• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove Magna aswell, Multimatic and Magna were the same company (Magna was a division of Multimatic).

I guess you are talking about that picture:
qyeq8h.gif

(found it after posting here).

Yeah, I was talking about that one, however, if nothing else appears...

Coded as followed:
Code:
1512;Alexandros Zannas;;3;1930;[B]1945[/B][/QUOTE]

This means we still need to find another leader, for later in the game.

Are any of the ministers or Airleaders availible for Greece, useable of TT's? Or is there another person useable?

I don't know who this guys is, but I looked up Alexandros Zannas on Google.gr, and found this:
[URL="http://lefobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/blog-post_3679.html"]http://lefobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/blog-post_3679.html[/URL]
 
Last edited:
USA
T_USA_DetroitArsenal.bmp

T_USA_Stanford.bmp

NASA will be done later.

GER
T_GER_Lurssen.bmp

T_GER_Krauss-Maffei.bmp


DFR
T_GER_Krauss-Maffei.bmp


South Africa
T_SAF_SimonsTownDockyard.bmp

Escom
T_SAF_ESCOM.bmp

University
T_SAF_UniversityWitwatersrand.bmp

Iscor: I was not able to get an old picture for it.
Armscor: No picture of the factory. However we can use one of their product. Unfortunately most that google spits out are recent development and not Cold War era. Do anyone know a model which was used then?

Iscor (now AcelorMittal) gave me an idea. It has a phillipine branch. That can be used as a TT for PHI.
 
As I mentioned above I think that Germans were not at the same level of Soviets on tanks. I think that you can easily check that: T34 was by far better than the PZKV4. More easy to build, to maintain, to drive, etc. Very difficult to destroy and so on. Panther and Tiger were not that much good. This is an opinion and I would not enter in a discussion about that but I would step in regarding the USA skills on that tech. 6 should be fair enough because the first tanks were crappy (hence USA deserves not more than 4) and afterwards the tech improved but it remained quite behind.
I know that is a common representation, but I don't think it's either completely justified nor entirely due to the quality of the design teams or the resources available to them. Firstly the US tanks were streets ahead of the German ones in terms of reliability and (later) ease of maintainance, speed, etc. Tank-to-tank, of course, they were inferior - but that was arguably due to doctrine and policy choices, not tank design. The view at the time (notably attributed to Patton) was that 'tanks are not supposed to go up against other tanks - they by-pass them to reach their objective' ("Pattons view was that we needed fast tanks to go to the enemys rear to disrupt supply and command elements, did not warrant tanks like the Pershing."). As a result the development of the Pershing tank was put on hold in 1943 and the decision made to stick with the Sherman - which was growing gradually more obsolete...
 
I know that is a common representation, but I don't think it's either completely justified nor entirely due to the quality of the design teams or the resources available to them. Firstly the US tanks were streets ahead of the German ones in terms of reliability and (later) ease of maintainance, speed, etc. Tank-to-tank, of course, they were inferior - but that was arguably due to doctrine and policy choices, not tank design. The view at the time (notably attributed to Patton) was that 'tanks are not supposed to go up against other tanks - they by-pass them to reach their objective' ("Pattons view was that we needed fast tanks to go to the enemys rear to disrupt supply and command elements, did not warrant tanks like the Pershing."). As a result the development of the Pershing tank was put on hold in 1943 and the decision made to stick with the Sherman - which was growing gradually more obsolete...

This tank was produced for 1 year and half until December 1942.
Aberdean_proving_grounds_023.JPG


I think that it is a clear example of crappy design (the WWII started in 1939) that shows how far USA was from Germans and Soviets on tank tech.

