Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Tech Tree

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Missing rocket models.
Code: 
 MODEL_19_0 Flying bomb
 MODEL_19_1 50's Cruise missile
 MODEL_19_2 60's Cruise missile
 MODEL_19_3 70's Cruise missile
 MODEL_19_4 80's Cruise missile
 MODEL_19_5 90's Cruise missile
 MODEL_19_6 Future Cruise missile
 
 MODEL_19_11 50's Tactical ballistic missile
 MODEL_19_12 60's Tactical ballistic missile
 MODEL_19_13 70's Tactical ballistic missile
 MODEL_19_14 80's Tactical ballistic missile
 MODEL_19_15 90's Tactical ballistic missile
 MODEL_19_16 Future Tactical ballistic missile
 
 MODEL_20_0 Flying rocket
 MODEL_20_1 50's Theatre ballistic missile
 MODEL_20_2 60's Theatre ballistic missile
 MODEL_20_3 70's Theatre ballistic missile
 MODEL_20_4 80's Theatre ballistic missile
 MODEL_20_5 90's Theatre ballistic missile
 MODEL_20_6 Future Theatre ballistic missile
 
 MODEL_20_11 50's ICBM
 MODEL_20_12 60's ICBM
 MODEL_20_13 70's ICBM
 MODEL_20_14 80's ICBM
 MODEL_20_15 90's ICBM
 MODEL_20_16 Future ICBM
Now model list is complete. Yay!
 
Last edited:
Foxbat said:

Ssssssssecret tech tree.

Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?
Click to expand...

The space missions launching facility could link with this idea
 
What are the plans for the military doctrines of China? It is very different and considering that it is one of the three superpowers, I wouldn't think it would have a copy of the Soviet model. It's probably too far along for this but just some thoughts.

Will artillery still be represented by brigade attachments or will it be abstracted into the Soft modifier of modern armies?
 
Foot Cavalry said:
What are the plans for the military doctrines of China? It is very different and considering that it is one of the three superpowers, I wouldn't think it would have a copy of the Soviet model. It's probably too far along for this but just some thoughts.

Will artillery still be represented by brigade attachments or will it be abstracted into the Soft modifier of modern armies?
Click to expand...


For the first part of the question i can't answer you. The tech tree is Foxbat's land.

For the second part, the artillery will be represented like in Vanilla, with brig. attachments.
 
Foot Cavalry said:
What are the plans for the military doctrines of China? It is very different and considering that it is one of the three superpowers, I wouldn't think it would have a copy of the Soviet model. It's probably too far along for this but just some thoughts.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not very good at China military, but considering that they just copy soviet model in almost every field, I don't se how it can be different. Though once again I can be wrong.
 
Foxbat said:
To be honest, I'm not very good at China military, but considering that they just copy soviet model in almost every field, I don't se how it can be different. Though once again I can be wrong.
Click to expand...

China did have some certain doctrinal differences from the USSR. Yes, both relied on numbers more than training, but the Chinese were up until about 1990 or so a largely guerrilla army - light infantry centric, few specialized units, and armor used to either support the infantry or to create local breakthroughs. They didn't have a large scale armored warfare doctrine like the US or USSR (even today they might not) where they relied on an armored breakthrough and rapid exploitation. The Chinese never had much artillery support (and rockets made up a significant portion of that). Likewise, the Chinese never demonstrated a significant coordinated capability between their air force and army. In many respects, the PRC doctrine was closest to the WWII Japanese infantry doctrine based on infiltration and surprise.

If we have a Guerrilla doctrine, where most of the bonuses go to infantry, militia, and reserves, it might be best to give that to the Chinese.
 
hellfish6 said:
China did have some certain doctrinal differences from the USSR...
Click to expand...
As I said, I have little to none knowledge of chinese military. But judging by your post we can do something that is similar to vanilla HoI doctrine system:
  • Quantity over quality branch
    1. Warsaw pact sub-branch
    2. Chinese sub-branch
  • Quality over quantity branch
    1. NATO sub-branch
    2. Another sub-branch
  • Expirience and knowledge techs
Any thoughts? Btw, hellfish6 maybe you can do a little research on NATO doctrines? :rolleyes: :p

P.S. I found outstanding site about russian submarines, expect update in OOB thread soon.
 
