-
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.
I see, thanks.Also i would like to know whether it is possible to sell brigade license for example self-propelled artillery.Sorry if it was already asked.
Couldn't you just add in progressive pre-req techs in other areas, say for a jet fighter?
i.e. if you want a jet fighter early than historical (1942 vs 1944) you'll have to focus your research on components like
jet engines
advance aeronautical design
alloys
etc.
By rushing Jets, you lose ground in other areas your enemies are advancing (artillery perhaps, or maybe bombers, naval units, doctrines, etc.) due the pre-reqs (maybe several stages of jet engines and aeronautical design before the tech for jet fights is unlocked) for jets taking up research time/slots.
Mod34 REALLY shows off this sort of tech tree arraingment/progression better than I can explain in words.
Sorry, I know it's late in the development process to protest, but the tech date penalty drove me insane in HOI2.
"Note the division is still the smallest tactical unit and the land unit and its brigades are indivisible"
Can brigades, making up a division, be interlinked to other divisions, say you have space in one division, and a brigade from another division to spare, can you attach it to that one even though both have been used, upgraded, moved, etc?
Can brigades, making up a division, be interlinked to other divisions, say you have space in one division, and a brigade from another division to spare, can you attach it to that one even though both have been used, upgraded, moved, etc?
can tactics be associated with build characteristics ?
i.e. Be fun to build a battleship with maximum gun and engine size with minimal armour size with the tactical characteristic of positioning = keep_maximum_distance_for_gun_range
Such model/tactics linkage could also be a way for the ai to get the most out of the great variety the new build system offers -IMHO
i.e. Be fun to build a battleship with maximum gun and engine size with minimal armour size with the tactical characteristic of positioning = keep_maximum_distance_for_gun_range
Such model/tactics linkage could also be a way for the ai to get the most out of the great variety the new build system offers -IMHO
I am concerned about the licencing capabilities since that will mean Italy/ Romania potentially having Panzer IVs in 40's/ 41's or Germany the latest Japanese carriers after defeating the SU.
I am not against licencing, just that to make it historically accurate, it shouldn't be that easy for a minor to build the latest model of a major (even with help) unless it has a already invested some research into that particular tech.
Maybe if there is a cap to technology, meaning that you can only build/ licence a tech that is lets say 2 levels above your current level, so Romania might licence the equivalent of a Pz III in 1943, but not a Panther.
I am not against licencing, just that to make it historically accurate, it shouldn't be that easy for a minor to build the latest model of a major (even with help) unless it has a already invested some research into that particular tech.
Maybe if there is a cap to technology, meaning that you can only build/ licence a tech that is lets say 2 levels above your current level, so Romania might licence the equivalent of a Pz III in 1943, but not a Panther.
I suspect that the lack of practical/theoretical experience from not reasearching yourself will make building divisions under license less efficient in many cases, and since you pay money for every division/ship produced it will not be a compleatly free
Agree, but there were lot of examples in WWII where weapons were shared by their allies. Hopefully it will be quite expensive so that you can't have an entire army of licensed units.
I think that the building of those things in countries that cannot research them will be more limited to IC concerns than unit models. Germany did sell the Romanians tanks, and could have built decent carriers if they were so inclined/able.
Yes, or the building would take so long due to poor "gearing" that it would show the problems involved. But really this is to simulate the purchase of equipment as well as the license, I think.
Hmm thats not what the DD say, Its says you get to use the sellers pratical values. So Germany could potentially build a carrier at the same efficiency as Japan as long as its "lincenced". I think Theoretical values are only used in research so they are not needed at all.
The only limit to licencing so far seems to be that you can't upgrade them unless you research yourself.
Practical values = the new "gearing" according too DD #2Bullfrog said:
This is actually the design philosophy behind Battle cruisers. Generally speaking they had battleship quality guns, and powerfull engines for speed. They sacrificed armored protection. The philosophy was that they could outgun anything their size or smaller, and could outrun anything bigger. This didnt work out so well in HoI2, where pretty much all they could do was close with the enemy to gun range, and retreats were automatic anyway.
In HoI3, retreats are not to be automatic. I would presume that it is based at least in part on speed. If this is the case then the BC's may actually have some valid uses.
I would hope it's much slower for licensee nations to build stuff, though. Like if I start building my two Spanish Hipper-class heavy cruisers, it should be a slower and more demanding task than were Germany to build them.
For a start, my resource base is much smaller, and so the construction of two large capital ships should be a serious drain on my capacity to wage war.
For a start, my resource base is much smaller, and so the construction of two large capital ships should be a serious drain on my capacity to wage war.
I was under the impresion that it did not work i reality either, was I way of?
Generally, it did work, particularly if you're talking about lone ships.
Well, it did, but only sorta. I think a large part of the problem was the misunderstanding of the purpose of BC's, even among the Admiralties.
Look at the Bismark vs the Hood. The Bismark was a battleship, and the Hood was a BC. It was actually a missmatch from the getgo, and the hood was at a decisive disadvantage. This was an instance where the Hood whould have been running from the Bismark using its superior speed, instead of attempting to engage it.
If you used them right, they could be very effective. Of course, a lot of this is moot, because were talking about gunfire encounters. Little did everyone know but even the battleship was already obsolete by the time the war started, outmoded by carriers.
Oh I see. I don't think that buying a license should help the buyer's practical values in that research field at all. Maybe theoretical.
If my memory is correct, the Hood no longer had any speed advantage. A combination of technology improvements in newer ships, and added armor to the Hood resulted in a loss of speed advantage. So the 1920's BC just didn't have the speed capability to perform its mission if faced against a 1930's BB.
Nice DD.
Now we have to think at least twice when spending money on something, in HoI2 money only noticed me when my income was in the minus (cause it costed IC), but besides that the use of money was kinda limited with only spying and diplomatics.
Now we have to think at least twice when spending money on something, in HoI2 money only noticed me when my income was in the minus (cause it costed IC), but besides that the use of money was kinda limited with only spying and diplomatics.
That is excellent news, and that will add a lot of historical realism to the game.
I just wonder why King mentioned that reinforcements for that division are for free, since you use your own IC and those foreign blueprints?
Great DD
I just wonder why King mentioned that reinforcements for that division are for free, since you use your own IC and those foreign blueprints?
Great DDHmm, so is the 14 inch gun naval going to be a tech level above the 15? Even though in reality it was a less than stellar weapon compared to it? How about the 16 on the Nelson class?
I imagine there are going to have be a few awkward choices tech flavour wise due to the sometimes non-linear nature of weapons technology development. I don't see it as something that can be helped though, or at least something for the modders to fix in detail.
I do also hope the "final" naval gun tech to be developed is a 20 inch gun for a bit of what iffing because I fancy building myself a few Super Yamatos. Would be nice if that was a flavour 'class' for the Japanese too.
I imagine there are going to have be a few awkward choices tech flavour wise due to the sometimes non-linear nature of weapons technology development. I don't see it as something that can be helped though, or at least something for the modders to fix in detail.
I do also hope the "final" naval gun tech to be developed is a 20 inch gun for a bit of what iffing because I fancy building myself a few Super Yamatos. Would be nice if that was a flavour 'class' for the Japanese too.