Actually almost whole tree. The idea of identical trees for each country, when development of armored troops in major countries was so different, doesn't let for at least cursory copy of that differences. Sandbox mean neither 'screw historical conditions' nor 'sf over historical plausibility'.
More accurately from the POV of 1936, the development of armored troops in major countries
will be different. It would be a poor HoI if we were not allowed to influence how our nation's weapons develop. I do not see why it should be destined that the USA must produce the Chaffee and that Germany must produce the Maus. Nor would it make sense for the AI to be stuck in the same path as history because in Paradox games history deviates from it's historical path. For example if Germany did not rush Tigers and Panthers to the Eastern Front in '42, the USSR would not have needed to rush the development of IS tanks in order to counter them. However we of course do expect the historical path of tank development to follow history to some degree.
Mobile Warfare: This path focuses on mobile mechanized units and is the default German path. Armour and motorized/mechanized units will have the largest gains in this path.
In EU4 we have nations scripted to take certain ideas, for example AI Castile is scripted to take Exploration. In HoI4 we might expect Germany to research technologies which make their tank variants more suitable to a moving battlefield. As a result it will be very unlikely that the Pz2 fielded by Germany will be identical to the FCM 36 or whatever tanks the French have in the same slot.
- Leichtertraktor was neither FT-17 (I don't remember if the developers were going to fix LTs icon) nor equivalent of WWI tank, nay, it wasn't even the first german tank in interbellum. The first was Grosstraktor (first development approach dates back to 1925), while first plans of Leichtertraktor dates back to 1928. Similarly, first GTs prototype was built in 1928, LTs - in 1930. Moreover, it's difficult to prove derivation of PzKpfw I in a straight line from LT, but, of course, for the game we can take such simplification.
- Grosstraktor, as I wrote above, was a tank from late twenties, not from 1934. I could write more about it, but I already discussed this question with podcat
here and now I know, that he knows history of german tanks better than experts like Doyle, Chamberlain, Jentz or Spielberger.
You are obsessing over the date, as if it indicates when the vehicle
must be created, it does not. In fact it is a staple of Paradox games that "ahead of time" development can give you a Tech advantage in exchange for a higher research cost. Tank development, like all research, is uneven between nations. The Leichtraktor and the Grosstraktor are were both prototypes developed years before the game starts. The fact that they were developed in parallel is rather incidental. As far as I can tell the Pz1 will be available from the start so it will never make sense to manufacture any Leichttraktors.
The reason those slots exist in those spots are to give other nations, who haven't started tank development by 1936, a place to start. The principle of creating a prototype of a smaller tracked vehicle like the Leichtraktor would be a requirement before fielding a large tracked vehicle like the Grosstraktor makes sense to me.
- A weird gap between 'Grosstraktor wannabe NbFz' and Tiger. Tiger didn't come from NbFz, between them were many projects like Durchbruchwagen and Henschels' VK 3001, VK 6501 and finally VK 3601, which will be nice addition to german tree.
The reason the Grosstraktor slot exists is to give you an opportunity to manufacture ahistorical counterparts to the Char B, mainstays in World of Tanks, some of which you mention. None of these popular WoT vehicles were ever fielded in numbers. You have set in your mind that you want to build specific tank prototypes you know from WoT and that's fine, but it's up to you to develop them under the umbrella name 'Grosstraktor' which covers all German Heavy Tank development before the Tiger.
As gamer_1745 pointed out, all the early heavy tank prototypes went under Grosstraktor. Initially we had the thing titled Neubaufahrzeug , but classifying both this and the Leichtraktor as traktors is more consistent, and also makes for cool story flavor about the german tank program. As for the Leichtraktor we dont currently have unique icons for "late WW1 tanks", they are all symbolized by a FT-17 (since it was the most successful of the class). Not sure if we'll bother adding unique art for those.
The lead designer was nice enough to explain why the tree was designed this way. In contrast WoT vomits a plethora of different tanks at their players, which makes sense for their game, but would make no sense in HoI because it is incredibly inefficient to mass-manufacture many different types of Heavy Tanks which all essentially fulfill the same role.