Not quite sure how you want to structure these:

One-Time Doctrine Techs

Post-War Lessons Learned (basic org/morale boost for all WW2 combatants)
Post-War Lessons Inferred (small bonus to org/morale for non-combatants in WW2)

Professional NCO Corps (professional, non-draftee NCOs)
Term-Of-Service NCO Corps (draftee NCOs)

Established Conscription (for countries that considered military service a national obligation - Switzerland, France, Sweden, West Germany)
Emergency Conscription (for countries that didn't maintain a constant draft as part of their national policy - US, UK, etc.)

Senior Leader Command and Control
Junior Leader Initiative

1940s NATO Doctrines:

Early Expeditionary Warfare Focus (deactivates defensive - boost to marines, airborne)
Early Defensive Warfare Focus (deactivates expeditionary - boost to inf, militia, garrison)

1940s Mechanized Warfare Focus (deactivates light infantry focus - boost to mech/arm)
1940s Light Infantry Warfare Focus (deactivates mechanized focus - boost to mot/inf)

1940s Maneuver Warfare Focus (deactivates attrition focus - boost to arm/mech/mot)
1940s Attrition Warfare Focus (deactivates maneuver focus - boost to inf, res, militia, garrison)

1950s NATO doctrines:

Initial Airmobility Experience (small bonus for helicopter brigades)

Atomic Age Focus (deactivates colonial war, boost to arm/mech)
Colonial War Focus (deactivates atomic focus, boost to inf, marine, airborne)

Post-War Expeditionary Warfare Focus (deactivates defensive - boost to marines, airborne)
Post-War Defensive Warfare Focus (deactivates expeditionary - boost to inf, militia, garrison)

1950s Mechanized Warfare Focus (deactivates light infantry focus - boost to mech/arm)
1950s Light Infantry Warfare Focus (deactivates mechanized focus - boost to mot/inf/marine/abn)

1950s Maneuver Warfare Focus (deactivates attrition focus - boost to arm/mech/mot)
1950s Attrition Warfare Focus (deactivates maneuver focus - boost to inf, res, militia, garrison)

1960s NATO doctrines:

Early Airmobility Experience (bonus for helicopter brigades)

Conventional War Focus (deactivates colonial war, boost to arm/mech/mot)
Colonial War Focus (deactivates atomic focus, boost to inf, marine, airborne)

60s Expeditionary Warfare Focus (deactivates defensive - boost to marines, airborne)
60s Defensive Warfare Focus (deactivates expeditionary - boost to inf, militia, garrison)

1960s Mechanized Warfare Focus (deactivates light infantry focus - boost to mech/arm)
1960s Light Infantry Warfare Focus (deactivates mechanized focus - boost to mot/inf/marine/abn)

1960s Maneuver Warfare Focus (deactivates attrition focus - boost to arm/mech/mot)
1960s Attrition Warfare Focus (deactivates maneuver focus - boost to inf, res, militia, garrison)

1970s NATO doctrines:

Mature Airmobility Experience (bonus for helicopter brigades)

Conventional War Focus (deactivates colonial war, boost to arm/mech/mot)
Small War Focus (deactivates atomic focus, boost to inf, marine, airborne)

70s Expeditionary Warfare Focus (deactivates defensive - boost to marines, airborne)
70s Defensive Warfare Focus (deactivates expeditionary - boost to inf, militia, garrison)

1970s Mechanized Warfare Focus (deactivates light infantry focus - boost to mech/arm)
1970s Light Infantry Warfare Focus (deactivates mechanized focus - boost to mot/inf/marine/abn)

1970s Maneuver Warfare Focus (deactivates attrition focus - boost to arm/mech/mot)
1970s Attrition Warfare Focus (deactivates maneuver focus - boost to inf, res, militia, garrison)

1980s NATO doctrines:

Late Airmobility Experience (bonus for helicopter brigades)

Conventional War Focus (deactivates colonial war, boost to arm/mech/mot)
Small War Focus (deactivates atomic focus, boost to inf, marine, airborne)

