Hearts of Iron IV - 46th Development Diary - 26th of February 2016

[Riftwalker]

what I want to know is that if people have a problem with the Matilda, why does no one have a problem with the Valentine? it's a slower tank than the Matilda 2 and had if I remember correctly a smaller gun. On top of that it also mainly used parts from older model tanks because they were already tested allowing it to be more easily produced, what about it makes it the 1941 light tank? IT seems to be a worse offender than the Mailda.

 

[Axe99]

what I want to know is that if people have a problem with the Matilda, why does no one have a problem with the Valentine? it's a slower tank than the Matilda 2 and had if I remember correctly a smaller gun. On top of that it also mainly used parts from older model tanks because they were already tested allowing it to be more easily produced, what about it makes it the 1941 light tank? IT seems to be a worse offender than the Mailda.

Most people who mentioned they thought the Matilda didn't fit in the light tank tree also mentioned the Valentine (and the FT-17 - at least the Matilda and Valentine were actually British tanks ) - it's just that while quite a few people argued that the Matilda makes a decent light tank, no one took up the Valentine's cause, so there hasn't been as involved a discussion around it. The initial Valentines had the same armament as the Matilda (and later models had a 6 pounder, something the Matilda never moved to in a production sense, at least according to wikipedia) and moved at a similar speed (1mph slower), but they were nearly 10 tons lighter and had less armour, so I'd probably rate it as a slightly more appropriate light tank, but I'm not debating this - I'm happy for people to consider it an armoured car or a buster-bunking assault gun, or a strategic bomber, at this stage .

 

[Atlantians]

Would you like to describe? I still wonder how this system will fail to represent the abilities of the british tanks. Giving the Matilda the same base stats as the Tiger chassis would, on the other hand... be problematic. What of Soft attack, for example? Not to mention production costs.

The Matilda had superior combat performance against comparable enemy tanks than Tiger did.

 

[Atlantians]

what I want to know is that if people have a problem with the Matilda, why does no one have a problem with the Valentine? it's a slower tank than the Matilda 2 and had if I remember correctly a smaller gun. On top of that it also mainly used parts from older model tanks because they were already tested allowing it to be more easily produced, what about it makes it the 1941 light tank? IT seems to be a worse offender than the Mailda.

It is funny, you accused me of not reading your post; yet I and everyone else complaining about Matilda being a 'light' have mentioned Valentine as another error.

Valentine was not a Light. But Valentine was also very tactically and strategically insignificant. Matilda was not insignificant.

 

[jamesd]

what I want to know is that if people have a problem with the Matilda, why does no one have a problem with the Valentine? it's a slower tank than the Matilda 2 and had if I remember correctly a smaller gun. On top of that it also mainly used parts from older model tanks because they were already tested allowing it to be more easily produced, what about it makes it the 1941 light tank? IT seems to be a worse offender than the Mailda.

As others have said, the Valentine has been mentioned as being out of place by a number of people. I think its actually a good candidate for a well armoured variant of a medium tank. Take the 1939 medium and add 4-5 points of armour and reliability but don't add anything to the engine and you might get something close to the early Valentines. While designated an infantry tank it was used by armoured (medium) brigades in addition to tank (heavy) brigades. The Russians also used it in place of T-34's a lot of the time, even though they officially classed it as a light tank (politics?). Its frontal armour came close to that of the Matilda II, but it was a lot lighter suggesting the rear and side armour was thinner - I don't have my books here at work to check. It was also significantly cheaper and easier to produce than the Matilda, another pointer to Valentines being mediums and Matildas heavies.

If it is best placed as a medium variant, that raises potential issues in that it was produced by both the UK and Canada. Without tech trading/production licences, how does Canada build the same variant as the UK? How does Canada get the land experience to create its own variant? They didn't get a division into action until 1942.

 

[Orlunu]

If it is best placed as a medium variant, that raised potential issues in that it was produced by both the UK and Canada. Without tech trading/production licences, how does Canada build the same variant as the UK? How does Canada get the land experience to create its own variant? They didn't get a division into action until 1942.

