Thoughts about research

[Styrbiorn]

First, sorry if this have been debated already. I searched, but I didn't find anything.

Someone recently told me that a good strategy would be playing as for example the USA, stay out of the war and let the rest of the world do the fighting. Then just sit there and put all your efforts in developing the atomic bomb and then enter the war, easily winning. This is an extreme case, as it obviously (and fortunately) is very hard to reach that goal but I meant as an idea. Stay out of the war for a while, let the others cripple themselves while fighting, peacefully research and build up your war machine.

Now to the point, research goes most quickly forward during times of war, and many many things wouldn't have seen the ligth of the day if it wasn't because of war. Personally, I would like to see the game reflecting this. For example some technologies should be impossible to research in peacetime and it should generally take longer to gain any progress while at peace - at least in some certain fields. Another idea would be that (at least for democracies) dissent would rise dramatically if the player at peace spend too much in the armed forces and military research.

Also a question, about doctrines. Will it be possible for some nations, say Finland, to develop doctrines that lies far out of the geographical situation of Finland? Personally, I would not like to see Canada or the US develope an efficient jungle combat doctrine witout having been close to what resembles jungles (it should be possible if the Canadians actually fight in jungles and gain experience though).

Any thoughts/ideas?

[STGeorge]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Someone recently told me that a good strategy would be playing as for example the USA, stay out of the war and let the rest of the world do the fighting. Then just sit there and put all your efforts in developing the atomic bomb and then enter the war, easily winning.

Isn't that what happened anyway!!!

PS. you missed after 'easily winning' and taking all the credit.

No joking aside, it would have been very difficult for the USA to stay out of the war even if they wanted to, sooner or later Japan's imperial objectives would have forced japan to act in securing the Pacific as a supply route for their expanding empire. The navies of both the US & Japan would have clashed eventually IMO.

[snailtrailer]

..though, the americans learned a lot from the (British ?) data
about the german war machinery and model their army/equipment to it;

halftracks, ...sdkfz 7
Jeep,.... Kubel wagen

..By the way, who came up first with the bazooka/panzerfaust/Piat ??
Was one copied from another ?



I wonder if the programmers give a thought about this issue..

[Sabotage]

On the discovery channel they said in a documentary that the panzerschrek was a copy of the American bazooka. The panzerfaust was probably the germans own design... but I am not sure...

[Johan Elisson]

The Raketenpanzerbüchse was built after Germans captured Bazookas in Tunisia in 1943. The Panzerfaust however, was as I know, a German design.

/Johan

[Maximilian I]

yes, the "panzerschreck" was based on the bazooka, but it was far from being a copy. the effective kill range of the "panzerschreck" was 150 m, the bazookas range ~30 m. the superiority of the "panzerschreck" can be easily explained by the fact, that the nazis were leading in rocket technology. btw. the germans were also the first to have wire guided AT rockets and to have effective AA rockets...

if you speak german, this might be interesting to you.

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by snailtrailer
..though, the americans learned a lot from the (British ?) data
about the german war machinery and model their army/equipment to it;

halftracks, ...sdkfz 7
Jeep,.... Kubel wagen

..By the way, who came up first with the bazooka/panzerfaust/Piat ??
Was one copied from another ?



I wonder if the programmers give a thought about this issue..

The Jeep at least was independently designed & inspired acc. to the History Channel (they have a nice track record of being wrong but I checked this one) by a small American manufacturing company.

Oh yeah- I doubt many projects could have been done in the constraints of a peacetime budget. The Manhattan Project would have required America's entire nickel production for a year- until they found out that silver from the Federal Reserve would work even better! Something that probably could not have been done in peacetime, along with the more obvious examples of gov't control of the economy, rationing, extra work hours, and of course, massive defense spending from the 1/4 of the world's economy America represented.

[bmolsson]

...... should not research get a boost from war it self? Spy's, exchange with allies etc are boosted during war or ???

[Sparrow]

Personally I think a country like Italy would get a big boost from waiting. Start in 1936 and trim down the army while putting more into research. Imagine MC.202 Folgore and P.26 tanks in 1940! Ok I might be dreaming about the medium tanks. But the development of decent engines in time for the war along with proper use of welding technologies will hopefully be part of the research options.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn
... Stay out of the war for a while, let the others cripple themselves while fighting, peacefully research and build up your war machine...

This actually was Stalins war plan, he was very satisfied when Germany conquered Poland and thus got into war with England and France - reconquered russian part of Poland and got three of his enemys at war with eachother (of cource he must have been a bit worried next summer... ).

[Il Moro]

Hi all,

about research I was wondering if japanese kamikaze infantry could be present into HOI.

I remember to had read about them, they were soldiers armed with a bamboo spear and at the top of the spear there was an anti-tank charge, they're mainly objective was to destroy enemy tanks with that charge but they obviously die due to the explosion.
So, is possible as Japan research this type of suicidal doctrine if war going bad???

[vimhawk]

The concept of Doctrine has often been referred to in these discussions, but would appear to be something that people assumes just changes over time, or perhaps in such a complex way that it is not possible to model. Others have referred to quality of organisation and similar, or perhaps more specifically to the "blitzkrieg". I would argue that to a certain extent, all aspects of the military are related to Doctrine (NATO definition follows if you're interested). This means, for example, you have your blitzkrieg, but you also develop your forces and organisation to make the most out of it (yes there's a chicken / egg thing here, but you see what I mean). At the end of the day you can have two Armies similiar in manpower and weaponry etc, but one having a great advantage. This "Doctrinal Advantage" could also be used to balance the game so the Axis have a chance... because their doctrine is (at least initially) so much more effective than the Allies.

