Armour, Artillery, Infantry Tech FAQ

[McNaughton]

Hey everybody, found this that I wrote a while back. While, for the most part, it still applies, there may be some discrepencies from when I wrote it, to when CORE2 was released.

Part I: Different Units

Part II: Blueprints

Part III: New Units

Part IV: Revised Units

Part V: Research Tips

###############################
### Part I: Different Units ###
###############################

In CORE, nations will have units that are different from one another. There are two ways that this is done.

#1. Through Brigade attachments.

#2. Through hard-coded divisional assignments.

First, brigades allow the player to individually customize their own military. They can decide to be a modern mobile force
by using armoured brigades (AC, Light Tank, Infantry Tank, TD, SP-Art), but they are expensive and use a lot of fuel. Or,
they can customize their military to be a non-oil using force (by using anti-tank guns, artillery, infantry recon).

Second, each nation starts off with a hard-coded set of units. The main difference between the units players have are size.
Divisions are divided between 2 Regiment and 3 Regiment forces. This results in a large division or a small division.
Differences are somewhat minimal (around 20%), but an individual large division should easily be able to take on a
contemporary small division. This requires that more smaller divisions be deployed. All values are different to some extent
meaning that a small division is weaker, yet cheaper to build and maintain than a large division. Unfortunately the only
way to do this is to manually assign unit size from the beginning of the game, due to the HoI2 system of upgrades.

Another part to this, which allows for more flexibility, is in the armour tree. Choices here are more in the control of the
player.

First, there are two choices of light tanks one can develop. A MG armed version, which is cheaper, and designed for recon,
or a gun-armed version which is more expensive and designed for combat. Many nations already have this choice made for them
by 1936. This allows for nations like Russia to field their powerful T-26 tanks, while Germany to field their PzKpfw.II.

Second, there are two choices of medium tanks one can develop. A heavy version, which is more expensive yet slightly more
powerful than a light version. Many nations already have this choice made for them by 1936. This allows nations like France
to have a good quality Medium Tank by 1936 (you cannot have mediums until 1938 unless you research heavy medim tanks), as
well as Russia having heavier tanks throughout the war.

Third, there are two choices of infantry tanks one can develop. A heavy version, which is more expensive, time consuming but
very powerful. A light assault gun version which is comparable to a medium tank, cheaper and faster to build but not as
powerful as a full fledged Infantry Tank. Infantry tanks, like the British Matilda II can be developed, or, Assault Guns
like the German StuG series can be developed. This is all contingent on the philosophy of armoured warfare you choose. If
you choose an armoured Philosoply, there is no room in your military for Infantry Tanks, and must rely on Assualt Guns. If
you choose a Cavalry/Infantry Philosophy, there is a need for an infantry tank in your military.

Third, there are two ways one can develop tanks. The basic way allows for a thorough development of all aspects of the
armour tree from Heavy, Infantry, Philosophy, Light and Medium. The second way is faster, but, locks off a lot of possible
developments. The first way locks off all Light Armoured Divisions (accessing only light tank brigades), but this is their
only limitation. The second way accesses Light Armoured Divisions, but, locks off medium Armoured Divisions, plus all
heavy tanks, most Infantry Tanks and Armoured Cars. The second way offers quick advancement through the tree, but in the end
your armoured units will be older, and less diverse.

###########################
### Part II: Blueprints ###
###########################

There has been a heavy use of blueprints shared between and within the Infantry and Armour/Artillery technology trees.
Reasoning for this is that similar equipment and organization was developed between the trees, meaning that if you developed
a unit in Infantry Tech, a lot of the developments apply to an Armour Tech.

For example, a 1938 Motorized Division shares similar organization and components to a 1938 Armoured Division (the Motorized
artillery, infantry and divisional support). So, if you research the 1938 Motorized Division first, it is easier to develop
the 1938 Armoured Division (but not vice-versa).

