Are long term production line underpowered?

[valisk]

To add to this point:

You should be saving XP to do big upgrades anyway.

So, instead of putting 75 XP on a plane every 3 months, put 400 XP on a plane every 6-8 months.

And if you are swimming in XP, maybe apply it to vehicles on different production lines.

In January, put 400 XP on fighters. In May, put 200 XP on CAS.

That's not far off what usually happens anyway as I forget to use the XP by not paying close enough attention

 

[Happy Trigger]

After watching the match between the Devs and the Influencers, i realized how awful is the exchange between fighters 1 x fighters 2. I did some tests after that:

Fighter 1 upgrades: Lvl 5 engine, Lvl 1 weapons and Lvl 1reability.
Fighter 2 with (same as above) and without upgrades.

During the battle the exchange was: fighters 1 15~20 x ~7 (shot down numbers) fighters 2 without upgrade, and 20~35 x ~5 fighters 2 with upgrades. (Daily numbers without counting weather changes.)

In history, some fighters like the BF-109, the Zero and the Spitfire, were produced for long periods, being upgraded to match the new enemies fighters, if not in parity, close to it. But nothing of that can be replicated in Hoi4.

I suggest that:
- Upgrades to all technologies should be doubled (10 upgrade levels), and integrated with a balance system, where you can't level up more than 3 points in the same category, without investing other 2 in other things. Example: 3 points in engine, 1 weapons and 1 reability.
- Each point upgraded would increase the production cost.
- Superior technology should have their production cost increased (a little more) to match their superior fight capabilities.
- All that changes should take in account that the gap between old and new tech should be narrowed, so, with "few" upgrades made, old technology should be able to compete against new ones, but not with the same perfomance. Example: Even if a player upgrade his fighter 1 to have the same agility of a fighter 2, the fighter 1 would have less range, or firepower, etc., because of the balance system.

With that changes, players would need to exchange less tech in production along the time, gaining more research time to invest in doctrines or other often less researched tech. Though, sooner or later, the player would be compeled to research new tech to not get too much behind the curve.

 

[Spelaren]

So which is better? Concentrated or dispersed? Should i upgrade my equipment if i already have the first artillery gun and the 1936 rifle?

 

[Androbey]

You don`t have to upgrade anything other than tanks and fighters.

Depends on difficulty/other factors. Often, tanks and fighters are the only things that are updated before 1943, If I need to push synthetic techs, and so on.

When Germany faced new Soviet tanks like T-34 and KV, Germans simply put on a bigger gun (and more armor) on their Pz4 and thus could continue to mass produce a very cheap tank while largely neturalizing the Soviet investment into more expensive and heavier tanks that were notoriously unreliable. And then in 1943 had to rush a new line of tanks, because issues cost and reliability issues tend to get sorted out over time.

In practice, however, there were 1 reasons Soviets didn`t introduce newer designs, that they already had: They did in introduce new designs of higher priority, like IS-2 deployment was prioritized over T-43, and IS-2 transition was very hard, reliability and build quality were poor, and it took a tonne of time to sort out.

Then, you might find SVT-40 that was withdrawn for high cost, PPSH and similar SMGs, that were put in service, and of course their air force, that introduced and upgraded 3 main lines of fighter Yak-1 to 3 to 9, LAGG3 to LA5 to La7, and MIG, a vast array of new light armor and armored vehicles, T-60, T-70, SU-76, and various TDs and AGs.

T-34 is actually the exception for Soviets, not the rule, pretty much all other armor, which always get`s ignored for some god known reason was upgraded in 42, 43, and 44, it`s just T-34 hull that was kept through the war, while it`s turret was constantly redesigned.

Yes, same as BF-109, only a few re-engines, and complete change of armament.

Just replace Tigers and Panthers with Shermans and T-34, and T-34 and Shermans for Pz3 and Pz2.

It is just a reality of world, that USA and SU had more industry and manpower, and would produce more out of it.

The reason USA kept building Sherman, I know, shockingly, because it was a 1941 designed tank, and US had to fight with something in 1944, not spend another 1-2 years ironing teething problems of Pershing till war was over. Then, despite popular belif, Sherman performed very well, and there was no reason to replace it till 1944, at which point, as you might guess, such replacement would not be deployed till war was over.

It was actually made more complex, as war progressed.

It might have something to do with UVZ employing 29-31k workers over 1942-1945, while Nibelungenwerke started at 5k in 1941, and topped at 8k, even then it had to do with lost of labor being foreigners and "nonvolunteer" vorkers, as to stay within forum rules, which, obviously decreased productivity.

One aspect of wartime military production that seems to be forgotten location.
European combatants Germany and the USSR used the existing rail infrastructure to transport equipment to resupply depots at the front. Trains would be loaded via RO/RO.
The USA had two things that did not allow that, The Pacific & Atlantic Oceans. Loading freighters with equipment was limited to the lifting capacity of the cranes of the era. This was a major consideration in the decision to not build a heavy tank.

