Technology

[Zuckergußgebäck]

My bad, it seems.

 

[unmerged(53222)]

Any chance we can shift some of the 1912 infantry and brigade techs to 1911? This would make research in the 1911 scenario much more reasonable. A low priority item for now, but it's worth discussion.

 

[StephenT]

Any chance we can shift some of the 1912 infantry and brigade techs to 1911? This would make research in the 1911 scenario much more reasonable. A low priority item for now, but it's worth discussion.

So you want every country in that scenario to be able to research the latest infantry model immediately, rather than restrict this to only the Great Powers who have good enough tech teams to research a year ahead?

(Or to put it another way: in vanilla HoI2 how often does a Germany player restrict himself to only researching the 1936 techs during the first year...)

 

[unmerged(53222)]

Well I'm not suggesting that EVERY tech be changed from 1911 to 1912. It's just that the current tech arrangment has one 1911 tech, seventeen 1912 techs, and six 1913 techs. Even with a level 9 tech team it's horribly inefficient to research a 1937 tech in 1936 as Germany until March or April.

I was thinking more along the lines of two or three 1912 techs changed to 1911.

 

[unmerged(44751)]

Well I'm not suggesting that EVERY tech be changed from 1911 to 1912. It's just that the current tech arrangment has one 1911 tech, seventeen 1912 techs, and six 1913 techs. Even with a level 9 tech team it's horribly inefficient to research a 1937 tech in 1936 as Germany until March or April.

I was thinking more along the lines of two or three 1912 techs changed to 1911.

I would second that... because as I've experienced in the game, startyears for techs are a bit clustered not only in 1912 but 1915 etc. aswell.
I had the feeling in my games, that you have years where you don't know what to research first, and then there are years where you don't know what to research at all, because no new techs appear in that year, so you research techs, which you didn't want to research in the first place...
So i would like to see tech years distributed more evenly on the years.

But i can't elaborate on that, as it's just a feeling i had in my games...
SCP

 

[unmerged(45331)]

Any chance we can shift some of the 1912 infantry and brigade techs to 1911? This would make research in the 1911 scenario much more reasonable. A low priority item for now, but it's worth discussion.

I think this is not necessary, for the reasons Stephen stated. It may even be bad.

We have a 1897 scenario - 17 years before the war. Our techtrees have lots of techs, but even that is not enough to cover the entire period. That's why we shouldn't make pre-1914 techs easy to research. When I had time to think about 1897 scenario, I even thought about introducing some huge negative research modifier.

 

[AzJeff]

missing models?

Are the developers of this find mod aware of the missing models for the advanced naval units (cruiser, light cruiser, etc)?

And that the Monitor naval unit is not buildable because it's tech is obsoleted by one of the other BB techs?

If not I can provide details later when I get home.... and if so then OK glad it is being addressed.

- j

 

[unmerged(61327)]

I think, on historical grounds i will explain, the following should be the tech list:

1) Infantry/Cavalry
2) Industrial/ Home Front
3) Aviation
4) Naval
5) Artillery
6) Special Weapons
7) Land Doctrine
8) Naval Doctrine
9) Logistics and Support

Before anyone is controversial, please read my justifications.

1. Infantry/ cavalry. Major basic component of period armies, and obviously require similar technologies in the way of small armaments, specialist units (eg. introduction of Stormtroopers, specialist sappers, terrain-specific units etc.) No one would disagree with this i dont think.

2. By the start of the 20th century the Industrial revolution was slowing down but not over. Improved developments in science enabled better mechanical processes, chemical usage (for things like explosives) and motorization/mechanization. Shipbuilding techniqus changed enormously to allow for the building of ships that dwarfed 19th century navies. Also pioneering technologies affecting the labour force (including social security sort of things, and integration of females to industry for the first time) definitely could be included as part of the political/ home front section and at the time these literally were important technological developments, that were researched by professors in sociology.

3. Aviation was brand new at this time and really only a supporting arm for the 2 main armed forces. You could easily compose an argument to relegate aircraft to simply being attatchments to naval/ground units in the 1914 edition, if it were not too muh trouble to integrate. Anyway, by any means, aviation was not considered equal as the other 2 services and there were not many real doctrines, nor was air power ever really decisive. Aircraft themselves were limited in variation. This field could include balloons + airships, powered aircraft, and basic air doctrine easily.