Blueprints are also shared within a single tech tree. For example, if you develop medium tanks before light tanks, it
becomes easier to develop light tanks. A 1938 Medium Tank tech will give a blueprint to 1936 Light Tanks (not vice versa).
Basically, older equipment will be easier to develop as new techniques and equipment has already been developed.

###########################
### Part III: New Units ###
###########################

Attachments

#1. Infantry Tanks: Removed Super_Heavy_Tanks and replaced the attachment with Infantry Tanks. There are two forms, Infantry
Tank and Assault Gun. They can only be attached to slow infantry (Mountain, Regular Infantry, Reserve Infantry)

Infantry Tank: A heavy design, with a lot of statistics, but it is expensive and time consuming to build.

Assault Gun: A lighter design, based off of the chassis of a medium tank, is cheap and fast to build, but stats are not as
good as an Infantry Tank.

#2. Recon Units: Instead of just armoured cars, this has been expanded into all armoured and non-armoured Recon. Recon bonus
for organization will be gained in Infantry HQ techs, not for individual models (meaning that older units will still be
useful later in the game).

Tankette: The first of the armoured recon units, it is light, yet armoured. Tankettes better fit in recon than as a combat
tank.

Armoured Cars: The further development of armoured recon. They end up being the most powerful versions of recon combining
Infantry and large numbers of Armoured Vehicles.

Soft Recon: Spanning from Cavalry, to Bycicle, to Motorcycle, to Motorized, to Mechanized, these units are larger, yet not
armoured (Mech recon is). They are a cheaper and less oil intensive solution for recon.

Divisions

#3. Reserve Infantry Division: The Militia division has been modified to become the a new form of Infantry Division. This
unit is not as individually powerful as a Regular Infantry Division, nor does it use fuel in significant amounts. It is the
basis for most nations, rather than Regular Infantry. Equipment is mostly modern, but is lacking in areas such as anti-tank,
(about 50%) anti-aircraft (about 50%), support and supply (relying more on old horse-bound transportation). Organization is
lower, but recruitment time is also decreased (cost has been equally increased to match). Attachments are more limited as
well. This unit should fare well against other soft targets, but, should be very weak against hard, mobile and air units.

##############################
### Part IV: Revised Units ###
##############################

Many units have been revised, with statistics changed.

DIVISIONS

Regular Infantry: The core of a military. While maybe not the most numerous (with the inclusion of Reserve Infantry), this
unit is the basis for modern warfare. The bulk of equipment is modern, but still relying on some older equipment. Stats are
the basis for all other land unit. Some are better, some are worse, Infantry is the most balanced.

Motorized Infantry: The change here is that Motorized Infantry represents a very fast version of regular infantry. Virtually
every piece of equipment is modern, giving it an edge in both strategic and tactical mobility (represented by a greater
toughness value). Units start off as Semi-Motorized, which are faster than Leg-Infantry, but slower than later (total)
Motorized units. Eventually Motorized divisions appear (1941) which have about twice as many vehicles, which increases their
speed drastically, but also their cost in both oil and IC.

Cavalry: Restricted now to a mere shell of its former self, cavalry moves at the same speed of infantry, but, gains the
motorized division's tactical mobility (represented by a greater toughness value). This is a cheap, yet strategically slow
version of Motorized troops, which inevitably becomes statistically obsolete.

Mechanized Infantry: Also a shell of its former self, it's force is 2/3 Motorized, 1/3 Armoured Infantry, with attached
Light Tank Brigade. Individually it is very expensive, yet, the only infantry unit with significant (independent of Brigade
attachment) softness decrease. You also gain a combined forces bonus with Motorized and Mechanized. Mechanized units end up
being more expensive than Motorized, yet less expensive than Armoured. They are big fuel and IC guzzlers.

Reserve Infantry: (See above)

Mountain Infantry: Resembling a cross-breed between Regular Infantry and Reserve Infantry, mountain forces rely on older
methods of movement (Pack Mules), but have a greater rate of modern weaponry (Anti-Tank, Anti-Air). Strategically slow, like
a reserve division, they are tactically as powerful as a regular division, plus movement and combat bonus' in specific
terrain and weather (hill, mountain, snow, blizzard, freezing).