 

[Icedkk]

I find the plane and tank designer idea interesting. However if we introduce somwthing like that, than somehow we need to see what the other countries have on their tanks in order to counter them. Ofc the level of knowledge in this case should be after some level of spying. Additionally a new panel would be also usefull to see at what points their tanks are for example faster, hits harder than your armor of your tanks, etc... so we can design chasis, weapons, engines etc... Then we dont really need to research tank destroyers, spg, spaa...

 

[Zauberelefant]

So which is better? Concentrated or dispersed? Should i upgrade my equipment if i already have the first artillery gun and the 1936 rifle?

YMMV. What is your "Main" , as kids say today?

 

[mursolini]

One aspect of wartime military production that seems to be forgotten location.
European combatants Germany and the USSR used the existing rail infrastructure to transport equipment to resupply depots at the front. Trains would be loaded via RO/RO.
The USA had two things that did not allow that, The Pacific & Atlantic Oceans. Loading freighters with equipment was limited to the lifting capacity of the cranes of the era. This was a major consideration in the decision to not build a heavy tank.

Well, one has to wonder then, how did they deploy 43 tonne, tank with 90mm cannon, known as Pershing in Europe.
Also how Brits deployed Churchills. I mean, they probably were not paradroped nor did they cross British channel under water.

Pershing was equivalent in weight to Soviet heavy tanks, German Panther and British Churchill. So it's not like US didn't have equivalent to German and Soviet armor, it was just slightly too late to arrive, to achieve anything, nor were it's problems ironed out. Then, you kinda have to remember that US had a heavy armor program in M1 and M6, the result just wasn't worth deploying.

So... Sherman was the good tank US had, and could produce and deploy in time. It's heavy tank or equivalent wasn't present because it wasn't worth deploying.

But it's easier to come with excuses then to admit US screwed up a weapon program. It's not something unique for US(magnetic fuse for torpedo debucle easily comes to mind), nor was US somehow an outlier in that regard.

 

[Spelaren]

YMMV. What is your "Main" , as kids say today?

I play minor countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania and similarly sized countries

 

[Zauberelefant]

I play minor countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania and similarly sized countries

Then i'd say: try to get some current tank, current fighter, old CAS, and lots and lots of rifles and guns, but Inf equipment I is sufficient, as is Art I.
Focused industry preferred. You need to make the most of a small Industrial base and cannot research so much modern equipment anyways.

 

[STABBY5]

Panther and Tiger tanks was expensive, often broke down and could not be produced in large numbers so if these tanks actually was any better than the Panzer IV on the strategic scale is probably pretty doubtful

The Panther at the end of the war was cheaper and easier to produce than the Panzer 4. They did consider ending production of the Panzer 4 all together but by that point they just needed Tanks. The Germans had the entire E series planned out which was basically redesigned Panthers and Tiger 2's to make them easy to produce but it was far too late to start thinking of ease of manufacture.

The little tank was absolutely no match for a pziii that the germans mainly used but the american tank just kept running when everything else broke down.

Panzer III's in Africa at the time were far inferior to the M3 Lee. The M3 had a 75mm that could outrange the short barreled 50mm. It also had superior armor and reliability. The M3 just looks kind of outdated. In fact there is really no where that the Germans had the superior tanks. They were just constantly panicking strapping 75's and 88's to anything with an engine.

 

[SophieX]

Panzer III's in Africa at the time were far inferior to the M3 Lee. The M3 had a 75mm that could outrange the short barreled 50mm. It also had superior armor and reliability. The M3 just looks kind of outdated. In fact there is really no where that the Germans had the superior tanks.

To compare equipment is only one aspect. There a are more aspects with quiet the same relevance. Here I think of crew-experience, leadership, tactical understanding of "combined" arms-warfare, keeping the initiative, doctrines etc.

But the problem of all strategic-games is, that they could barely "portray" the aspects I mentioned.

 

[Riekopo]

Not a historian and haven't done a lot of research. But there was a massive amount of Tanks and Aircraft produced by all the major countries during the war. Like often tens of thousands of a single vehicle. The game production is probably too low I would guess. I know the major countries don't start out with the number of things they should have.

Naval production definitely isn't high enough. The Americans built like 100 Carriers for example.

 

[SophieX]

Not a historian and haven't done a lot of research. But there was a massive amount of Tanks and Aircraft produced by all the major countries during the war. Like often tens of thousands of a single vehicle. The game production is probably too low I would guess. I know the major countries don't start out with the number of things they should have.

Naval production definitely isn't high enough. The Americans built like 100 Carriers for example.

I think there is no big difference whether fighting 100 tanks against 100 tanks or 2000 tanks against 2000 tanks; but lower numbers might be better for the Computer-performance. Same for navy.

 

[Fulmen]

Not a historian and haven't done a lot of research. But there was a massive amount of Tanks and Aircraft produced by all the major countries during the war. Like often tens of thousands of a single vehicle. The game production is probably too low I would guess. I know the major countries don't start out with the number of things they should have.

There's too many modern aircraft early on and too few later in the game.

