I suppose I will have to reiterate...
Czechoslovakia gets the Major nation technology tree, primarily because it had realistic potential to become a major. Its armour development was paralell to a nation who proved to be a major player in WW2 in the aspect of armour production and development.
In 1938, Czechoslovakia, like most majors, was developing a production version of a medium tank. It saw the future of armoured warfare in the medium tank, and had the ability to design and develop this tank on par with other major nations. The STvz39 was to appear around the same time as most contemporary major nation's first primary medium tank (British Cruiser III/IV, German PzKpfw.III, etc.,), and performed very comparably.
Also, its light tank development and production was also on par. It developed and produced a very advanced series of light tanks from 1935-1938. The LTvz35 (after kinks worked out) was a fine tank for 1935, probably one of the best out there (better than most nations light tanks, but inferior to Russia's T-26). The LTvz38, which came out in 1938, at about the time of annexation, probed to be such a useful vehcile to remain in combat production by a major nation (Germany) until 1941, and proved still useful in the field until that time.
Sweden, on the other hand, was able to develop their own tanks, but, still relied heavily on foreign design and procurement. The gains from Czechoslovakia are not as trivial as you make them out to be, but make up a significantly large proportion of Sweden's armoured force.
Also, just comparing tanks doesn't count either, as Czechoslovakia was not only able to develop a 1935 Light Tank, but, also produce it in any real numbers to be in the field before it was obsolete. Same with the LTvz38. The same cannot be said of Sweden. Sweden's production/development was substantially behind the major nations, with their medium tank appearing in 1943, even though it was a 1942 design. The 300 Stvz m/42 tanks took two years to build, basically stating, that it would take Sweden two entire years to build enough medium tanks to create an entire armoured division.
Czechoslovakia was going to have their medium tank developed by 1939, 1940 at the latest, totally on par with the rest of Europe's major nations. I am pretty sure that had they lasted into the 1940s that their armoured developments would have been on par with European majors. Sweden, at its best, was able to field a large number of light tanks within the general timeframe of this game, but, didn't have the ability to effectively develop and produce medium tanks at the required rate.
THIS is the key difference between major and minor nations, their ability to utilize the medium tank as the primary armoured vehicle. Sweden proved that it couldn't, as it didn't fully replace it's light armoured force with medium tanks until the procurement of Centurion IIIs from the United Kingdom. To me, this shows that Sweden is not a major player in the armour development aspect, and should stay with light tanks as its primary force, since, at its best, that was what it was able to accomplish.
Also, in 1943, when the 22 ton Strv m/42 tank was coming out, it was much too light, and under-gunned, when compared to foreign major nation contemporaries, who were producing 30 ton M4 Shermans/Cromwells, armed with higher velocity 57mm and 75mm guns.
xxxxxxxxxx
Swedish tanks were tested in battle, primarily in Central American (where some were used by rebels in the Dominican Republic), and a few AA versions sent to Finland. The Toldi series of light tanks (Hungarian) was based on the Swedish L-60 series of tanks (basically their tanks), which proved to be adequate light tanks, but, by the time they actually saw combat in 1941, were hopelessly obsolete. These Toldi tanks were replaced by LTvz38 tanks in the Hungarian arsenal, primarily because the difference between the two, performance wize, was not significant. They were light tanks, of 37mm Armament, with around 50mm armour maximum. Welded or bolt, doesn't mean that a nation had the better ability to develop tanks, but, made a choice as to development. Bolted or welded, the L-60/LTvz38-type light tank was obsolete by 1941.
The quality, in the end, did not match Czechoslovakia, as, Sweden relied on Light tanks much longer than Czechoslovakia was going to, and their development, and their development of these real tanks were years ahead of Sweden, who became increasingly behind the times (producing better and better light tanks, due to realistic constraints, when most other armour nations were moving into the medium tank). Hungary, who produced the relatively high quality Turan and Toldi tanks, found that they were outclassed on the battlefield, mainly because they were high Quality, 2 years before they saw active service. Sweden was in the same predicament as Hungary, with the only difference between the two was that Sweden developed the tanks, Hungary used and modified them. In the end, they were in the same realistic situation.
Here are my faults with your faults.
#1. Anyway, tactics are represented by 'organization' values, while equipment does affect some part of the statistics. However, having 300 tanks in a clumsy armoured division, with little infantry support, is NOT twice as powerful as a division with 150 tanks and balanced infantry support. In fact, the 150 tank division is more effective than the 300 tank division, purely because of organization. Utilizing older tanks in a balanced, combined arms, formation proved their worth in the battles in France and Russua, where German armoured forces were inferior in quality, as well as numbers, but, were organized in a way that they were individually more powerful units, not because of their equipment, but because their armoured forces had sufficient infantry, artillery, and reconiassance support. Training did play a large part, but, even with training being high, in their older, tank-heavy organization, German armoured divisions faced heavy losses in the Polish campaign when not adequately supported because of poor divisional organization. Divisional organization, along with equipment, is supremely important. Nations like Sweden, Romania and Hungary used older equipment longer, but, were able to use this equipment more efficiently in 1944 than in 1940, mainly because the support troops, and armoured deployment of what tanks they had, were improved.
#2. Frankly, your solution will end up with minor nations having POORER armoured forces than in my situation. There is no way in hell that Sweden would be able to develop anything other than pitiful armoured forces, which are hopelessly outclassed because their supporting infantry, artillery, anti-tank, recon are all from 1936, the same era as their tanks. This sticks these nations into keeping unrealistically poor forces, or have their entire army suffer through lack of doctrinal research, a very poor solution to the problem of armoured development, in my opinion. One has nothing to do with the other.
I don't care what you feel that a nation could do at the expense of another field, this is the wrong way to solve problems, in my opinion, stating impossibilities were probabilities. What I care about is to get the game to reflect a realistic development of forces, where true limitations are met, and the realization that an armoured development, the size at which major nations had, was only achievable if there was a sufficient history of tank development, as well as the industrial base to really do anything about it. Very few nations had this industrial base, and, for the most part, my minor-nation armour development tree has been EXTREMELY generous.
Sweden did not have the ability to develop further armoured forces, or keep up to the major nations. No nation CAN have all other development suffer at the expense of one special toy. That is unrealistic, and more representative of a computer game than a historic simulation. HoI2 is a game, but, no sense in making obsurdities becoming the rule. It is absurd to think that Sweden could develop a tank comparable to the Tiger I, or Tiger II in the timeframe of the game.
I took steps to limit unrealistic development becoming the rule, and stopped minor nations from being short changed by the armoured division development process of HoI2. I gave Minor nations a greater ability at fielding a modern and effective armoured force, albiet limited in scale, and not equal to a major nation's ability.
You don't seem to understand the high cost not only of creating an initial armoured force, but, sustaining it through combat. Sweden could barely field 400 tanks in the WW2 timeframe, not enough to have a SINGLE regular, major nation, wartime armoured division, and have it sustain any form of real casualties. This is a factor that I took into account. Which is why light armoured forces are comparatively lighter in total numbers of tanks (meaning that to replace armoured losses would be less of a focus), but truely much heavier in support troops.
