All New Fatherland--Recruitment Thread

Please stop this trading of barbs. Delex, General_Grant is no longer in charge of this mod. I am. Please address any comments on the mod to me, and leave him alone.
Do you want to do something constructive? Try reading up on some aircraft statistics, or do some research into air doctrines, because that's what I'm working on right now.

Inner Circle: Sorry to have missed your request: I'd say make some suggestions about air doctrine. It should closely resemble differences between Soviet and US doctrine in the real Cold War period, with any ideas as to what a victorious Germany would do differently, and what a major developing nation like India might do. My take is this: The USA focused on deterrence through offensive striking power. The Soviet Union focused on air defense and ICBMs. India would probably focus on fighters and ground support and take no interest in strategic capability until it has its own bomb. India and Pakistan would probably both research the bomb, etc. Empire of China would probably continue Japanese World War 2 doctrines. Any ideas?

Delex: Will entertain suggestions for modifications once a working beta has been released. One possibility for changes is to use a system used by koenig12 in Mod33. That general approach can be summarized as: "If you don't know what someone would do in an ahistorical situation, give 2-4 random chance possibilities." When you played Fatherland, did you try playing countries other than Germany? One possibility is this: Try playing one of the two Chinas so you go to war. Then save and reload as the Soviet Union and DOW them both (or one at a time). After conquering China release Communist China as your puppet and guess what? You are now a major threat! Or play the USSR from the start and drift your country toward democracy. When you become democratic, you'll turn into Siberia and can ally the USA directly. If these do not work, then I'd like to know because that means faulty code somewhere. Also, ALL mods that feature Germany winning a war (or not having one) feature one thing in common: they make life very interesting for Asia.

Here are my initial thoughts on new air models:
--Interceptor: 2 models--Mach 2 Interceptor and Mach 3 Interceptor. The British English Electric Lightning and the US F-104 were the first Mach 2 interceptors and they were first flight tested in 1954. The Lightning was the faster of the two. In HOI2 it is listed as Supersonic Interceptor and I think it should really be the next level up. The actual first generation supersonic fighters and interceptors actually went about 1400 km/sec, not 1600 as per HOI2 specs. The HOI2 models mostly entered service or flight testing after the stated dates. One model they forgot about was the F-100A Super Sabre, the actual first supersonic fighter which first flew in 1949. It was initially an interceptor, but after some structural flaws were corrected it came back as the F-100C, a multirole fighter. So I'll keep the 1950 start date and change the speed to 1400 km/hr. The English Electric Lightning and F-104 will be Mach 2 interceptors. The Soviets first flight tested a Mach 3 interceptor in 1962. So interceptor models will be:
--Supersonic Interceptor (existing model but changed specs) speed reduced from 1600 to 1400. Keep model year 1950
--Mach 2 Interceptor speed 2300 km/hr model year 1955
--Mach 3 Interceptor speed 3200 km/hr model year 1963
The 2 new interceptor models cause the infamous "more than 10 models" problem. After playing around with many answers I found that by far the best solution is to eliminate the rocket interceptors and place them at the end of the fighter models. It requires only that 2 inc files be modified: Germany's 1944 and England's 1945 file. I've actually gone a step further and combined the 2 rocket interceptors into one.
Here's a comparison of HOI2 to reality:
#1 rocket interceptor (Me-163) Hoi2 speed 1000 km/hr Real speed 960
#2 rocket interceptor (Me-263) Hoi2 speed 1200 (i.e. supersonic at flight altitudes) Real speed 880.
Will combine the two into one model with a speed of 1000 and fighting qualities in between the two models. The Japanese and Soviets built similar models but the speed of neither was greater than 1000. Actual supersonic flight was first achieved by Chuck Yeager in the X-1. There are some claims that others did it first but these have not been verified. But to say the Germans could have done this in 1944 is pure nonsense. They probably had the technology but did not have access to the materials necessary to build a supersonic plane. Try reading Albert Speer's book if you don't believe this. I think however they could have built a supersonic plane by 47 (same time as the USA) had they won the war.
--Fighter--2 models
Mach 2 fighter (MIG-21/F-4 Phantom class) F-4 was flight tested 1958 Introduced end of 1960. But the MIG-21 came out first, flight tested 1956, so that will be the model year.
Mach 2.5 fighter (F-111 class) Will make as a 64 model.
Will keep Supersonic Fighter as 1950 model, despite my doubts that a production version could have come out by then.
--Strategic bomber. The B-52 is already in the game as a 1950 model. Probably I'll push it to 1952, the first year of flight testing and increase the range (haven't decided by how much) above Paradox's 3000 km. Actual range of the B-52 was 7200 km. and others (like the Soviets) also built planes of similar range (but they weren't quite as fast)
--Will add a supersonic bomber (Mach 2 B-58 was flight tested in 1958) but it will sacrifice range for speed. (only 3000 km)
Naturally I want the B-52 not to be upgradeable to the B-58 and I thank Fernando Torres for his help on this. If this turns out not to work in testing then I'll have to scale back the B-52's range.
--Naval bomber (aka Patrol Bomber) will likely add 3 models but have not decided on specifics -- probably 2 models for range increase and one for the addition of rocket weaponry. Will likely tie this in with ASW somehow.
The speed will likely not increase or not increase by very much, as this is unrelated to the efficiency of naval attacks. If anything, high speed is a drawback for either a naval bomber or CAS unit.
--Tactical bomber, escort fighter and CAS -- not decided yet --probably 1-2 models
--Transport plane--add 1-2 models for increased range

