Development Diary #3 - 29nd of October 2008

[Napalm Eddie]

Will there be any benifit to researching cavalry tech? I'd love to be able to develop cav units for use in raiding-type situations. I've used them some as Italy in Africa; couldn't they be set up to live off the land somehow? They'd be great for deep behind enemy lines situations. Maybe they'd even be able to function for a time without supplies.

 

[Nats]

Hmmm ... another grey map. Is Earth really that grey in reality? I cant spend all day staring at a grey map. I start yawning after two minutes of looking at this one as it is. Just as well is an Alpha graphic. Theres no reason why war has to be grey. Take a look at the best war games around - Close Combat, Panzer General, Brothers in Arms, etc you dont see much grey in those. I want snow and weather. I want towns and cities! I want blue water and pyrographics! I want smoking cities and flak fire. I want fire fights and rumbling tanks.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Subdued colours suit the theme much better. And the world out there is fairly washed-out. Day-glo colours might work for The Settlers but world-spanning genocidal conflict suits sombre.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Does that include naval units, or will something different apply to them to reflect the particular challenges of "upgrading" a battleship?

I'm hoping that "Models" will be decided by the name of the first ship of a certain design.

For instance, if I the first of my cruisers with X sized guns and Y top speed is named the IJN Sushi, then all the ones following it in the same design would be Sushi-class cruisers.

 

[PlacidDragon]

....would be Sushi-class cruisers.

Escorted by Chopstick class DD's i imagine ?

 

[Naga Niome]

An Amazing Concidence ;P

This allows us to do really nice things like divide up what would be a single technology that gave in a model in Hearts of Iron 2 in several separate techs. So if we take tanks here as example, you can separately research a tank gun, tank engine, tank armour and tank reliability (just for the record reliability effects the ability for the tank unit to withstand damage on the attack, unreliable tanks tend to break down).

Early war German tanks sacrificed firepower and protection for mobility and reliability. Blitzkrieg made use of innovative combined arms tactics and radios in all of the tanks to provide command and control which made them more effective tank for tank than their Allied opponents, despite the Allied machines being more than a match for the panzers one-on-one.

I was interested going into another reading about tanks just learning something new and gripping my imagination again, and I came upon very similar wordings and concepts. Just felt like posting it here for some brain food.

 

[unmerged(52694)]

The same basic idea should work for tanks. Infantry would have much more scope to upgrade elements because there is no "chassis" element that needs improving before better rifles/artillery/antitank weapons can be bolted on.

In a way the "chassis" element for infantry (in the loosest sense) would be the kind of training they received. Airborne, marine, urban, general, etc. That being said, these aren't elements that change linearly but rather are the base element of the unit. I assume they will still be divided in HOI3. Just a thought.

A German Infantry Brigade with
- Mauser Karabiner Model 1898 (upgrading to 'Mauser Karabiner Kar 98k' (23%))
- Panzerfaust 30
- Maschinengewehr Modell 34 (upgrading to 'Maschinengewehr Modell 42' (2%))

My only question here really is why they are being upgraded. By that I mean, did I click a box:
-that made that brigade's Mauser Karabiner Model 1898 upgrade
- that made all brigades' Mauser Karabiner Model 1898 upgrade
- that made all of that brigade's upgradable options upgrade
- that made prioritized divisions upgrade anything upgradable
Etc. Etc.

Just still curious about micromanagement vs. options.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

So...you DON´T like the option to make models apart (or between) the historical models....right. I´ll get that to the devs then :wacko:

No. Don't get that to the developers. That would be disaster.

I think I might have a solution for people who want "all perfectly historical models." Obviously within the R&D tech tree, you can locate and designate all the pieces/features that will build the historical Pz IV. So, at the beginning of the game, before the campaign starts, you can select a "R&D restricted to historical models" option, which will lock all tanks/planes/ships into having only their historical designs.

Once that is set, and the campaign has begun, that file is locked into only having the historical R&D choices available, for each model. But of course, if that isn't the case, then all nations can & will take a variety of ahistorical research paths... and thus opening up the game's replayability, unpredictability, etc. No sense in running the same scenario over and over, you know. A player should be able to make big changes to his nation's approach to WWII... not just where to deploy & how to attack w/ his units.

There, that way this whole thing has a leash. Everybody can be happy.



edit:

I was interested going into another reading about tanks just learning something new and gripping my imagination again, and I came upon very similar wordings and concepts. Just felt like posting it here for some brain food.

Armor, firepower and mobility are the big 3 regarding tanks/AFVs. Any buff should know that. If there were a number 4, it would probably be reliability -- especially in WWII... where these things were more or less ahead of their time, and pushing the limit of the engineering tech of the day.

 

[Naga Niome]

Armor, firepower and mobility are the big 3 regarding tanks/AFVs. Any buff should know that. If there were a number 4, it would probably be reliability -- especially in WWII... where these things were more or less ahead of their time, and pushing the limit of the engineering tech of the day.

I'm aware of that, just felt compelling how they were developing the system realistically. It's amazing, it's always been my dream to see a system where you could tailor your technology and divisions. Now some are dreaming of equipment pools and I a revolutionary Espionage system that is based on the world maps regions where you send spy's to and form networks covering provinces.

If I mentioned something involving airplanes you think you could pull off such a feat Mr.Jagdmaus? What's "#4" for aircraft? ;P

 

[unmerged(82846)]

Personally I am loving the way the water looks.

