Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Development Diary #14 - 28th of January 2009

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.
Show only dev responses
IMHO there should be 5 sliders for leadership distribution instead of 4.

We have research, espionage, diplomacy and officers.
Why not include industry?

It could work similar to officers in the army - if you do not assign enough leadership to your industry it will not work with full efficiency.

Any comments?
 
pizi said:
IMHO there should be 5 sliders for leadership distribution instead of 4.

We have research, espionage, diplomacy and officers.
Why not include industry?

It could work similar to officers in the army - if you do not assign enough leadership to your industry it will not work with full efficiency.

Any comments?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I support that idea!
It will represent the skilled workers, engineers, managers.....
Plus that, this will solve the problem which is discussed in the "western armies" thread.
 
Updating from Praxiteles' post for clarity and corrections.

Decay Counters, Left to Right, Top to Bottom:
Small Taskforce Tactics?, Infantry Practical, Infantry Theoretical, Militia Practical, Militia Theoretical, Equipment Practical, Equipment Theoretical, Artillery Practical, Artillery Theoretical, Rocket Practical, Rocket Theoretical, Naval Engineering

Tactical Bomber Tactics, Small Ship Theoretical, Big Ship Theoretical, Carrier Theoretical, Submarine Practical, Submarine Theoretical, Electronics Practical, Electronics Theoretical, Armor Practical, Armor Theoretical, Aeronautics, Fighter Tactics

Fighter Theoretical, Strategic Bomber Tactics, Armor Focus/Blitzkrieg Tactics??, Combined Arms Tactics, Centralized Execution, Large Unit Tactics, Individual Courage, Naval Training, Carrier Practical, Large Ship Practical, Submarine Missiles Practical?? , Piloting

Empty, CAS Practical, TAC Practical, NAV Practical, STR Practical, Mechanics, Chemistry, Bombing Practical??, Bombing Theoretical??, Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Physics, Large Taskforce Tactics?

Missing from HoI 2 and corresponding replacements if any:
Industrial Engineering [Factory symbol], Technical Efficiency [Gear symbol], Management (subsumed to Leadership?) [Star symbol], Mathematics [Square Root of X Squared symbol], Training (subsumed to Land Formation Practical) [Book symbol], Naval Artillery (subsumed to Artillery) Decentralized Execution, Aircraft Testing (subsumed to Aircraft Type Practical), Infantry Focus, Seamanship (subsumed to Ship Type Practical)
 
pizi said:
IMHO there should be 5 sliders for leadership distribution instead of 4.

We have research, espionage, diplomacy and officers.
Why not include industry?

It could work similar to officers in the army - if you do not assign enough leadership to your industry it will not work with full efficiency.

Any comments?
Click to expand...

Interesting idea that.
 
Maybe the most interesting diary so far. I rely like the basic concepts and look forward to more info later.

This looks good! :)
 
pizi said:
IMHO there should be 5 sliders for leadership distribution instead of 4.

We have research, espionage, diplomacy and officers.
Why not include industry?

It could work similar to officers in the army - if you do not assign enough leadership to your industry it will not work with full efficiency.

Any comments?
Click to expand...

I do agree that leadership should affect industry, but I am fine with "hiding" this relationship by creating a lot more industry techs. It would accomplish the same thing... spend more leadership to get industry improvements.
 
I have a proposal for techs' names. Or at least for these which have "year" names.

Being Germany, you can have the MP38 or the MP40, and the names comes from the developping year (1938 and 1940). Then, in the game you can have some techs which take the year and put it on the name. So you could have the MP39 or Gewehr 45 if you develop them in these years. And, why not, the MP54 or Gewehr 67.

And for "numbers" techs, use of progresival numbers. If you have the Panzer I, the next one will be the Panzer II, and maybe the Panzer VIII :)

Edit: I thought that changing unit names would be nice. For example, if I don't want tanks called Panzer I, II, etc, I could change this to: Paradoxer Tank I, II, III.... or whatevet I want.
 
Last edited:
Looks very interesting.

Only drawback is that every Tech Team I created for HOI2 will be useless for HOI3. :p

But I not complaining. It was real pain to grind internet in search of potential TT for Ethiopia, Afghanistan and other mighty nations. :D
 
Sorry I am getting lost here I thought the green was theoretical and the blue was practical.

If you researched Infantry small arms it would be influenced by your theoretical and practical expertise, you would also gain some extra theoretical expertise indicated by the green infantry at the end of the progress bar.