Air Units are done!


Summary:
CAS: Vanilla HOI2 is approximately correct in assessment of the values of the CAS models in the game but in many cases they represented them with models that should be in another class. With few exceptions most of the vanilla models are actually attack fighters (tactical bombers). CAS planes continued to be propeller driven until about 1960, when the US developed the A-6 and eventually the A-10. Many other countries simply converted their obsolete fighters to CAS. In the Korean War, the US believed slow moving CAS to be superior to jet versions because they can stay over the target longer and do more damage. Added 3 models: the first is equipped with improved anti tank shells. The last two are jets. The Practical turbojet is only required for the last 2 (change from vanilla) It makes no sense to me why turbojet technology is required to produce a propeller plane. (and it's not a turboprop, either). They are extremely effective (more against infantry than armor) provided you can control the air with a separate fighter or interceptor mission.

Tac bomber: 3 models branded as "attack fighter" as they are more often known today. They are designed for penetration against missile defenses but not air defenses and have good hard and strategic attack values but are not as good against soft targets and ships as CAS.

Strat bomber: Intercontinental bomber is a regular plane instead of a secret weapon. Added 2 supersonic strategics. The last one was never built--it was the proposed XB-70 which was not built because of the recognition that Soviet SAMs could shoot it down.

Transports: One added, the venerable C-130 class

Fighters, escorts and interceptors: Supersonic planes are already in the game. added Mach 2 and Mach 3 (Fighter is only Mach 2.5 as per F-111 specs)

Naval bombers: "Turbojet" is somewhat misleading. Most units added two turbojets to two propeller engines, so I've renamed them to "Turbo-Assisted"--they are the same planes as in vanilla. Added 3 units to take into account their increased range and adoption of rocket weaponry in addition to their usual air-launched torpedoes.

The air doctrine tree is done!


Comments:The original fatherland tech tree had too many technologies in some areas and left a few things uncovered. I've streamlined a few things and added some features. It's designed in part to mimic the differences between Soviet and US doctrines in the real Cold War. There are 3 big choices: Interceptor vs Multirole, CAS vs Tactical Air, and Strategic Bomber vs ICBM. The last one is integrated with the whole idea of nuclear deterrence.
Effects of the doctrines are more varied than in the original Fatherland. There is more reflection of fighting at night and under adverse weather and terrain conditions. And with a view toward Cold War Realism, a few of the Nuclear proliferation technologes actually reduce your effective IC!

Also, the choice of one path does not block ALL of the technologies of the other path--only some of them. I've partly done this with an eye to how Soviet and American doctrines evolved. Both ended up using some of the doctrines of the other side. For example, the US focused on CAS with old fashioned planes and helicopter gunships, but (after the Vietnam War) switching over to pinpoint munitions. The Soviets switched the other way, using helicopter gunships in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately I also have to deal with the realities of Paradox bugs. For example, it seems as though a command to modify the qualities of a brigade is incorrectly parsed as a command to modify a division. For example if I try to cheapen escorts, the exec file cheapens light armor divisions instead! That's why there's so much attention paid to max-org and morale.

Anyway enough of the rant. If people feel that there's nothing to do, things will change once the tech tree is finished. There's going to be need of beta testers, graphic designers, and translators.

Užičkibombarder--I'll send you a PM. I remember you were on the original team.

Industry techs are done!

These techs are more or less historical for the period. Moon landing has a date of 1969, so it would be tough to achieve, but I plan for it to be worth a fistful of points for anyone who can pull it off.
'Spycraft' refers to the growth of the intelligence community after WW2 and mostly reflects the human factor of intelligence/counterintelligence. Computer techs also modify not only the intel factors but help research too.
There are no radar station techs added because they are already 110% efficient at the end of the tree. Other technologies in other areas make them cheaper, howver.

