Balance and Imbalances - An Alpha Dev Teaser

[Will Steel]

just be careful with ghandi! that crazy SOB will cause the apocalypse if india gets nukes!

Gandhi (yes, h comes after d) in Civilization series is the biggest nemesis of every living human being.

Just dare to say that you are somewhere close to his borders, and the next thing you'll see is hundreds of nukes coming your way.

 

[Beagá]

Super Heavy Armor are like Mountaineers, excel in smal number of situations. Some other units such as infantry and medium armor are generalist, they don't solve hard situations like Super Heavy Armor or Mounatineers but they are more flexible.

A question: What do the arrow thing above the green general mean?

Yeah man, that´s why they were so used in the war, like mountaineers.

No comment.

Let´s put Zepellin and bear cavalry in the game, too.

 

[agus92]

Yeah man, that´s why they were so used in the war, like mountaineers.

No comment.

Let´s put Zepellin and bear cavalry in the game, too.

I don't think you understood him.

 

[Milkman Luke]

...

Let´s put Zepellin and bear cavalry in the game, too.

Gotta save that stuff for the sweet Sunset (Alien?) Invasion DLC.

 

[Beagá]

I don't think you understood him.

I think you understood neither my post, or his.

He said super heavies should be useful versus forts, I said just one of the reasons they wouldn´t (huge, slow target for artillery). Let alone engine trouble etc etc.

There is reason why guns and air attack were used to destroy forts, including the huge german guns like Dora.

Not super duper heavies.

 

[Denkt]

Podcat said that Super Heavy Armor are useful against forts and I just continued to explain why they are useful.

 

[D Inqu]

Podcat said that Super Heavy Armor are useful against forts and I just continued to explain why they are useful.

I think the issue was that you said "Super Heavy Armor are like Mountaineers excel in smal number of situations". Mountaineers were fairly widespread units, with any country who had mountains having some. They also functioned well as light infantry in non-mountain difficult terrain.

Super heavies were not used by anyone, or considered that useful. The entire "anti fortification" idea sounds like desperate "let's find some use for this fantasy unit". The anti fortification warfare relied on super-heavy artillery, air suppression, stromtroopers/assault engineers. There really is not need for a super heavy armor unit for this role.

 

[Denkt]

It is a game and if the developers chose to include Super Heavy Armor instead of Super Heavy Artillery so be it.
Having useless units are bad for every game, better to removed them or make the unit useful then just letting it be.

In the game both Super Heavy Armor and Mountaineers will be both specalized units that excel in a smal number of situations.

Depends on how you define useful. They are good on defense and get bonuses for cracking forts (we are going with Tortoise or t28 rike design target rather than maus)
They are likely not going to be cost effective unless the opponent is building maginot lines

 

[Milkman Luke]

Then there's the Rocketeer infantry in the pending Alien Invasion DLC which is always useful except in provinces where the spacetime nukes get dropped.

*edit* Not sarcastic. Rocketeer troops and aliens would be fun as hell.

 

[Beagá]

I think the issue was that you said "Super Heavy Armor are like Mountaineers excel in smal number of situations". Mountaineers were fairly widespread units, with any country who had mountains having some. They also functioned well as light infantry in non-mountain difficult terrain.

Super heavies were not used by anyone, or considered that useful. The entire "anti fortification" idea sounds like desperate "let's find some use for this fantasy unit". The anti fortification warfare relied on super-heavy artillery, air suppression, stromtroopers/assault engineers. There really is not need for a super heavy armor unit for this role.

Bingo.

Know the best way to never have to balance a "feature"?

Don´t put said "feature" in the game in the first place.

THAT simple.

 

[Axe99]

I think the issue was that you said "Super Heavy Armor are like Mountaineers excel in smal number of situations". Mountaineers were fairly widespread units, with any country who had mountains having some. They also functioned well as light infantry in non-mountain difficult terrain.

Super heavies were not used by anyone, or considered that useful. The entire "anti fortification" idea sounds like desperate "let's find some use for this fantasy unit". The anti fortification warfare relied on super-heavy artillery, air suppression, stromtroopers/assault engineers. There really is not need for a super heavy armor unit for this role.

This isn't actually strictly true in terms of considered useful. Noting that Podcat's said that they're looking at a Tortoise-style heavy tank for fortification clearance, and these were built and were considered a good gun platform but heavy and difficult to transport. They were always intended to be very niche in use (they were pretty much designed for the Siegried line, but didn't make it to operational status before the line had been crossed) and they only built six of them, but they for the most part WAD (which, for a British tank early in its lifecycle was something of a miracle!) The US built the T-28 for similar purposes, but was even later in terms of development, and they only ever had two prototypes working before the program was scrapped. From quick Googling they look similar (if a little heavier, armour-wise) to the ISU-152, which was produced in the thousands by the USSR and served as a super-heavy TD/SPG/Assault Gun. They also similar to the JagdTiger, which had 80-odd built and saw action (although not terribly successfully).

So I'd say they have a role as this kind of super-heavy armoured vehicle, but mainly fortress assaults and as TDs/SPGs, and would be 'expensive luxuries'.

 

[D Inqu]

This isn't actually strictly true in terms of considered useful. Noting that Podcat's said that they're looking at a Tortoise-style heavy tank for fortification clearance, and these were built and were considered a good gun platform but heavy and difficult to transport. They were always intended to be very niche in use (they were pretty much designed for the Siegried line, but didn't make it to operational status before the line had been crossed) and they only built six of them, but they for the most part WAD (which, for a British tank early in its lifecycle was something of a miracle!) The US built the T-28 for similar purposes, but was even later in terms of development, and they only ever had two prototypes working before the program was scrapped. From quick Googling they look similar (if a little heavier, armour-wise) to the ISU-152, which was produced in the thousands by the USSR and served as a super-heavy TD/SPG/Assault Gun. They also similar to the JagdTiger, which had 80-odd built and saw action (although not terribly successfully).

So I'd say they have a role as this kind of super-heavy armoured vehicle, but mainly fortress assaults and as TDs/SPGs, and would be 'expensive luxuries'.

Well, neither T28 or Tortoise got beyond prototypes because they really have 0 use. There were so many far more flexible ways of forcing though fortifications, so many disadvantages to a 100 tonne monster vehicle, and so many ways to deal with heavy armor. The ISU-152 was not a superheavy, it shared the standard soviet heavy chassis and was equal in weight to the IS and Panther.

Gamewise, the smallest component in the designer is a batallion (aka at least couple dozen vehicles). Also gamewise, you need to use the global exp to create and modify division templates. The US never envisaged more than 25 T28 at any point in time and even that was soon abandoned. So you would need to somehow balance having a tech tree and strategic exp spending for something that really has no role whatsoever. Yes, you could try to find a role for it, like anti-fortification (which was a lost cause, as the 105mm gun was just not going to do the job that required 210-mm howitzers).

If we want big shiny toys, why not add siege heavy artillery as a unit, like Br-4, Morser and larger guns, which were actually produced in significant numbers, and were actually used against fortifications?

 

[Axe99]

Well, neither T28 or Tortoise got beyond prototypes because they really have 0 use. There were so many far more flexible ways of forcing though fortifications, so many disadvantages to a 100 tonne monster vehicle, and so many ways to deal with heavy armor. The ISU-152 was not a superheavy, it shared the standard soviet heavy chassis and was equal in weight to the IS and Panther.

Gamewise, the smallest component in the designer is a batallion (aka at least couple dozen vehicles). Also gamewise, you need to use the global exp to create and modify division templates. The US never envisaged more than 25 T28 at any point in time and even that was soon abandoned. So you would need to somehow balance having a tech tree and strategic exp spending for something that really has no role whatsoever. Yes, you could try to find a role for it, like anti-fortification (which was a lost cause, as the 105mm gun was just not going to do the job that required 210-mm howitzers).

If we want big shiny toys, why not add siege heavy artillery as a unit, like Br-4, Morser and larger guns, which were actually produced in significant numbers, and were actually used against fortifications?

The UK Gov't ordered 25 Tortoises - they envisaged a use for them if the war had gone on longer than it did - as did the US - but given the war had wrapped up, it's hardly surprising they didn't build them. They stopped building a lot of other things at the end of the war as well, but that didn't make them useless .

Don't get me wrong, your point about battalions is a good one, as is your point about the ISU-152 (sorry about that, that was just me doing some quickly Googling, I'm not tank expert). The JagdTiger is really the only unit that hits the criterion of both being ridiculously heavy and operational at a battalion level, and that should probably be a TD variant of the Tiger 2, rather than a super-heavy. So the only two 'true' super-heavy tanks in the use in question, the Tortoise and T-28, were never envisaged to operate at an appropriate level for the game. I'd personally have no trouble if they weren't in the game, I was just arguing that the contention that they weren't completely useless. There are definitely a bunch of other things I'd put in the game before SHArm (and the Tortoise/T-28 aren't really SHARM but more SH Assault Guns that could double as TDs), but if a player wanted to spend the time and effort building them, but say if Germany had put up more of a fight on the continent and the invasion of Europe was a slower, more hard-fought affair, I could see the point to building a few Tortoise/T-28 battalions to help break through with. Same story with the German/Soviet battle, and a range of potential alternative scenarios.

Edit: And I'd be a fan of siege artillery making the cut, particularly if it was deployed at a battalion level.

 

[agus92]

I think the issue was that you said "Super Heavy Armor are like Mountaineers excel in smal number of situations". Mountaineers were fairly widespread units, with any country who had mountains having some. They also functioned well as light infantry in non-mountain difficult terrain.

