Do we have to have super-heavy armor?

[krieger11b]

But I wouldn't do the same for turreted US tank destroyers, though. However, they had open turrets, which is unheard of for a tank.

Yeah, a good idea on how to save materials, construction time, and improve loading times (less cramped), but only when you have complete air supremacy, and no enemy air burst artillery.

Anyways I am not sure how in HOI you can really accurately model the difference of an assault gun and a self propelled artillery unless there was some kind of special attack modifier against an enemies entrenchment or fortification values?

 

[Alexander Seil]

In the HOI world, though, it seems the difference is whether you have an A in tse name or a B. A B-25 Mitchell wasn't that particularly different from an A-24. Most US dive bombers were naval.

If you compare the Basic Tactical Bomber with CAS, you will see that the former has strategic bombardment capability, better nav. attack, but worse softattack (somewhat) and hard attack (dramatically).

 

[Cokebottle Lovesnake]

There are three points to make here

ONE - effectiveness is no guage of whether a unit should be represented. Plenty of crap ideas floating around and costing lives in WW2.

TWO - There are a number of units/concepts represented in game that didnt work/never got finished/never got a chance to fight due to time/fantasy.

Obviously these are there for a fun factor or a whatif?, you need to compare something like the Maus v other stuff (nuke ships, helicopters etc etc) and replace with another fun unit if you can justify it.

SHA certainly qualifies as a whatif? And fun is just personal but I give it a thumbs up for fun.

If the disadvantages are accurately depicted, it would be more useless than militia, and thus won't ever be built, forever occupying a brigade slot for no good reason.

I say ax 'em.

THREE - Arguing effectiveness is very difficult, what information do we have? And what situation are we in? And what value is cost effectiveness?

Most arguments about effectiveness seem silly "oh it will break the roads, or cant move move then 2 mph etc etc" Would it actually? Do you know or are you using cartoon logic - big heavy things must break stuff and be slow!!!!

How silly a battleship, must be barely able to move, arty has contest to see who can it it the most, no dock could ever support it.

I dare say there are well backed arguments for an effectively used SHA unit, just as there were for battleships.

Even when air power showed the shortcoming of a battleships, they were still used, and still had potential. Not "more useless then militia"

Now if you want to spend the money for the minimal return is up to you, but make real arguments.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Ehh, seriously. Comparing a sea-going vessel to a tank?

I'll leave the Ratte out of this discussion - that's just completely useless and impractical.

As for the Maus - high profile, *four times slower than King Tiger* (13 versus 41 kmh), insurmountable reliability issues.

If it was not never used in practice, had no potential even IF it was used and cannot be represented in the game realistically without making it useless, then it shouldn't be in the game.

You may ask, what about other wonder-weapons? Well, the V-1 and V-2 were, in fact, used. And German experimental jets were potentially useful. But Maus doesn't qualify on either count. The other super-heavy tanks were basically either huge assault guns or tank destroyers.

 

[elizibar]

The other super-heavy tanks were basically either huge assault guns or tank destroyers.

Then I propose the SH tank brigade be split into two new brigades: "Huge Assault Gun" (HAG) brigades, and "Extreme Tank Destroyers" (ETD) brigades.

Thanks for the idea man!

 

[Alexander Seil]

Or simply put them in the respective brigade types as an upgrade option. Problem solved.

 

[oddman]

Then just don't upgrade (or research) to a Maus or anything beyond that. If you want to research a dead branch is then up to the player.

Arguably, choices that are always bad choices need to be modeled some other way - neither player nor AI will ever choose them, if they are somewhat sane. It has to become a drawback of something desirable.

Like developing MBTs, for example. You have to find out what doesn't work to figure out what does.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Concluded:Supehaevy armour not needed in HOI III.

What is needed instead,after 1945, is MBT brigade, main battle tank brigade.

 

[unmerged(10370)]

Are brigade slots limited? I havent heard this. And if they arent limited, then don't limit my choices based on what you think is hypothetically useless. I use SH-A brigades when I have air superiority as defense against player armies that lack AT support. And its damn EFFECTIVE.