Coming to the Eastern Front, it is doctrine as much as anything else that leads to spectacular German success initially. They don't have manpower (or great technical superiority), but as we all know they know how to use what they have. The Soviets don't. Three years later the Soviets have really worked out how to make numbers count... BUT numbers alone haven't done the job (they had vast numbers in 1941), its a combination of experience and investing in a doctrine that utilises the numbers.

So what I think is that Doctrine is a research path that, albeit expensive and time consuming, provides all sorts of combat bonus. Lets take the British in 1944 expressed in game terms. You have spent lots of resources on a comparatively large airborne force and lift capacity, you also have relatively high tech (and large) air to ground support airforce. Unfortunately you haven't invested in the doctrine of joint operations. This doesn't just mean writing manuals on air / ground co-operations. This means working out that you might want to jump forward air controllers into Arnhem with the Paras. Ah you say, but historically the radios didn't work properly at Arnhem, but I say if you've invested in joint operations, you may well have also developed a series of advanced more robust combat radios that *do* work. So suddenly you're able to utilise all those fighter bombers that did virtually nothing for the troops at Arnhem.

Conversely you have invested in Strategic Bombing doctrine, so you've got some good aircraft there and plenty of new inventions to make your campaign increasingly more accurate. The Germans of course have done the opposite, and developed an airforce that is great for air to ground support but bugger all use for strategic bombing.

So to recap I'm arguing its all to a great extent a function of Doctrine, and it would be great if it was a research path in the game. Doctrine "fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in application" (NATO AAP-6).... sorry for writing a bit of an essay!

[JPesterfield]

I agree and doctrines probable are available on the research path. If so I hope to get Japan good submarine doctrine.

Historically the Japanese could have done much better, but they concentrated on engaging warships instead of merchants. Also they developed some submarines as transports with almost no weapons.

The American's island hopping campaign was at the end of a long vunerable supply line. Think what Japanese wolfpacks could do if they had the chance.

[BarristerBoy]

Would Japan really have surrendered if the USA, instead of being on the verge of launching an invasion of the mainland, had instead been hiding in the Western hemisphere while Japan ruled Asia? Would Hitler have given in to one or two atomic bombs over Dresden if he had already conquered London and Moscow?

I don't think so.

[Kiith]

Originally posted by Sparrow
Personally I think a country like Italy would get a big boost from waiting. Start in 1936 and trim down the army while putting more into research. Imagine MC.202 Folgore and P.26 tanks in 1940! Ok I might be dreaming about the medium tanks. But the development of decent engines in time for the war along with proper use of welding technologies will hopefully be part of the research options.

I'll be looking forward to playing Italy also, but how are you going to get the engines for the MC.202's after all they were German But I know what you mean, I think France and Italy will be the Big improvers in HOI esp in the 1936 scenario. Just think you'll get to try out your new toys in Spain quite early, and from memory Italy contributed quite heavily to the Nationalist's victory.

[Sparrow]

Easy, bribe the Germans to get DB.601 licensed and into native production much earlier. Either that or get some P&W engines for uber radial engined MC.200 I guess. Does the game get detailed down into the type of units used? Or is it just going to be something like:

Single Engine fighter
Radial engine +2 Endurance/-1 speed
Range: Long
Armament: Heavy

Actually I would avoid the SCW as much as possible. If anything lessons were not learned and it was a drain on the Italian military. I guess I might send in small amounts of troops for them to gain an experienced cadre of officers for the later conflict. But I would definitely try to keep the material resources employed in theatre to a much smaller amount. One only has about four years to get Italy ready for the war so it will still have a small industrial base and need for raw materials outside it's realm. Seems one can't trade agricultural products to Germany for Romanian oil either.

Depending on complexity the game goes into I would do something like the following.

Discontinue naval buildup race and attempt to build a navy dedicated to brown water/escort duties. If Germany doesn't knock out France the RMI having to take on the MN and RN would not be great deals of fun. Have a torpedo bomber and long range fighter force to back up a navy that will be lacking in heavy units. Would not have 72 divisions as this would bankrupt the army. Instead try to keep it much smaller and invest money saved in mechanisation. Really will be alot for someone to do if one starts in 1936 with little time and resources on the best. Starting in 1939 or 40....
=====

I think both countries would benefit, yes. Imo I would still build the Maginot line since it did do its job by deflecting the German blow into Belgium. What penetrations that were made basically were against frontier sections that did not have the full blown system that could be found further south, afaik.

---------------

Basically I hope the game avoids doing anything like SP:WaW where the Italians are given a modifier to surrender or retreat. Nothing more insulting to me.

[Kiith]

I was thinking along the same lines for the Italian army (keep it small, but have a high quality). As for modernising (ie research) I have know idea how it's going to affect the stats for units, but I'd imagine that specific units like the MC202 will be out and they'll just be called Single Engine Fighters. However I'd like to know if research will change the unit pictures that we see on the map, if so we might get to see specific planes/tanks in that way.