Marine Infantry: These units have been individually nerfed, and made more difficult to research, due to their specailist
nature. No longer are they infantry with the ability to invade islands well, they are composed of their assault force, which
lacks larger artillery, and heavy anti-tank and anti-aircraft. Designed to make a beachead, they cannot hold it on their own
without infantry support. You must really decide if you must devote a lot of research and production for a unit that may
only ever have one battle.

Airborne Infantry: Like Marine, these units have been lightened up significantly (especially the early versions). Unless
quickly supported by ground troops, airborne should not last long. Always a generation behind in heavy equipment, facing
an infantry assault against even forces, the chance of victory should be 50:50. Against any armoured resistence, an airborne
unit will face disaster.

Armour: (See above) They are now very expensive, between 2-3x the cost to build as a contemporary Regular Infatnry Division.
A single light tank costs about as much as 2 Artillery guns. With 150-300 Light tanks in starting divisions, and medium
tanks appearing (they cost twice as much as a light tank), the cost of an armoured division can become very expensive. A
single 1938 Armoured Regiment of 150 tanks costs as slightly more to raise than an entire 1944 Infantry Division.

They are split into two major eras.

1936-1940: Tank era. Divisions of this era are equpped with two regiments of tanks, and minimial infantry/artillery support.
Good for exploiting breakthroughs, they are weak defending units, and are very expensive. Very low softness.

1941-1944: Tank era. Divisions lose one of their tank regiments, but gain a full compliment of infantry and artillery. They
are more flexible, yet just as powerful as early divisions, but lack as much softness. The 1941 Division actually uses less
oil than the 1938 Division, but is individually more powerful.

Light Tank Divisions, designed only by a specific path, are cheaper versions. From day one they rely on more infantry, but
use tanks that are considerably more obsolete. While a force on the battlefield early in the war, by 1942 they were
becoming outclassed by increasingly more powerful medium tanks. Increasing the power of these divisions through attachments
is possible, but since attachments are limited, as the war goes on these units will be comparable more to mechanized
divisions than armoured.

BRIGADES

Anti-Tank: Now a more viable unit, this battalion of Anti-Tank guns is the only way that a desperate nation can increase
their HA values. Individually these units are very cheap to build and maintain, but now much more difficult to research.

Anti-Air: This battalion is a powerful way to increase the attack ability of land units against air units. This is the only
way to get heavy AA Guns into your units (division al TO&E only goes up to 40mm Guns), and an attached unit will play havoc
with attacking bombers. However, no longer will this unit be the equivalent to an anti-tank brigade, as there is no HA
value. Done primarily for game-balance.

Artillery: The most powerful way to gain extra SA values, this regimental sized unit is expensive, and adds a lot of
firepower, but the un-motorized version is slow, and only attachable to slow infantry (makes them even slower!). Motorization
removes this speed penalty, but at a cost of using oil.

SP-Artillery: This battalion is less powerful than the Artillery Regiment, but, adds a much needed SA factor for fast moving
units (motorized, mechanized, armour).

Tank Destroyer: This unit offers greater bang for your buck. It takes an older, and cheaper, tank design and fits a new gun
barrel on it. It is less armoured (due to the relatively unarmoured fighting compartment) than even a light tank, but has
a greater HA value matching that of the latest Anti-Tank gun. The difference between an AT gun and a TD, is that a TD offers
a softness bonus, plus toughness bonus.

Light Tank: This unit has two forms (see above). One being recon (giving slight Organization bonus, at a cost of fighting)
and one being combat (with increased HA, no organziation, and greater cost). Designed primarily for a poor nation, this
unit has less HA values than a TD, but, has greater softness decreases.

Infantry Tank: This unit has two forms (see above). Infantry Tanks and Assault Guns are the most powerful armoured units
you can attach to a slow infantry formation (reserve, regular, mountain). They are slow, expensive yet powerful in their
role of increasing the attack ability of a division, as well as decreasing softness. HA values face minor increases, but
with the best armoured increase of SA, except for a SP-Artillery Battalion.