The Germans planned to use E-100 & Maus, and the Americans and Russians had design plans on the board. I love putting these to use because I like the FLAVOR of it. Just like I like building Super Battleships even though I know its a waste of materials. I like the IDEA of it. And its plausible. I just can't abide you guys trying to limit our options... Unless the brigade slots are limited. Some one clear that up.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Are brigade slots limited? I havent heard this. .

Correct, but take a look at the division-building screen, I see no room for adding brigades (though it is still an alpha-screenshot of course)

 

[Alexander Seil]

Concluded:Supehaevy armour not needed in HOI III.

What is needed instead,after 1945, is MBT brigade, main battle tank brigade.

Ehh? MBTs are a direct outgrowth of the heavy tank and tank lines. And should be put into either of those. I don't know how you reached your conclusion.

 

[unmerged(10370)]

Thanks Veldmaarschalk, the brigade list looks great to me. If more are added, a scrollbar could be used.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Ehh? MBTs are a direct outgrowth of the heavy tank and tank lines. And should be put into either of those. I don't know how you reached your conclusion.

I would rather say that MBT are a outgrowth of medium tanks, like the Panther and the T-34/85.

Since those 'medium' tanks were the tanks used in the armoured divisions/corps. Heavy tanks were mostly in seperate, independend battalions/brigades.

So f.e. for Germany you would have medium tanks
PzKw III
PzKw IV
Panther
Panther II
(Leopard)

Heavy tanks would be
Tiger
Kingtiger
Maus
P-100

Thanks Veldmaarschalk, the brigade list looks great to me. If more are added, a scrollbar could be used.

Well if we can add brigades ourselves (and I hope we can) then this discussion is over, since then people can mod in or out any brigade they want

 

[Alexander Seil]

Modern MBTs are in the same weight class as the King Tiger, however.

Plus in HoI3, the HOI2-like distinction between "normal" (divisional) and "heavy" (attached) tanks is non-existent. All tank brigades have frontage. So if you want a whole division of King Tigers, no one's stopping you, except, hopefully, for your own IC.

 

[aaaaburnHOI]

You do realize it would be easier to just design a carriage for the same caliber gun, and have yourself a high-caliber battery, than dragging that mobile bomb target around? The whole plan is just complete nonsense.

Like rail guns? Cool, but almost exclusively German instruments in WWII.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Modern MBTs are in the same weight class as the King Tiger, however.

Plus in HoI3, the HOI2-like distinction between "normal" (divisional) and "heavy" (attached) tanks is non-existent. All tank brigades have frontage. So if you want a whole division of King Tigers, no one's stopping you, except, hopefully, for your own IC.

Weight has nothing to do with the function of an MBT

We don't know which mininum requirements there are for divisions, Paradox has said some contradicting things ('any combination is possible, '1 to 4 brigades', 'you won't see any 1-brigade divisions'). So if 4 brigades of HA are possibke we don't know yet

 

[Alexander Seil]

Weight has nothing to do with the function of an MBT

The function of a King Tiger is exactly the same as that of an Abrams. The only difference is that the Third Reich did not have the industrial might necessary to outfit whole divisions with them, and resorted to fielding independent battalions. I'm disregarding the reliability issues, for now (they could've been ironed out somehow if they had the resources comparable to those of the US, I am sure). There is simply no functional distinction between late-war medium and heavy tanks. There is between early war medium and heavy tanks, however, especially for the British and Soviets (compare early T-34's with lumbering T-35's).

The only reason in-game to split up late-war medium and heavy tanks is the resource constraint that made fielding large numbers of heavy tanks impracticable. It's not based on any different "function."

 

[Khevenhuller]

The only reason in-game to split up late-war medium and heavy tanks is the resource constraint that made fielding large numbers of heavy tanks impracticable. It's not based on any different "function."

It is for the British, who retained the doctrinal difference between Cruisers (Shermans, Cromwells, Comets late war) and Infantry Tanks (Churchill VII late war, and sent to Korea).

The Cruisers equipped the Armoured Divisions, the Infantry Tanks in independent brigades whose role was to support Infantry attacks. Bit WW1 in concept, but it survived until the fifties.

K

 

[Alexander Seil]

That's a good point.

 

[Khevenhuller]

That's a good point.

Though the idea in HoI2 that the Advanced Heavy Tank for the Brits was the Churchill VII, and the Germans the Tiger II, and that the two are in any way equal, is quite laughable...

K