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

[Generalisimo]

Re: Re: Re: Minor Navy Issue

Originally posted by PaxMondo
I am aware of two pretty good historical examples of hardware sales. Argentina bought cruisers and a dreadnought [? help me here generalissiomo]] i beleive. And eitehr bulgaria or rumania bought Tiger King tanks for their forces. I also think there were aircraft sales to a number of the axis partners.

So the sale issue is a pretty large one historically, and right now it isn't eing modeled too effectively. There are a number of other threads really looking at this though.

I'm ot focusing on the sale issue, except as it effects the economy.

well, we bought a lot of things from Germany, i have to confirm that... we bought planes (transport planes, that later were used in out paratrooper infantry, yes paratroopers, we were the 5th nation in the world that had a paratrooper division), military equipment, etc...
i have to look for that...

 

[unmerged(13766)]

I just posted this in "Fixing the British Empire's IC distribution" thread, but thought it might deserve a run here as well.



I saw this idea posted in the "suggestions" forum some time ago, and didn't give it much thought.

In hindsight though, maybe it deserves another go.

The suggestion was to increase the IC level in most provinces by a factor of 10, but leave the 1 IC provinces at 1 IC.

This means that the 1 IC provinces can still build anything they want, but have only minimal effect on the overall production level of the country.

Of course, all resource levels, all build costs, and all research costs will need to be bumped up accordingly.

Since there is effectively 10 times as much IC available, you would also need to bump up the supply usage by a factor of 10.

It is my understanding that all these things can be modded.

The down sides as I see them revolve around the following.

The resource pools can only effectively hold 1/10th as much due to there being a limit on their maximum size.

It basically becomes impossible to effectively increase IC's anywhere (ie it would take 10 years to increase the equivalent of 1 IC now).

I don't see either of these things as necessarilly bad, since I believe there are too many resources available anyway, and pre-war production levels are also too high IMO, so this point sort of evens out.

The only other real concern is that other province improvements are signifcantly reduced in price, if not in time.

 

[unmerged(2826)]

maybe 10 times is a bit too much... Maybe 2 times would be better?

 

[MateDow]

Warship Free Market

Other than the commonweath nations I don't know of any circumstances of a nation recieving anything larger than destroyers. In WW 1 though, many of the nations that weren't directly involved in the fighting were building warships for other nations. Japan built a number of ships for France. I think that the event that delivers the ship should have a chance that the ship isn't delivered if the country building the vessel is at war. What nation would sell a shiny new cruiser while at war. Just my two cents worth if there is someone out there writing events for that. But I do like the idea of countries being able to be able to "buy" warships if the world is just engaged in a series of bushwars and skirmishes. MDow

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: Warship Free Market

Originally posted by MateDow
But I do like the idea of countries being able to be able to "buy" warships if the world is just engaged in a series of bushwars and skirmishes. MDow

If we keep it historical, there would be quite easy. I've got one other problem - exactly, how many destroyers/subs are simulated by 1 unit in HoI?
Most countries ordered 1-3 ships one time, and it's probably not enough for 1 HoI unit?

 

[Generalisimo]

it was already discused in another thread, changing the IC distribution by 10 (or even 3) will change the ENTIRE game, so that's a thing that Paradox should, because we will need to modify all the files of the game, changing the entire game (almost making a new one).

 

[MateDow]

Re: Re: Warship Free Market

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
If we keep it historical, there would be quite easy. I've got one other problem - exactly, how many destroyers/subs are simulated by 1 unit in HoI?

There is a reference in the 1936 USA OOB about 63 destroyers being 12 units. That makes it about 5 to 1.

Most countries ordered 1-3 ships one time, and it's probably not enough for 1 HoI unit?

Suspension of disbilief? If a country that historically didn't order warships is now ordering them, is it that unrealistic to believe that they could be ordering a squadron of 5? But does show that orders should be in units of one. If the event fired three times that would give a country like Argentina (got to kiss up to the general ) 15 destroyers on the market. Not unrealistic for a small country contemplating taking an active part in the war. MDow

 

[MateDow]

Industrial Tech Tree

Is there a modified tech tree that I can download and use as a reference for the naval tech tree that is being developed? It would be useful to have as many interconnections as posible to make it as realistic as posible and make it more difficult for developing nations to focus on just the military aspects of development. MDow

 

[Steel]

Any update on where this part of the mod is going? The stuff from Aetius looked good, is anybody working on integrating it with C.O.R.E.???

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Steel
Any update on where this part of the mod is going? The stuff from Aetius looked good, is anybody working on integrating it with C.O.R.E.???

Hmmm, I think I would have to handle that. Whole this work looks promising, but I'll probably use only small part of that - for me industrial tree is kind of lock for other other techs.
And of couse AI also have to be able to handle this....

