Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Tech Tree

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.
Foot Cavalry said:
On Marines: Shouldn't there be something to differentiate the US Marines from more traditional naval infantry? This isn't a vanity thing: In WW2 it is appropriate to give them the handicaps on land warfare but by the 50's they were better than the US Army as dismounted infantry, and by the 80's they were definitely a fully fledged Mechanized force. Same for the ROKs too. If anything the option, for balance, should decrease morale/org for regular army units as the Marines have always been (except in '68) all volunteer, and therefore take the best away from the Army's ranks.
Click to expand...

Uh... the Marines haven't always been all volunteer. When the Army had a draft, the Marines were part of it, along with the Air Force and Navy. Besides, they already get org/morale bonuses like paratroopers and mountain divisions do.

And it's very debatable that the Marines are any better than the Army at anything other than shore attacks. The Army and Marines have two different missions, and they both perform their respective duties very well.
 
I've seen Marines do an awful lot more in the way of special tactics then the regular army. I think its safe to say and think they have gone far beyond their original purpose from defending ships on the high seas from foreign enemies.
 
You're very right. The Marines have a different mission, one which requires them to have a whole lot of flexibility and training. No doubt they're good at what they do. Ask me if they're any better at non-combatant evacuation, airfield seizure or guerrilla warfare than an Army airborne or Ranger unit, and we can argue forever. The Marines' best asset is their forward deployability, which allows them to bring more to the fight faster than Army units. They have more firepower than the airborne and Rangers, and can deploy a lot faster than the Army's tank and mech units.

That said, they've got a Marine division, there will be Marine-specific doctrines. I don't know what else we can give them to set them apart. I'm sure they'll get a lot of the same bonuses that Army divisions do in addition to their own.
 
I don't want to get lost in who is better, but rather how the Marines of now are something more than the 'naval infantry' of other countries or what they were in WW2. I think a good compromise would be this: brigade attachments. An MEF can use tracked vehicles (in addition to its organic armored force) to move overland, helos, or just its feet. So if there is a brigade attachment that greatly increases speed, it would work for Marines operating in the new ('75 onwards) tracks.
 
Foot Cavalry said:
I don't want to get lost in who is better, but rather how the Marines of now are something more than the 'naval infantry' of other countries or what they were in WW2. I think a good compromise would be this: brigade attachments. An MEF can use tracked vehicles (in addition to its organic armored force) to move overland, helos, or just its feet. So if there is a brigade attachment that greatly increases speed, it would work for Marines operating in the new ('75 onwards) tracks.
Click to expand...

I'm don't understand what you want to say, but we have both transport helo and amphibious vehicle brigades, that can be attached to marines divison/brigades. :)
 
Small update.
Here is what I'm working on now:
8238az5.png
Division sized/Large front deactivate each other. Large front is supposed to be W.P. tech tree branch while Division sized supposed to be NATO tech tree branch(though I want to change it on something more suitable).
Infantry warfare focus will be divided into guerilla and professional infantry with small armor support. Comments, suggestions?
I'm expirience somesort of mental block, so I think if I won't come up with something really good, I'll change tree in more generic thing, like:
  • NATO doctrines
    1. 60's NATO doctrines
      • Manuever focus
      • Attrition focus
    2. 70's NATO doctrines
      • Manuever focus
      • Attrition focus
    3. 80's NATO doctrines
      • Manuever focus
      • Attrition focus
And etc.
 
