C.O.R.E. : Technology tree - support, ideas, problems...

[MateDow]

Re: Research benefits from battles

Originally posted by Linterna
So I think some kind of bonus could be given for research in countries at war. A possible guidance could be the experience gained by his comands, by example, each experience point could add 50 IC to the research in the fields of that officer (land, naval or air).

There is already a bonus in there for being at war. The requirement for consumer good is lowered while a country at war this allows for more research to be done on a variety of fields. Right now there is no way to incorperate the ideas that you have for relating a bonus based on combat experience. It isn't a bad idea though. Maybe you could post it in the wish list forum and it will get incorperated into a future version of HoI. MDow

 

[unmerged(10866)]

Logistics Mulberries

More ideas:

Logistics has a important influence in the big units speed rate. In special when in enemy land, many times an army was stopped because its supplies were left far behind.

I think some of the improvements in logistics must give a speed bonus, not a minor consumption rate.



Prefabricated harbours and facilities (Mulberries, Grossberries), submarine pipelines were very important in the first weeks after the D day landings. The trouble is that they interest was not in the first days (which could be simulated through a beach assault bonus), it was in a week and month scale. I don’t know how, but they must be present in the game in any form.

 

[Steel]

Re: Logistics Mulberries

Originally posted by Linterna
I think some of the improvements in logistics must give a speed bonus, not a minor consumption rate

The basic infantry speed is 3 and AFAIK the smallest bonus we can give is 1 (did anybody test giving 0.1?). In other words, you would get a 33% speed increase as the minimum which vastly overstates the importance of a tech advance IMHO. I don't think I've ever seen data to support a 33% gain in unit advance rates due to logistics improvements.

 

[unmerged(10866)]

Infantry speed and logistics

I see the troubles in increasing unit speed, but I refer not exactly to the speed of a unit, is more the speed of the whole corps or army corps, that need weeks for refiting, just think in Patton stopped in front of the german border for the most of the alies suppling capacitie diverted to Montgomery, or the german advance in Barbarrosa, or the stops of the russian advance in western Poland in the closing months of the war.

As an alternative: as advancing units in enemy country lost org, that in some way is related to logistics (disgregation for the different speeds between the unit batallions, attrition, command chain interruptions, chaos of place changing, the need for look for another night shelter) the improvements in logistics could soften this org loss rate, or boost the org rebuilding (through faster transports, quickly reacomodation of troops, quicker relocating of the command post, at last, for putting the troops again in combat order sooner).

 

[Steel]

Re: Infantry speed and logistics

Originally posted by Linterna
I see the troubles in increasing unit speed, but I refer not exactly to the speed of a unit, is more the speed of the whole corps or army corps, that need weeks for refiting, just think in Patton stopped in front of the german border for the most of the alies suppling capacitie diverted to Montgomery, or the german advance in Barbarrosa, or the stops of the russian advance in western Poland in the closing months of the war.

As an alternative: as advancing units in enemy country lost org, that in some way is related to logistics (disgregation for the different speeds between the unit batallions, attrition, command chain interruptions, chaos of place changing, the need for look for another night shelter) the improvements in logistics could soften this org loss rate, or boost the org rebuilding (through faster transports, quickly reacomodation of troops, quicker relocating of the command post, at last, for putting the troops again in combat order sooner).

That would be for the Suggestions forum, there's no modder hooks that would allow it.

 

[unmerged(18202)]

motorization

Originally posted by Steel
The basic infantry speed is 3 and AFAIK the smallest bonus we can give is 1 (did anybody test giving 0.1?). In other words, you would get a 33% speed increase as the minimum which vastly overstates the importance of a tech advance IMHO. I don't think I've ever seen data to support a 33% gain in unit advance rates due to logistics improvements.

You're right. The infantry of the time moved at the speed of walking men and horse-drawn transport, for the most part, unless (like much of the British and US Armies) it was heavily motorized, and we have motorized divisions to represent this. If one wants to give a speed bonus, a savvy way might be to lower the cost of motorized infantry a bit--though it's already pretty cheap relative to foot infantry in terms of build cost. The real cost of motorization for most nations is oil, of which few nations in the game have enough to support a heavily motorized military.