EDIT

The tank destroyer doctrine
Gen. Lesley J. McNair was head of Army Ground Forces. McNair, an artilleryman, pushed the tank destroyer doctrine within the U.S. Armored Forces. Tanks were to support the infantry and exploit breakthroughs, and avoid tank-to-tank battles. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by the tank destroyer force, composed of a mix of towed and self-propelled tank destroyers. Towed "tank destroyers" were simply towed antitank guns. Self-propelled tank destroyers, called "motorized gun carriages", looked like tanks but were lightly armored with open topped turrets. The tank destroyers were supposed to be faster and carry more powerful anti-tank guns than tanks; armor was sacrificed for speed. The tank destroyer doctrine played a large role in the lack of urgency in improving the firepower of the M4 Sherman, as the emphasis was always on its role as infantry support.[15]

McNair approved the 76mm upgrade to the M4 Sherman and production of the 90mm M36 tank destroyer, but he staunchly opposed development of the T26 and other proposed heavy tanks during the crucial period of 1943 because he saw no "battle need" for them.

In mid-1943, Lt. General Devers, now commander of U.S. forces in the European Theater of Operations, asked for 250 T26s for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused. Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as they could be produced. Soon after the Normandy invasion, General Eisenhower urgently requested heavy tanks (now designated M26 Pershing), but McNair's continued opposition had delayed production. General Marshall intervened again and the tanks were eventually brought into production. But combat use of the M26 was delayed til near the end of the war. A few finally entered combat on February 25, 1945, too late to have any effect on the battlefield.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
 
Last edited:
Germany produced Panzer IIs until 1945, does that mean they had no better designs or were behind on tank development? That tank is a Grant variant as sent to the British Commonwealth forces - most notably in N. Africa - where they helped out at a time when the Commonwealth resources and tank development wre stretched very thin. The whole M3 model was a stop-gap measure designed and built quickly because the US was behind - but it was behind due to lack of investment/attention given, not because of having no talented designers or industrial base for development. Compare that to, say, Italy, where the need was greater and talent available, but the industrial base in vehicle mass production was just not available.

One of the first things the original HoI showed me, interestingly, was that playing as UK I suddenly understood the "poor tank development" of the Allies - particularly Britain. Looking from that perspective, approaching WW2, I realised that there were some key things I needed in terms of technology. State-of-the-art fighter/interceptor aircraft was one, excellent submarine hunters a second, encryption/decryption a third and radar a fourth. After that CV technology, industrial mass production tech, bomber techs and air and naval doctrines. Then land doctrines and uprated infantry. Tanks? Yeah, if someone wants to give me them that would be neat, but spend resources on them? Join the queue, the end is that way...
 
Germany produced Panzer IIs until 1945, does that mean they had no better designs or were behind on tank development? That tank is a Grant variant as sent to the British Commonwealth forces - most notably in N. Africa - where they helped out at a time when the Commonwealth resources and tank development wre stretched very thin. The whole M3 model was a stop-gap measure designed and built quickly because the US was behind - but it was behind due to lack of investment/attention given, not because of having no talented designers or industrial base for development. Compare that to, say, Italy, where the need was greater and talent available, but the industrial base in vehicle mass production was just not available.

One of the first things the original HoI showed me, interestingly, was that playing as UK I suddenly understood the "poor tank development" of the Allies - particularly Britain. Looking from that perspective, approaching WW2, I realised that there were some key things I needed in terms of technology. State-of-the-art fighter/interceptor aircraft was one, excellent submarine hunters a second, encryption/decryption a third and radar a fourth. After that CV technology, industrial mass production tech, bomber techs and air and naval doctrines. Then land doctrines and uprated infantry. Tanks? Yeah, if someone wants to give me them that would be neat, but spend resources on them? Join the queue, the end is that way...

The PZ 2 wasn't the main tank and it was produced for some specific and limited tasks. Regarding the tech focus and war effort of UK I would say that a middle power cannot excel in everything. Germany focussed on Air and Land, UK focussed on Air and Navy. Only URSS and USA had the potential to excel in everything (but URSS had a very troubled history that hampered the country).
In my understanding in modelling WWII in HOI2 we should be close to history as much as we can because there are things that could have changed significantly the war path which are not considered.
For example what if the appeasement was not the Allied strategy? What if Hitler in 1940 had not issued the order to stop all the researches not immediately applicable (e.g. Germans jets in 1941/2?, schnorkel in 1941/2? a nuke bomb in 1945/6?... ) ? What if Mussolini had not interfered with military decisions messing up everything he could?

