In CORE the Flak 88 is represented by tech #14208 - Anti-Air Gun 85mm+. This gives a bonus to the hard attack of AA brigades, which is essentially what the 88 did.
-
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.
JRaup said:
Ahhhh! This i had not known [or forgot completely: that 50% of the FRA were not FRA, but rather colonial troops. That puts them at best on par with the VIET troops, and maybe not even that good. RATS!
JRaup: thanks for all this info, and appreciate your inputs. But back to my original intent, it appears that this will no longer work. I want to find an example of low tech, high numbers against high tech, low numbers [unassisted by air or other combined arms] to validate our current SA/GD modeling.
My concern stated way above is that given the game terms, we currently have one division of end tech INF consistently able to defeat 20 divisons of beginning tech INF. Given that one division stretched could cover not more than 13km of front, and that so few provinces are so small, how could they not be flanked, surrounded, and eliminated? My concerns have been supported by a few experienced squad/platoon level commanders. However, divisional tactics differ, and so i am defering to an, as yet unfound, experienced line officer.
ANYONE?!?
Why would Thais be fighting in French Indochina after WWII? Do you mean Vietnamese?
A recent example of a high-tech army fighting a low-tech opponent is, of course, the latest Iraq war. About 200,000 U.S. troops, including a large pile of non-combatants and support train, fought close to a million Iraqi troops. 5:1 odds in ground combat.
HOWEVER, U.S. used airpower extensively, which we are not including in our hypothetical calculations. I spoke to my father, who was a staff officer in former Yugoslav People's Army, pre-war, and I explained our hypothetical situation to him (1 army division, cca. 1950 tech, defending against 20 army divisions, cca. 1900 tech, in a province-sized battleground). Our model currently has the lone high-tech division beating the pants off the huge low-tech army mob, hands down. Caveat: my father never saw active combat, and his specialty was logistics, not line warfare. However, he IS a trained graduate of the Yugoslav Military Academy, the elite officer school of the former country, and he served for 15 years before he quit the military.
My father basically said, yes, with extensive (read: overwhelming) use of aviation on the part of the 1950 division. Otherwise, hell no. On strategic level, 20 cca. 1900 divisions would crush the lone 1950 division in a very short time. The 1950 division would be enveloped, surrounded, cut-off from supply, and then annihilated with massed artillery barrages and infantry charges. Yes, low-tech army would have steep casualties. Yes, if the 1950 division can retreat, the low-tech army has very little chance of preventing that retreat. However, without airpower, the 1950 division is toast if it chooses to stand their ground. Terrain is not terribly relevant in this scenario as we are assuming province-sized battleground.
Furthermore, he asserted that 10:1 odds would have also doomed the 1950 division just as badly as 20:1 odds did. He was reluctant to speculate on the exact odds that would have made this battle a foregone conclusion: apparently the military command exercises used in Yugoslav Army planning never anticipated odds that high on either side.
Anyway, I thought I'd add to this discussion.
HOWEVER, U.S. used airpower extensively, which we are not including in our hypothetical calculations. I spoke to my father, who was a staff officer in former Yugoslav People's Army, pre-war, and I explained our hypothetical situation to him (1 army division, cca. 1950 tech, defending against 20 army divisions, cca. 1900 tech, in a province-sized battleground). Our model currently has the lone high-tech division beating the pants off the huge low-tech army mob, hands down. Caveat: my father never saw active combat, and his specialty was logistics, not line warfare. However, he IS a trained graduate of the Yugoslav Military Academy, the elite officer school of the former country, and he served for 15 years before he quit the military.
My father basically said, yes, with extensive (read: overwhelming) use of aviation on the part of the 1950 division. Otherwise, hell no. On strategic level, 20 cca. 1900 divisions would crush the lone 1950 division in a very short time. The 1950 division would be enveloped, surrounded, cut-off from supply, and then annihilated with massed artillery barrages and infantry charges. Yes, low-tech army would have steep casualties. Yes, if the 1950 division can retreat, the low-tech army has very little chance of preventing that retreat. However, without airpower, the 1950 division is toast if it chooses to stand their ground. Terrain is not terribly relevant in this scenario as we are assuming province-sized battleground.
Furthermore, he asserted that 10:1 odds would have also doomed the 1950 division just as badly as 20:1 odds did. He was reluctant to speculate on the exact odds that would have made this battle a foregone conclusion: apparently the military command exercises used in Yugoslav Army planning never anticipated odds that high on either side.
Anyway, I thought I'd add to this discussion.
Semi-Lobster said:
They were a French unit, recruited from Thai's in the post-WW2 era. I think that they were recruited in Laos and Cambodia, but were all ethnically Thai. The French weren't oo picky about who signed on, either for the Legion or the Colonial units after WW2 (as evidenced by a large number of former SS soldiers in the Legion).
PaxMondo said:
The problem being, you can find an instance to support going in either direction. There are plenty of instances where a superior technological unit wins depsite over whelming odds. And, you can find instances where the smaller, higher tech unit gets obliterated. The Korean war alone has hundreds of instances both ways. Not to mention all those dirty little African wars in the post-Colonial era.
empty techs
Hi all, sorry if this is already posted somewhere, but 900+ posts (in this tech thread) is a bit much to check.