4. Navies had always been important, as had technological development. This category would easily be filled, starting out with basic semi-ironclad warships developing all the way up to the advanced post dreadnought battleships of the mid to late WW1. Destroyers, torpedoes and submarines were also developed beyond recognition in this period. Easy to fill with techs.

5. Artillery really was considered the god of the battlefield in WW1, and there were so many developments in gun design, use, sights, size, shells and mobility that for this period, field artillery could easily fill a tech category all by itself. Its hard to realise how much artillery really did dominate battlefield, far more than aircraft did and i think on historical grounds the developments in artillery for everything are large enough easily justify an entirely separate category.

6. Special weapons could include things like poison gas, heavy bombers, incendiarys, flamethrowers, rockets, tanks and other armoured vehicles and possibly even advanced pioneering political research.

7. Land Doctrines were clearly very important much in the same way as they were in WW2. I dont think i need to explain this much, but this just reflects how attitudes and opinions on the direction of ground warfare changed.

8. Naval Doctrine needs little explanation either. The use of Grand Fleets, and huge battle lines was pitted against proponents of destroyer/ cruiser squadrons to harass and cover friendly forces. Aerial inclusion (mainly just recon aircraft) was also researched in this period, although naval bombing never really had any effective appearance.

9. Logistics and Support, the new 1 i expect people will oppose. You may be able to argue the inclusion of this into the 1st or 2nd category, but i would argue otherwise. The First World War was the first total war of attrition. War was no longer an activity countries indulged in, but rather a shift in state for the entire country which geared to total war. For the first time, mass logistics for supplying millions of troops over long distances was required. The use of motorized transport on a wide scale was definitely a technological development, and the use of battlefield construction units to assist making extensive fortifications and trench systems, although not brand new, was vastly improved and outscaled anything that went before. The idea of total war transformed all participating nations which now had to develop the ability to become a whole country supporting the armed forces for the sole purpose of winning the war. Motorization of transport, extensive standardization and large unit supply and support were essential developments in this period that changed dramatically.

Sorry if im throwing the proverbial spanner in the works here, but i think that i think that a serious difference in technological emphasis in the WW1 and WW2 periods ought to be expressed.

Post here if your interested in any more of how i think this is right, useful, or whatever, or criticize to your hearts content. Ill post later on it if anyone has questions.

 

[unmerged(44751)]

You could easily compose an argument to relegate aircraft to simply being attatchments to naval/ground units in the 1914 edition, if it were not too muh trouble to integrate.

I like the idea of aviation attachements, which would include Recon Balloons and Recon Planes... Because at the beginning of the war and also to some extent during the late war, air squadrons were army division or corps assets.

Such a recon plane brigade could give some bonuses to Org, Softattack, aidefence and airattack to the infantry unit to which it is attached to.

But as you said, it's hard to implement, as all available brigades are allready used...

 

[unmerged(45331)]

All of these sugestion have some sense, but there is one major problem - the tech tree is almost complete, and if we accept these ideas, it would mean that we have to make it again. And that is not an easy thing to do.

 

[unmerged(53222)]

All of these sugestion have some sense, but there is one major problem - the tech tree is almost complete, and if we accept these ideas, it would mean that we have to make it again. And that is not an easy thing to do.

Indeed. In fact these suggestions have been implemented in their entirety. Have you tried out version 0.2?

 

[unmerged(53293)]

I've noticed that the naval tech tree has an error. With the Super-Dreadnought the unit battleship 0 is disabled but that is the Monitor. Instead it must be 1.
And another thing: In the unit_names.csv there's a unit "Improved Pre-Dreadnought" but this model doesn't exist. So e.g. the Super-Dreadnought has the name Dreadnought etc.

 

[AzJeff]

As previously noted, there is a missing model for the light cruiser.

The naval tech file identifies the following:

CL-0 = Protected Cruiser
CL-1 = Early Light Cruiser
CL-2 = Basic Light Cruiser
CL-3 = Improved Light Cruiser
CL-4 = Advanced Light Cruiser

However, the light_cruiser.txt in the 'Divisions' folder has :

CL-0 = Protected Cruiser
CL-1 = Basic Light Cruiser
CL-2 = Improved Light Cruiser
CL-3 = Advanced Light Cruiser

As you can see, model 4 is missing because Early Light Cruiser was skipped; light_cruiser.txt should be:

CL-0 = Protected Cruiser
CL-1 = Early Light Cruiser
CL-2 = Basic Light Cruiser
CL-3 = Improved Light Cruiser
CL-4 = Advanced Light Cruiser


- j

 

[StephenT]

I've noticed that the naval tech tree has an error. With the Super-Dreadnought the unit battleship 0 is disabled but that is the Monitor. Instead it must be 1.
And another thing: In the unit_names.csv there's a unit "Improved Pre-Dreadnought" but this model doesn't exist. So e.g. the Super-Dreadnought has the name Dreadnought etc.

