-
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.
*Sigh* yes it is only arma compatible, read the forum for info before asking those kind of questions in the non adequate thread. What relation does your question have with the tech tree?. For that kind of questions use this thread
Soo, no ideas about industrial techs? Pitty. Anyway, I have an idea for nuclear reactors in game. Maybe we can convert it into nuclear powerplant? Is it possible to build multiple nuclear reactors?
Foxbat said:HQ and Garrisons are fine. But I don't like name "Special Forces Division". I understand that there are almost no mountain divisions today(10th Mountain Division I think is the only one left), but there were no SpecOps divisions. So if you don't like Mountain division, let's think of something else.
And here is my first try to do Industrial tech tree:
As inspiration I've took CORE2 industrial tech tree, so we also have specialised tech's that define country's type of economy(Agricultural, Semi-Industrial, Industrial, Post-Industrial). However, unlike in CORE2, those techs will be researchable, though their requirements will be very high. Also note Economic system techs. They suppose to work like this: when you research one of them(for example Capitalism), it fires event that gives some sort of bonuses(negative too) depending on system and also it activates other economic system techs for research too (that way player always can move from one economics system to another, but it will take some time).
Below Economics system's techs are agricultural techs, the higher industrialization level, the more agricultural techs playuer can research.
Light/Heavy industry techs were also inspired by CORE2(kudos to CORE team for their great mod). Each Heavy industry tech activates coresponding automotive industry and advanced material techs. Also heavy industries allow research of coresponding air industry techs on Air tech tab.
Automotive industry techs provide production bonuses for all motorised/mechanised land units(aviation industry techs also provide some bonuses for air squadrons).
Advanced materials techsare required by numbers of techs, like aviation industry, airmobile/amphibious tanks, rocket researches and e.t.c.
Electronics techs are required for Electronic computers , radar, C2, tanks, aircrafts and other researches.
Computer techs provide some bonuses for research speed, also they are required for advanced techs in different fields: armor, aircrafts, communications & command, rocketry and so on.
ARPANET/Internet techs are required for some advanced techs like C2. Also they provide research speed bonuses.
Rocketry/Radar/Encryption/Decryption techs are moved to Secret Weapons tab.
I notice agricultural techs aren't on there, unlike that of CORE 2, which are important to the time period were covering. This was a time of agricultural development in many third world countries, such as India and China, which has accelerated them into emerging superpowers. Its important we simulate that, I think even to go so far as flavor events to increase base manpower and resources.
I also suggest that industry and the more ambiguous economic system research be a bit more restricted, if you pick one you need to stick to it or else major penalties. Some countries had actual violent reactions to a change of government or whole economic action. By the way, what would economic system research entail, bonuses to the style of government if you so choose to research and stay on course with it?
I don't really understand what is different between capitalism and corporatism, America has corporations but is capitalist to... they're one in the same. Also, Socialism is below that of Stalinist theory or Communism, Mao was Stalinist, for example, but after him the leaders were Socialist, though still authoritarian, they had some vestige of democracy.
So there should be to areas of thought for the Communist party line, Stalinist versus Marxist-Leninist, though in the case of China it was based on peasantry and nationalism, such as the Great Leap Forward.
I'm not quite sure what Social Market is either, Welfare state? Because even the US under Reagan, which was high on Capitalism and Reaganomics, had a welfare state, so did France and Germany and the United Kingdom etc.
What about in place of electronics we put more common names, like for example, microchip production in the 40s and 50s.
"Starting with copper oxide, proceeding to germanium, then silicon, the materials were systematically studied in the 1940s and 1950s" (wikipedia), we can simulate that with research in the 40's called "miniaturization" and in the 50's with "Silicon chips". This research can then be extended to LEDs, lasers, solar cells and the highest-speed integrated circuits. It took decades to get to where we are and perfect methods of creating crystals without defects in the crystalline structure of the semi-conducting material, we need to simulate that much.
Lasers, a building block for a lot of today's weapons and civilian materials, didn't show up in any working fashion till 1960s. I could see a tech for rudimentary laser research, like the jet engine was, and further techs that stem off into guidance lasers and maybe weaponized lasers as future secret weapons, though we use them to some extent today. That can be expressed as "Stimulated Emission," by the way.
Is super short for superconductor and Personal for PC?
I have more ideas, but I'll see what everyone thinks of my suggestions and if anyone answers my questions.
Foxbat said:
ok. nice idea.