Also there are no Tiger (P), which cross out arguments under the title 'it's sandbox game' and 'it's all about our choices'. If I can't build tanks made by Porsche instead of Henschel, where is my choice?
In Hearts of Iron a 'Tiger' is a vehicle unit, built on production lines by factories, of which German Heavy tank units are comprised. If Tech Teams return to HoI4, you can have them designed by Porsche, Henschel or even IG Farben. Otherwise the design process will be abstracted. You can choose to modify some characteristics of this vehicle unit through research and development, but the parameters of the game are likely to be that specific design characteristics such as turret glacias or track width are abstracted.
- The only improvement of Tiger II could be E-75, not E-50. Even in WoT it is done correctly.
I don't know why you think the Tech tree of WoT should be cannon for HoI4, they are totally different games with a drastically different focus. The Tiger II was judged to be a failure from a Cost-Benefit POV. They were too unreliable, consumed too much fuel, too large of a target and monstrously expensive to build and maintain. Furthermore turret design and gunnery had technologically progressed to a degree where tanks didn't have to be 70-ton monsters to be able penetrate the thickest armor. So in the immediate post-war the Heavy Tank concept was largely abandoned and only a few more were built but they were massively outnumbered by the 'MBTs', which were the M-46, Centurion and T-54. The E-50 would've belonged to that class of vehicle, but I have a strong feeling that in the late 1940s plan for the E-75 would have gone the way of the American T29 .
- Weird links between Tigers and Panzer IV & Panther. I hope they don't mean that we can develop Tigers from medium tanks or vice versa. It's very hard to defense such idea.
I'm pretty sure those links mean that experience gained producing and using the Pz4 will help you research and give you experience to improve future Panthers and Tigers. This makes sense. The only alternative would be that Germany would only be able to gain knowledge of how to design a Tiger from their experience with Grosstraktors.
- Panzer I & II question. If I remember correctly, in game they're light tanks, just whole line is signed as 'medium'. Of course it's correct, Panzer I from the very beginning was created as light tank, quoting Panzer Tracts: Krupp had been selected by Wa.Prw.6 to work on the detailed design of a small light tracked tractor named Kleintraktor. Armament was to consist of a 2cm machinegun. Powered by an air-cooled engine rated at 60 metric horsepower, its total weight was not to exceed 3 metric tons. Kleintraktor was of course the earliest project of what was later called Panzer I.
The Pz1 and Pz2 are 'light' compared to the 'Grosstraktor' model prototypes which were never fielded. This purely cosmetic distinction is driving people crazy, it's probably going to be changed anyways.
- Whole line of medium tanks... Well, Panzer I/II/III/IV was more or less simultaneous projects, it's hard to say that one derived strictly from the second. Also Panther should have equivalents such as VK 3002 (DB) or T-25. It will be a nice sandbox thing.
Beyond the Pz3/Pz4 thing I've already covered, I'd rather not have the Tech tree cluttered with as many redundant vehicle prototypes as WoT. This is simply not where the focus of the game should be. Again you are free to design your tanks to be a close approximation to your favorite WoT tank, but there is no way that the VK 30.02 would ever be called "VK 30.02" if it had gotten beyond the prototype stage, therefore the vehicle is going to be called "Panther".
- VK 1602 question. The best thing, which can be done here, is adding Luchs (which was called also Panzerspähwagen II Ausf. L, it doesn't need to be included in Panzer II slot) and T-15, then leaving the choice to players.
Each slot represents a different chassis, or model, of vehicle. Giving the Luchs a separate slot would be redundant, as it is a very advanced variant of the Pz2. I think the majority of your misreading of HoI4's tech tree comes from WoT. That is in WoT different variants of the same vehicle are given different slots on that game's tech tree. That is generally not the case in this game.
I won't elaborate about the erroneous assignment of tanks to date, because it's the result of 'the same tree for all countries'.
Elaborating on this was basically your entire issue with the Liecht/Grosstraktor.
.