 

[Steel]

I think the AI will research anything that's available, the stumbling blocks will be starting tech (ie the *.inc files) and the research paths (ie the *.ai files), all of which will need to be updated. I'll do some tests tonight (using the new Naval tech tree) and see if the AI follows the paths specified and what happens if they are taken out.

Generally speaking I think it would be good to see a few more cross-category pre-requisites in the tech tree, I'd like to create more reasons in game for doing nuclear and electronics research.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by Steel
I think the AI will research anything that's available, the stumbling blocks will be starting tech (ie the *.inc files) and the research paths (ie the *.ai files), all of which will need to be updated. I'll do some tests tonight (using the new Naval tech tree) and see if the AI follows the paths specified and what happens if they are taken out.

Generally speaking I think it would be good to see a few more cross-category pre-requisites in the tech tree, I'd like to create more reasons in game for doing nuclear and electronics research.

For now I've added quality control as a prereqiusite for every advanced tank, plane and rocket, but as I check Aietus work I think I will make more stages of this tech.
I've also added crosovers between doctrines and some techs. If you want to check this, use this link (and part of graphics ).
Be aware though - I've got still bugged naval and artillery files there.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

I'm waiting on some replies from Sweden B4 i move more on this.


I have made some proposals summarized here:

1. A key outcome of WWII [technology wise] was the transition from coal based economies to oil based. I have proposed that there be a hook added to the game to allow the IC requirements of coal to be substituted by oil. This will better allow economic expansion in the US [amoung others in the late war era], which should have no bounds within this game. Currently, you can run out of coal and limit your IC's which is not realistic if you have excess oil. Currently there are hooks for rubber and steel, just not coal.

2. I have also proposed some hooks to infrastructure beyond simple movement bonuses to include shipyard capacity. Insufficient shipyard capacity will limit ship starts. Currently in mid-war, the US can far too many ships simultaneously. The US made huge unvestments in shipyards in the early 40's to meet the build requirements of the mid-40's. This will help curb the US glutten of units that is possible now in the early 40's that is not historically accurate. This goes for many other countries as well. Shipyards were a huge investment and needed B4 you could start building. Simply having IC's is not enough to build ships. You could extend this arguement to other items, but ship building stands out largest. This should also be used as a check for transport building which right now appears to only be a function of total IC.

3. I have requested hooks to be added to allow for event driven changes in province resource production. Both new discoveries and disasters could occur. Also, resource sabotage was common, especially in Russian war. This will encourage lightning strikes by providing a bonus as opposed to grind it out battles.

Once i have some responses available, i will propose an expansion of the industrial tech tree is include some metalurgy, shipyards, and maybe even airfields for the advanced aircraft which were NOT unimproved landing strip capable [particularly the heavy bombers].

As for Aetius inputs ... well they show the depth that went into this game. However, many of them would better apply to other threads within CORE here. I am trying to focus this thread on Economic and Technology as they relate to research, not on speciifc weapons platforms per se.

thanks.

 

[unmerged(16851)]

Hello all,

I am a newb at this game but have played several games of the Stony war mod. I also have played many other games involving Grand Strategy/Economics.

With that knowledge, I know that the key to victory in those type of games is economics. The guy with the biggest economy always wins. This is not neccessarily a false statement, but HoI is quite extreme in this facet. I really hate it when I conquer a nation and look at my resources and see that they are now maxed out or much higher. If you could put some type of control on this, it would really go a long way to balance out the game.

I think the work that everyone is doing to make CORE more accurate and flavorful is great. THe work you are doing here, IMO, is the most crucial. Currently, I think the IC, resource and manpower part of the game is quite out of control. If you guys can find a way to put some chains on this and balance it out, this game will be awesome.

For example, when I play Germany I want to experience the lack of manpower and resource problems. When I play England I want to see the crucialness of lend lease (convoys) and their late war lack of manpower. When I play the U.S I want to see that Giant sleeping pre-war and then watch it awaken when the war starts.

Anyways I am gonna brain storm and post some more ideas. Foregive me if I post something that has already been covered and/or decided upon.

 

[unmerged(16851)]

2. I have also proposed some hooks to infrastructure beyond simple movement bonuses to include shipyard capacity. Insufficient shipyard capacity will limit ship starts. Currently in mid-war, the US can far too many ships simultaneously. The US made huge unvestments in shipyards in the early 40's to meet the build requirements of the mid-40's. This will help curb the US glutten of units that is possible now in the early 40's that is not historically accurate. This goes for many other countries as well. Shipyards were a huge investment and needed B4 you could start building. Simply having IC's is not enough to build ships. You could extend this arguement to other items, but ship building stands out largest. This should also be used as a check for transport building which right now appears to only be a function of total IC.