When you upgraded or built new infantry units you would gain extra Blue practical expertise but only then.
 
I´m sorry if I might be slow, but does the new tech system means that the techs are interconnected now, that is, researching a better cannon should have influence on both tanks, artillery, flak and navy, and if you research a better engine for airplanes it should make all your airplanes better. Wasn´t that how HoI1 worked (I never played that game)?
 
Edit: I thought leadership was listed in DD#7 but was incorrect.

So my question is: Should division types (militia vs inf vs armor) require different number of officers?
 
Last edited:
Alojzy said:
Ok, I understand it's better, but...

Is the Arma 1.3 diplomacy/espionage worth 21 tech teams working simultainously then instead of usual 5? Hell, even 10 teams for that matter? :D

We are talking THIS size of possible exploit. Limits on slider positioning (or on the number of techs developed simultainously) are needed, even if techs now are "smaller" then in HoI2.
Click to expand...

Diminishing returns would be nice.

Like, every "extra" tech being researched costs more leadership then the one preceding it, so it's not a choice between 5 and 21, but more between 5 and 8.
 
Winter War said:
Why would it lower the chance of keeping my troops hidden?
Click to expand...

Because when you radiate "here I am, come kill me with the indirect fire weapon of your choice" signals, the bad guys can figure out where you are.

SIGINT and RDF (Radio Direction Finding) both are WW1 technologies.
 
gunnergoz said:
Given that HOI3 does not cover a 40 year span, tech decay should not reach such drastic losses, but I could see it reaching a 10-20 per cent decay rate over a 10-year span, if no fresh infusion of technology was added to the base.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your point, I think you underestimate the effect of not practicing. No military in the world drills its troops in basic training, then lets them sit on their butts until war is declared. There are constant exercises, refresher training, etc. Being a prepared soldier is the exact opposite of riding a bike: if you don't practice constantly and push yourself to get better, you rapidly lose your skills. Imagine a tank commander who was finished with training at age 20, then spent 40 years sitting in barracks... he's not going to be quite as finely honed as he was, even discounting the fact that most of his subordinates never received any training at all. Or, to take a more recent phenomenon, I know some American force commanders are already concerned that the recent switch to training troops for counter-insurgency warfare has meant they are neglecting training for the sort of massive conflicts they trained for in the Cold War. Not to mention the fact that being trained as a 20-year-old infantry lieutenant doesn't necessarily fully prepare you for being a 30-year-old infantry major: most people advance in rank as they get older, and the demands of serving at a higher rank are very different.

I could reasonably see at least a 20-percentage point decay rate a year for practical experience: many soldiers and officers leave the service before reaching retirement age, and those who don't would have no experience serving at their new ranks and have gathered a lot of rust on the skills they used to have. Look at the Korean War: although the U.S. had managed to acquire a lot of institutional experience in the Second World War, by 1948, the U.S. Eighth Army (which fought well at Luzon and Manila, and was slated for Operation Downfall) had degenerated into a poorly-trained and -equipped force. Three years from battle-hardened veterans to a garrison unit is pretty remarkable, but I'm not sure it's historically unusual.
 
Danielos said:
I´m sorry if I might be slow, but does the new tech system means that the techs are interconnected now, that is, researching a better cannon should have influence on both tanks, artillery, flak and navy, and if you research a better engine for airplanes it should make all your airplanes better. Wasn´t that how HoI1 worked (I never played that game)?
Click to expand...

Yes techs are interconnected to a degree, Im not sure about Cannons but Johan said back in the first tech DD that researching better aircraft engines would carry over to all planes.


Johan said:
To give an example we have a broad theory aeronautic engineering, that covers the majority of aircraft techs as a theory, however practical is divided up into 3 narrower categories, single engine (FTR, INT & CAS), twin engine (TAC & NAV) and four engine (STR & TRS). We also have the ability that one technology can give bonuses to as many unit types as we like. So for aircraft, you can have very general techs like aircraft engine that boost all aircraft (yes you can but a Merlin Engine on your Lancaster bomber), practical group techs like single engine airframe (these improve FTR, INT & CAS) and finally highly focuses techs like air launched anti ship weapons that only improve NAV (this tech also gains bonuses for accumulate naval research experience)
Click to expand...

I would assume that Guns/Cannons would also work in a similar way. So researching a better Tank Cannon would also carry over to AT guns but probably not carry over to artillery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back