It looks like the battleship part of the od has been messed up somehow.

Originally, it was arranged like this:

Tech 3250 activates BB/model 0 (Predreadnought)
Tech 3260 activates BB/model 1 (Dreadnought)
Tech 3270 activates BB/model 2 (Superdreadnought) and obsoletes model 0
Tech 3280 activates BB/model 3 (Battleship) and obsoletes model 1
Tech 3290 activates BB/model 4 (Improved Battleship) and obsoletes model 2
Tech 3310 activates BB/model 5 (Monitor). Its pre-requisite is tech 3260.

However, somebody decided to add an extra model (Improved Pre-dreadnought) - but failed to give it proper stats. They also moved Monitor to model 0, despite the fact that it's not the earliest model to be researched and should not be available at the start of the mod. (It's dated 1915, while Pre-Dreadnoughts are 1890 models )

The current arrangement is therefore:

Tech 3250 activates BB/model 1 (Predreadnought)
Tech 3260 activates BB/model 3 (Dreadnought)
Tech 3270 activates BB/model 4 (Superdreadnought) and wrongly obsoletes model 0 (Monitor)
Tech 3280 activates BB/model 5 (Battleship)
Tech 3290 activates BB/model 6 (Improved Battleship) and obsoletes the non-existent model 2
Tech 3310 activates BB/model 0 (Monitor). Its pre-requisite is tech 3260.

So, these are the required corrections:

Add a model to battleship.txt for Improved Predreadnought. (Currently, it's in the file but with the same stats as Predreadnought)

Re-order the models in this file as follows:
0 - Predreadnought
1 - Improved Pre-Dreadnought
2 - Dreadnought
3 - Superdreadnought
4 - Battleship
5 - Improved Battleship
6 - Monitor

Change the techs as follows:
Tech 3250 should activate BB/model 0
Add a new tech, 3255, to activate BB/model 1. Date should be 1900.
Tech 3260 should activate BB/model 2 and obsolete model 0
Tech 3270 should activate BB/model 3 and obsolete model 1
Tech 3280 should activate BB/model 4 and obsolete model 2
Tech 3290 should activate BB/model 5 and obsolete model 3
Tech 3310 should activate BB/model 6

All the graphics files (photos and icons) and the unit names file will also need renaming.

 

[AzJeff]

I researched 1924 Marines then went to the Production screen to build a few but they did not show in list of divisions to build.
So I went digging into the infantry tech file, and discovered the tech is missing the 'activation' command.
The command line in orange is missing from Tech #1150:

command = { type = activate_unit_type which = marine }
command = { type = new_model which = marine value = 0 }
command = { type = swamp_attack which = marine value = 10 }
command = { type = swamp_defense which = marine value = 10 }
command = { type = river_attack which = marine value = 5 }
command = { type = shore_attack which = marine value = 10 }
command = { type = swamp_move which = marine value = 5 }
command = { type = task_efficiency which = amphibious_assault value = 0.10 }

- j

 

[unmerged(44751)]

However, somebody decided to add an extra model (Improved Pre-dreadnought) - but failed to give it proper stats. They also moved Monitor to model 0, despite the fact that it's not the earliest model to be researched and should not be available at the start of the mod. (It's dated 1915, while Pre-Dreadnoughts are 1890 models )

I think it's quite necessary to add the improved Pre-Dreadnought model, becasue there have been so many Pre-Dreadnoughts around during the war, especially when i tihink of all the non-british navys, that there should be a difference between a Pre-Dreadnought ship built in 1890 and one built as late as say 1905.


So here's my suggestion for an improved Pre-Dreadnought (in green), included are the original Pre-Dreadnought and the Dreadnought for comparison.

