Wenceslaus II said:
TheLand has posted a downloadable version (I think in the 0.43 developer´s forum), since it came a day after the current dev version.
-
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.
TheLand has posted a downloadable version (I think in the 0.43 developer´s forum), since it came a day after the current dev version.
Tegetthoff said:
Than how do I rework my 1911 scenario? The industrial tree is enough!! Are there going to be any other new tech trees? And the land doctrines may not need trench warfare/massive assault, but they still need maybe almost twice as many doctrines to research, not just the 11 or 12 or so they have.
@Tegetthoff: What about this: Industry Techtree
I changed the defence-industry, so that it is directly depoendent on the industrial advance. Each Defence-Industry now needs all civil industries before it can be researched.
I changed the defence-industry, so that it is directly depoendent on the industrial advance. Each Defence-Industry now needs all civil industries before it can be researched.
Wenceslaus II said:
a) I understand that TheLand has reworked the 1911 scenario, giving it (for the first time I may add) a reasonable tech level including all changes in industrial and naval techs and correcting the naval OOBs in significant detail.
b) we will change the tech trees one by one. And I agree we need an additional 15 - 20 techs in our trees.
v.Manstein said:
v. Manstein,
I just finished my first test run from 1897 to 1914 and will post the results soon.
In addition to the obvious need for finetuning the tech effects, are you concerned with shortening the tech tree so it fits into a HOI2 screen (as you have shown so nicely above)?
Yes I am. That's why my suggestion cuts the industry to just one category, and the defence-industry to one tech per unit-type. It should be no problem to place this in a HoI2 techtree, and 63 industry-techs should be fairly enough. What do you think?
v.Manstein said:
Well, I am in favour of abandoning HOI2 and I am in favour of lots of tech, so I favour the other option. We have far too few techs at the moment to fill the time from 1897 to 1914 in a meaningful way, so many other tech trees will have to be filled up, too.
I will try to balance the techs first before cutting them (and you will have to go against my vote when cutting it).
I can live with most of the other changes proposed in your tech tree, where they concern early techs. I will post my next version over in th 0.43 thread.
Just for completeness, double post of what I am running now:
Code:
Pre-Industrial Society permits IC and infrastructure build
Pre-Industrial Society is at 25% for everything
Heavy Industries give +2% industrial efficiency instead of 3%
Heavy Industries no longer give an IC production bonus (was 1%)
Armaments Industries effect on Light Inf. Marines and Mountain construction time reduced (was too
strong)
All BB and BC models +100 days construction time
All CV models +50 days construction time
All CA models +60 days construction time
All CL models +30 days construction time
All DD, SS and TP models +10 days construction time
All Inf. models +15 days construction time
All inf. models +2 MP
All Mil. models +10 days construction time
All Gar. models +15 days construction time
All Cav. models +20 days construction time
All Res. models +15 days construction time
All Grd. models +20 days construction time
no changes to Lt., Mar, Mtn. - already take very long to build
Tweaked German build AI by 7% from land to naval unitsTegetthoff said:
I redid every single tech for every country in my last 1911 version.
v.Manstein said:
Manstein,
What we can do is squeeze the techs together so that the shields overlap. This will be ugly, but will work ...
I am not sure I am expressing myself clearly...
It's no breaking news that I'm in favour to hold up HoI2 support. That's why we have to find a compromise.
Furthermore, if we introduce a social/administrative Techtree, some of the values changed by industry-techs will be affected there as well. So we'll definately get enough to research at every time (the land-doctrine techtree will be expanded too).
My suggestion has over 60 industry techs. Together with, lets say about 20-3 social techs, we have 3-4 non-military techs to develope each year.
Furthermore, if we introduce a social/administrative Techtree, some of the values changed by industry-techs will be affected there as well. So we'll definately get enough to research at every time (the land-doctrine techtree will be expanded too).
My suggestion has over 60 industry techs. Together with, lets say about 20-3 social techs, we have 3-4 non-military techs to develope each year.
Wenceslaus II said:
The dev beta I was working from hadn't been updated to take account of the current set of industrial changes.
v.Manstein said:
v. Manstein,
If it is only the arrangement of the techs you are concerned about AND you wand to retain HOI2 compatibility, a HOI2 compatible graphical solution can be found. Since you move the social techs off the industrial tree anyway, just find a new place for the 21 - 24 industries, e.g. by moving agriculture to the right, moving techs closer together etc.
The other solution, as mentioned above, is overlapping the tech fields.
Looking at you post # 863 above, having the tech tree down to the position of 18 heavy industry would be acceptable and 17 light would be good. That is 34 to 51 pixels. Moving each tech up 1 pixel will give you 26 pixels (the fields will touch but not overlap) and moving them up 2 pixels will give you 52 pixels.
Last edited:
What about this (it´s rough but I think you get the idea)
The screenshot is from a DD installation. Only the light and heavy industry techs are shifted. They do NOT overlap. Should be acceptable for HOI2?
A file will be included in my next Tegetthoff fix file.
The screenshot is from a DD installation. Only the light and heavy industry techs are shifted. They do NOT overlap. Should be acceptable for HOI2?
A file will be included in my next Tegetthoff fix file.
Is there a new version of the naval doctrine tech tree? I'm loathing the half done current one 
Wenceslaus II said:Is there a new version of the naval doctrine tech tree? I'm loathing the half done current one
Yes. Done. Should be with the next dev version.