To come back to the point UK and USA were late on the tank technology and it was because of lack of understanding from USA and lack of understanding and resources from UK. For this reason the skills on that tech should be low as it was in the WWII.
 
It is indeed pretty clear, that US tank design was maybe not THAT good like in GER or SOV. But that is displayed in the lack of technology that the US has in the 1936 scenario. If the US had put all effords in researching better tank designs, like the HoI player does, then they might have been better at a certain time.

Thats the benefit of playing a game. There is indeed a historical basement, but what you (or the AI) does is up to you. The US had a pretty strong industry and therefore would have been able to specialise research to certain points.

The player can do that in AoD, but it will costs him a whole lot of money!
 
It is indeed pretty clear, that US tank design was maybe not THAT good like in GER or SOV. But that is displayed in the lack of technology that the US has in the 1936 scenario. If the US had put all effords in researching better tank designs, like the HoI player does, then they might have been better at a certain time.

Thats the benefit of playing a game. There is indeed a historical basement, but what you (or the AI) does is up to you. The US had a pretty strong industry and therefore would have been able to specialise research to certain points.

The player can do that in AoD, but it will costs him a whole lot of money!

Please see above
 
The PZ 2 wasn't the main tank and it was produced for some specific and limited tasks.
And the M3 was used only in very limited areas once the M4 was available. When it was introduced it fulfilled its mission and addressed some very pressing issues with Allied tanks at that time - that was all that was required of it.

Regarding the tech focus and war effort of UK I would say that a middle power cannot excel in everything. Germany focussed on Air and Land, UK focussed on Air and Navy. Only URSS and USA had the potential to excel in everything (but URSS had a very troubled history that hampered the country).
Agreed.

In my understanding in modelling WWII in HOI2 we should be close to history as much as we can because there are things that could have changed significantly the war path which are not considered.
For example what if the appeasement was not the Allied strategy?
No other strategy made any sense - at least, not for Britain or the USA. Britain in particular stood to lose a huge amount from war - and did so.

What if Hitler in 1940 had not issued the order to stop all the researches not immediately applicable (e.g. Germans jets in 1941/2?, schnorkel in 1941/2? a nuke bomb in 1945/6?... )?
Or the focus on industrial concentration on the invasion of the USSR would have been lost and Barbarossa would never have been pulled off. Indeed - interesting conjectures to be made.

What if Mussolini had not interfered with military decisions messing up everything he could?
Politicians trying to be generals was a feature of the war for many nations!

To come back to the point UK and USA were late on the tank technology and it was because of lack of understanding from USA and lack of understanding and resources from UK. For this reason the skills on that tech should be low as it was in the WWII.
I hardly think the designers that developed the Chaffee and the Pershing lacked either understanding or talent (or resources). The lack was in political focus and doctrinal will, not poor tech teams, in my view.
 
I agree, that new implemented techteams should not be significant better than the current ones.

The standard tank-teams of US are Christies and Marmon Harington (+Ford). I agree that adding new techteams with skill 9 or 8 would make the balancing a bit harder. Maybe a tank-team should get level 7 or something, but not the perfect skills to research tanks significant more effective then in HoI2.
 
I am in no way in control of this thread, but can we please stop arguing about Tanks?
 
I agree, that new implemented techteams should not be significant better than the current ones.

The standard tank-teams of US are Christies and Marmon Harington (+Ford). I agree that adding new techteams with skill 9 or 8 would make the balancing a bit harder. Maybe a tank-team should get level 7 or something, but not the perfect skills to research tanks significant more effective then in HoI2.
Actually in this case is should not be any better than the existing one. USA has quite some teams. For it we are now implementing teams that would be 2nd or 3rd best choices.
When we implement an university which doubles the capacity of a 3 IC country to research nuclear reactor. it is fine, it won't have that reactor if controlled by the AI. Nor would it have nukes in 1945. But a superpower needs not be any more powerful than already is.
 