Which brings me to something that has had me pondering. When the Germans get SS division, they do not get SS panzers. I realize that with the current system, we represent armour upgrades in terms of the type of tank. It would be grossly (needlessly, IMO) cumbersome to create an SS version of every panzer type. Is there any way to represent this in armour as well, or do you think we're up against the granite wall of game engine limitations?

Too bad we cannot add a fifth type of unit attachment: heavy tank battalion, enabled by the appropriate techs. There, I reckon, we're also up against the engine.

jkk

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Re: motorization

Originally posted by jkkelley
(...)Which brings me to something that has had me pondering. When the Germans get SS division, they do not get SS panzers. I realize that with the current system, we represent armour upgrades in terms of the type of tank. It would be grossly (needlessly, IMO) cumbersome to create an SS version of every panzer type. Is there any way to represent this in armour as well, or do you think we're up against the granite wall of game engine limitations?

Too bad we cannot add a fifth type of unit attachment: heavy tank battalion, enabled by the appropriate techs. There, I reckon, we're also up against the engine.

Yup, we can't do much with that... But every player can customize it himself, since both names of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units are used by game engine to name newly created divisions.
Second suggestion is somehow met by technology that rises stats of division, but unfortunately all the new units has to have heavies no matter if the player wants it or not. Engine limits...

 

[jdrou]

Re: Re: Logistics Mulberries

Originally posted by Steel
The basic infantry speed is 3 and AFAIK the smallest bonus we can give is 1 (did anybody test giving 0.1?).

We should test this. I know unit costs can be changed by fractional amounts (although when a unit goes into the build queue it is rounded down). e.g. normally a minister that gives -5% build cost to infantry will actually give -1 since it rounds down. If you give an "upgrades = { infantry = { cost = -0.5 } } then the minister will have no effect since the cost rounds down to the same value with or without him.

 

[shimgray]

Re: Re: Re: Logistics Mulberries

Originally posted by jdrou
We should test this. I know unit costs can be changed by fractional amounts (although when a unit goes into the build queue it is rounded down). e.g. normally a minister that gives -5% build cost to infantry will actually give -1 since it rounds down. If you give an "upgrades = { infantry = { cost = -0.5 } } then the minister will have no effect since the cost rounds down to the same value with or without him.

This reminds me of a minor problem - free builds. I've had a game before, where playing as the US I was able to build corvettes (I wanted to bulk up my convoys, put a half-dozen on line to construct, was quite surprised) for 0 IC over however many days... this seemed, to put it mildly, eminently abusable (and liable to do odd things to an AI, I fear).

[Off the top of my head, it was a result of all the modular shipbuilding techs plus the "Open Seas" minister]

Not sure exactly what can be done about this, but thought I'd throw it to the world...

 

[unmerged(18202)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Logistics Mulberries

Originally posted by shimgray
This reminds me of a minor problem - free builds. I've had a game before, where playing as the US I was able to build corvettes (I wanted to bulk up my convoys, put a half-dozen on line to construct, was quite surprised) for 0 IC over however many days... this seemed, to put it mildly, eminently abusable (and liable to do odd things to an AI, I fear).

I don't know, but I think that the X IC for xxx days is rounded. I remember seeming to be charged 0 IC to refit the old four-stacker US destroyers in one game, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was actually 0.3 IC or somesuch. In any event, if you built too many, the support and fuel burdens would catch up with you. Not to say that it isn't potentially abusable; rather, to point out a couple of the potential checks and balances.

jkk

 

[MateDow]

Re: Re: motorization

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Yup, we can't do much with that... But every player can customize it himself, since both names of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units are used by game engine to name newly created divisions.
Second suggestion is somehow met by technology that rises stats of division, but unfortunately all the new units has to have heavies no matter if the player wants it or not. Engine limits...

Would it be possible to come up with a series of models for each type of armor unit for a unit with a heavy armor battalion? It would mean adding a lot of models, but we have the stats for most of it already generated. You could then build a (for example) M-4 Sherman (w/M6 Battalion) Division for some cost more than the base unit. This would give the player the ability to choose whether to have the heavy attachments. It would so get the names of those heavy tanks (Tiger, KV-2) back in the game since people love them so much. I would be willing to do some of the work on that for 0.7 since that is how long it would take to get everything worked out and balanced, but I think it would add an enjoyable aspect to the game. MDow

 

[jdrou]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logistics Mulberries

Originally posted by jkkelley
I don't know, but I think that the X IC for xxx days is rounded. I remember seeming to be charged 0 IC to refit the old four-stacker US destroyers in one game, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was actually 0.3 IC or somesuch.