I'm playing the latest CORE (.81?) on top of 1.06. Under electrical techs, there are 3 that do nothing. Basic centimetric radar warning device leads to improved CRWD, which leads to advanced CRWD. None of them actually improve anything though. Likewise, under rocketry techs, Sea launch tests has no benefit.
Thanks for the great work guys. CORE is AWSOME!
Hi all, sorry if this is already posted somewhere, but 900+ posts (in this tech thread) is a bit much to check.
I'm playing the latest CORE (.81?) on top of 1.06. Under electrical techs, there are 3 that do nothing. Basic centimetric radar warning device leads to improved CRWD, which leads to advanced CRWD. None of them actually improve anything though. Likewise, under rocketry techs, Sea launch tests has no benefit.
Thanks for the great work guys.
CORE is AWSOME!
Ubercat said:Hi all, sorry if this is already posted somewhere, but 900+ posts (in this tech thread) is a bit much to check.
I'm playing the latest CORE (.81?) on top of 1.06. Under electrical techs, there are 3 that do nothing. Basic centimetric radar warning device leads to improved CRWD, which leads to advanced CRWD. None of them actually improve anything though. Likewise, under rocketry techs, Sea launch tests has no benefit.
Thanks for the great work guys.
You are right. With the sea launched tests I thought we had fixed that a long time ago.
Both buggs entered into Wiki.
JRaup said:
Can you point me to some 20:1 victories in the korean war? I've visited entirely too many gravesites of the losses. i don't need any further info on those.
PaxMondo said:
Ummm..do you mean in the post-colonial African Wars? For Korea, just look at the defense of the Pusan Perimeter, and the defensive actions at the Punch Bowl (and others during the retreat from the Yalu). Also, look at the push towards Seoul following Inchon. In Africa, the defense of Bukavu by mercenaries versus Congolese tribesmen comes to mind, as does the Franco-Belgian intervention at Elisabethville.
Question for Mot Infantry
I noticed Motorized Infantry don't get the benifits from the infantry tank support batallion, why so? I would think a mot division would have better use of tanks with there fulid mobility. One they get to a combat zone they would dismount the trucks and fight like infantry, the tanks continueing to support the dismounted infantry. Also I don't think the Mot divisions should take the speed hit infantry does, trucks can go faster than tanks, let alone keep pace with them.
What say you guys?
I noticed Motorized Infantry don't get the benifits from the infantry tank support batallion, why so? I would think a mot division would have better use of tanks with there fulid mobility. One they get to a combat zone they would dismount the trucks and fight like infantry, the tanks continueing to support the dismounted infantry. Also I don't think the Mot divisions should take the speed hit infantry does, trucks can go faster than tanks, let alone keep pace with them.
What say you guys?
Myrmidon said:
Infantry support tanks tech represents rather slow moving vehicles, like Matilda I/II, Churchill, T-28 and so on... Those machines not really fit to fast, motorized warfare. Adding them would mean limiting mobility instead of rising it. That's why this tech not affects motorized units.
Motorized units in C.O.R.E. benefit from many others technologies in the tank tech tree, that represent armoured vehicles. Still, their main strenght is not the firepower, but mobility - and it's especially true in 1.06 (new movement rules).
JRaup said:
Ok, i have reviewed what i can. Nothing comes close to supporting "our" contention that a modern unit without armor or air support can have a meeting engagement with 20 divisions of militia and come away anything but obliterated. There are instances where 1 division entrenched with good defensive works can survive with no air support, but at no where near 100%. There are plenty of examples of 1:20 attacking odds in recent history, but all with air support.
We need MathGuy back here. I beleive we have a fundamental supposition in our model that does not withstand sufficient real life data.
The issue this creates is that even in the early war GER is too over powered. Poland collapsed by a combination of 2 things: air power [Stukas] and flawed strategic/tactical thinking on the part of the Polish General Staff.
A few more fighter groups, or a layered defense, while not necessarily preventing the fall of Poland, could have delayed it several months ... months that could have changed the course of the war. GER got a huge portion of the invincibility reputation in this battle, and without it ...
I digress. Point is, with a layered defense, POL should be able to keep GER out for at least 2 - 3 months. Right now, our MP play testing shows it to be impossible unless FRA attacks across the Maginot line, a very ahistorical event. Far more frequently, POL falls in a few weeks instead of months.
You could say, ok beef up POL, but the issue remains for every other minor. GER or ITA !?! with only a few divisions can easily sweep aside almost any minor ... ahistorical.
Copper Nicus said:
True. Every war I've ever won has been due to mobility. For the breakthough you need firepower and then it's snatching victorypoints and puppetize.