Foxbat said:I don't think so, Attack helicopter main task is seeking and destroying MBT's, while CAS provide all-around ground support for troops. Sometimes troops need simple Mk-82 dropped on enemy position, helicopters(except for Mi-24) can't do that.
in theory yes. but i guess you need to spare slots. and a lot of even advanced armies in the world dont have combat helicopters. so it would make sense to me simplifying here. furthermore its a timeline problem as well, as helicopters came late, and took over some parts of the CAS-planes role.
Foxbat said:
the whole problem reminds me a lot to the differences between germans, italians and russians in the original game. i think the solution they have found isnt bad. and much better done by the stony road guys. i think one could stick with that. (btw.: their solution are coming with lower org/moral and doctrines for some countries, maybe you want to take some inspirations from their work?)
Foxbat said:
this is also rather a timeline problem. saying there were no heavy tanks after ww2 was oversimplified for my part, thats true. but since late 60's russian t-10s were a rather unique thing. but from all i know, their performance were much the same of the MBTs, which was precisely the reason no other built something like them.
maybe the heavy tank tree could end up in attack helicopters?
just my 2 cents...
Foxbat said:
ok, i try as you can see
hope you wont run mad because of all the events which need to be made
Out of curiosity, will researching one infantry tree disable the others? It'll seem kinda weird if you can research both NATO and WP infantry.
Nope, those techs are there. They're to the right of economy type techs(30's, 40's 50's and so on).Brote Heckler said:
Corporatism, Capitalsim, Socialist and Social MarketBrote Heckler said:
Yes, something should be done to prvent players from switching them, though I still think that they should change somehow when needed. Events maybe? And they should provide some sort of bonuses, which we'll need to define.Brote Heckler said:
Electronics are not always were made of microchips(in 80's - 90's for sure, but not in 50's - 60's), but I agree that these techs will be better with more imaginative names. So if you can do those names I'll surely put them in.Brote Heckler said:
About lasers, IMHO they were used only as rangefinders and marking devices for laser guided bombs/rockets(we're talking about 50's - 90's remember?), so I don't really think that they deserve their own tech, they can be included in one of the Electronic techs.
Super is short of Super computers.
And I really want to hear your suggestions about industrial techs.
There will be different doctrines for NATO/W.P. and neutral/3rd world coutries with subvaritions in those doctrines, so don't worry. And I'm concerned that you can't simulate diference between NATO/W.P. divisons without making them different models. For example. W.P. Mot division had more tanks in it than NATO one, how will you simulate it? With higher morale? Don't think so, US/British/French and so on morale was the same, strength shows percentage of battle ready men/machines, so it can't really simulate that too.Gen. Confusion said:
So where is the problem? Last Heavy tank tech is... "60's Heavy tank"!
And it's required along with 60's Medium tank to research 70's MBT. And about their performance, I really doubt that T-10 was equal to first russian MBT T-64.Ofcourse researching NATO mot inf will disable W.P. Mot infantry and vice-versa.Kevin W. said:
OK, I finally got around to reading this. Great job on the tech trees - I'm exceedingly impressed.
As per my suggestion in the unit thread, I think making everyone but the WP counties have brigade sized land units would be best, but otherwise I think you've got a really solid plan here.
What about for destroyers you have separate models for DDs and DDGs (i.e. you research 1960s DD and you get two models when you've finished researching it - DDs with are destroyers optimized for ASW and general purpose patrolling, and DDGs which have SAMs and antiship missiles). Up till about 1990, most nations had both types (i.e. the US Spruance class and the Kidd class, Soviet Sovremny and Udaloy classes).
For frigates, do the same with FFs and FFGs, but maybe add two additional models - patrol gunboats and patrol missile boats. Gunboats can be armed with light gun armament and maybe torpedoes, missile boats have some significant anti-ship capability. Both patrol boats are short ranged but fast, with some additional stats tweaking to reflect their small size and ability to move easily around coastlines.
Also, Foxbat, can you explain how you'll get LHAs to work? IIRC, transports (and ships in a landing fleet) can't provide shore bombardment support to the troops being landed. Can they have CVS/CVL brigades attached to them too?
As per my suggestion in the unit thread, I think making everyone but the WP counties have brigade sized land units would be best, but otherwise I think you've got a really solid plan here.
What about for destroyers you have separate models for DDs and DDGs (i.e. you research 1960s DD and you get two models when you've finished researching it - DDs with are destroyers optimized for ASW and general purpose patrolling, and DDGs which have SAMs and antiship missiles). Up till about 1990, most nations had both types (i.e. the US Spruance class and the Kidd class, Soviet Sovremny and Udaloy classes).
For frigates, do the same with FFs and FFGs, but maybe add two additional models - patrol gunboats and patrol missile boats. Gunboats can be armed with light gun armament and maybe torpedoes, missile boats have some significant anti-ship capability. Both patrol boats are short ranged but fast, with some additional stats tweaking to reflect their small size and ability to move easily around coastlines.
