IIRC, moving naval units uses both energy and oil.Allenby said:I think that it shall have to be renamed to 'Fuel Resources', and large amounts of it additionally placed in Wales, Yorkshire, the Appalachian Mountains and the Ruhr, amongst others.
-
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.
What do you make of this?
(Yes, I know this isn´t really my area, and there really isn´t a viable excuse for KingMississippi, but I felt like doing it...)
(Yes, I know this isn´t really my area, and there really isn´t a viable excuse for KingMississippi, but I felt like doing it...)
jova said:The tree looks excellent, Allenby.
Have you done difficulties and specialties for components?
Thank you.
At the moment, I have merely written the structure - details can be added when we are agreed upon that.Zuckergußgebäck said:
Good job!
We ought to make sure that Qualitiative and Quantitative construction techs are arranged so that one can be selected rather than the other - otherwise they'll cancel each other out if both are researched.
Any other techs that need this? I am quite certain that these techs should cancel each other out:Allenby said:Good job!
Small vessel emphasis
First rate ship emphasis
Anti-Commerce Doctrine
Anti-Naval Doctrine
Submarine Doctrine
Flotilla Defence Doctrine
Fleet-in-Beeing Doctrine
Decisive Battle Doctrine
Blockade Strategy
Blue Water Navy
Armour Emphasis
Speed/Firepower Doctrine
Last edited:
The new and improved techtree (with things cancelling each other out):
BTW, I´ve sent it to you for evaluation, Allenby.
BTW, I´ve sent it to you for evaluation, Allenby.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
The commands associated with each tech will deal with that.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
Thanks.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
I agree on these:
But not on these:
There was no conflict between defending your own ships against submarine attack, and building up a submarine fleet of your own. Indeed, the tactics learned in one area could help, not hinder development in the other. The USA in WW2 would be the classic example - fighting German U-boats in one ocean and carrying out a major submarine campaign against Japan in the other. In WW1, British submarines also scored a lot of successes against Turkey.
I'm notr sure what 'blockade' and 'blue water' strategies would entail - but I note that the Royal Navy did both of them with a fair amount of success in WW1, so they can't cancel out. Perhaps instead of 'blockade' you could substitute 'brown water navy', which would be cheaper but shorter ranged? That's assuming that technology can even affect ship ranges, of course.
StephenT said:
In TGW blockading techs increased the maximum organisation of vessels to a slight degree. The same shall have to be the case in 1914 if nothing more imaginative can be applied.
I don't believe that 'Brown Water Navy' could easily replace the 'Blockade' technology and thereby owe its origins to conceptions of capital ship construction. Brancing off from 'Small Vessel Emphasis', perhaps?
Do I interpret from this pronounced silence that I am to include a 'Brown Water Navy' tech branching from 'Small Vessel Emphasis'?
I'd like to hurry the completion of this along.
I'd like to hurry the completion of this along.
I agree. Should we place it below the Jeune Ecole doctrine, but not dependant on it?
Regarding the distribution of technology.
Shall we use the same method as was applied in TGW? Specifically, to group countries into varying bands of advancement, and broadly give them the same technologies, before dealing with specifics?
Shall we use the same method as was applied in TGW? Specifically, to group countries into varying bands of advancement, and broadly give them the same technologies, before dealing with specifics?
I'd say so and adjust as evidence for certain techs come forward. For example Argentina might be a 2nd tier country but for X historical reason would get Y technology.Allenby said:
Allenby said:
Here are my thoughts. I drew a bit from Valisk's Nation Guide for Victoria and Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers".
The Standards
TECH SUPERPOWERS: Nations leading the way as a military/industrial complex. These nations have a tech advantage at the beginning of the game.
TECH OF THE FIRST RANK: Nations that are well ahead of the standard industrialized nation, can be exceptional in either military or industrial tech. These nations have a slight tech advantage at the beginning of the game.
TECH OF THE SECOND RANK: Technologically standard nations of the time. These nations have the ability to be a tech superpower by the end of the game.
TECH OF THE UPPER THIRD RANK: Nations that currently have the technological standards of the year 1910. These nations can be a tech of the first rank by the end of the game.
TECH OF THE LOWER THIRD RANK: Nations that currently have the technological standards of the year 1900. These nations can be a tech of the first rank by the end of the game, but it will be quite difficult.
TECH OF THE FOURTH RANK: Tribal to 19th Century Nations.
The Techs for Each Standard
These can be more easily read in spreadsheet form. Just copy this code and delimit the semicolons in text-to-columns format.
Code:
;INF./LT. INF/MTN;RESERVE;GUARDS;CAVALRY;FIELD ART.;HVY. ART.;NAVY;AIRCRAFT;INDUSTRY;LAND DOC.;NAVY DOC.;AIR DOC.
