The drama never stops does it! Look I know you said land doctrines was complete but... Can we have a 1975/1980ish tech for proxy warfare/asymmetrical warfare? Seems silly we have techs that go into the 90s but our army stops indoctrination at 1970.
-
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.
You mean that there are no model names (IE when you research the F-16 the name that appears is "Fourth and hafl generation multirole fighter" instead of F-16) or that the american built units are using generic names?
Because if it's the first one, it's simply that i didn't work on new models for the USA yet.
I'm sure you already thought of reorienting the Land Doctrines to the way the other tabs are setup. But if you havent, that might give you some more room. ALso get rid of the damn 19th and 20th century tech that has already been researched even if someone wants to play a WW1 game with your mod. If that's even possible.
If it's not possible to play a WW1 game with your mod, then just remove the land doctrine techs that are before your scenario start date.
Im other words, if your mod scenario start date is 1933, then NO land doctrine techs need to be on that page. That would definitely free up some more space on the land Doctrines page.
Unwritten rule number 1 that i proposed to myself and was also accepted and seemed nice by both Dannielshannon and Bizon: Do not, never, ever, erase any of the existing vanilla techs as it will create many compatibility issues and will require extra work on scenario adaptation. Work that could be used somewhere else.
I don't know how hard it would be but, push mass charge and static defence a little higher and that'd create enough room for 2 more techs?
Yes, true, but two techs aren't enough for 70s 80s and early 90s doctrines and the space gained would go for the brigademental combat system techs.
I wholeheartedly support, it's better to add 10 things than to remove even 1 :closedeyes:
Cant a man have a little vacation
Your ideas are fine! I approve! Just something: instead of using tech space couldnt you make a decision event to transition the armies into brigade/squadron/ship?
Also instead of using 10 spy planes for the spying techs, why not covert counter intelligence, numbers radio, sleeper cell, SIGINT, satellite photography, listening satellite, etc?
And the easter egg is cool, but i think cyberspace, or virtual reality would suit better the progression.
Edit: btw I had thought about the whole CLAA/AEGIS thing. Models would be better, because we cant have brigades that exclude other brigades or which are specific to a single model or unit type. If brigades are used then all ships could be turned AA, while having ASW, AA, CIC, armored hull, floatplanes, etc, at the same time. This was not possible due to space, weighting and costs.
Edit 2: Tips for space: remove the category names. We can read tech name cards and tooltips..
Remove the background gfx, and use all the space. Not caring about limits and looks anymore.
Tanker planes should get an alternative req as transport plane, for those who research one and not the other. More realistic too.
Strat bombers should a tech to represent guided, laser guided and JDAM bombs late game, to take over the role of tac bombers, as tacs got taken over by cas and fighters.
Helos should get an alternative req, not everyone research the seaplanes.
Shouldnt CVE get seaplane/helo attachments? I never understood their direct use, if they are so poor on attack.
Wheres the "fixed wing gunship"? Cant find where it is.
What about long range, high speed interceptor crafts? Like the MiG-31.
Could you make the aircraft upgrade system like the ships? So we can have previous generations still available. More realistic.
Space station tech is named lunar landing.
Last edited:
I like the idea of brigade vs. division concentration (less sure of wing vs. squad, that's a smaller numerical difference and the speed difference there, especially, is hard to justify). I'd really want to know if 3 brigades could ever beat one division; if so, why ever use divisions? It would be a complete waste; same investment in IC-days and manpower, faster, and just as powerful. You can do this, but you need to be sure that the brigades don't end up overpowered, and that will require some testing.
As a totally secondary point, have you considered, as part of adding effects to existing technologies, adding cross-branch effects? Specifically, in the US, the Air Force's research into OODA loops (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) is supposed to have had significant positive spillovers for Army and Marine Corps. operations (modeled as, I suppose, morale or organization). Just a thought.
As a totally secondary point, have you considered, as part of adding effects to existing technologies, adding cross-branch effects? Specifically, in the US, the Air Force's research into OODA loops (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) is supposed to have had significant positive spillovers for Army and Marine Corps. operations (modeled as, I suppose, morale or organization). Just a thought.
I guess you need to expand the naval tech tree,adding more models of Battleships,why the last model is 1947? hmy:
hmy:
hmmmm Not a bad idea... indeed, it would be the solution, get just one tech named "Brigademental combat system" which would make the decissions available... of course the decissions should be irrevocable once triggered...
The intelligence techs are DannielShannon ideas.
It's just an easter egg, does it really matter?
Yes, those ships are already into the game. Not in the released version, i think, but those ships are present as independent models.
Nah... it's not like the labels are taking space which could be used for other techs, so i don't think it's a big issue.
Ok about the alternative req.
And by strike fighters. Don't forget that.
Ok, yes, it's true. I think that some advanced CAS model and/or an advanced doctrine should be enough.
The CVE have their CAG built in organically, except for when you build heavy aviation cruiser which the HAC Cag unit will be unlocked... if you have researched previously 1970 CAG. (i'm changing this in order to make them activated if you have researched multi role fighter only)
To activate them you must research ground support brigade and fixed wing gunship aerial doctrine.
The Mig-31 is already represented by the 1971 interceptor model.
The problem with that kind of upgrade system is that then not every unit would upgrade automatically, wouldn't it?
Ok, bug noted... and fixed.
