• 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.
Zwiback said:
And about upgrading Fokker DVII with X-4 missles and MG231 revolverguns- I am sure this problem is easily solved by a max. cap so the tank/plane can only use new technology to a certain grade.

No one says otherwise. But then again, if you mention "tank/plane", you automatically create an object (that certain weapons can be attached to and other weapons can't) that in fact constitutes model (although not exactly in HoI2 meaning of it). So I'm really curious how it will be solved in the end.

As for my comments - problem is, such things usually get ignored in "we all believe it will be ok" mood that is usual early on, then they have to be corrected 2, 3 patches later or in expansion pack. Why waste the time? :D
 
Last edited:
I better read this again, are we talking about turning a Panzer II into a Panzer III by using say main armament size, engine size and armor thickness. Which is only available because of the technologies we have developed which are themselves greatly influenced by how we have focused our attention on developing a certain branch of our army in this case tanks.

Out of curiosity is the system flexible, because we developed a engine suitable for a Panzer III can this influence say other vehicle designs lets say trucks?
 
I like the ideas. The only problem with these weekly updates is that I want the GAME NOW! Alas I'll have to learn to be more patient.

Tanesis,
 
Johan, could you try to pay a little more attention to your sentences? There are parts in these diaries I really can't understand because they are silly put to words. Or with too many, unnessacery words.

Thank you.
 
Me like very much! Me wants moar! :D
 
Hollandia said:
Johan, could you try to pay a little more attention to your sentences? There are parts in these diaries I really can't understand because they are silly put to words. Or with too many, unnessacery words.

Thank you.


Perhaps he could write the diaries in fluent well- spelled swedish, I wouldn`t mind, would you Hollandia?
 
Ahhh... You are bringing back the best part from HOI1. I had an immense pleasure when researching things like "basic assault rifle" (Stg43 - if your German), and seeing my units stat move up a step when it was deployed. Great! :)

One tip: Bring back the little "history lesson" that accompanied the techs back in HOI1. Together with some nice graphics they gave a nice historic feeling and an sense of achievement to the technological part of the game.


Back in HOI1 days you could research improved weapons systems and electronics for your ships, and update your old ships with new radars, AA-guns and such. Will this be implemented in HOI3 also, or will there be a brigade system as in DD?


One more question: Will there be historical dates to prevent tech rushing? Or can we pour our resources into research to gain an edge?
 
WarDog said:
One more question: Will there be historical dates to prevent tech rushing? Or can we pour our resources into research to gain an edge?
Johan said:
However if the player wishes (foolishly some would say) to turn the Soviet Union into a naval power by putting more production and research focus into ships they are free to do so. The more the do so the better the Soviet Union will become at building and researching ships.
This does not answer the question, but it implicates that research efficiency for different areas follows similar mechanics than production efficiency. Thus, even if there are historical research dates (and probably there are not), you may at least partly compensate their effects by focusing on a few areas, giving you an edge.
 
Alojzy said:
It's year 1936, our fighter wing starts with Sopwith Camels, planes from WWI.

After a while, we develop 20mm guns (that are promptly attached to our Great War planes), rockets and attachable fuel tanks. Now we have Super Camel armed to teeth. I might upgrade his cannons to 37mm in the future and maybe add turbo boost to it, even though I'm still using basic WWI construction.

Similarly, tank units are not upgraded part by part. You have certain number of elements that you combine into working model, then you start production. It's not that you start with Pz.I, then add to it 75mm cannon, new suspension, radio and 100mm front armor. Instead, you develop models of equipment that might combine or not certain elements mentioned above, then you arm your divisions with them. Upgrades are limited to minor things like modified engine, extra armor attachements, upgraded comm/targetting equipment and so on.

Well, I'm hoping this:
"we no longer have models, instead we have technologies that increase the maximum values a unit can have and if unit can upgrade to these values it will" means that you don't actually have jet-powered Sopwith Camels. Instead, you get some things that are simple upgrades to the equipment, and give benefits to units across the board (say, better aviation fuel, more reliable ammunition) and other things that are only applied when you switch the equipment of your units (you scrap the Camels and get Meteors instead).

Which means I'm also hoping (well, I was "hoping", now Johan's post earlier in the thread says so) "we no longer have models" means you get the silly "unit models" (infantry '41, Sherman division) but there are still equipment models floating around.

--- Rambling ---
Would tie in with a system in which you didn't even have things like "infantry divisions" preset. Instead, you'd get an interface for designing simplified unit TO&Es, and would get to design some named division templates like "regular division", and would define that those get three infantry brigades (equipped with motorized transport because you want them to be), a fire support brigade, an armoured support brigade and an engineering battalion. While another division template, "light division" would just have the three infantry brigades (foot-sloggers) and a light fire support brigade, which would be able to move better over rough terrain (at the cost of weight of fire). Or... An air wing template, demanding four multirole fighter squadrons. While another would have one multirole fighter squadron and three CAS squadrons.