I think it would be good to arrange the changelog in a way, where you can see the daily changes.
I tried the file and there are some pictures missing right now, i think it would be good to comment the teams with no pictures out till they are implemented. In that way the game would not be released with missing pictures.
 
Okay, my computer is back and like new!:) I've also downloaded the Pack.
 
I think it would be good to arrange the changelog in a way, where you can see the daily changes.
I tried the file and there are some pictures missing right now, i think it would be good to comment the teams with no pictures out till they are implemented. In that way the game would not be released with missing pictures.

I would suggest you reading the post e.g.:
Austria - Maj. von Mauser done, Cardus done many pics are missed
 
Actually in this case is should not be any better than the existing one. USA has quite some teams. For it we are now implementing teams that would be 2nd or 3rd best choices.
When we implement an university which doubles the capacity of a 3 IC country to research nuclear reactor. it is fine, it won't have that reactor if controlled by the AI. Nor would it have nukes in 1945. But a superpower needs not be any more powerful than already is.

I fully agree
 
This means we still need to find another leader, for later in the game.

Are any of the ministers or Airleaders availible for Greece, useable of TT's? Or is there another person useable?

I don't know who this guys is, but I looked up Alexandros Zannas on Google.gr, and found this:
http://lefobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/blog-post_3679.html

I am going to search for one another leader of Airforce now and see if anyone can be used as a tt... Perhaps I can find someone (till now was looking only in the 1930-1940 period...) I am also quite positive that I can find a pic of Zannas, I just found a "slideshow" with commentary, which has almost all the photos I have met on my airforce research till now and some more, so, perhaps he is there....

The guy you have found has nothing to do with the Airforce, he was just the first dead of the Grek-Italian war in 1940-1941... I will let you know in a while of what I found...

P.S.
Cardus, all the pictures I have posted were already uploaded in servers, I am going to edit my previous posts and post the link under each one too
 
I am going to search for one another leader of Airforce now and see if anyone can be used as a tt... Perhaps I can find someone (till now was looking only in the 1930-1940 period...) I am also quite positive that I can find a pic of Zannas, I just found a "slideshow" with commentary, which has almost all the photos I have met on my airforce research till now and some more, so, perhaps he is there....

The guy you have found has nothing to do with the Airforce, he was just the first dead of the Grek-Italian war in 1940-1941... I will let you know in a while of what I found...

P.S.
Cardus, all the pictures I have posted were already uploaded in servers, I am going to edit my previous posts and post the link under each one too

Thank you

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armscor_(South_Africa) Armscor should start very late:

Armscor (or ARMSCOR), the Armaments Corporation of South Africa (in Afrikaans: Krygstuig Korporasie van Suid-Afrika, or Krygkor) is a South African government-supported weapon-producing conglomerate that was officially established in 1968[1] primarily as response to the international sanctions by the United Nations against South Africa that began in 1963 and were formalized in 1967.[2]

@Manfred
Could you please provide some more insights about the strating date?
 
Proposal for Greek tech team that will replace Alexandro Zanna:

Name of TT: STYA (Sxoli Texnikon Ypaxiomatikon Aeroporias - School of Technical Officers of Airforce)
Skill of TT: 3
Traits of TT: aircraft_testing, electronics
Years active for TT (from 1930-1970): 1949-end

(First of all, I would suggest extending Zanna to 1948 or 1949, since we don't know exact death so there is no 4 year gap in htese 2... Now, this is another school of airforce in Greece, aimed in more "technological" parts of the flying process, established in 1949. I suggest skill 3 since in teh beginning they were not that efficient (Greece was destroyed by the civil war, and these "specialities" were something new for teh Greek army and airforce). Suggested traits are: electronices (due to the technical speciality of the school) and aircraft testing (they were the ones doing some testing for the technical parts etc).
Photos:
2nqs0hu.jpg

http://tinypic.com/r/2nqs0hu/6

149bbdy.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/149bbdy.jpg

au7gut.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/au7gut.jpg


Searching for that Zannas photo now... Starting to feel he was a ghost or something....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.