Also, Foxbat, can you explain how you'll get LHAs to work? IIRC, transports (and ships in a landing fleet) can't provide shore bombardment support to the troops being landed. Can they have CVS/CVL brigades attached to them too?
Last edited:
If we gonna make NATO units brigade sized, IMHO we should do it too W.P. too. Besides, I want to hear everybody's opinion on brigade/division sized units.hellfish6 said:
Spruance and Kidd are bad examples, Kidd class destroyers were intially built for Iran with specialised heavy duty anti-air, so they weren't supposed to serve in US navy. Also there were no specialised AA DDG classes in US navy except for Kidd class, IIRC. As for Udaloy, it's technically not destroyer. Russians call it Большой Противолодочный Корабль ор Big ASWShip(litterally) so it's better to move them to frigate techs or make them separate tech tree branch.hellfish6 said:
Whoa, all modern frigates are FFG's, so I don't know if we really need FF's, name me frigate that don't have guided missiles built after 60's? About patrol boats, I've been thinking about them when was doing naval techs, but thouight that they were insignificant for the scale of the game.hellfish6 said:
hellfish6 said:
We'll just add Shore bombardment value(it's a fist TP model on that screen, I just added shore bombardment value of 3), also those techs will increase shore attack modifiers.
Also.. about the regiment thing, i have been thinking.... what's the average number of regiments per division three or four right? then why no take the vanilla statistics and divide them by 3 or 4? this way we have a regimental "strengthed" division. (at least in infantry, i don't know about tanks)
And about the brigades.. we could turn them into battalions dividing their statistics by 3 (the average number of battalions in a regiment)
the problem is, apart from changing the unit names completely, we would need to simulate the subordination of the regiments to the division (something that due to it's impossibility, i would not do nothing)
Annd yes i think that patrol boats are unnecesary, however i like the idea of individual subs/dds.
And about the brigades.. we could turn them into battalions dividing their statistics by 3 (the average number of battalions in a regiment)
the problem is, apart from changing the unit names completely, we would need to simulate the subordination of the regiments to the division (something that due to it's impossibility, i would not do nothing)
Annd yes i think that patrol boats are unnecesary, however i like the idea of individual subs/dds.
Last edited:
Foxbat said:
I'd kind of prefer WP divisions, but I know that's kind of a pain. The Soviets were much more enamored with divisional units than NATO. That said, brigade sized units might help out with the other Pact countries.
What about the Burke classes? They are true DDGs, unlike the Spruance. Likewise the C.F. Adams class - which had SAMs - while the Spruances only had Sea Sparrows for point defense. The Forrest Sherman class didn't have any SAMs at all. Several British destroyers also lacked SAMs or guided missiles.
Ah, not true. The US Garcia-class were FFs. As were the Knox-class. The British Leanders (Batch 1 and 2) didn't have SAMs, Amazons (point defense SAM), Broadswords, etc. The Soviet Krivaks, Konis, Petyas and Mirkas only had local defense SAMs, if any at all. Almost all of these ships were specifically designed for ASW work.
As for patrol boats, my argument would be that most countries in the world only had/have patrol boats in their navy, and maybe one or two frigates. By and large, most maritime countries (from Malaysia and Vietnam to Norway and Germany to Turkey and Libya to Ecuador and Colombia) have or had large numbers of patrol boats used either for ASW, patrol or anti-ship duties. Just look at the large numbers of French La Combattante or Soviet Osa classes produced - and who used them.
Does the shore bombardment work when they're landing troops?
Last edited:
If you think that there should be changes in the naval models, take the list add the models and show us. And if it will be good we'll think together how we should edit tech tree to implement them. No problems. Just remember that we can't insert something just because US or USSR had 3 such ships(besides capital ships - BB's, CV's, BC's and so on).
EDIT: About brigade/regiment thing, I think that if we gonna do it, it should be done for everybody.
Just remember that we can't insert something just because US or USSR had 3 such ships(besides capital ships - BB's, CV's, BC's and so on).EDIT: About brigade/regiment thing, I think that if we gonna do it, it should be done for everybody.
Last edited:
Foxbat said:If you think that there should be changes in the naval models, take the list add the models and show us. And if it will be good we'll think together how we should edit tech tree to implement them. No problems.
EDIT: About brigade/regiment thing, I think that if we gonna do it, it should be done for everybody.
To be honest, I've never done the model thing before. I hope this works...