Heavy Tank: This unit is now extremely expensive, time consuming, but, the most powerful battalion sized unit in the game.
It offers almost divisional increases to defensiveness and toughness. It's softness decrease equals that of a Infantry Tank,
and it's HA is unrivalled, and it's SA is substantial as well. It uses up a lot of oil, and supply, and IC to build (plus
time).

Rocket Artillery: Facing a decrease of the number of brigades, rocket artillery is an expensive to research, yet cheap to
build and supply artillery unit. Not as powerful as Medium Artillery, this unit is cheaper to keep in the field for its
firepower. SP-Rocket Artillery is similar to SP-Artillery, but weaker still, yet cheaper still.

Police: There are two units here, one that everyone gets, the other that only a few nations start with. The existing version
of police deals primarily with keeping partisans under control, through suppression. The second unit features a new concept,
being that of a political force designed to 'motivate' the frontline troops. Morale (which increases the regrowth rate of
lost organizaiton) is plentiful in this brigade, meaning that if attached a unit is battle ready faster after a conflict.

Recon: (See above). Designed for organization increases, these soft and hard units keep a formation in battle longer. They
also add toughness values (increasing the success of an attack with minimal casualties), and combat stats as well. Since
they are a regimental sized unit, they are expensive (especially in manpower, being 1/3 of a division), but also have a
greater impact of statistics (which are all well balanced). The soft unit is like attaching an extra third or fourth brigade
to a unit.

#############################
### Part V: Research Tips ###
#############################

#1. Blueprints. Read over techs carefully before you start researching. A lot of them have blueprints for other types of
technologies within and without the current tech field.

EXAMPLES: Light tanks offer blueprints for early Medium Tanks, as well as blueprints to aid in the development of Mechanized
infantry units, along with early Tank Modifications (such as SP-Artillery and Tank Destroyers). One may have the inclination
to skip light tanks (since for the top nations, they only offer brigades) and focus on medium tanks, but, not only will you
gain units, but researching an equivalent medium tank will be much faster (since components from a 1938 Light Tank will tend
to be similar to those of a 1938 Medium Tank).

#2. Research Bonus'. Some technologies, scattered throughout the entire technology system (not just Armour and Infantry)
will give players research bonus'. A -1% research factor will be found in some specific, key prototype, technologies. In
the Infantry Technology tree, these will be found for each Infantry Organization Technology (since this is the key component
for an age of all land Infantry units). For armour, every prototype techology offers players a -1% research cost bonus. It
may pay off for a player to reserach as many prototypes as quickly as possible, to speed up all future research. To
compensate, all computer techs have been eliminated, yet, this way is more useful, and encourages a balanced program of
research, plus total bonus' will be greater, making late war research and development much faster.

[seattle]

Thank you very much. Now it finally makes sense.

Only downside is that most choices are already fixed by the nation you pick.
What-if scenarios are not likely to happen.

The new tech trees, albeit very detailled are also very linear. There are few choices for the player to make.
As Russia the only choice I remember was in the air-doctrines between land-air or air-air or something like that.

It's much better than in vanilla because it finally makes each country different, kudos for that.
I was just hoping for more choices. Would improve the replay-value.

Now research is pretty boring, basically the same in each game. Just research all techs available. Different country, different techs, but still linear.

I miss these heartbreaking choices that can change your fate, difficult choices between this and that, quality and quantity. Reasons to always restart and try it the other way.
Unfortunately the "other way" is to restart as another country.
Hope that you will enable the player to customize his choices a little bit more in the next versions.

[Fiestacat]

Just so I understand this correctly:

MG Armed: Organisation, low cost, no further stat increases.
Gun Armed: No organisation, hard attack increase, higher cost.

Light medium tank: cheaper with lower stats
Heavy medium tank: more expensive and with higher stats

Will the selection of light or medium have any impact on brigade types or other units being made available, or is it purely relating to stats and cost of the armoured divisions you produce?