40' - 50's land doctrines
7yr03t3.png

Tree will work this way:
Player chooses tree branch(or it's available by default), Quality over quantity or Quantity over quality.
  • Quality over quantity
    • Deactivates Quantity over quality tech
    • Max Org +5
    • Build time all land units +2
    • Cost of all land units +1
    • 40's land doctrine available for research
  • Quantity over quality
    • Deactivates Quality over quantity
    • Max Morale +10
    • Build time all land units -2
    • Cost of all land units -1
    • 40's land doctrine available for research
This allows player to research 40's land doctrine tech.
  • 40's land doctrine
    • Max Org +2
    • Max Morale +2
    • New HQ model(WW2 HQ)
    • 50's land doctrine available for research
After that, either left side techs or right side techs are available for research(left side for Quantity over quality, right side for Quality over quantity).
  • Left side tech tree
    • Offensive warfare focus
      • Deactivates Defensive warfare focus
      • Require Quantity over quality
      • L Arm(W.P. armored divisions), Mech, Mot(i.e. W.P mot inf divisions) production time and cost boost
      • Max Org +5
      • Max Morale +5
    • Defensive warfare focus
      • Deactivates Offensive warfare focus
      • Require Quantity over quality
      • Inf, Light Inf, Mil, Garrison production time and cost boost
      • Max Morale +10
      • Max Org +2
    • Mechanized wave focus
      • Require Defensive warfare focus or Offensive warfare focus
      • Deactivates Human wave focus
      • SP-ART, L-ARM(brigade), HT, MOT(motorisation batalion for inf divisions), TD production time and cost boost
      • HQ speed cap +1
      • MOT(motorisation batalion) speed cap +1
      • Arm, Mech and Mot modifiers improved(I'm yet to decide which ones)
    • Human wave focus
      • Require Defensive warfare focus or Offensive warfare focus
      • Deactivates Mechanized wave focus
      • ART, MOT(motorisation batalion for inf divisions), TD, POL, ENG production time and cost boost
      • MOT(motorisation batalion) speed cap +1
      • Inf, Mil and L Inf modifiers improved(I'm yet to decide which ones)
    • Breakthrough priority
      • Require Mechanized wave focus
      • HQ Supply Efficiency Bonus +1
      • HQ event chance +0.2
      • Breakthrough chance: 2
      • Encirclement chance: 1
    • Assault priority
      • Require Human wave focus
      • HQ Supply Efficiency Bonus +1
      • HQ event chance +0.1
      • Assault chance: 2
      • Delay chance: 1
  • Right side tech tree
    • Expeditionary warfare focus
      • Deactivates Defensive warfare focus
      • Require Quality over quantity
    • Defensive warfare focus
      • Deactivates Expeditionary warfare focus
      • Require Quality over quantity

More to come...
 
Looks realy good!!!, keep the good work!
 
^As we are the only ones working on this, i say that it's fantastic.
 
What about booby trap tactics and usage of unorthodox weapons? General guerrilla warfare. When it comes to colonial warfare, another consideration, such as the French style of static defense, which arguably lost them Dien Bien Phu (how were they supposed to know that the Vietcong had artillery?). However, like colonial warfare there was Vietnam, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran, Africa, Cuba and Nicaragua where small forces, or large depending on the size of the country, were able to take on refined and modern forces with good planning and better tactics then the enemy was able to develop.

I think a "Hearts and Minds" doctrine might also be a good idea, since, especially with the Communist Manifesto, the people were targeted and disciplined with the ideology each side would fight for. Of course, there was a kind of lack in focus on ideology and its strict discipline within the western armies, which led to corruption, something I suppose we could simulate with disorganization which was rabid throughout the American troops in Vietnam, and partisan agitation as the American troops, as much as the Vietcong, weren't held back from killing those civilians who might not be loyal.

I have a few more ideas, but, I would like to hear what you might think first.
 
Brote Heckler said:
What about booby trap tactics and usage of unorthodox weapons? General guerrilla warfare. When it comes to colonial warfare, another consideration, such as the French style of static defense, which arguably lost them Dien Bien Phu (how were they supposed to know that the Vietcong had artillery?). However, like colonial warfare there was Vietnam, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran, Africa, Cuba and Nicaragua where small forces, or large depending on the size of the country, were able to take on refined and modern forces with good planning and better tactics then the enemy was able to develop.
Click to expand...

Yeah i think that some kind of "third world" doctrine would be something realy cool and realistic to see, giving a boost to the Org. of the irregular divisions.

Brote Heckler said:
I think a "Hearts and Minds" doctrine might also be a good idea, since, especially with the Communist Manifesto, the people were targeted and disciplined with the ideology each side would fight for.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in this field but does not China copy the Warsaw pact doctrine?? How could that be represented in the game? with more org. to the Chinese divs. to represent something like the "red fanatism" or something like that?

Brote Heckle said:
Of course, there was a kind of lack in focus on ideology and its strict discipline within the western armies, which led to corruption, something I suppose we could simulate with disorganization which was rabid throughout the American troops in Vietnam, and partisan agitation as the American troops, as much as the Vietcong, weren't held back from killing those civilians who might not be loyal.

I have a few more ideas, but, I would like to hear what you might think first.
Click to expand...

Whoaaa that would be a big amount of events, that's for sure!
 
Foxbat said:
Land tech tree first version is completed. Download it here: file (Warning, Adobe Acrobat or other pdf file reader is required)
Credits go to hellfish6, for his invaluable help.

Any comments are appreciated. :)
Click to expand...

Excellent, as always.
That's an example of an extense doctrine tree!.
 
Hmm... are their nations that will have Quantity over Quality and nations that will have Guerrilla Warfare? While I can see the logic in them being separate, shouldn't some countries have them both or will we have event chains that will switch the two when ones country is being invaded, such as in the case of North Vietnam?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back