Thanks for the update that lifted me out of my sickness-induced misery.

 

[Mindmelter]

Personally

I love the idea of creating my own models and not being bound by the previouse laws.... then you can really focus on different things and make your own army.......

I also feel that the research should not automatically end the second you stop churning out tanks if you have 60 tank divisions I mean shouldn't you still be learning something even from the existing divisions?

I kinda like the Master of Orion 3 version of Modable unit types... and if people dont like doing that or want to spend the time that game had an auto ship design creation tool that would do it for you let it auto name the unit type as well so you can have the Panzer 2, 4, 5, 6 feel from it.....

Those who want the more historically accurate game are more apt to play a 1938 or later game as well those starting in 1936 usually want to change some major things. I dunno just some thoughts..

Thanks for all your doing I would love to see what no model HOI would look like.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

If I mentioned something involving airplanes you think you could pull off such a feat Mr.Jagdmaus? What's "#4" for aircraft? ;P

Stealth, speed, firepower/payload, and... range? For WWII I'd get rid of 'stealth' & replace it w/ maneuverability. Of course if you're really fast enough, you won't need to worry about maneuverability, to which I'd say 'minimum operational airstrip length' maybe. Nah. Surely flight hours to maintenance hours ratio would be #4.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380336

Discuss the details.

 

[sbr]

Stealth, speed, firepower/payload, and... range? For WWII I'd get rid of 'stealth' & replace it w/ maneuverability. Of course if you're really fast enough, you won't need to worry about maneuverability,

I don't know about that. I don't pretend to know much but I think maneuverability was a major factor in fighter of that era(see the japanese zero). Top end speed isn't the end all in a dogfight.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

I don't know about that. I don't pretend to know much but I think maneuverability was a major factor in fighter of that era(see the japanese zero). Top end speed isn't the end all in a dogfight.

I was thinking about everything else, besides fighter vs. fight combat. Intercepting, bombing & all forms of ground attack, etc. Why mix it up with the stinkin' enemy fighters if you don't have to? If you have fast as hell bombers, they don't need escort, nor maneuverability. And, if you have lightning fast interceptors, no need to mess with the escorts, just make slashing attacks on the bombers, with impunity. End result: he's bombed to bits, and you aren't. To heck with fighter vs. fighter combat. Bypass it... IF you can.

 

[sbr]

I was thinking about everything else, besides fighter vs. fight combat. Intercepting, bombing & all forms of ground attack, etc. Why mix it up with the stinkin' enemy fighters if you don't have to? If you have fast as hell bombers, they don't need escort, nor maneuverability. And, if you have lightning fast interceptors, no need to mess with the escorts, just make slashing attacks on the bombers, with impunity. End result: he's bombed to bits, and you aren't. To heck with fighter vs. fighter combat. Bypass it... IF you can.

That makes sense now.

Fighter v Fighter combat was somewhat important, and is somewhat fun though.

 

[Van Diemen]

So if we take tanks here as example, you can separately research a tank gun, tank engine, tank armour and tank reliability (just for the record reliability effects the ability for the tank unit to withstand damage on the attack, unreliable tanks tend to break down).

With this reply made by Johan we can finally ready ourselves that effect of armour thickness/design will be in the game! Now I do hope that the game will make the battle calculations on a more realistic manner was well, instead of the hardness/softness parameter in HoI2. Also the armour penetration capabilities of the different size AT guns and tank guns will probably be in. Hopefully no more 37mm AT guns being just as effective to penetrate armour as 120mm AT guns, which mean that the race for technology will be very much on in HoI3.

 

[henryjai]

I don't know about that. I don't pretend to know much but I think maneuverability was a major factor in fighter of that era(see the japanese zero). Top end speed isn't the end all in a dogfight.

You are in a upper hand in all Aerial combat if you have high speed and good acceleration.

Dogfighting isn't that necessary when you don't need to do so. Perhaps Maneuverability is more important for escorts, escorts to be effective needs to down enemy interceptors before the bombers are being harmed.


those Japanese Zeros have excellent Range, good armament and good maneuverability , however they just can't do anything in late war other than .. kamikazes. It's not only due to their weak Armour, but their limited speed as well. Having lower speed means your enemy could try to shoot you at will but you can't even try to shoot him.

They do very well in the first year of war because the American fighters is inferior to Japanese planes in most aspects and the Maneuverability of Zeros only make them kill US planes easier.

 

[sbr]

You are in a upper hand in all Aerial combat if you have high speed and good acceleration.

Dogfighting isn't that necessary when you don't need to do so. Perhaps Maneuverability is more important for escorts, escorts to be effective needs to down enemy interceptors before the bombers are being harmed.


those Japanese Zeros have excellent Range, good armament and good maneuverability , however they just can't do anything in late war other than .. kamikazes. It's not only due to their weak Armour, but their limited speed as well. Having lower speed means your enemy could try to shoot you at will but you can't even try to shoot him.

They do very well in the first year of war because the American fighters is inferior to Japanese planes in most aspects and the Maneuverability of Zeros only make them kill US planes easier.

Any chance Japan's tragically high pilot loss rate had anything to do with it?:honestquestion:

 

[Razor]

Very interesting changes to the technology system indeed! Research not tied to IC! Can hardly wait for next week.

 

[henryjai]

Any chance Japan's tragically high pilot loss rate had anything to do with it?:honestquestion:

something, but most American pilots are newbs as well. In a war of attrition low survivability is not acceptable.