I don't quite get what the cav/inf and "armored" philosophy unlock, but I assume something along the likes of

"Armored" philosophy gives you access to more allround tanks as well as assault guns, which are less powerful than infantry tanks, and boosts org of these troops.
Cav/Inf philosophy boosts org of cavalry (why?) and removes assault guns from the equation and provides tanks that are roughly their equivalent?

If there's a CSV I can check out as to exactly what the stats of the units from each philosophy at their respective technology levels are that'd be great, this is probably the part that confuses me most.

Some more info on the "tech tree progression" (which countries have them, and what are your arguments in favour of the inclusion or selection of this path?)


Also, some more information about the "selected" techs of classical army, division level, corps and brigade level techs and their effects would be very informative. Thanks for the post though, it clarified many things for me.

[McNaughton]

Originally Posted by seattle

Thank you very much. Now it finally makes sense.

Only downside is that most choices are already fixed by the nation you pick.
What-if scenarios are not likely to happen.

The new tech trees, albeit very detailled are also very linear. There are few choices for the player to make.
As Russia the only choice I remember was in the air-doctrines between land-air or air-air or something like that.

It's much better than in vanilla because it finally makes each country different, kudos for that.
I was just hoping for more choices. Would improve the replay-value.

Now research is pretty boring, basically the same in each game. Just research all techs available. Different country, different techs, but still linear.

I miss these heartbreaking choices that can change your fate, difficult choices between this and that, quality and quantity. Reasons to always restart and try it the other way.
Unfortunately the "other way" is to restart as another country.
Hope that you will enable the player to customize his choices a little bit more in the next versions.

What you want simply cannot be done. Since model upgrade is linear (as far as I know), you cannot switch between different types and such, choosing details nearly as much as in HoI1. Unfortunately, if you have a division type in 1936, your course MUST be set in 1936, otherwize you cannot upgrade this division type to a new formation.

However, I am trying to add more choice, notably in regards to attachments, for later versions. Since many of these new attachments will be researched later in the game (such as MBTs) it will allow players some greater levels of choice in the game.

What to expect in the future.

Choice over infantry tanks (choose wether or not you get Infantry Tanks or Assault guns, some will have the choice made, most won't).

Choice over MBTs (choose wether you go for early MBTs (Panther), or, up-gunned Medium Tanks [Firefly, T-34/85 and Challenger]).

Choice over soft recon (choose wether or not you motorize your cavalry recon attachments or not)

Choice over level of motorization (I believe that you can apply speed bonus' to units, that will stick [it is in vanilla HoI2 for HQs], so I think that speed of units can be chosen by the player)

Choice over specialization of equipment (choose to have Tropicalization, Winterization, Urban Assault Equipment, Amphibious Assault equipment, applied to your land forces).

The Doctrine tree will allow significantly greater choices than the Vanilla one (choose your focus, mechanized or non-mechanized, offensive or defensive, etc., giving organization bonus'/penalties to certain divisions and attachments, as well as cost reductions/increases, and some weather/terrain benefits/penalties).

So, we are trying to get as much 'choice' out of HoI2 as possible. This release was mainly getting the structure of the units, and technologies in place, with further development. However, some stuff (such as divisional size) has to be set at the beginning of the scenario.

[McNaughton]

Originally Posted by Fiestacat

Just so I understand this correctly:

MG Armed: Organisation, low cost, no further stat increases.
Gun Armed: No organisation, hard attack increase, higher cost.

Light medium tank: cheaper with lower stats
Heavy medium tank: more expensive and with higher stats

Correct, however, the choice between Light Medium and Heavy Medium will be eliminated in future post-bugfix versions, as I am going to rely on a newly developed MBT attachment to cover these differences (such as getting T-34 tanks in 1941). This will be less linear than the current design.

Will the selection of light or medium have any impact on brigade types or other units being made available, or is it purely relating to stats and cost of the armoured divisions you produce?

No, it doesn't have any affect on attachments, or other units, and only affects which type of armoured divisions you get.