It is rounded but not just for display. Note the change in the total ICs for the production queue is always integer. (Research will show fractions in the total so the individual techs are just rounded for display). Note that when the game is saved both research and production costs are saved as integers for each unit/tech (so research total is usually lower after reloading a savegame).

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Re: Air tech tree - discussion

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
b) Pkunzipper idea for fighter "classes":
1) light single engine fighter,
2) heavy single engine fighter,
3) twin engine heavy fighter.

Those basic models, developed by conceptual stage could split to models like:
1a) light single engine fighter - inteceptor variant,
1b) light single engine fighter - multirole variant,
2a) heavy single engine fighter - air superiority variant,
2b) heavy single engine fighter - fighter-bomber variant,
3a) twin engine heavy fighter - escort variant.
3b) twin engine heavy fighter - land close support variant.

I’m not clear if the 6 models above would each have a basic. Int and advanced model can you clear that up Pkunzipper?

It’s very similar to what I was thinking of except that I was thinking of sticking with the Interceptor, MR and Twin engine Fighters. With certain tech/doct pre-requisites at the Intermediate level you could develop more a specialized fighters like the Escort fighter which would be like the Zero or Mustang, while the Twin Engine becomes a better Ground attack plane.

Y=buildable
N=not "

Fighter	Engines	PW	Basic	Int	Adv	Roc	Jet	Ad-jet
Intercpt	SE	y	y	y	y	y	y	y
Heavy	TE	n	y	y	y	n	n	n
Multi	SE	n	y	y	y	n	y	y
Escort	SE	n	n	y	y	n	n	n

I'd also like to have a few deactivation techs to give people choice. For example you need to choose between getting air to ground rockets or air to air rockets.

c) Heavy aircraft - change of model names (and names only):

1) from "Tactical bomber" to "Medium bomber",
2) from "Dive bomber" to "Close support plane",
3) from "Torpedo plane" to "CAG", (Carrier Air group + modification od air attack value),
4) from "Naval bomber" to "Naval patrol plane".


Any other ideas?

Ok I’m sticking with the same basic ideas in HoI, with the increasing of the carrying limit on carriers I think we can have dedicated units again. I haven’t' decided if we need to split off DB and ground attack planes into separate classes. Ideally I think that we might have to but here’s what I've got for now.

Fighter	Engines	PW	Basic	Int	Adv	Roc	Jet	Ad-jet
Dive	SE	y	y	y	?	n	?	n
Torp	SE	y	y	y	?	n	?	n
Tact	TE	y	y	y	y	n	y	n
Naval	TE	y	y	y	?	n	n	n
Strat	ME	y	y	y	y	n	y	n
Trans	ME	y	y	y	?	n	n	n

Dive bombers would be like they are now but you can get Naval docts and Heavy air techs to increase their anti naval ability.

I'd propose that Naval bombers be given deactivation techs to give people a choice about how there units will be used. I'd propose that 3 groups of 2 techs will affect the stats of Naval bombers. The choice will basically be between Naval attack power or range and sub spotting, they will not be pre-requisited to each other so you can mix and match what you get.

 

[Pkunzipper]

All those categories have the 3 advance phase (Basic, Imp. and Adv.).

The Pre-Req. are the same (Airframe and Areodynamics)

The engines are:

("In-Line" Engines)--->(Interceptor)&(MR Fighter)
("Radial" Engines)--->(Air-Superiority Fighter)&(Fighter-Bomber)
(Heavy Fighter Engines)--->(Escort Heavy Fighter)&(Close Support Heavy Fighter)

		AA	GA	AD	GD	SPEED	RANGE
Interceptor	High	Lowest	High	Lowest	Highest	Shorte
MR Fighter	Normal	Low	Normal	Low	High	Short
Air-Sup.Fighter	Highest	Lowest	High	Low	High	Short
Fighter-Bomber	Normal	Normal	Normal	Normal	Normal	Normal
Escort Fighter	High	Low	Low	Normal	Normal	Long
Close Support	Normal	High	Low	High	Low	Long

 

[Pkunzipper]

About CAG

I think CAG unit should have only one model: (without basic, imp and etc...)

