has some good suggestions there. I realize that most of the thread has to do with WWII, however in one of the posts Mathguy does offer help to our Mod. What I mean by bringing it up in this particular thread is his argument for the 80% cut in tech cost but the longer research times.
If this has not been discussed, if it has pardon my faulty memory for forgetting it, it might be a good idea to contemplate it if has not.
But Mathguy, has some good suggestions there. I realize that most of the thread has to do with WWII, however in one of the posts Mathguy does offer help to our Mod. What I mean by bringing it up in this particular thread is his argument for the 80% cut in tech cost but the longer research times.
If this has not been discussed, if it has pardon my faulty memory for forgetting it, it might be a good idea to contemplate it if has not.
It seems like a rather drastic change to make - he puts over some compelling arguments, but I'm not sure how wise it would be to lengthen the time it takes to research technology, especially when one considers that our mod lasts ten years, when the standard version has a length of twelve.
Two more ideas for naval doctrines:
Mine barrages - Increased ability to spot submarines if possible (even if they weren't particularly effective)
Ambhibious landings (first properly tried at Gallipoli; it was suggested that Rawlinson's Fourth Army should have stormed ashore to assist the 1917 Flander offensive as well)
Two more ideas for naval doctrines:
Mine barrages - Increased ability to spot submarines if possible (even if they weren't particularly effective)
Ambhibious landings (first properly tried at Gallipoli; it was suggested that Rawlinson's Fourth Army should have stormed ashore to assist the 1917 Flander offensive as well)
Well we can see how beta-testing goes and make decisions then.
For Mine barrages, a +1 detection to destroyers.
For amphibious landings a slight bonus to infantry, say 5%, to attacking shores, and a prerequisite for marines.
Naval Doctrine Tech Tree so far
13xxx - Submarine Crew Training
13xxx - Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
13xxx - Anti-Submarine Warfare
13xxx - Blockade
13xxx - Distant Blockade
13xxx - Blockade Runner
13xxx - Airship-Naval Coordination
13xxx - Submarine-Naval Coordination
13xxx - Firepower vs. Armor
13xxx - Armor vs. Firepower
to fit somewhere:
Mahan doctrine - favouring battleships (in some respect)
Corbett doctrine - indirect approach and blockades
Tsushima analysis - prerequisite for Dreadnoughts
Commerce raiding - Cruiser bonus (of some amount)
Mine barrages - +1 detection for destroyers
Amphibious landings - 5% bonus for inf, prerequisite for Marines
13xxx - Submarine Crew Training
13xxx - Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
13xxx - Anti-Submarine Warfare
13xxx - Blockade
13xxx - Distant Blockade
13xxx - Blockade Runner
13xxx - Airship-Naval Coordination
13xxx - Submarine-Naval Coordination
13xxx - Firepower vs. Armor
13xxx - Armor vs. Firepower
to fit somewhere:
Mahan doctrine - favouring battleships (in some respect)
Corbett doctrine - indirect approach and blockades
Tsushima analysis - prerequisite for Dreadnoughts
Commerce raiding - Cruiser bonus (of some amount)
Mine barrages - +1 detection for destroyers
Amphibious landings - 5% bonus for inf, prerequisite for Marines
Having "early war analysis" and "late war analysis" as gold techs seems a reasonable idea.
Based on that, I'd certainly put "amphibious landings" as a late war tech. Gallipoli was, after all, an unmitigated disaster.
The Convoy System seems a reasonable addition too. Is it possible to prevent the system assigning escorts to convoys in-game before this tech is developed? If not, then escorts should at least have an extremely low value until this is researched.
(And historically, convoys weren't introduced until 1917)
Q-Ships should give a small increase to escort firepower.
Blacklisting was a controversial doctrine introduced by Britain to strengthen the blockade - any neutral (ie American) company found to be trading with Germany would be banned from conducting any business in the British Empire.