AirLand Battle (+10 air unit interdiction efficiency, boost to mech/arm)
Set-Piece Battle (+10% air unit ground attack efficiency, boost to inf/mot)

80s Expeditionary Warfare Focus (deactivates defensive - boost to marines, airborne)
80s Defensive Warfare Focus (deactivates expeditionary - boost to inf, militia, garrison)

1980s Mechanized Warfare Focus (deactivates light infantry focus - boost to mech/arm)
1980s Light Infantry Warfare Focus (deactivates mechanized focus - boost to mot/inf/marine/abn)

1980s Maneuver Warfare Focus (deactivates attrition focus - boost to arm/mech/mot)
1980s Attrition Warfare Focus (deactivates maneuver focus - boost to inf, res, militia, garrison)

Antitank Focus (bonus to TD, attack helo brigades)
Anitpersonnel Focus (bonus to artillery, engineer MP brigades)

Night Operations Focus (simulates widespread adoption of NVG/Thermal optics and emphasis on night fighting - should be a fairly significant night fighting/movement bonus)
Continuous Operations Focus (simulates 24/7 emphasis with limited adoption of NV/Thermal sights, moderate to small boost to all terrain movement/fighting)

Established Commando Forces (for countries with significant proportion of commando units among all forces, or for countries providing significant specialized training - like Israeli and American armies - provides a big boost to marines, airborne and infantry)
Limited Commando Forces (for countries with small commando units as a proportion of total forces - UK, France, West Germany. Provides a small/moderate boost to marines, infantry, airborne)
 
As I was doing it, I was trying to give the player the option of adopting his doctrines to the situation on hand (remember - we're covering ~40 years here). Players might want to concentrate on fighting the Soviets one decade, then fighting in Vietnam the next. Likewise, some countries (US, France, UK) spent a lot of time and effort developing a military to fight overseas, whereas others did not (West Germany, Sweden, Israel, Japan).

This doctrine tree was designed for all western-oriented countries, to include NATO and non-NATO (Swiss, South Africa, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc)
 
I'm trying to read whatever I can on the modern east asian military systems. Our best experience and knowledge of Chinese tactics was the Korean war. That confirmed that they placed a greater emphasis on speed, surprise, and infantry combat than any European power of WW2. It was fifty years ago so obviously they have changed the importance in their armor and especially in artillery (they invaded in 1950 with very little arty, using mortars instead). I do think they still maintained a focus on light infantry tactics even as we saw in 1979 against Vietnam. So the obvious advantages they would have should relate to night fighting, surprise attack, encirclement, and infantry speed.

North Koreans would look very close to the Soviet model with some of their indigenous equipment from the 70's on. South Koreans are like US with older weapons. By 1955, they had a lot more of what they lacked when the Korean war started.

As I was doing it, I was trying to give the player the option of adopting his doctrines to the situation on hand (remember - we're covering ~40 years here). Players might want to concentrate on fighting the Soviets one decade, then fighting in Vietnam the next. Likewise, some countries (US, France, UK) spent a lot of time and effort developing a military to fight overseas, whereas others did not (West Germany, Sweden, Israel, Japan).
Click to expand...
I think it makes sense but our armor was way behind until the 80's. The Soviets and the British were using composite armor - the T-72 and the T-64 had it earlier than us, so a 70's scenario would see the Soviet armor as more advanced and by that time, we had learned to do counter-insurgency right, so they balance out.
 
Well, armor technology would be best handled by the armor tech tree. And also, though the Soviets had superior armor up until 1985 or so, remember that training and doctrine are far more important. Look at the Israeli or South African experience fighting Soviet client states.

Though I'm inclined to believe that the Soviets themselves would have fared far better than the Arabs or Cubans, all other things being equal, doctrine should largely balance NATO and Pact countries.

I do think you're dead-on for the Chinese Communists. Their doctrine would be good for a lot of other countries - especially in the Third World - that emphasized guerrilla warfare over conventional warfare.