I don't quite get what the cav/inf and "armored" philosophy unlock, but I assume something along the likes of

"Armored" philosophy gives you access to more allround tanks as well as assault guns, which are less powerful than infantry tanks, and boosts org of these troops.
Cav/Inf philosophy boosts org of cavalry (why?) and removes assault guns from the equation and provides tanks that are roughly their equivalent?

This was mainly the way I was trying to differentiate who would get certain units (such as Infantry Tanks, or Assault Guns) and who would use armoured divisions over light tank battalions. Expect to see this part gone in the new Armour/Artillery release.

If there's a CSV I can check out as to exactly what the stats of the units from each philosophy at their respective technology levels are that'd be great, this is probably the part that confuses me most.

Check out the txt files in the db/units/brigades or divisions directories in armour, and light_armour_brigade to see what these units are (their stats), and then look at the tech in the db/tech/armour_tech.txt file for the changes applied by the two different philosophies.

Some more info on the "tech tree progression" (which countries have them, and what are your arguments in favour of the inclusion or selection of this path?)

Well, generally, a lot of stuff was done based upon looking at TO&Es, OOBs, and general readings on doctrine and unit usage.

Also, some more information about the "selected" techs of classical army, division level, corps and brigade level techs and their effects would be very informative. Thanks for the post though, it clarified many things for me.

Well, this was done in order to give players either of the two (or more) unit types. Either a nation would get 3 Regiment Divisions (through Divisional-centric, basically sleeps all 2 Regiment Divisions), or it gets 2 Regiment Divisions (thorugh Corps-centric, basically sleeps all 3 Regiment Divisions), or there is a mix.

Take Japan. It had large infantry forces, but, small Reserve (representing Independent Mixed Brigades, which were smaller than a division, but, larger than a true 'brigade'). It also had smaller airborne and marine units, so, I gave them a specific tech to give them 3 Regiment Divisions for some types, and 2 Regiment Divisions for other types. It was crude, and in future releases, will be much 'cleaner', possibly allowing players choice of the size of their 'special' troops, such as airborne and marine (instead of it being already chosen for you).

[McNaughton]

Ok, as a teaser, here's what I have so far for the Armour and Artillery technology tree.

[Fiestacat]

Originally Posted by McNaughton

Correct, however, the choice between Light Medium and Heavy Medium will be eliminated in future post-bugfix versions, as I am going to rely on a newly developed MBT attachment to cover these differences (such as getting T-34 tanks in 1941). This will be less linear than the current design.

Is the choice for attachments purely because of the greater flexibility offered or do you have other arguments against introducing the MBT as a division sized unit? And should you go for attachments, what units will able to accept these?

No, it doesn't have any affect on attachments, or other units, and only affects which type of armoured divisions you get.

Right, thanks for clearing that up. .

This was mainly the way I was trying to differentiate who would get certain units (such as Infantry Tanks, or Assault Guns) and who would use armoured divisions over light tank battalions. Expect to see this part gone in the new Armour/Artillery release.

Would it be asking too much if you could give us here a possible sneak peek as to what the changes will look like?

Check out the txt files in the db/units/brigades or divisions directories in armour, and light_armour_brigade to see what these units are (their stats), and then look at the tech in the db/tech/armour_tech.txt file for the changes applied by the two different philosophies.

Thanks a bunch, I'll do that.

Well, generally, a lot of stuff was done based upon looking at TO&Es, OOBs, and general readings on doctrine and unit usage.

Could you elaborate this a bit more, please? How does this affect game balance, will nations with the "fast" choice still be able to remain competative with the slower tree?

Well, this was done in order to give players either of the two (or more) unit types. Either a nation would get 3 Regiment Divisions (through Divisional-centric, basically sleeps all 2 Regiment Divisions), or it gets 2 Regiment Divisions (thorugh Corps-centric, basically sleeps all 3 Regiment Divisions), or there is a mix.