Naval Aviation (aircraft, not airships, although that could be a pre-requisite) is important. It can be broken down into several sub-categories: use of seaplanes for scouting (leading to the development of purpose-made seaplane carriers); use of aircraft for offensive missions (bombing ports, mostly); use of land planes at sea (permitting the aircraft carrier techs to be researched), and carrying aircraft on warships (which would give ships an AA capability).
Since Tsushima was on 27 May 1905 and HMS Dreadnought was laid down on 2 October 1905, that doesn't leave an awful lot of intervening time to develop a major gold tech... Just calling the tech "Dreadnought doctrine" is probably best.
Based on that, I'd certainly put "amphibious landings" as a late war tech. Gallipoli was, after all, an unmitigated disaster
.The Convoy System seems a reasonable addition too. Is it possible to prevent the system assigning escorts to convoys in-game before this tech is developed? If not, then escorts should at least have an extremely low value until this is researched.
(And historically, convoys weren't introduced until 1917)
Q-Ships should give a small increase to escort firepower.
Blacklisting was a controversial doctrine introduced by Britain to strengthen the blockade - any neutral (ie American) company found to be trading with Germany would be banned from conducting any business in the British Empire.
Naval Aviation (aircraft, not airships, although that could be a pre-requisite) is important. It can be broken down into several sub-categories: use of seaplanes for scouting (leading to the development of purpose-made seaplane carriers); use of aircraft for offensive missions (bombing ports, mostly); use of land planes at sea (permitting the aircraft carrier techs to be researched), and carrying aircraft on warships (which would give ships an AA capability).
Since Tsushima was on 27 May 1905 and HMS Dreadnought was laid down on 2 October 1905, that doesn't leave an awful lot of intervening time to develop a major gold tech... Just calling the tech "Dreadnought doctrine" is probably best.
Originally posted by StephenT
Having "early war analysis" and "late war analysis" as gold techs seems a reasonable idea.
Based on that, I'd certainly put "amphibious landings" as a late war tech. Gallipoli was, after all, an unmitigated disaster
The Convoy System seems a reasonable addition too. Is it possible to prevent the system assigning escorts to convoys in-game before this tech is developed? If not, then escorts should at least have an extremely low value until this is researched.
(And historically, convoys weren't introduced until 1917)
Q-Ships should give a small increase to escort firepower.
Blacklisting was a controversial doctrine introduced by Britain to strengthen the blockade - any neutral (ie American) company found to be trading with Germany would be banned from conducting any business in the British Empire.
Naval Aviation (aircraft, not airships, although that could be a pre-requisite) is important. It can be broken down into several sub-categories: use of seaplanes for scouting (leading to the development of purpose-made seaplane carriers); use of aircraft for offensive missions (bombing ports, mostly); use of land planes at sea (permitting the aircraft carrier techs to be researched), and carrying aircraft on warships (which would give ships an AA capability).
Since Tsushima was on 27 May 1905 and HMS Dreadnought was laid down on 2 October 1905, that doesn't leave an awful lot of intervening time to develop a major gold tech... Just calling the tech "Dreadnought doctrine" is probably best.
"Cuniberti doctrine" might be better than "Dreadnoght doctrine" as he first wrote an article on the idea of an all big-gun ship.
As far as I know, it isn't possible to prevent conyoys as such - the best thing we can get near it is to not give any counties any escorts at the beginning of the war.
The rest seems fine - it's just a matter of sorting it out into a neat list now
I agree with StephenT, make Tsushima Analysis Dreadnought Doctine. With perhaps a line in the information about it something like this:
"...with naval technology reaching new heights, designs for a new type of battleship have come forth making all previous designs obsolete. With events of the battle ot Tsushima in 1905 between the Japanese and Russians clearly show the need for newer and better types of vessels..."
Mahan doctrine - battleship org +15%
Corbett doctrine - indirect approach and blockades a 5% org bonus for cruisers and a 10% org bonus for destroyers
'Dreadnought doctrine'- prerequisite for Dreadnoughts, maybe an additional 5% org bonus to battleships too.
Commerce raiding - Cruiser org bonus of 10%