# 1 -Predreadnought
model = {
	cost					= 6
	buildtime 				= 620
	defaultorganisation 		= 30
	morale				= 30
	manpower				= 1
	maxspeed				= 15
	surfacedetectioncapability	= 1
	airdetectioncapability		= 1
	subdetectioncapability		= 2
	visibility				= 80
	seadefence				= 8
	airdefence				= 2
	seaattack				= 12
	airattack				= 1
	subattack				= 0
	shorebombardment			= 4
	transportcapability			= 0
	range					= 2500
	supplyconsumption			= 0.7
	fuelconsumption			= 1
	distance				= 0.28
}



[COLOR=Lime]# 1 - Improved Predreadnought (attributes are not finalised)
model = {
	cost					= 7
	buildtime 				= 680
	defaultorganisation 		= 30
	morale				= 30
	manpower				= 1
	maxspeed				= 17
	surfacedetectioncapability	= 1
	airdetectioncapability		= 1
	subdetectioncapability		= 2
	visibility				= 80
	seadefence				= 10
	airdefence				= 2
	seaattack				= 13
	airattack				= 1
	subattack				= 0
	shorebombardment			= 5
	transportcapability			= 0
	range					= 2600
	supplyconsumption			= 0.7
	fuelconsumption			= 1
	distance				= 0.30
}[/COLOR]
 

# 3 - Basic Dreadnought
model = {
	cost					= 8
	buildtime 				= 730
	defaultorganisation 		= 30
	morale				= 30
	manpower				= 1
	maxspeed				= 20
	surfacedetectioncapability	= 1
	airdetectioncapability		= 1
	subdetectioncapability		= 3
	visibility				= 90
	seadefence				= 14
	airdefence				= 3
	seaattack				= 16
	airattack				= 1
	subattack				= 0
	shorebombardment			= 8
	transportcapability			= 0
	range					= 2800
	supplyconsumption			= 0.7
	fuelconsumption			= 1
	distance				= 0.34
}

What do you think of these suggestions ?
SCP

 

[King Thomas I]

Battleships build after Tsuschima, were far different from those earlier, but still they were weaker than dreadnoughts (most of them came into service after Dreadought). They were only a bit smaller (only few were a bit larger), they had smaller number of main artillery guns(4-6 guns 305 mm), had smaller range and were slower. But still they were far superior to older classes. In this case Tsuschima was something like Jutland for later battleship development. To end I think Imp. P-d should be only a bit weaker than dredoughts.

 

[StephenT]

In this case Tsuschima was something like Jutland for later battleship development. To end I think Imp. P-d should be only a bit weaker than dredoughts.

I've seen commentary that one dreadnought was worth two pre-dreadnoughts, so I'm not so sure I agree with this.

Also, I'm having trouble thinking of many pre-dreadnought battleships laid down after Tsushima, unless you count minor countries like Sweden. Britain laid down a massive total of two such ships after Tsushima (Lord Nelson and Agamemnon) before starting work on Dreadnought. Russia didn't produce any... her first capital ship after Tsushima was the dreadnought Gangut. (A few were completed after the battle, such as Evstafi and Andrei Pervozvanny, but their construction had started before it)

As a comparison, here are some sample ships:

British early pre-dreadnought
HMS Royal Sovereign (laid down 1889, completed 1892)
14,150 tons. Speed 16.5 knots
Main armament: four 13.5" guns, ten 6" guns
Armour: belt 18"-14", decks 3"-2.5", turrets 17"-11", conning tower 14"

British late pre-dreadnought
HMS Lord Nelson (laid down 1905, completed 1908)
16,090 tons. Speed 18 knots
Main armament: four 12" guns, ten 9.2" guns
Armour: belt 12"-8", decks 4"-1", turrets 12", conning tower 12"

British dreadnought
HMS Dreadnought (laid down 1905, completed 1906)
18,110 tons. Speed 21 knots
Main armament: ten 12" guns
Armour: belt 14"-11", decks 3"-1.5", turrets 11", conning tower 11"

Bear in mind these are extreme examples - the earliest and latest of their classes. From it, we can see that speed advanced in a fairly constant progression: I think your 15-17-20 for the three models is pretty much spot on.

Armament and armour is harder to be so definite on, because one thing these raw statistics don't cover is advances in technology. The earlier PD appears to have much thicker armour - but I suspect that advances in metallurgy meant that the later PD actually had equal or better protection achieved with thinner and lighter - but stronger - armour. Therefore, I'd be inclined to give the later PD just +1 seadefense compared to the earlier, not +2.