Depends on how robust the tech sharing system is. Can't remember anything about it from WWW but there must have been some indication around when he started lend-leasing to Japan? I'll have to go back and look.

If tech sharing/licenced production isn't possible, well, then, it's just another flaw and another thing that'll need mods to fix.

 

[mursolini]

Matilda II, T-100/SMK, Type 97 Heavy. I seem to have been wrong about the dates on a couple of French tanks.

T-100 and SMK didn`t really see combat or production, they failed it`s trials and got dumped.

By Type 97 Heavy i assume you mean Type 97 Chi-Ha?

The anti-infantry frontal hull gun is a pretty standard feature not usually worthy of much note. This tank used a slightly unusual one but, again, the role is pretty much the same as all the other anti-infantry frontal hull mounts, it just favours alpha over attack speed. The turret number, however, severely impacts construction and the ways in which the tank can be used.

Hull gun being "standard" feature of 1920s tank may be, for 1930s it extremely rare. An extra hull gun also severely impacts tank construction and crew operation, since tank needs to engage several targets at same time, something which multi-tureted tanks usually do.

It is from a different paradigm, it is not from a totally different paradigm. The most distinguishing factor of infantry tank design was that they sacrificed an enormous amount of speed for firepower or defence. The think we usually use to identify a heavy tank is disproportionate emphasis of those factors over speed. A phalanx and a Viking shield wall are different formations, but the phalanx clearly bears much closer resemblance to the shield wall than to, say, 1800s light infantry dispersions. Infantry tanks are not heavy tanks (and, actually, I far prefer the British setup), but that is clearly the closest category from the light/medium/heavy system.

Strictly speaking, Matilda 2 is hardly a good example of fire-power.
It is a tank with at best a gun of medium tank, it lacks HE shells to do the work of heavy tank, which typically had at least 1 75mm gun, T-35 and Char B being obvious examples.

It is under-gunned for heavy tank and it is too slow for medium.

The German Neubaufahrzeug fought in Norway, so it did see combat, but apparently they only made three of them, so it's hardly registering on the HoI4 scale. That said, the Maus is in the game.....

Yes, but isn`t Neubaufahrzeug so similar to Grosstracktor it is easily handled by variant?

The Matilda had superior combat performance against comparable enemy tanks than Tiger did.

Do you mean Tiger, late variants of Pz4 and Panther, when citing comparable enemy tanks?

 

[jamesd]

Depends on how robust the tech sharing system is. Can't remember anything about it from WWW but there must have been some indication around when he started lend-leasing to Japan? I'll have to go back and look.

If tech sharing/licenced production isn't possible, well, then, it's just another flaw and another thing that'll need mods to fix.

My understanding is that there is no tech sharing/gifting/trading in the game and there are no production licences. All that you can do is gift equipment that you've produced through lend lease. If a mechanic doesn't exist at all in the base game, is it possible to mod it in?

 

[Axe99]

Yes, but isn`t Neubaufahrzeug so similar to Grosstracktor it is easily handled by variant?

I'm not a tank guy (just a Matilda II fan - and now I'm talking about the Neubaufahrzeug, all this tank talk makes me feel dirty ) but had a look, and it looks like a bit of a stretch. The Grosstraktor was built in the 1920s and (at least according to AchtungPanzer) looks like:

The Neubaufahrzeug (which I so need to look up to spell right every time I write it!) was built in the mid-1930s and looked like:

There are clearly some design similarities, but the turret is entirely different, and the chassis has moved far closer to WW2 designs (whereas the Grosstraktor's WWI inspiration is pretty clear). In my uneducated (ie, not really worth listening to) opinion, I think a slot that fitted in the Neubaufahrzeug, Matilda II (the Neubaufahrzeug was only 2 tons lighter, had a heavier gun but less armour, and moved at the same speed) and the Char 1B (and I'm sure there's at least a Soviet prototype that'd fit in there somewhere) in 1936 or 1937 would make a lot of sense from the stuff I've looked at for the Matilda II conversation, but that's enough for me and tanks - I'm going back to posting about corvettes or something .