I agree with this. Is this possible withen the scopes of the modifications you guys can do. Maybe increase the cost and/or build time of ships initially and reduce them later through shipyard technologies.

 

[unmerged(16851)]

I would like to see lend lease to Russia and Britain more accurately represented. Maybe have some events where U.S. has option to send a fixed number of supplies and resources to them. This number could be based on what historically arrived in those nations. Give Germany the option to inrease the their interdiction of the convoy which would reduce the actual amount of goods that arrive to Britain/Russia. Maybe have Germany lose some manpower, temporary IC loss and/or resources to represent the increase commitment to interdicting these convoys (i.e. representing more subs and aircraft built for the purpose). Also maybe put in event that if Germany does not control Norway, Russia would actually recieve more shipments. (represent sub and air bases that were in Norway to interdict the murmansk convoys).

Maybe have the lend lease event fire every three to four months. This could go a long way to give flavor to the Battle in north Atlantic and make a computer controlled US more helpful.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

This is a pretty complex issue. I agree that the current lend lease is pretty abstract. Also, you cannot sell arms to allies without more significant abstraction. This has been discussed in several other threads [in the suggestions forum].

Of the changes proposed, some would require some healthy re-writes, others would be easier, but still quite abstract.

If you can noodle through any other ideas, feel free to add to those threads or here if you wish.

Thanks.

 

[MateDow]

Naval Tech

Originally posted by craig77
I agree with this. Is this possible withen the scopes of the modifications you guys can do. Maybe increase the cost and/or build time of ships initially and reduce them later through shipyard technologies.

There is a new naval tech tree that has been developed that takes into account many of these problems. There are new costs for types of ships and these are modified by the exsisting techs in the industrial tree. If you have some ideas on how to modify the exsiting techs let me know, and we can come up with a way to work it into the new naval tech tree. There is a link in the Land Technology forum that will allow you to download the new tech system and see how you like it.

I actually feel that many countries are not able to build up to their historical levels of ship construction. I have not been able to build as the US half of the historical ships. I don't think there is a problem with too many ships being built by the major nations. There aren't enough points to build a large land army which is critical in HOI and still build large numbers of surface warships. I have had seven BBs building at the same time without building any carriers building (carriers are still pretty useless). That doesn't seem excessive to me. Just my two cents worth. MDow

 

[unmerged(14102)]

Well, Let me try this math on you.

Spend the first few years building up the US economy to about 1000 IC. When you are called into a war, your CG requirement drops to 15%. Figure 10% for supplies, that leaves 750 IC for R&D and production. BB's are about 10 IC/mo, so right now you COULD start 75 BB's. I'm not saying this is a wise or suggesting this strategy, but right now the game would let you. And this could start in like 1939 or so. Historically, my research says the US was never is a position to start and build simultaneously so many BIG [+40000 ton] deep draft ships.

So in 1940 you would field 75 BB's. You could have 6 fleets of 12 BB's each [not including the ones you start with, 15?]. Does this make sense? 75 BB's in 1940?

Now, could the US build 75 deep water dry docks? Sure. Time and Money. With investment, by mid-40's or so. Historically, i have the numbers around here somewhere, they had several hundred shallow slips [all over the South rivers, CA, everywhere really] and maybe 30 deep water by end of the war. and the investment was billions of dollars per year to do so. A significant percentage of the US GNP. And the cost ratio of the shallow versus the deep water is like 10:1 or more.

The lack of deep water slips, according to my research, is what delayed BB's production more than anything. CV's were prioritised. BB's took 2 years to build, but only because they kept getting bumped off the priority list. CV's were getting kicked out in 9 months or less. BB's could have, except for shortage of slipways ...

I'm only suggesting that currently this investment is not represented in the game [AFAIK], and to prevent distortions, it should be looked at.

Associating this with infrastructure seems both natural and logical. It will separate the costs, limit production potential [force you to build army units or R&D instead], and keep things from unbalancing. And, oh BTW, force you to make some of the bone crunching decisions that FDR and Churchill made. We get the lend lease fixed and this and WOW! is this a KA game or what!!?!!

Sorry for my exhuberance!

 

[unmerged(14683)]

PaxMondo@:
Suggestion - early version of tech tree for CORE is already downloadable from here (basic pack - 500kB) and there (graphics files - 3300 kB).
It would be great if you could test it and suggest any changes, addons, modifications and so on.

Personally, my concept of using industrial techs in HoI is a key to unlock other trees. I already added "quality control methods" tech as a prerequisite for every "advanced" level of weapons.

One more thing - tech tree could not be too complex due to problems with AI research priorities.