Each research about carried based fighters, dive and torpedo bombers will improve CAG fighting values by upgrading it.

So if the basic CAG has AA:2, GA:2, NA:2, AD:2, GD:2, ND:2

Basic Carrier based fighter tech will have these effects:
CAG AA+5 (U)
CAG AD+3 (U)
CAG range+100 (U)
CAG speed+100 (U)

Basic Carrier based Dive-bomber tech:
CAG AD+1(U)
CAG GA+4 (U)
CAG GD+2 (U)
CAG NA+2 (U)
CAG ND+2 (U)
CAG range+100 (U)
CAG speed+100 (U)

Basic Carrier based Torpedo bomber tech:
CAG AD+1 (U)
CAG GA+2 (U)
CAG GD+2 (U)
CAG NA+4 (U)
CAG ND+2 (U)
CAG range+100 (U)
CAG speed+100 (U)

the same for improved, advanced and turbo-jet tech....

 

[unmerged(14683)]

More about planes...

I was also thinking about merging heavy and light air engines somehow (based on the hp) - it was not true that bombers and fighters had totally different models of engine, most of the time those were basically the same.

What's need to be added - compressor/injection instalations and other upgrades (different fuels, advanced materials), that will create more interesting development line than simple basic/improved/advanced.

 

[MateDow]

Carrier Aircraft

I don't agree. Where we are completely rebuilding the tech tree for aircraft, you can have three types of aircraft be the pre-requisites for a new carrier aircraft model. You have to research a new model of naval fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber before you can have a new model. So you can have a tech of carrier wing integration or something like that. That tech can have a basic, improved, advanced, and semi-modern levels. That will make the player work at improving their carrier based aircraft. Too bad there isn't a way (yet) to limit carriers to that type of aircraft. I have heard rumors that it might be coming. IRL the British didn't prioritize naval aircraft, so they were behind the curve in development. It shouldn't be easy to have naval aircraft. Look how difficult it has been for the Soviets (Russians) to design effective naval aircraft. There is much more to it than just slapping a hook on the back and having a naval aircraft. You have to make the landing gear and the entire structure of the aircraft stronger to withstand the shock of carrier landings. The balance to still get effective fighters and aircraft with a decent range is tough. I do think that the naval aircraft should have lower air attack ratings to take that into account. But they should have higher defence ratings because of their heavier airframes.

Those are my opinions on the matter. MDow

 

[Chaplain]

my two cents on CAGs

I really think that the CAG is the way to go for the carriers. I think it best represents the specialization required to field effective carrier-based airpower. Having a separate tech tree (or separate options) is very historical.

One caveat - we'll have to reduce the cost to develop all air techs accordingly, or the poor Japanese will never get decent carrier power. In 1.05c, it's impossible unless you completely bankrupt the army and LBA.

 

[unmerged(18202)]

Re: my two cents on CAGs

Originally posted by Chaplain
One caveat - we'll have to reduce the cost to develop all air techs accordingly, or the poor Japanese will never get decent carrier power. In 1.05c, it's impossible unless you completely bankrupt the army and LBA.

As US and Japan both, I myself would be a lot happier just to actually have planes for my carriers at start. Unless, of course, we have historical evidence that they were lacking them in 1936. MateDow would know.

jkk

 

[Pkunzipper]

Re: More about planes...

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
I was also thinking about merging heavy and light air engines somehow (based on the hp) - it was not true that bombers and fighters had totally different models of engine, most of the time those were basically the same.

What's need to be added - compressor/injection instalations and other upgrades (different fuels, advanced materials), that will create more interesting development line than simple basic/improved/advanced.

I like this idea, but how many kinds of engine existed for each advance level? I'm not an expert on engine, but I think they are only of 4 kinds (In-line, Radial, Rocket and Turbo-jet)... We should also care to keep the research time as near as possible at the current one, that IMHO is quite right (naval tree is IMHO a little long...)