 

[mursolini]

I'm not a tank guy (just a Matilda II fan - and now I'm talking about the Neubaufahrzeug, all this tank talk makes me feel dirty ) but had a look, and it looks like a bit of a stretch. The Grosstraktor was built in the 1920s and (at least according to AchtungPanzer) looks like:

There are clearly some design similarities, but the turret is entirely different, and the chassis has moved far closer to WW2 designs (whereas the Grosstraktor's WWI inspiration is pretty clear). In my uneducated (ie, not really worth listening to) opinion, I think a slot that fitted in the Neubaufahrzeug, Matilda II (the Neubaufahrzeug was only 2 tons lighter, had a heavier gun but less armour, and moved at the same speed) and the Char 1B (and I'm sure there's at least a Soviet prototype that'd fit in there somewhere) in 1936 or 1937 would make a lot of sense from the stuff I've looked at for the Matilda II conversation, but that's enough for me and tanks - I'm going back to posting about corvettes or something .

Char B1 is a tank from 20s, it is right where it needs to be, in 1934 slot. It is quite clear, if you look at the chasis and guns.

 

[GsusNSV]

Depends on how robust the tech sharing system is. Can't remember anything about it from WWW but there must have been some indication around when he started lend-leasing to Japan? I'll have to go back and look.

If tech sharing/licenced production isn't possible, well, then, it's just another flaw and another thing that'll need mods to fix.

It is not in. You can only send equipment you produced to someone else (aka lend-lease).

How would you make sharing tech possible? A research bonus or direct access to build it?

 

[wisecat]

T-100 and SMK didn`t really see combat or production, they failed it`s trials and got dumped.

1 of each was built, they run through training field tests, then were sent for real combat trials to Finland in 1939 along with KV-1 tank. KV-1 was the third contender and won the trials. Additionally SMK-100 had tracks and transmission damaged by mine and had to be abandoned on a battlefield (evacuated later). T-100 fought through the whole Finnish campaign but in the end was deemed inferior to KV-1 as well.

 

[mursolini]

1 of each was built, they run through training field tests, then were sent for real combat trials to Finland in 1939 along with KV-1 tank. KV-1 was the third contender and won the trials. Additionally SMK-100 had tracks and transmission damaged by mine and had to be abandoned on a battlefield (evacuated later). T-100 fought through the whole Finnish campaign but in the end was deemed inferior to KV-1 as well.

Yes i was aware of that, that is what failed trials mean.

 

[Axe99]

Char B1 is a tank from 20s, it is right where it needs to be, in 1934 slot. It is quite clear, if you look at the chasis and guns.

The Char B1 started being designed in the 1920s, but at least according to Wikipedia the design wasn't finalised until 1934 and it started production in 1935. It's a mid-30s heavy tank, just like the Matilda II and the Neubaufahrzeug. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need a slot there, but there is something of an inconsistency having a slot for the super heavies, of which I'd bet less than 100 were built in total (across all nations), and not having a slot for the 30s heavies, of which over 3000 were built, and which were one of the few models of tanks to be in service from the start of the European war right to the end (it's apparently the only British tank to achieve that, but this is from Wikipedia, so take with grain of salt).

 

[ASPGolan]

Imagine you're a lead designer at Paradox, the play-testing and press preview confirmed that you will need to have a max of 11-12 tanks per country put into different categories of light, medium or heavy (although those nations might have never been explicit of categories, as historians were - they were merely designing a machine to serve high level requirements from the army). And you invite the 5-6 people interested in tanks to help you decide on what to keep in each slot, which tanks and which tentative stats. And instead of a decision, you get a discussion like the one we had on this forum... mm-yeah, Matilda gets to be a light tank and that's that, mkay?