DoctorPlague said:
or annex. although v1.06 has made puppetting quite a favorable choice now in many instances.
|AXiN| said:
Hmm. I actually tweaked the Artiullery tech tree.. removed AT guns (90+ mm) (since the 80+mm are actually 85+mm, and i consider all the 85-90 mm guns of muchly the same level), and used that ID for a tech I called "Dual Puprpose AA Guns". I tweaked the AA hard attack bonus on earlier guns down, then added the bonus back here - it represents AA units being fitted with Direct fire sights and issued with AP Ammo. Prereqs were DP Naval guns and (I think) Early War Exp - I gave it to the Germans as a Spanish Civil War bonus tech, since we know Flak 88s were used in AT mode in Spain.
The actual gun tech shouldnt (necessarily) give the bonus - the British 3.7" AA Gun has all the technical ability to do what the German 88 did, but was never used this way, until extremely late in the war.. by which time it didnt matter, as the Allies had so much air power and specialised AT, etc, they didnt need the bonus. In North Africa, Monty had 3.7" AA units, but couldnt use them vs Rommels' panzers', as he had no AP Ammo, and no direct fire sights.
Hope that helps things along ! Tim
Reduce Tech Upgrade Requirements
I like the expanded C.O.R.E. tech tree, but do have one complaint. I don’t like that you have to upgrade just about everything to reap the benefits. I understand the need to upgrade new unit types, but not modifications to units. You really shouldn’t have to withdraw a panzer division from service to add .30 caliber machineguns mounts to the tanks. Also, when sharing techs with allies, the computer (as far as I know) does not conduct upgrades of their units.
To streamline game play, I would like to see less upgrade requirements for techs. However, to compensate for not having to conduct upgrades, increase the IC cost and time to research the various techs.
I like the expanded C.O.R.E. tech tree, but do have one complaint. I don’t like that you have to upgrade just about everything to reap the benefits. I understand the need to upgrade new unit types, but not modifications to units. You really shouldn’t have to withdraw a panzer division from service to add .30 caliber machineguns mounts to the tanks. Also, when sharing techs with allies, the computer (as far as I know) does not conduct upgrades of their units.
To streamline game play, I would like to see less upgrade requirements for techs. However, to compensate for not having to conduct upgrades, increase the IC cost and time to research the various techs.
SEMPER FI said:
Hmm, as long as it's not the doctrines or jet techs who are increased I wouldn't care. Doctrines seems to work the historical timespan now,
and so does most tank and air techs, perhaps except jetfighters which I never get before 45.
While you as a player will have to balance research so that you get what you want, while building enough units to win the war, AFAIK the AI's has some different routines for it . I saw for example the German AI built huge amounts of troops with high org, but they seemed to lack some nice tank-techs.
Certain AI's tends to build a lots of units at intervals, and do some research at other intervals. Such as USA. So If you increase the cost and time for techs, would it not in the end favor the player who is versatile? Anyway, how do the different AI's position it's sliders?
Last edited:
SEMPER FI said:
AI does do unit upgrades. Watch the SOV unit numbers and types on the national army page, you'll periodicaly see all the panzers disappear from the ledger and go into upgrade.
Now, does it know to upgrade MECH/MOT/INF? Now that is a very pertinent question ....
Unit upgrades / tech tree pre-reqs
I would agree about some of the things mentioned not really requiring a unit to be upgraded- as mentioned, adding AA machine Guns shouldnt be a great issue ! Easy enough to change, mind you - just edit the tech file to add the value "now" rather tha "on_upgrade". Anyone care to suggest a list of such things that might work this way ?
On a related note, units that go into the force pool for Strategic Redeployment now only lose 1/2 their Org. I would favour the same thing for units being upgraded - after all, the unit personnel remain together, they merely get new equipment. Mind you, the 1/2 Org penalty for rebasing an air unit also seems harsh to me - especially if you have short range units, and need to move them from (say) France to Russia, you will have to rebase them several times, or strategically redeploy them - perhaps only losing 1/4 of their Org for a rebase might seeme more sensible ?
And a third point (to avoid double post issues, everything is in 1 post today.. lol)
Sometimes, I want one of my tech advances to be reliant on you having developed 1 or 2 (or more) previous techs - anyone know how to set the tech command to use OR triggers, as it were ? Is it possible even ?
Tim
I would agree about some of the things mentioned not really requiring a unit to be upgraded- as mentioned, adding AA machine Guns shouldnt be a great issue ! Easy enough to change, mind you - just edit the tech file to add the value "now" rather tha "on_upgrade". Anyone care to suggest a list of such things that might work this way ?
On a related note, units that go into the force pool for Strategic Redeployment now only lose 1/2 their Org. I would favour the same thing for units being upgraded - after all, the unit personnel remain together, they merely get new equipment. Mind you, the 1/2 Org penalty for rebasing an air unit also seems harsh to me - especially if you have short range units, and need to move them from (say) France to Russia, you will have to rebase them several times, or strategically redeploy them - perhaps only losing 1/4 of their Org for a rebase might seeme more sensible ?
And a third point (to avoid double post issues, everything is in 1 post today.. lol)
Sometimes, I want one of my tech advances to be reliant on you having developed 1 or 2 (or more) previous techs - anyone know how to set the tech command to use OR triggers, as it were ? Is it possible even ?
Tim