Naval production definitely isn't high enough. The Americans built like 100 Carriers for example.

That's because a) the actual US warmaking potential was far greater than in the game and b) escort carriers don't exist in the game, nor do really light carriers either.

 

[Happy Trigger]

The Panther at the end of the war was cheaper and easier to produce than the Panzer 4. They did consider ending production of the Panzer 4 all together but by that point they just needed Tanks. The Germans had the entire E series planned out which was basically redesigned Panthers and Tiger 2's to make them easy to produce but it was far too late to start thinking of ease of manufacture.

Panzer III's in Africa at the time were far inferior to the M3 Lee. The M3 had a 75mm that could outrange the short barreled 50mm. It also had superior armor and reliability. The M3 just looks kind of outdated. In fact there is really no where that the Germans had the superior tanks. They were just constantly panicking strapping 75's and 88's to anything with an engine.

Notice that you're only comparing numbers, not taking in account the flaws of the M3. The 75mm gun of the M3 was lower than the Panzer 3 and fixed to the body of the tank. If a Panzer were at the oposite side of the 75mm cannon of the M3, the M3 was probably going to be destroyed before it could react. That's why the americans expended so much time researching new ways of tank construction, to finally come with their "final" model, the Sherman.

 

[STABBY5]

Notice that you're only comparing numbers, not taking in account the flaws of the M3. The 75mm gun of the M3 was lower than the Panzer 3 and fixed to the body of the tank. If a Panzer were at the oposite side of the 75mm cannon of the M3, the M3 was probably going to be destroyed before it could react. That's why the americans expended so much time researching new ways of tank construction, to finally come with their "final" model, the Sherman.

I don't know what to tell you but they were fighting in an open desert. Most of the engagements were head on and most tanks attacked in the sides were dead anyway. It also had a turret which was capable of knocking out a panzer III. The real life results were the Americans preforming better.

After the fall of France they saw the need for a tank with a 75mm gun in the turret and began designing the M4 Sherman. When war broke out the Sherman's were not ready so they threw together the M3 Lee which was essentially the same tank but without the larger turret ring and a sponsion. Our development of the Sherman was not because of the M3 Lee's problems. The M3 was a stopgap measure to fill the need for modern tanks in North Africa. It did job well and was superior to the opposing tanks.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I don't know what to tell you but they were fighting in an open desert. Most of the engagements were head on and most tanks attacked in the sides were dead anyway. It also had a turret which was capable of knocking out a panzer III. The real life results were the Americans preforming better.

After the fall of France they saw the need for a tank with a 75mm gun in the turret and began designing the M4 Sherman. When war broke out the Sherman's were not ready so they threw together the M3 Lee which was essentially the same tank but without the larger turret ring and a sponsion. Our development of the Sherman was not because of the M3 Lee's problems. The M3 was a stopgap measure to fill the need for modern tanks in North Africa. It did job well and was superior to the opposing tanks.

The soviets called the M3 "grave for six friends".
That thing was nothing close to the Sherman or Pz IV F2.

 

[Happy Trigger]

I don't know what to tell you but they were fighting in an open desert. Most of the engagements were head on and most tanks attacked in the sides were dead anyway. It also had a turret which was capable of knocking out a panzer III. The real life results were the Americans preforming better.

After the fall of France they saw the need for a tank with a 75mm gun in the turret and began designing the M4 Sherman. When war broke out the Sherman's were not ready so they threw together the M3 Lee which was essentially the same tank but without the larger turret ring and a sponsion. Our development of the Sherman was not because of the M3 Lee's problems. The M3 was a stopgap measure to fill the need for modern tanks in North Africa. It did job well and was superior to the opposing tanks.

Imagine a tank that needed to rotate its entire body, twice as much as the Stug, to aim your primary gun, just because it was fixed at the side of the tank body. How can you say it wasn't a huge flaw? Notice that they only did that at the time, because in USA, they didn't know how to attach this big gun at the top of the tank. That's why they expended so much time researching, analyzing captured tanks, and exchanging information with the soviets.

 

[Secret Master]

How can you say it wasn't a huge flaw?

 

[STABBY5]

That thing was nothing close to the Sherman or Pz IV F2

It's a good thing Sherman's and F2's were not around in North Africa until they both were. Thus fulfilling its role as a stopgap measure.

Imagine a tank that needed to rotate its entire body, twice as much as the Stug, to aim your primary gun, just because it was fixed at the side of the tank body. How can you say it wasn't a huge flaw? Notice that they only did that at the time, because in USA, they didn't know how to attach this big gun at the top of the tank. That's why they expended so much time researching, analyzing captured tanks, and exchanging information with the soviets.

I never said it wasn't a flaw. I said the Sherman wasn't designed because of the M3's flaws not because it didn't have flaws. And that the terrain they were fighting in mitigated these flaws. The Sherman was being designed since the fall of France. The M3 was an early prototype Sherman chassis that they strapped a hull gun onto because they needed a 75mm. It did what it needed to do, when it needed to do it.