 

[mursolini]

The Char B1 started being designed in the 1920s, but at least according to Wikipedia the design wasn't finalised until 1934 and it started production in 1935. It's a mid-30s heavy tank, just like the Matilda II and the Neubaufahrzeug. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need a slot there, but there is something of an inconsistency having a slot for the super heavies, of which I'd bet less than 100 were built in total (across all nations), and not having a slot for the 30s heavies, of which over 3000 were built, and which were one of the few models of tanks to be in service from the start of the European war right to the end (it's apparently the only British tank to achieve that, but this is from Wikipedia, so take with grain of salt).

The 1934 slot is there for them. B1 is consistent in design with other 20s tanks. If you compare suspension of say T-35 to Char B1, it is evident that B1 is an older design overall.
Nb-Fz can be ignored, if it is convenient to do so, as it wasn`t accepted to service, nor was it a good design, inferior to Pz4 in every aspect, including, ironically, armor.

Matilda is the only vehicle which doesn`t fit into tech tree, as it needs a medium or heavy tank slot.

 

[Wulf145]

The German Neubaufahrzeug fought in Norway, so it did see combat, but apparently they only made three of them, so it's hardly registering on the HoI4 scale.

The Neubaufahrzeug was sent to Norway but more as a Propaganda ploy, it never fired a shot in anger. If I remember correctly it arrived after Norway had surrendered.

 

[Orlunu]

Yes i was aware of that, that is what failed trials mean.

T-100 and SMK didn`t really see combat

Mmmhmm. You were aware that they saw combat and that's why you wrote that they didn't really see combat.

By Type 97 Heavy i assume you mean Type 97 Chi-Ha?

Type 97 Heavy was a different tank. Current English language sources on it are few to none, but I do believe that there will be a book released soon based on what's in the military archives on Japanese tanks of the period, which has some stuff on it. In the meantime, I'll have a look-see what I have on this hard drive with regards to it, should be able to dig out at least a few sketches.

Hull gun being "standard" feature of 1920s tank may be, for 1930s it extremely rare. An extra hull gun also severely impacts tank construction and crew operation, since tank needs to engage several targets at same time, something which multi-tureted tanks usually do.

You sure?

My understanding is that there is no tech sharing/gifting/trading in the game and there are no production licences. All that you can do is gift equipment that you've produced through lend lease. If a mechanic doesn't exist at all in the base game, is it possible to mod it in?

It is not in. You can only send equipment you produced to someone else (aka lend-lease).

How would you make sharing tech possible? A research bonus or direct access to build it?

Modding the previous games to such a level was possible, and this is supposed to be more moddable. The exact setup will dictate what is the most sensible system, but my first thought is that a system that gives direct access to build the licenced model but requires some receiver-end research slowdown (a team set to receive and process the licence) would be ideal. That may be too challenging, though, and a blueprint system a la DH would be a decent enough stand-in and very simple. My main concern now is that I'm starting to accrue a list of mods to make which is longer than my arm, which are all either basic fixes or expansions to neglected areas; better hope one of the big-name mod teams tackles them all and tackles them right, because I'm not going to be able to hit nearly all of them, and having dozens of minor mods to such things runs a lot of danger of confliction.

 

[mursolini]

Mmmhmm. You were aware that they saw combat and that's why you wrote that they didn't really see combat.

They didn`t see combat as organised units, nor did they see real production runs. Weapons being tested in combat and being rejected don`t come as something that has to be in tech tree.

You sure?

An extra MG is not the same as gun(it doesn`t need an extra range finding, and space for loading). They also were so bad, they eventually got scraped as well(Soviet IS-3 and T-44 didn`t have it, so didn`t M48), so yes, absolutely.

 

[Orlunu]

They didn`t see combat as organised units, nor did they see real production runs. Weapons being tested in combat and being rejected don`t come as something that has to be in tech tree.

The tech existed, it just didn't fit the war plan at the time. This is a game, not a documentary, I should be able to put heavies into larger than historical levels of production if I want.

An extra MG is not the same as gun(it doesn`t need an extra range finding, and space for loading).

Doesn't matter, same role. The technical aspects are different, but they're used essentially the same as each other, and not at all the same as extra turrets.