TECH SUPERPOWERS;Some 1915;1912;1912;Some 1915;Some 1915;1912;Some 1914;Some 1914;Some 1914;1912;1912;1914
TECH OF THE FIRST RANK;1912;1912;1912;1912;1912;1912;1910;1910;Some 1914;1912;1912;1912
TECH OF THE SECOND RANK;1912;1912;1912;1912;1912;1912;1910;1910;1912;1910;1910;1910
TECH OF THE UPPER THIRD RANK;1898;1890;18901912;1890;NO;1905;1905;1910;1905;1905;1905
TECH OF THE LOWER THIRD RANK;1890;1890;1890;1890;1890;NO;1890;1905;1900;1900;1900;1905
TECH OF THE FOURTH RANK;1890;NO;NO;Tribal;NO;NO;1875;NO;1890;1890;1890;NONations
Nations that should be in each standard in the 1914 scenario. Nations that exist at the beginning of the scenario are alphabetized first, then the revolt countries are alphabetized.
TECH SUPERPOWERS
British Empire
France
Germany
TECH OF THE FIRST RANK
Austria-Hungary
Belgium
Russia
Sweden
USA (add some industry techs)
Australia
Austria
Bavaria
Canada
Russian Federation
Russian Whites
South Africa
Soviet Union
TECH OF THE SECOND RANK
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Denmark
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Norway
Ottoman Empire
Portugal
Romania
Serbia/Kingdom SCS (add some military techs)
Spain
Switzerland
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Byelorussia
Czechoslovakia
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Makhnovshchina
New Zealand
Poland
Ukraine
Ulster
TECH OF THE UPPER THIRD RANK
Albania
Bolivia
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Mexico
Mongolia
Montenegro
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Persia
Peru
Siam
Uruguay
Venezuela
AnFu Clique
Egypt
Fengtien Clique
India
Korea
Kuomintang Clique
Morocco
Revolutionary Mexico
Xinjiang
Yunnan
TECH OF THE LOWER THIRD RANK
(Other Chinese Warlords)
Afghanistan
Ethiopia
Liberia
Syria
TECH OF THE FOURTH RANK
Ahaggar
Aïr
Ajjer
Asir
Bhutan
Bukhara
Darfur
Hejaz
Jebel Shammar
Khiva
Nejd
Nepal
Oman
Sanusia
Tibet
Yemen
Thoughts?
Last edited:
I like the model, although I think a few countries should be juggled around.
Russia is probably more worthy of being in the 'tech of the first rank' bracket; if she is to remain as a tech superpower, then she should at least be penalised in army communications and logistics.
Ethiopia, Liberia and Afghanistan I would place in the 'lower third' rank, with all current members of that rank being relegated to the fourth bracket. Those three, at least, benefitted from collusion with modern powers and had been able to utilise their technology.
Russia is probably more worthy of being in the 'tech of the first rank' bracket; if she is to remain as a tech superpower, then she should at least be penalised in army communications and logistics.
Ethiopia, Liberia and Afghanistan I would place in the 'lower third' rank, with all current members of that rank being relegated to the fourth bracket. Those three, at least, benefitted from collusion with modern powers and had been able to utilise their technology.
Allenby said:I like the model, although I think a few countries should be juggled around.
Russia is probably more worthy of being in the 'tech of the first rank' bracket; if she is to remain as a tech superpower, then she should at least be penalised in army communications and logistics.
Ethiopia, Liberia and Afghanistan I would place in the 'lower third' rank, with all current members of that rank being relegated to the fourth bracket. Those three, at least, benefitted from collusion with modern powers and had been able to utilise their technology.
Fair enough. These suggestions are rough and you'll certainly have final say on the groupings. Make any changes you wish. Russia was difficult to judge since I assume dissent levels will reduce most of the industrial capacity of the nation.
I also like this suggestion, but I think this should apply only on technical side of the tree, doctrinal side should be modelled separately from this model.
It looks good to me, using Allenby's suggestions of course, but is still subject to play testing.
jova's idea has some merit but doctrines for the major powers will probably need to be placed individually rather than as a 'category'.
jova's idea has some merit but doctrines for the major powers will probably need to be placed individually rather than as a 'category'.
Reviewing the list, I wonder whether the second bracket should be split on the basis of those who underwent recent military experience?
I believe the status of revolters is irrelevant, as they assume the technological characteristics of their former rulers, but we shall order them nevertheless.
Code:
Bulgaria
Denmark
Greece
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
Ottoman Empire
Romania
Serbia/Kingdom SCS
Hungary
New Zealand
Ulster
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
and;
Norway
Argentina
Brazil
Luxemburg
Switzerland
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Byelorussia
Czechoslovakia
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Latvia
Lithuania
Makhnovshchina
Poland
UkraineI believe the status of revolters is irrelevant, as they assume the technological characteristics of their former rulers, but we shall order them nevertheless.
In what way did the danes experience 'recent' military action? They did fight the prussians in 1865, but few veterans of that war would be alive in 1914, and event fewer in military service.
However, if we are to continue at that line, why not add Norway to that list, since she did undergo mobilizational procedures during their independence in 1905?
However, if we are to continue at that line, why not add Norway to that list, since she did undergo mobilizational procedures during their independence in 1905?
OK, I suggest that we should start working on the air doctrines tree now.
I am not very well versed in WWI aerial doctrines, and I recon that there weren´t actually that many "doctrines" around in those days.
However, someone should perhaps know something?
I am not very well versed in WWI aerial doctrines, and I recon that there weren´t actually that many "doctrines" around in those days.
However, someone should perhaps know something?