Development Diary #14 - 28th of January 2009

[Myth]

Agreed!

A question though: will the theories and practicals be specific in a limiting way to a nation? What I mean is... if your nation had no experience or practicals in a chosen area, would you still be able to research in that area (albeit at a much slower rate) ??

Yes you'll still be able to research it. However, to get practical experience with it you'll need to build the stuff too. So if you're, say, Germany and you want carriers you'd probably need to research, build, research some more, build some more, etc...

[Palisadoes]

Cheers Myth! Yeah I get the whole concept... I was just wondering if it was limiting or not (and hoping not!). Phew!

[Acesandeights]

Still bummed about the lack of tech teams, but everything does look so very well done

[Lascars]

Well, for once I won't regret the research system of HOI1. This is much, much, more.

[ROMMEL_HSQ]

[zeekater]

Haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone noticed that there's a practical value for small ships but no theoretical value (unlike capital ships, carriers and subs, which have both)?

Perhaps that's thought of as in the 'naval engineering theory'

[Filou]

This is honestly really great

One question remains : how will we get Leadership?
I'm sure techs and laws and whatnot will play a role, but is it province based akin to manpower and IC or something else?

[zeekater]

This is honestly really great

One question remains : how will we get Leadership?
I'm sure techs and laws and whatnot will play a role, but is it province based akin to manpower and IC or something else?

It's a resource gained from provinces like manpower.

Johan said that somewhere in one of the Dev Diary's in response to a similar question

[DanDaMan]

I will still miss tech teams. I feel like HOI3 is going more in the direction of a strategy game versus a historical simulation.

[Devout]

Haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone noticed that there's a practical value for small ships but no theoretical value (unlike capital ships, carriers and subs, which have both)?

Perhaps that's thought of as in the 'naval engineering theory'

I wonder if most of the small ship technologies are simplified into "anti-air improvements" and "anti-sub" improvements. On the other hand, cruisers and BB may have more to do with trying to get a proper ratio of armor + guns + speed. Just a thought.

[junrui]

what might the theory tab contain? don't think there was anything comparable in HOI2

[zeekater]

what might the theory tab contain? don't think there was anything comparable in HOI2

Perhap doctrines since that tab is missing?

Something odd, but forgiveable:

the 'equipment' techs to the right bottom all have the symbol of the theory 'individual courage' in HoI2, which probably means it's the practical value you gain from 'general combat' (DevDiary3).

This means that you get better at researching "artic warfare equipment" as Saudi-Arabia from fighting solely in the desert
(not entirely of course, since you also need the theory 'large unit tactics' )

[TheLand]

Perhap doctrines since that tab is missing?

Something odd, but forgiveable:

the 'equipment' techs to the right bottom all have the symbol of the theory 'individual courage' in HoI2, which probably means it's the practical value you gain from 'general combat' (DevDiary3).

This means that you get better at researching "artic warfare equipment" as Saudi-Arabia from fighting solely in the desert
(not entirely of course, since you also need the theory 'large unit tactics' )

Of course, since these are alpha screenshots, there is no guarantee that's what will end up in the finished product.

[zeekater]

Of course, since these are alpha screenshots, there is no guarantee that's what will end up in the finished product.

There will still only be one practical value for 'land combat' though (and one for air combat: 'piloting', and one for naval combat: 'naval training'), so wherever you fight, you get bonuses for all suchs techs.

Which isn't that unrealistic at all, but kinda strange

You get better at researching a doctrine for battleships from fighting only with subs
But the second theoretical value will always be different, so it's still realistic.

[Nikolai]

I will still miss tech teams. I feel like HOI3 is going more in the direction of a strategy game versus a historical simulation.

Newsflash: PI games have always been....games.

[Winter War]

What's the purpose of the supply consumption increase for every increase in tech level? What says that newer weapons consume more ammo, need more maintenance etc.? I would say that the opposite often is true.

It may also cause balancing issues. Lower-tech troops should not be better IC-wise.

I think that the only costs of upgrading should be the cost of researching the tech and the cost of upgrading the specific unit.

[ArcticFox]

I will still miss tech teams. I feel like HOI3 is going more in the direction of a strategy game versus a historical simulation.

Watch movies and documentaries if you want history.
But I know what you mean and I can say this: don´t worry. As with any hoi you can always play historically and do what a country did then and in that order. And hey: that´s the fun part, you can do what you want!

[zeekater]

What's the purpose of the supply consumption increase for every increase in tech level? What says that newer weapons consume more ammo, need more maintenance etc.? I would say that the opposite often is true.

It may also cause balancing issues. Lower-tech troops should not be better IC-wise.

I think that the only costs of upgrading should be the cost of researching the tech and the cost of upgrading the specific unit.

They are there for balancing purposes, they are there to slow down how fast you can produce newer divisions.
Otherwise you get the snowball effect: you produce lots of infantry, so your practical value goes up, so you get better at researching new infantry and better at building more infantry. So far so good
But, once you research that new infantry tech, you will still be good at building infantry AND at researching better infantry, since your practical value is still high. So by upping the price, you don't produce the new infantry as fast as you did the old infantry.
Which isn't right

How about this: each time you research a new tech, example: infantry small arms, your practical value DECREASES, to simulate the retooling of your industry for the new equipment.
So add a line:

on_completion = -infantry_practical

to the txt file for infantry small arms.

By lowering the practical value, you also add a very realistic and strategic choice:
do I keep producing the same Shermans or Churchills, since I can already produce them rapidly and in great numbers, or do I go for the better M26 Pershing or Centurion, which I can't produce as fast?
This was a real choice the British made, to postpone the development of the Centurion, so they could build more Churchills to quickly outfit their new tank divisions.

[aphrochine]

Looks great guys!! I do have a question though.

Back in the Production DD, you mentioned that in order for Practical to be maintained, you need to continue producing, as it will decay over time. But say later in the war, some nations might be low on MP and/or Leadership and are not gonna really be cranking out Infantry. However, seeking to maintain advantage, Germany plunges itself into a tech race and wishes to develope advanced equipment and small arms. However, despite this effort, Germany's Infantry Practical would decay because it's not producing any new Infantry Brigades, correct??

Should upgrading count for some sort of Practicals retention??

[Sovereign]

This is brilliant.

Someone mentioned Leadership percentage, perhaps a percentage of population? Perhaps modified by industry?

Capital... what is that, can't be capital ships because those will be in Naval...