Technology

StephenT

OT iconoclast

89 Badges

Mar 10, 2001

8.721

317

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jan 23, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #21

Seems reasonable. "Air doctrine" might be a bit empty, but unless there's a burning need to find some empty tech slots for something else, it shouldn't matter.

 

Shadow Knight

Admiral of the Fleet

55 Badges

Apr 18, 2002

1.988

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jan 23, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #22

We might want to include in air doctrine any land and/or naval doctrines that has to do with aircraft or the coordination thereof.

Of course we could also get rid of air doctrines and add them into the aviation field (or the appropriate land or naval doctrine trees), and use the whole field for same Home Front tech...just a suggestion.

 

Allenby

Custom User Title

8 Badges

Apr 4, 2003

7.170

5

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jan 24, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #23

Shadow Knight said:

We might want to include in air doctrine any land and/or naval doctrines that has to do with aircraft or the coordination thereof.

Of course we could also get rid of air doctrines and add them into the aviation field (or the appropriate land or naval doctrine trees), and use the whole field for same Home Front tech...just a suggestion.

Click to expand...

Very good idea concerning arms coordination - perhaps the field should be renamed 'All Arms Coordination Doctrine' that could take into account fighting techniques developed between 1916 and 1918, as well as armoured warfare theories? I do fear, however, that this can not be done without thinning out the 'land doctrine' tree to any great measure.

I say this because I wouldn't want to change the field to something totally removed from doctrinal thought in case there are unforseen and unwanted consequences, such as a Billy Mitchell led tech team being given a hardcoded edge in researching fuel rationing...

 

Shadow Knight

Admiral of the Fleet

55 Badges

Apr 18, 2002

1.988

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jan 24, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #24

Well we could do as HOI 2 does and have multiple paths for land doctrines (a good use for my failed Manpower vs. Firepower ideas for TGW), and then (assuming this is possible) allow there to be 'land doctrines' that determine the size (i.e. MP cost or additional/less cost) of a standard infantry division (which also say increases the soft attack for an org hit the larger the division) to simulate the different sizes of divisions that the nations had.

Also we can then have the 'Arms coordination' tech field be the group that ties the different doctrines together. Which these doctrines could also be pre-requisites for some of the techs in the 'special weapons/advanced tech' field.

 

ptan54

General

32 Badges

Sep 28, 2003

2.014

0

Visit site

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jan 24, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #25

Would I be right in claiming that not everything in tech tree is researchable? If so, there could be multiple ways to beef up the army, and having different paths to the same thing might just be one element of that.

 

unmerged(33990)

Banned

Sep 5, 2004

776

0

• Feb 6, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #26

What about Rocket test sites and nuclear reactors?

 

ptan54

General

32 Badges

Sep 28, 2003

2.014

0

Visit site

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 6, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #27

They will be changed into something else.

 

Shadow Knight

Admiral of the Fleet

55 Badges

Apr 18, 2002

1.988

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 7, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #28

Perhaps Rocket test facilities could be converted to Chemical factories (to assist in research for chemical warfare techs).

Speaking of which do we want chemical weapons to be like rocket weapons again?

 

ptan54

General

32 Badges

Sep 28, 2003

2.014

0

Visit site

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 7, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #29

I don't know about other people, but the impression I get from TGW is that they took too long to develop and were of marginal use. With limited ICs, spending them all on infantry, artillery and land doctrine was already an issue.

With WW2 a superweapon could turn the tide - gas didn't, and couldn't.

 

Zuckergußgebäck

Den ökända hästen från Troja

11 Badges

Jan 7, 2004

8.851

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 7, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #30

Nevertheless, I think that gas weapons should be in the game as flying bombs and rockets.

What I´d like to know is what we intend to do with the nuculear reactors.

 

StephenT

OT iconoclast

89 Badges

Mar 10, 2001

8.721

317

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 7, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #31

I agree that gas seemed like too much expense for too little gain, especially since you didn't actually get anything back for your investment until late in the game. I usually never bothered.

However, that's not to say we need to scrap the idea entirely. Because gas weapons are not as lethal as nukes, we don't have to make them anything like as expensive... or in HoI2 terms, we make the gas techs fairly low difficulty and make sure the major powers have tech teams capable of researching them. The actual gas units should be available early on in the game (Spring 1915, to be exact), but be fairly low in strength; researching better models will improve their combat power. Unlike aircraft, it should be possible to target gas directly onto the province to be attacked, which should make it attractive to many players.