Code:
MODEL_21_0;WW-II Battleship;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_21_1;Nuclear Battleship;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_21_2;Arsenal Ship;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_0;WW-II Light Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_2;WW-II Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_3;'50s Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_4;'60s Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_5;'70s Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_6;'80s Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_7;'90s Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_8;Future Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
[B]MODEL_22_11;'60s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_12;'70s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_13;'80s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_14;'90s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_8;Future Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_11;'50s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_12;'60s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_13;'70s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_14;'80s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_15;'90s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_16;Future Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_18;'50s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_19;'60s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_20;'70s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_21;'80s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_22;'90s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_22_23;Future Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x[/B]
MODEL_23_0;WW-II Heavy Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_1;'50s Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_2;'60s Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_3;'70s Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_4;'80s Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_5;'90s Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_6;Future Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_7;'50s Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_8;'60s Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_9;'60s Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_11;'70s Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_12;'80s Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_13;'90s Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_23_14;Future Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_24_0;WW-II Battlecruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_24_1;Nuclear Battlecruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_24_2;'80s Heavy Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_24_3;'90s Heavy Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_24_4;Future Heavy Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_0;WW-II Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_1;'50s Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_2;'60s Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_3;'70s Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_4;'80s Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_5;'90s Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_6;Future Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
[B]MODEL_25_8;'50s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_9;'60s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_11;'70s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_25_12;'80s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x[/B]
MODEL_26_0;WW-II Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_1;'50s Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_2;'60s Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_3;'70s Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_4;'80s Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_5;'90s Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_6;Future Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_7;'60s Nuclear Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_8;'70s Nuclear Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_9;'80s Nuclear Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_11;'90s Nuclear Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_26_12;Future Nuclear Fleet Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_0;WW-II Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_1;'50s Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_2;'60s Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_3;'70s Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_4;'80s Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_5;'90s Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_6;Future Light Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_7;'50s ASW Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_8;'60s ASW Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_9;'70s ASW Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_11;'80s ASW Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_12;'90s ASW Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_27_13;Future ASW Carrier;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_0;WW-II Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_1;Post WW-II Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_2;'50s Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_3;'60s Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_4;'70s Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_5;'80s Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_6;'90s Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_28_7;Future Diesel Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_0;'50s Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_1;'60s Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_2;'70s Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_3;'80s Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_4;'90s Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_5;'90s Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_6;'60s Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_7;'70s Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_8;'80s Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_9;'90s Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_29_11;Future Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_0;Converted Cargo Ship;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_1;Attack Transport;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_2;Amphibious Transport Dock;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_3;Attack Cargo Ship;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_4;Armored Landing Ship;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_5;'70s LHA;;;;;;;;;;x #Amphibious Assault Ship
MODEL_30_6;'80s LHA;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_7;'90s LHA;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_30_8;Future LHA;;;;;;;;;;xChanges/additions in bold. For FF/FFG and DD/DDG do you want me to add new models too?
***Updated
Last edited:
Updated. Assumed that any future Destroyer would have missiles. I don't think anyone is making destroyers these days without significant SAM capability.
OK let's see.
Code:
MODEL_22_11;'60s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x OK
MODEL_22_12;'70s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x OK
MODEL_22_13;'80s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x How many countries had frigates built in that period without guided missiles?
MODEL_22_14;'90s Missile Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x Same
MODEL_22_8;Future Frigate;;;;;;;;;;x Same
MODEL_25_8;'50s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x IMHO, too early
MODEL_25_9;'60s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_25_11;'70s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_25_12;'80s Missile Destroyer;;;;;;;;;;x How many countries had destroyers built in that period without guided missiles?
MODEL_22_11;'50s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x OK
MODEL_22_12;'60s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_13;'70s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_14;'80s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_15;'90s Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_16;Future Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_18;'50s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_19;'60s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_20;'70s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_21;'80s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_22;'90s Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x Ok
MODEL_22_23;Future Missile Patrol Boat;;;;;;;;;;x OkFoxbat said:
I checked it out... I couldn't find examples of non-guided missile destroyers designed/built past about '79 or so. Likewise for '50s DDGs.
For frigates, there are the Italian Maestrale and Lupo class frigates, Japanese Abukuma, Dutch Karel Doorman, the multinational MEKO ships (though some can be built with SAMs, most appear to be ASW/patrol ships without significant area air defense capability), Singapore's Formidable class, Spain's Descubierta, British Type 23 (Duke), German Brandenburgs... all designed and built post-1980 (some still being built).
I could go on. Non-FFG frigates are still pretty popular even today.
Ok, so as I suspected from 80's DD and onward there should be only one DD model. So we have 3 additional destroyer models 50's/60's/70's.hellfish6 said:
I'll modify tech tree. Stay tuned. And if you have some ideas on industrial techs please share them. Cause I'm stuck. Also I hope for your help on doctrines, I have some ideas but definately we'll need more.