As for weapons, a 13.5" gun from the 1880s fired a 1250lb shell that could penetrate 33" of wrought iron: the 12" gun of 1905 fired a much smaller shell weighing only 850lb, but this could penetrate 51" due to its higher muzzle velocity. The later PDs also carried a much heavier secondary armament. However, operational experience showed that this wasn't much good in an actual battle: only the ship's four main guns were effective in actually damaging equally-sized enemy warships. Even so, I'd give the later PDs +2 seaattack - but achieve this by dropping the early PD to 10 and putting the late PD on 12. (Ironclads have 7 and armoured cruisers have 9, as a comparison)

The early dreadnought had ten main guns instead of four - giving it 250% as much firepower. Having them with 16 seaattack when the late PD has 12 is only 33% more firepower, but I think we can live with that for the purposes of this mod... As for armour, the Lord Nelson class actually had much thicker armour than normal for a PD: their 12" belt compared to a 9" belt in Britiain's previous class of battleships. Dreadnoughts were better, and also faster (which helped protect them, even if not to the extent envisaged by Jacky Fisher). I'd say your figures for defence factors are good enough.

 

[King Thomas I]

Also, I'm having trouble thinking of many pre-dreadnought battleships laid down after Tsushima, unless you count minor countries like Sweden. Britain laid down a massive total of two such ships after Tsushima (Lord Nelson and Agamemnon) before starting work on Dreadnought. Russia didn't produce any... her first capital ship after Tsushima was the dreadnought Gangut. (A few were completed after the battle, such as Evstafi and Andrei Pervozvanny, but their construction had started before it)

Right, dreadnought appeared too fast for those ordered to be build (building plans were created a year ahead and when dreadnought was launched most of those ships was cancelled or the production was stopped and they were scaped on slipways. (I hit replay before you edited post, when I saw Ganguts as first after Tsuschima ). Andreis were built after the battle (the plans were seriously modified), but russian created a new project (improved Andrei), but those ships were cancelled by admiral Awielan in 1906 and 1907 because of Dreadnought. Most of countries did the same, because dreadnoughts were a new quality. Yet Andrei has greater displacement. And the numbers. Improved Andrei (I think a ship projected with Tsuschima in mind would be the best example)

Andrei Pierwozwannyj-ulepszony (laid down -, completed -)
19.800 tons. Speed 18 knots
Main armament: 4x305 mm, 12x254 mm
Armour: belt 250mm-229 mm, decks 50,8 mm-25,4 mm, turrets 254mm, conning tower 330 mm

And more, german Nassaus, austro-hungarian Viribus-Unitis, russian Ganguts are classified as Improved pre dreadnoughts

Nassau (laid down 22.07.1907, completed 01.10.1909)
20.535 t Speed 20 knots
Main armament: 12x280 mm
Armour: belt 270 mm, decks 38-58 mm, turrets 280 mm, conning tower 400 mm

Viribus-Unitis (laid down 24.7.1910, completed 5.12.1912)
22.500 t Speed 20,3 knots
Main armament: 12x305 mm
Armour: belt 208-150 mm, decks 48-30 mm, turrets 280 mm, conning tower 380 mm

There are two choices: we can change those ships into dreds(like they are comonnly clasified), or keep statistics that will cover differences between those warships

P.S. Sorry for my English

 

[unmerged(44751)]

Good arguments, stephenT, i didn't go into so much detail while figuring out the numbers for the imp. PD, i had just a quick look at an internet-site for comparison reasons between an early PD and a late PD.

I edited only the imp. PD stats and didn't change anything for the other models.
So I could agree with you in lowering the SA for the early PD, but i think a SA of 10 is too close to a SA of 9 for an armoured cruiser. Ingame you can built two AC's in the same time as an early PD and thus getting almost twice the firepower. So i would favour just a drop by 1 SA for the early model or no drop at all and giving the imp. PD just a SA of 12 instead of 13 to keep the distance to a dreadnought.

Regarding SD for the imp. PD I'm still in favour of a +2 (total SD = 10) because the increase in speed is IMHO a factor, too, that's why Dreadnoughts were built that fast.
And still there's a big distance compared to the Dreadnought's SD of 14, it has 40% better SD value than the imp. PD. So if we can live with 33% better firepower for a Dreadnought, i think we could also live with the 40% better SD value.

There are two choices: we can change those ships into dreds(like they are comonnly clasified), or keep statistics that will cover differences between those warships

Actually AFAIK the Nassau-class is considered to be the first german dreadnought class, as it was the class to be built as a reaction to the HMS Dreadnought, trying to match it. An "All-Big-Gun-Battleship" with the only difference to the Dreadnought in having expansion engines instead of turbines.

In case of firepower and protection (which was better than the Dreadnoughts) the Nassau-class and all ships built after it, should be considered Dreadnoughts in game terms.