Likewise, we might consider dropping the cost of the "chemical industry" (rocket facility) improvement; instead of 40 IC, make it, say, 15?

 

Shadow Knight

Admiral of the Fleet

55 Badges

Apr 18, 2002

1.988

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 8, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #32

I concur definetly drop the cost of the "chemical industry" to something along the 10~15 IC is a good idea.

We could make the Nuclear reactor be something like an 'army war college' that gives a bonus to land doctrine research. It could be only built once and have say one or two levels. (Like nuclear reactors can only be built in stages.) The major powers would start with one of course.

 

MegaPIMP

General

81 Badges

Aug 5, 2003

1.791

0

Visit site

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 12, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #33

Just an outside idea on gas, why not make it like a brigade?
Adds soft attack and what-not, removes some of the micromanagement of having to order around "one use" rockets.

 

Shadow Knight

Admiral of the Fleet

55 Badges

Apr 18, 2002

1.988

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 12, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #34

MegaPIMP said:

Just an outside idea on gas, why not make it like a brigade?
Adds soft attack and what-not, removes some of the micromanagement of having to order around "one use" rockets.

Click to expand...

I believe we gave thought to that, but due to the limited number of bridages we can have meant we would have to sacrifice one of the others. However, I do not know if there is an actual hard number of brigades (anybody?) but if not I can see us doing that. And making 'chemical rockets' simulate a large chemical attack.

 

Zuckergußgebäck

Den ökända hästen från Troja

11 Badges

Jan 7, 2004

8.851

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 12, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #35

We did have gas as a brigade early on (in TGW), but for some reason it was removed and made an independent unit.

I can´t explain it though, as I wasn´t in the team at that time.

 

Stingray

General

64 Badges

Sep 18, 2002

1.843

832

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 16, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #36

It seems very clumsy to use rockets for gas attacks. I've already seen people complain that mass-scale rocket war against the UK is such a pain to micromanage that it's not worthwhile, despite the theoretical usefulness of it.
Perhaps it could be abstracted to add a certain level of defense and/or soft attack to all artillery brigades? Or is that even possible in HOI2?

(I don't accually own the game yet, so all my information is hearsay, please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere)

 

Atruejedi

General

98 Badges

Jun 24, 2003

2.172

77

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 16, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #37

I agree 100%... using rockets for chemicals in TGW was tedious and not very effective.

I also agree 100% that chemicals should be BRIGADES!

I'd finally KNOW they are having an effect, and the micro would be removed.

Someone said there isn't room for the chemical brigade? Jeepers, what other brigades are taking up room? I can't imagine rocket artillery, self propelled rocket artillery, or tank destroyers (SP AT) still being in the game...

So why can't chemicals be brigades?

 

Johan Elisson

ex-Great War[lord]

87 Badges

Apr 11, 2002

1.160

0

www.elisson.eu

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 16, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #38

Gas is such a special weapon that I believe it can't be properly modelled in the game in any good way. Adding it as a brigade would just make it a better, but more expensive artillery brigade, and not worth considering IMHO. I never used gas in TGW, and I doubt I will in 1914, and I really do think that reflects the reality. Gas attacks wasn't used everywhere all the time like it would be if we would add it as a brigade.

About the brigades, well, look into the units thread and you'll find a list of what all slots are used for.

Just my spare cents.

/Johan

 

StephenT

OT iconoclast

89 Badges

Mar 10, 2001

8.721

317

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 16, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #39

I tend to agree with Johan... if micromanaging your gas/rocket units is tedious... well so was micromanaging a gas attack in the real WW1. That's why it was rarely done on anything more than a nuisance scale.

I see nothing wrong with making the more advanced models of artillery brigade dependent on gas research, though, as well as having separate gas units for the big set-piece offensives. That would model the habit of gunners lobbing over a few gas shells every so often just to annoy and upset the enemy.

 

Zuckergußgebäck

Den ökända hästen från Troja

11 Badges

Jan 7, 2004

8.851

2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Feb 24, 2005

• Add bookmark
• #40

Shadow Knight said:

We could make the Nuclear reactor be something like an 'army war college' that gives a bonus to land doctrine research. It could be only built once and have say one or two levels. (Like nuclear reactors can only be built in stages.) The major powers would start with one of course.

Click to expand...

Is it even possible to change the effects of those?

Anyway, what I wanted to know here was:

As we have descidd to have gas in the tech tree (obviously), how are we to model the research teams? Wha5t names should they be given? Were they specific factories/companies/individuals strongly into the gas field?