Užičkibombarder--I don't plan on a mapmod but am likely to change the staring map setup in some minor areas.

Thank you Zauberflote and trekaddict. Full time is not necessary. We all have other projects. Once I get the tech tree complete (it's now 90% done), I'll release it as a beta for testing. At that point exactly what is needed will become very evident. One thing I'd like to take a hard look at is the names of the models (air and naval units) to make sure the technologically correct one is displayed for each level. In the vanilla, sometimes the names of technologically more advanced air units are used--as an example the English Electric Lightning is actually a more advanced plane (according to my tech tree) than in the vanilla, as it qualifies as a "Mach 2 interceptor".
And I'd like to see some intelligent estimate of what the advanced German models should be--I'm not talking about the ones that were on the drawing board in 1945 but higher ones. One idea would be to use the Soviet or French models with German names.

And does anyone have an opinion as to what the German aircraft carriers (advanced levels) would look like? The World War 2 design became outdated with the advent of jet planes, so I would't want the German version of the Kitty Hawk class to look like the Graf Zeppelin. The US relied on catapults and restraining devices to assist planes in take-off and landing, and went over to an angled flight deck starting with the Forrestal series. But other powers, such as the USSR, could not solve the problems and opted for a ski-jump ramp.

Black Guardian,
Welcome aboard. Nice to see you again.
Well I have some tweaked surrender events to at least give the Pu-Yi setup in the east. In order to set this up playing from 1936 it would be necessary to play Germany by the indirect approach and British surrender could be tweaked by their supplies falling below a certain level, and you'd have to write a custom event--"Britain starved into submission". You get Bitter peace and presumably once all 3 fire (British event, bitter peace and Japan's surrender) the map setup could be triggered.
Anyway the tech preview is complete! Next step will be testing the tech tree for validity and workability. At this point I'm mostly interested in 44 and 45 scenario loads to see if the postwar tech tree works and does not progress too slowly or too fast. I'm interested in how it progresses in both normal US/USSR play and in alternate history. Will next assemble a package for beta testing.

Both the US and USSR actually built crude radar-guided cruise missiles in the 1950s.

The tech tree and 2 prototype scenarios are ready for download! Please note that this is not a full fatherland release but is being done only to validate the tech tree.
Once the tech tree is validated I'll make a full-fledged release.

Please see the readme files in this release to better see how you can help with the project.

For updated download link of the tech tree see my sig-----Discussion of tech treehttp://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=376965

Well this particular forum has been somewhat silent. Much of the work right now is proving out the tech tree. When that is finished I'll probably just bundle that with the original fatherland events and do an OOB. But I'd like to also open discussion about whether anything should be ultimately changed. if you go to the Wiki about the book, two things you'll find are that:
1) Germany is involved in an endless guerrilla war in Russia that is costing much in resources.
2) The Soviet Union is allied with the United States

In the original game the alliance with the USA can be brought about by nudging the sliders so that the Soviet Union becomes democratic and morphs into Siberia, which then can ally the USA.

Also I think USA elections would be radically different. In the alternate scenario, Eisenhower is disgraced but MacArthur is a conquering hero, untainted by any Korean War scandals. It is likely that either MacArthur or Harriman is the nominee of the Republicans in 1952 and 56, and gets defeated by Adlai Stevenson. When Kruschev comes to power, it's entirely possible for the USA to craft an alliance with the Soviet Union. BTW Soviet rocket teams are going to be improved. They had no Werner vonBraun but they had a host of lesser figures. The USA might actually want some of the Soviet space experts and be willing to offer jet engine technology in exchange!

Also am considering breaking up Russia into two parts, Russia west of the Urals (pro-German but not officially allied) and the Trans-Ural Republic east of the Urals (pro-Soviet but not officially allied). The two fight a proxy war draining the resources of the powers supplying each side. (Much like the Spanish Civil War but this just goes on forever) Germany actually has no interest in Vlasov winning, because Vlasov will just turn against the German occupation once he defeats the Pro-Soviet forces. They just want to keep them in the war, and provide opportunities for German soldiers to serve there and keep up their fighting skills.

jamhaw,
Will more actively improve this shortly. The major improvement I've completed is the tech tree. Will probably within the next month or so package it up with mostly the original event series just to verify a bug free release. Then I can work on whether things should be changed. Historically Japan was a US puppet until about 1953 and actually not unhappy with the situation overall. The big reason was MacArthur's genius in handling the war criminals issue. Now in this alternate history Japan may have suffered more casualties so you might have a point. The hard line generals in the alternate history are probably building up Manchukuo aka Empire of China, which survives in this alternate history.

Keeping Hirohito on the throne as a symbol was extremely important in the US occupation strategy.