Then you'd go to the production screen and order the production of X "regular division" units, Y "light division".

Later on, you'd go back to the TO&E interface, choose the "infantry brigade" building block, and switch the rifle from SMLE MkIII* to SMLE Mk4, and all your divisions would then start getting their rifles replaced. Or simply change its size from 3 battalions to 4.

Hmmm, I may have gotten slightly carried away. :D
 
Gwalcmai said:
Well, I'm hoping this:
"we no longer have models, instead we have technologies that increase the maximum values a unit can have and if unit can upgrade to these values it will" means that you don't actually have jet-powered Sopwith Camels.

I agree there should be some distinction between improving existing equipment and introducing new equipment.

A Panzer III chassis, a Sopwith Camel airframe, a Queen Elizabeth class battleship hull can only take *so much* additional equipment.

What I hope Paradox do is use their "airframe" or "chassis" improvements to limit what other upgrades are available.

So if you start with the Great War fighter airframe and the .303 aircraft machine gun, researching the 0.5 calibre aircraft machine gun means that (with some IC) you can improve the firepower of your fighters. However, the 20mm cannon would not do anything since it is too advanced for the airframe.

Then when you get the Basic Fighter airframe, other stats increase (when IC is applied) to represent the Camel model with 0.5 calibre MGs being replaced by Hurricanes (or something) with .5 calibre MGs. The Basic Fighter Airframe unlocks the 20mm cannon tech, and when you research it, you get Hurricanes with improved attack stats, and so on...

The same basic idea should work for tanks. Infantry would have much more scope to upgrade elements because there is no "chassis" element that needs improving before better rifles/artillery/antitank weapons can be bolted on.

With ships the options should be even more limited. In my view it should not be possible to upgrade the main armament, armour, or engines on a ship (such things did happen, at huge expense, from 1920-1936 but very rarely after 1936).
 
Windmolen said:
Yes!! I always read those :cool: I would be great if they returned :)


I too wish they return in HOI3!! Those Tech descriptions & photos brought much more flavour than the tech teams did in hoi2 , imo

I like what I read so far
Keep up

F.
 
No tech Teams?.... what a pity...

I loved the tech teams in HoI 2 for their educational value.

Is it possible to keep the tech team graphics and names in HoI 3 just for flavor?

Whenever a research goal is being completed.... we should read in the pop up box that it is I.G.Farben that delivered this project.

Or Porche.Or Oppenheimer.

Remeber HoI isnt just a game.... it is a wonderful educational tool for parents and history junkies worldwide.
 
The HoI3 research system sounds like a blast! - A dynamic system that, once the game starts, evolves directed by the decisons of the player (what the nation produces & how/when it fights etc). Just what we needed!

I can't wait fot Hoi3 to come out.
 
TheLand said:
With ships the options should be even more limited. In my view it should not be possible to upgrade the main armament, armour, or engines on a ship (such things did happen, at huge expense, from 1920-1936 but very rarely after 1936).
Well, depends what you consider the "main armament". As discussed in a thread about carriers, a largish amount of WW2 aircraft carriers ended up getting their flight decks angled through refitting.
 
As far I understand, historically named models will only be created if you use certain "equipment/chassis" configuration specifics, I like this. Really do, but I hope that even in this cases you can change the given name of the "blueprint unit" to your own liking and you aren't restricted from doing so :)

WarDog said:
One more question: Will there be historical dates to prevent tech rushing? Or can we pour our resources into research to gain an edge?
I hope if there is a kind of anti-rush, it is not made with real historical dates as untill now, I do not wish to "chase a ghost nation" when I want to WRITE history instead of running after it.

(with "ghost nation" I mean a similar effect to "ghost car" what you have in some car racing games where you chase the ghost of the best-time racer)
 
The way research is done seems to be effectively re-invented. Most welcome and tantalizing!

Tantor said:
Perhaps he could write the diaries in fluent well- spelled swedish, I wouldn`t mind, would you Hollandia?
Burn. :rofl:
 
Gwalcmai said:
Well, depends what you consider the "main armament". As discussed in a thread about carriers, a largish amount of WW2 aircraft carriers ended up getting their flight decks angled through refitting.
To enable easier usage of jet aircraft. I forgot to mention that.
 
Gwalcmai said:
Well, depends what you consider the "main armament". As discussed in a thread about carriers, a largish amount of WW2 aircraft carriers ended up getting their flight decks angled through refitting.

The USS Antietam, the first air carrier with an angled deck.

023603.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/36.htm