Take Japan. It had large infantry forces, but, small Reserve (representing Independent Mixed Brigades, which were smaller than a division, but, larger than a true 'brigade'). It also had smaller airborne and marine units, so, I gave them a specific tech to give them 3 Regiment Divisions for some types, and 2 Regiment Divisions for other types. It was crude, and in future releases, will be much 'cleaner', possibly allowing players choice of the size of their 'special' troops, such as airborne and marine (instead of it being already chosen for you).

Concise and convincing, thanks for explaining this. .

[Fiestacat]

Originally Posted by McNaughton

Ok, as a teaser, here's what I have so far for the Armour and Artillery technology tree.

http://www.myfilehut.com/userfiles/1..._artillery.png

Looking good!

[seattle]

@McNaughton

That's what I thougt, the hardcoded simplified tech tree of HoI2 is its greatest weakness.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your effort. Not only all the ardous work of programming, but also your effort in this forum including detailled replies to questions. Thank you very much for that.

Your ideas for future versions are pretty much what I had in mind.
Great!

[McNaughton]

Originally Posted by Fiestacat

Is the choice for attachments purely because of the greater flexibility offered or do you have other arguments against introducing the MBT as a division sized unit? And should you go for attachments, what units will able to accept these?

Flexibility is the reasoning behind this choice. Since this attachment appears later in the game, players make a conscious choice about what to use here. If it was a division, then the choice would have to be made in 1936.

Would it be asking too much if you could give us here a possible sneak peek as to what the changes will look like?

Look up

Could you elaborate this a bit more, please? How does this affect game balance, will nations with the "fast" choice still be able to remain competative with the slower tree?

Nations with the 'fast choice' basically have limitations on what they can develop (primarily light tanks), but, they can get there slightly faster than taking the main route of development. It was done so nations with poor tech teams, and only a few of them, could get a 'reasonable' armoured force if they tried really hard.

[McNaughton]

Originally Posted by seattle

@McNaughton

That's what I thougt, the hardcoded simplified tech tree of HoI2 is its greatest weakness.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your effort. Not only all the ardous work of programming, but also your effort in this forum including detailled replies to questions. Thank you very much for that.

Your ideas for future versions are pretty much what I had in mind.
Great!

Thanks for your feedback and compliments!

[The Wookiee]

McNaughton, excellent work on the tech tree. It makes much more sense now, and it's a lot better Keep up the good work!

[Fiestacat]

Originally Posted by McNaughton

Flexibility is the reasoning behind this choice. Since this attachment appears later in the game, players make a conscious choice about what to use here. If it was a division, then the choice would have to be made in 1936.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here. How would divisionalising the armored unit prevent "conscious choice" about what to use?

Nations with the 'fast choice' basically have limitations on what they can develop (primarily light tanks), but, they can get there slightly faster than taking the main route of development. It was done so nations with poor tech teams, and only a few of them, could get a 'reasonable' armoured force if they tried really hard.

So I can only expect nations in places such as South America, Middle eastern Minors and assorted puppets to come predisposed towards this tree?

[McNaughton]

[quote=Fiestacat]I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here. How would divisionalising the armored unit prevent "conscious choice" about what to use?

Well, once you get an armoured division (most get it in 1936), then in order for everything to upgrade to one another, you have to have models in a linear pattern. For example, model 1 upgrades to model 2. There cannot be a jump from model 1 to model 4, as you have to go through the other models before you can upgrade to the latest one (at least, this is what I think it does!).

So I can only expect nations in places such as South America, Middle eastern Minors and assorted puppets to come predisposed towards this tree?

Well, it is probably simpler to tell you who WON'T be using this 'fast path'.

Germany, USSR, USA, UK, France, Japan, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Australia, Canada.

Everyone else does (as they didn't develop much in the way of a massive armour program, nor did anyone really have that ability). Still, you can field a fairly potent armoured force, being a minor nation, you just don't have the same overbearing strength of force as a major nation (nor did they historically).

[Fiestacat]

[quote=McNaughton]

Originally Posted by Fiestacat

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here. How would divisionalising the armored unit prevent "conscious choice" about what to use?