Hard to justify? Since 1918 many minor countries used squadrons instead of wings as the backbone of their air forces because they were easier and cheaper to maintain. Yes, maybe they should not be faster than a wing, but they should have the same speed, ok.
About brigades/divisions, obviously one brigade (3000-4000 or, in some cases, 5000 men) can't hold against one division, but three brigades (or even two, depending on the terrain) could do against one of them. This is how, provisionally a brigademental infantry unit statistics is looking like, so far:
Code:
# 2 - Modern Infantry Brigade (1945)
model = {
cost = 1.6
buildtime = 97
manpower = 4.3
maxspeed = 18
defaultorganisation = 90
morale = 90
defensiveness = 105
toughness = 120
softness = 95
suppression = 2
airdefence = 42
softattack = 4
hardattack = 2
airattack = 1
transportweight = 3
supplyconsumption = 0.36
fuelconsumption = 0.16
upgrade_time_factor = 0.06
upgrade_cost_factor = 0.25
reinforce_time = 0.15
reinforce_cost = 0.11
equipment = { manpower = 4300 trucks = 245 horses = 1344 artillery = 27 heavy_artillery = 20 anti_tank = 15 anti_air = 5 }
}And this is it's divisional counterpart:
Code:
# 12 - Modern Infantry Division (1945)
model = {
cost = 5
buildtime = 290
manpower = 13
maxspeed = 6
defaultorganisation = 30
morale = 30
defensiveness = 35
toughness = 40
softness = 95
suppression = 5
airdefence = 14
softattack = 13
hardattack = 5
airattack = 3
transportweight = 10
supplyconsumption = 1.1
fuelconsumption = 0.5
upgrade_time_factor = 0.20
upgrade_cost_factor = 0.75
reinforce_time = 0.45
reinforce_cost = 0.33
equipment = { manpower = 13000 trucks = 736 horses = 4032 artillery = 82 heavy_artillery = 60 anti_tank = 45 anti_air = 15 }
}About being better for some major countries to build brigades instead of divisions, i thought that maybe for the US and USSR and other potential superpowers (like a victorious nazi Germany, for instance), the decision of switching into brigades should be limited only to cavalry, and some other special units.
Obviously getting balanced values is not an easy task, but with the help of the community i think it's possible.
Sorry but i don't understand what you want to say. Could you explain in a different way, please?
I guess you need to expand the naval tech tree,adding more models of Battleships,why the last model is 1947?
I was about to declare this a Gukpa free thread... Even more? Have you take a look at it? The last BB model is the nuclear one, which is in 1957. If there are no more models is simply because BBs ceased to exist. Since 1947 there were no more new BBs built from scratch.
Does anything do?
I've counted a wooping 89 labels..
CV 1943: 5 max firing distance
CV+CAG 1943: 205
CVE 1944: 42
BB 1939: 38
BB+FP 1943: 43
BB+FC 1942: 48
My point is:
If anything, the incentive to make CVEs is mince if even pre war battleships can outgun carriers.
Well they'd just skip a generation, its not like they will become ships and NEVER upgrade. And since prod costs would just explode for the very late game models, I think I'd want to keep making older but cheaper and proven models.
Also, Gupka, Gupka everywhere!
Kretoxian,
As far as wing vs. squad, I only meant that I thought the the idea of triple speed for squads would be strange, considering most aircraft cruise and rebase at roughly their maximum historic speeds anyway; you'd end up with late interceptors going mach 9 or something. Squadrons would still be attractive in terms of time to deployment, however, based solely on increased morale; rebasing would decrease ORG for squads or wings equally, and squads would recover and begin fighting in the front faster. In other words, you wouldn't need to alter their speed to make them attractive for smaller, nimble countries.
My other idea was that doctrines from one branch (air force, navy, army) could have influence on another. Based on my specific example, some high-level air doctrine might have the effect of increasing army morale and organization. However, any cross-branch effect is possible and should be considered.
My specific example was from my understanding of US military history, and the role that research into air force doctrines had on army combat effectiveness or activity. There are doubtless others.
You might argue that there is no room, but I'd suggest adding these effects to existing late game doctrines. Just a thought.
As far as wing vs. squad, I only meant that I thought the the idea of triple speed for squads would be strange, considering most aircraft cruise and rebase at roughly their maximum historic speeds anyway; you'd end up with late interceptors going mach 9 or something. Squadrons would still be attractive in terms of time to deployment, however, based solely on increased morale; rebasing would decrease ORG for squads or wings equally, and squads would recover and begin fighting in the front faster. In other words, you wouldn't need to alter their speed to make them attractive for smaller, nimble countries.
My other idea was that doctrines from one branch (air force, navy, army) could have influence on another. Based on my specific example, some high-level air doctrine might have the effect of increasing army morale and organization. However, any cross-branch effect is possible and should be considered.
My specific example was from my understanding of US military history, and the role that research into air force doctrines had on army combat effectiveness or activity. There are doubtless others.
You might argue that there is no room, but I'd suggest adding these effects to existing late game doctrines. Just a thought.
Labels do provide visual help. But you already clearly see where are the infantry, cavalry, logistics..
And if things arent clear, click everywhere!
Edit: By the way, why does the seaplanes cease to progress after 1941?? Sure helos replaced their role, but not that early right?
Check this beauty i found. Supersonic seaplane fighter!
Edit2: Could cold war super heavy artillery be represented? I'd love to see the Pion ingame.
Last edited: