Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. Tech Tree: Economic & Industrial

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Re: Wow

Originally posted by MateDow
On question I have (because I haven't been able to test it yet) is can a nation have units of a technology that they can't replicate?
Click to expand...
Sure they can, they'll have whatever is in their OOB. In the OOB you can define characteristics that model whatever you want techwise.
 
Aetius: THANKS!!! for sharing this. I'm still digesting it all!!! This is exactly the direction that i have been contemplating.

As MateDow stated, one of the things i'm attempting to address is the major/minor nation gap. HOI is a great game to play what-ifs. Currently, it feels to me that the gap is too narrow, and it is partially due IMHO to insufficient base industrial tech requirements to manufacture or support some of the military advances. I want to explore adding some more req's and linking them back into the military avenues.

Vulture: I have sent you a PM. Could you share with Aetius for me? I would be very interested to hear his thoughts as well. Thanks.

MateDow: Another added benefit is that it will make majors giving supporting forces to minor nations much more necessary and historically accurate.

Question [as i digress] When forces are given; support [supplies/manpower] and losses are made up from recipient nation correct?

Thanks!!!
 
MateDow: I have a couple of suggestions and then a request if you don't mind. These are my opinions and do not necessarily represent the other CORE team members or Paradox.

Suggestions:
1. I would keep in mind that your starting tech tree is one level ABOVE what you feel is the start point for your lowest country. Your default start equipment does not have to be on the tree. I think you have gone back too far here in your start as your tree appears to imply that starting tech is coal fired vessels? However, this may be true, i am not a Naval historian. Others can input.

2. Tech tree is an abstraction to create events and triggers for the game simulation. Just because a tech is real and required does not mean it must to be in the game unless it meets the aforementioned requirements. In other words, i start from the opposite end and say what hooks do i need first. Then i figure out what tech in an abstract way would fit this most logically. My concern is that the depth of your tree is going to create too many small [1 IC*150 day] techs to research. I would have aproblem to support that.

Request:
your detail here is excellent, but does not appear to be aligned with the concept that i started this thread. I proposed this as a complementary work once i deduced Shep's direction with his TechMod work. My intent with this thread is to examine the economic and industrial sides of the tech tree and how they can inter-relate to manage the military tech side. Shep has confirmed his direction and offered some thoughts in this thread for us.

One of the first steps in my mind is to look at the costing side. To do so, i need some benchmarks to work against. My interest in the Liberty/Victory/DDE's is that they can form the economic basis for costing Naval ships as they were very high volume runners and so can represent the top end of the scale. i.e. Best Case Scenario for the timeframe in this simulation is set. Worst case is easy, the italians! :D just joking, sorta!

Your proposals here are appear quite focused on Naval Tech progression and i would ask that you really work this in with the other threads that are working in that regard: Shep's TechMod and the Naval Mod threads with Generalissimo is particular. I do not want to start a new Naval thread as i am not technically competent to do so.

If i have mis-interpreted your intentions, my apologies, and please elaborate on your intents so that i can work them into mine. I do not want to replicate work.

If i have assessed your intents correctly, can you have one of the moderators move your posting here to the appropriate thread so that it can get the input and attention it deserves?

Thanks.
 
well, i must said that i like to change the tech tree, BUT, try to keep the game balanced, there is a lot of people that changes things just because they think that are right and make the game almost UNREAL.

Well, i think that MateDow post is totally about naval techs, so probably it is better in the other thread than in this.
 
Vulture: Thanks very much for the quick turnaround. I hope this will help the CORE team better see my intentions.

Originally posted by Generalisimo
well, i must said that i like to change the tech tree, BUT, try to keep the game balanced, there is a lot of people that changes things just because they think that are right and make the game almost UNREAL.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement. My first note to open this thread gives my goals. I will edit that note to keep it current with the goals of this thread. I am sure they will evolve during my evaluation process [they already have somewhat].

My technique to accomplish these goals is in my note about 2 above. My goals are quite specific, and so i intend they will take a specific remedy: one or two new techs or modifications to current tech's will be proposed once i have sufficient research and data. I will then really want the CORE team to consider, input, and suggest.

I am in agreement with Aetius and the Paradox team in most respects: this is not a chemistry and materials primer! :D Aetius' background is excellent showing the depth that the initial research was made.

My oft cited maxim: "If it ain't broke don't fix it"!


Originally posted by Generalisimo
Well, i think that MateDow post is totally about naval techs, so probably it is better in the other thread than in this. [/B]
Click to expand...

Thanks for supporting opinion. I know you are far more expert than i am on Naval topics based on a number of your other contributions. Me? I can spell naval when spotted 5 letters. :D
 
Thank you for the feedback

Thank you for the feedback.

OK, I posted the tech tree in the Naval Mods forum, so that is now in the correct place. Sorry I messed that up. :(

I would still like to incorperate the changes that the industrial branch comes up with into that tree in order to make everything as real as possible.

If you want read responses to the feedback, go to the appropriate list. MDow
 
Last edited:
Re: Thank you for the feedback

Originally posted by MateDow
I would still like to incorperate the changes that the industrial branch comes up with into that tree in order to make everything as real as possible.
Click to expand...
Post what you think is needed in the industrial tech tree here for a realistic naval tech mod. There must be manufacturing techniques, alloys and tools that were developed after 1900 or so for ships. If they can be suitably "defined" it would be really great. A large number of shipping related industrial tech will make it difficult for Germany or Brazil to produce good ships from the start, naval countries like Japan and the UK could have a big "knowhow" advantage in a more detailed system.
 
Last edited:
Naval Industry

I will look into the specifics of what has been needed to make the advances possible.

Germany would have many of the shipbuilding techs and know how remaining from the first world war so they wouldn't be at as much of a disadvantage as a Brazil or Argentina which had navies built by others. But Brazil would be better off than a Belgium or Egypt which didn't even have navies in the period leading up to 1936. MDow
 
MateDow: Thanks for your understanding and participation.

Aetius/MateDow: Exact and excellent points.

Example: I'm doing some digging on metalurgy, processes, and hardening right now. I know that they were all developed and used. Just want to come up to speed and see if one of them jumps out as the "best" abstraction to allow the german long gun development.

BTW: I've gotten quite far on my Naval costing and build time research. Far and away an overwhelming driver: SHIPYARDS and SLIPWAYS => Number and size. US investments in them were staggering in WWII, and they were built on every coast and every waterway imaginable. Even so, it would appear from my data that the ongoing lack was the single largest constraint of ship output. It forced the rapid development of pre-fabrication and welding to attempt to alleviate this, but still never completely. While i am using US data sources [ease of access to online DoD and DoC declassified files], i cannot but believe that this was also true for every other power.

Has anyone thought through, or seen a good thread on how to abstract this huge investment and constraint? If you need more specific data to run your thoughts, let me know and i will try to summarize. I have reams of reference on this already.
 
Shipyards Abstraction/Simulation

[See problem statement and goal in first Email]

I have done some thinking and here is a proposal. Stretch out the build times and then add some ind tech's to contract, IC flat.

EX: Lvl0 CA's are 8ICx300 days = 2400IC. Make them initially 2x1200. Add in some Ind 'slipway construction' to have an evolution list as such:

2x1200
3x800
4x600
6x400
8x300
12x200

Then have Pre-fabrication/Welding technologies to actually shrink the cost somewhat.

Thoughts?
 
Generalissimo: You are one sharp guy! See the crux right away.

Yes, this is really the problem. Within the HOI ruleset, i am trying to balance out the major nations economic naval options. My proposal can, i beleive, address this nicely [I am sure that the numbers i proposed will need some develpment]. I think that then we can end up enabling some real, player deterministic, economic strategies that were crucial to the war outcomes.

For minors like Agentina, how to handle equipment buys? The thought that comes to me is a couple [few?, many? time series?] of events to be offered to ALL minors to buy equipment. Cost them IC's, like building it, but they get something that they cannot build. Space out the offerings through the game. Offer should come from a 'compatible' major country, and should be one or two tech levels lower than that country is capable of, as is historically accurate. Ships/Air/Armor. Question is, can it be coded? I think so, but a bit tricky. Thoughts?
 
Originally posted by PaxMondo
Generalissimo: You are one sharp guy! See the crux right away.

Yes, this is really the problem. Within the HOI ruleset, i am trying to balance out the major nations economic naval options. My proposal can, i beleive, address this nicely [I am sure that the numbers i proposed will need some develpment]. I think that then we can end up enabling some real, player deterministic, economic strategies that were crucial to the war outcomes.

For minors like Agentina, how to handle equipment buys? The thought that comes to me is a couple [few?, many? time series?] of events to be offered to ALL minors to buy equipment. Cost them IC's, like building it, but they get something that they cannot build. Space out the offerings through the game. Offer should come from a 'compatible' major country, and should be one or two tech levels lower than that country is capable of, as is historically accurate. Ships/Air/Armor. Question is, can it be coded? I think so, but a bit tricky. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
well, of course it can be coded, the problem is that we will surelly leave some nations out of the "equation" (like Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc), so the problem is, when to stop creating events? which nation will never have a chance to buy equipment? because coding events for EVERY nation of the world could be a really tedious work....

i was about to add events to Argentina to represent the buying of equipment to Europe. Argentina was equiped with a lot of stuff from Europe, specially Germany, so adding events for the others nations is not a problem.

Also, other problem that arises, is that the "new equipment" is created with the technology of the owner, so, for example, for Hungary to have medium tanks, instead of creating a new tank, i had to give them medium tank technologies. :(
that is really a problem, because to create some ships we will need first to give them the proper tech and then, create the unit. ;)

:D
 
So writing a generic event as i described is not possible? I haven't written that many yet, and so am not flluent with the full instruction set.

I edited this to flesh out my thoughts afterwards, sorry.

Ideally, you'd like to have, for example, Germany offering to all facist minors the ability to buy say ships for X amount. Then without the tech additions, drop it into the build cue if they accept to simulate their payments. They aren't really building it, the Germans are [did], but it absracts the payment terms that they would have gotten.

Am i way off board here? If i am, i take it that you cannot force a build that is not in the tech tree. Do we need that instruction from Paradox? Do we make a request to address this issue instead of trying to write 120 events?

Failing that, could we add the techs, add the item to the build cue, and then delete the techs? would it stay in the build cue? If so, ok.

Next AI, would decide to buy based upon build priority, which for most nations would make this particular offer pass. For Argentina, would need to make sure the build AI is high enough to trigger occassional yes, even if not exactly historical in timing. If a particular purchase is historically crucial, then i would propose writign that specific event. I would hope those are rare.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back