Well, once you get an armoured division (most get it in 1936), then in order for everything to upgrade to one another, you have to have models in a linear pattern. For example, model 1 upgrades to model 2. There cannot be a jump from model 1 to model 4, as you have to go through the other models before you can upgrade to the latest one (at least, this is what I think it does!).

This works the same with brigades though. Great war artillery upgrades through ALL the subsequent levels before finally arriving at whatever tech level you are?

Well, it is probably simpler to tell you who WON'T be using this 'fast path'.

Germany, USSR, USA, UK, France, Japan, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Australia, Canada.

Everyone else does (as they didn't develop much in the way of a massive armour program, nor did anyone really have that ability). Still, you can field a fairly potent armoured force, being a minor nation, you just don't have the same overbearing strength of force as a major nation (nor did they historically).

Right, thanks for the answers. .

[McNaughton]

[quote=Fiestacat]

Originally Posted by McNaughton

This works the same with brigades though. Great war artillery upgrades through ALL the subsequent levels before finally arriving at whatever tech level you are?

Yes, BUT, when you research the first attachment in 1943 (such as the MBT attachment), you are free and clear to take whichever choice you want. You choose, in 1943, which path you are to take. With armoured divisions, and other divisions, you research them, primarily, in 1936, by that time the choices have already been made by the scenario details. However, having attachments that you don't have in 1936, means that you decide wether to take Path A or Path B when it comes time to get these attachments. You still have to follow a path, but, at least you got to choose which path to take.

[Fiestacat]

[quote=McNaughton]

Originally Posted by Fiestacat

Yes, BUT, when you research the first attachment in 1943 (such as the MBT attachment), you are free and clear to take whichever choice you want. You choose, in 1943, which path you are to take. With armoured divisions, and other divisions, you research them, primarily, in 1936, by that time the choices have already been made by the scenario details. However, having attachments that you don't have in 1936, means that you decide wether to take Path A or Path B when it comes time to get these attachments. You still have to follow a path, but, at least you got to choose which path to take.

Are you saying there will be multiple branches of MBT models, then?

[McNaughton]

[quote=Fiestacat]

Originally Posted by McNaughton

Are you saying there will be multiple branches of MBT models, then?

Yes, there will be two.

[Spruce]

thank you for the nice work on the FAQ, but it still puzzles me what justifies the SP-ART division compared to regular ART brigade. A regular infantry division will also transport it's ART brigade - artillery pieces by means of trucks or train. Or do the soldiers "manually wheel" the ART brigades and the mot-division has trucks. See also fuel consumption difference. Or do the mot-divisions have race trucks that consume more fuel.

what's the justification for a seperate SP-ART brigade ?

Or am I missing the point and have you guys cleared up the mist between the STUG (self propelled gun) and the Wespe (artillery on tank chassis) that's present in HOI2 Vanilla ? In that case I agree...

[McNaughton]

Originally Posted by Spruce

thank you for the nice work on the FAQ, but it still puzzles me what justifies the SP-ART division compared to regular ART brigade. A regular infantry division will also transport it's ART brigade - artillery pieces by means of trucks or train. Or do the soldiers "manually wheel" the ART brigades and the mot-division has trucks. See also fuel consumption difference. Or do the mot-divisions have race trucks that consume more fuel.

what's the justification for a seperate SP-ART brigade ?

You cannot attach Artillery to motorized forces (Armour, Motorized, Mechanized), you can just attach Motorized/SP Artillery. Why? Because I didn't want Artillery to slow down foot infantry in order to slow down Motorized Infantry, since infantry is now much slower than before on its own (any further reduction would make Infantry very VERY slow). Difference is, transport is either truck or horse.

Or am I missing the point and have you guys cleared up the mist between the STUG (self propelled gun) and the Wespe (artillery on tank chassis) that's present in HOI2 Vanilla ? In that case I agree...[/quote]

Yes, there are SP-Artillery Guns (Wespe) and Assault Guns (StuG), each has a different role (SP-Artillery provides 'artillery' support while Assault Guns provide some close armoured support for the Infantry).