In many ways, the North Koreans are an odd hybrid of Chinese and Soviet doctrines. The NK Army was never very mechanized - they had a couple of armored/mechanized corps but by far foot infantry was more prevalent. They also had a lot of practice in infiltration warfare - using special forces type units to open the way for the foot infantry, who would break through the DMZ and allow the armored corps to encircle Seoul. As such, their armored forces operated a lot like the Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, but otherwise they were a lot like the Chinese.
 
Land Doctrine techs, part 1

One-Time Doctrine Techs
Following techs cannot be researched

WW2 Lessons Learned
  • Max Org +5
  • HQ event chance 0.1
  • HQ supply efficiency bonus: +1
  • Speed HQ +1

Professional NCO corps
  • Deactivates Term-Of-Service NCO corps
  • HQ event chance 0.1
  • Max Org +5
  • Cost of all land units +2

Term-Of-Service NCO corps
  • Deactivates Professional NCO corps
  • Build time all land units -2
  • Cost of all land units -1
Note: I feel that we need to diferentiate this two techs more, to balance their pro and con's

Traditions over initiative
  • Deactivates Initiative over traditions
  • Max morale +10

Initiative over traditions
  • Deactivates Traditions over initiative
  • HQ event chance 0.1

Jungle warfare expirience
  • Inf jungle attack 3
  • Mot jungle attack 2
  • Para jungle attack 2
  • Mar jungle attack 5
  • Mnt jungle attack 5
  • Inf jungle defence 3
  • Mot jungle defence 2
  • Para jungle defence 2
  • Mar jungle defence 5
  • Mnt jungle defence 5

Desert warfare expirience
  • Inf desert attack 3
  • Mot desert attack 5
  • Mech desert attack 5
  • Arm desert attack 5
  • L-Arm desert attack 5
  • Mar desert attack 3
  • Mnt desert attack 3
  • Para desert attack 3
  • HQ desert attack 3
  • Inf desert defence 3
  • Mot desert defence 5
  • Mech desert defence 5
  • Arm desert defence 5
  • L-Arm desert defence 5
  • Mar desert defence 3
  • Mnt desert defence 3
  • Para desert defence 3
  • HQ desert defence 3

Arctic warfare expirience
  • Inf arctic attack 2
  • Mot arctic attack 4
  • Mech arctic attack 4
  • Arm arctic attack 4
  • L-Arm arctic attack 4
  • Mar arctic attack 2
  • Mnt arctic attack 2
  • Para arctic attack 2
  • HQ arctic attack 2
  • Inf arctic defence 2
  • Mot arctic defence 4
  • Mech arctic defence 4
  • Arm arctic defence 4
  • L-Arm arctic defence 4
  • Mar arctic defence 2
  • Mnt arctic defence 2
  • Para arctic defence 2
  • HQ arctic defence 2

Mountain warfare expirience
  • Mnt hill attack 5
  • Mnt mountain attack 3
  • Mnt hill defence 5
  • Mnt mountain defence 3

Note: I think that all techs that are somehow tied to marines(swamp, river, shore attack/defence efficiency included) should be in Sea Doctrines techs

Credits goes to hellfish6 for his valuable help.
 
^ Seems perfect to me.
 
On Marines: Shouldn't there be something to differentiate the US Marines from more traditional naval infantry? This isn't a vanity thing: In WW2 it is appropriate to give them the handicaps on land warfare but by the 50's they were better than the US Army as dismounted infantry, and by the 80's they were definitely a fully fledged Mechanized force. Same for the ROKs too. If anything the option, for balance, should decrease morale/org for regular army units as the Marines have always been (except in '68) all volunteer, and therefore take the best away from the Army's ranks.
 
Foot Cavalry said:
On Marines: Shouldn't there be something to differentiate the US Marines from more traditional naval infantry? This isn't a vanity thing: In WW2 it is appropriate to give them the handicaps on land warfare but by the 50's they were better than the US Army as dismounted infantry, and by the 80's they were definitely a fully fledged Mechanized force. Same for the ROKs too. If anything the option, for balance, should decrease morale/org for regular army units as the Marines have always been (except in '68) all volunteer, and therefore take the best away from the Army's ranks.
Click to expand...


That's why we differentiate betwen marine division and marine brig. in the infantry tech tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back