Super heavies were not used by anyone, or considered that useful. The entire "anti fortification" idea sounds like desperate "let's find some use for this fantasy unit". The anti fortification warfare relied on super-heavy artillery, air suppression, stromtroopers/assault engineers. There really is not need for a super heavy armor unit for this role.

Well, we have the kv2 for instance. I am not sure if it can be qualified as a super heavy by it's tonnage, but it certanly can due to it's performance/purpose.

 

[D Inqu]

Well, we have the kv2 for instance. I am not sure if it can be qualified as a super heavy by it's tonnage, but it certanly can due to it's performance/purpose.

Neither.

The KV-2 is a heavy tank variant. No much heavier than KV-1 (equal to Tiger) nor heavily armored, the one feature was the big gun (which didn't quite work in a rotating turret as intended). It fills the same role as the IS series - a breakthrough heavy tank with powerful HE (IS-2 tanks did use their HE against fortifications in Prussia). Nothing "super-heavy" about it.

 

[Denkt]

Well in HOI4 Panther is a medium tank while Pershing is a heavy tank while in real life they have about the same weight.

• A medium tank in HOI4 is probably about 30t
• A heavy tank about 45t
• A super heavy tank around 60-80t

So Super heavy tank don't represent as heavy vehicles as you may think, the real King Tiger tank would be a super heavy in HOI4 (King Tiger is a heavy tank for Germany in HOI4 tech tree).

 

[Joppos]

Well, neither T28 or Tortoise got beyond prototypes because they really have 0 use. There were so many far more flexible ways of forcing though fortifications, so many disadvantages to a 100 tonne monster vehicle, and so many ways to deal with heavy armor. The ISU-152 was not a superheavy, it shared the standard soviet heavy chassis and was equal in weight to the IS and Panther.

Gamewise, the smallest component in the designer is a batallion (aka at least couple dozen vehicles). Also gamewise, you need to use the global exp to create and modify division templates. The US never envisaged more than 25 T28 at any point in time and even that was soon abandoned. So you would need to somehow balance having a tech tree and strategic exp spending for something that really has no role whatsoever. Yes, you could try to find a role for it, like anti-fortification (which was a lost cause, as the 105mm gun was just not going to do the job that required 210-mm howitzers).

If we want big shiny toys, why not add siege heavy artillery as a unit, like Br-4, Morser and larger guns, which were actually produced in significant numbers, and were actually used against fortifications?

It is impossible to know how large-scale implementation of SH tanks would have fared in the long-term. We can of course assume a whole lot based on historical hindsight, but it will still only be just that; assumption. What we know is that the vehicle concept was interesting enough to be seriously looked-into and developed to some degree by most major nations, and theoretically had some uses. That's more than enough reason to include it in a game that focuses on enabling even improbable alternative history and strategy. Naturally the game should be weighted towards historically produced vehicles, but, it would almost definitely be a boring game if the player could only produce what was historically produced in large numbers.

Also, there's no reason why it has to be a choice between SH art and SH tanks.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The whole reason the US nuked the cities it did, was because thats where teh Japanese synthetic industry was.

Uh... what? Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima contained facilities dedicated to synthetic fuel or rubber production. The major industrial facilities at Hiroshima were all on the outskirts of the city, a long ways away from the aim point and consequently only suffered superficial damage. In the case of Nagasaki, the bomb missed it's aim point by 3 kilometers. In spite of this, two munition plants and a steel mill were within the blast radius and all were consequently annihilated or so badly damaged that they might as well have been. Their work forces were likewise decimated. The cities electrical works was at the outer-edge of the blast radius and hence suffered minimal damage.

Given this sample, it seems that even WW2-era atomic weapons can have a devastating impact on a cities industry assuming they are appropriately targeted. A 20 kiloton bomb detonating within 1-1.5 kilometers* of any industrial facility will, in practical terms, destroy that facility. Particularly soft facilities, like oil refineries, would likely be wiped out at even greater distances. Translating that in Hearts of Iron, using a atom bomb should therefore include a high chance of destroying several factories within the affected province/state.

*A feat eminently doable even in WW2.

 

[Mitsugi]

Well in HOI4 Panther is a medium tank while Pershing is a heavy tank while in real life they have about the same weight.

The Pershing is even a little lighter (42 metric tons vs 45). Same tactical role, too, they were both supposed to replace the previous medium tank in the armored divisions, but reliability/production issues prevented this. In 1944, the US planned that its 1945 tank production would consist of only Pershings and 105mm howitzer Shermans. All 75mm/76mm Sherman production would cease (along with tank destroyer production), to be replaced by Pershings. That's a medium tank, albeit overweight and underpowered.

By contrast, the IS-2 also weighs about 45 tons, but is clearly intended as a heavy tank.

 

[Harrys_boy50]

I really hope there is a way to turn the nuclear option off