I see no reason why not, as long as the cost and stats does not make them "practical" to build. If I play Germany and succeed, I demand to have the right to build crazy over the top tanks like the Ratte and Monster!
-
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.
- Status
I see no reason why not, as long as the cost and stats does not make them "practical" to build. If I play Germany and succeed, I demand to have the right to build crazy over the top tanks like the Ratte and Monster!
Super heavy tanks were not actually used ever (unless you count the Tiger II as super heavy). Having the option of a super heavy tank brigade just makes the CPU build a worthless unit and takes up space for more important brigades that don't exist like light artillery (for paratroopers and moutain infantry) or crazy huge artillery like the 800 mm krupp gun the germans used for sieges.
Why take it out? If it strikes you as impractical and inefficient, don't use it. If you think it's just plain awesome. go right ahead.
HAH light artillery, now that is something missing, though I think it is factored in on the base infantry unit.
The thought of my mountain unit only being slowed down -1 when traveling through mountains while trying to mount the barrel of a 105mm howitzer on 6 horses or mules is a rather funny though, not to mention a horse or mule might carry 4 rounds max of that big of ammunition too.
Haevy tanks have to be keept for HOI III time frame absolutely,becouse they had important role especialy in later years of ww2.
Main characteristics of concept-low horsepower/tonn ratio becouse of accent on armour.They extinct soon after ww2,but in late 40-s they had some role.I am talking about haevy tanks,not superhaevy .
Light tanks in HOI III have their place allso,as we sought they are practicaly abandoned as concept in time of Vietnam war.
Somewhere at the end of ww2 in HOI III MBT should arrive in form of modernised medium "workohorse" ww2 tanks.
Better guns,beter armour and stronger engines,but most importantly high horsepower/tonn ration stayed the same and even rised.So despite they being haevy, mobility stayed on high level and were continued to be used like medium tanks of ww2-allarounders.
I realy dont see any,and realy any logical reason why HOI III should have superhaevy armour becouse those simply were anusable in modern war.(I mean from 1939 )
More usable were superhaevy artillery systems like german Leopold or Dora superhaevy railway guns.
If HOI III will bring again superhaevy armour as a "spice",than it must bring superhaevy artillery allso,otherwise game is lacking historical acuracy haevily.
Last edited:
The years following WWII saw a sort of (experimental) arms race in SH tanks between the two major opponents in the Cold War. The Ratte was quite impractical. But that is not to say that all SH tanks were impractical.
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/39/44/lang,en/ Scroll down to get an idea of what was in development.
And of course, the Americans built things like the T-28: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank
Oh yeah, baby...
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/39/44/lang,en/ Scroll down to get an idea of what was in development.
And of course, the Americans built things like the T-28: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank
Oh yeah, baby...
Super heavies are in game as a dead end of tank development that players can explore. I always suspeced that they made into game because most of the players are war machines nuts and ability to play with big, German tank is what makes them more happy then playing with small German tank.
Important thing is, effects of having super heavy tank brigade attached to the normal unit can be somehow simulated in game though the series of stats modifications that in the end, make such unit more or less useless. You don't need special new game mechanics to do it - you just set brigade stats and viola! Big, useless Maus brigade for you.
Siege artillery on the other hand is much more tricky to implement. What exactly would it do, except from exisiting? Would it slow unit attached to? But it was not used directly with some other ground unit, it was usually long range support.
You would basically need completly different mechanics for siege artillery, that simulate fortification/dig-in reduction factor, extreme vulnerability to the enemy attacks, no-retreat mode taken from garrison units (but unlike them it could move normally, instead of using SR only). You would also probably need to change whole fortification bonus system, to actually make it scale in a way that makes super heavy artillery (like railroad pieces or naval ones) much better in fighting heavy fortifications, while normal artillery is still better against more mundane targets (thanks to the better rate of fire and numbers).
All in all, lots of work to set up something that was as dead end of artillery development as Maus was for tanks. No wonder Maus got in, but Dora didn't.
So yes, if you take criteria of "spice unit" as the sole one, you are right. But if you consider other ones, it's obvious why some of the spice got into HoI2 and some did not.
For HoI3, I'm somehow split on that matter. Maus-like units definetly remain "spice" - and game-wise, they can be skipped without much problem. On the other hand, why take away something that is already decently implemented and doesn't cause any harm? Keeping expensive and mostly useless Maus for those RPers makes sense then.
That was experimental race mainly in haevy tanks not superhavey,that ended by the end of 40-s with the conclusion"err,maybee there is some beter way to spend our steel reserves".
All this
didnt have any impact on stategical situation.Again those were haevy tanks designs,not superhaevy.
Historicaly there is any proof that any superhaevy tank ever kiled even a squirrel, ok,maybbe some drop dead from heart-atack when shee sough Germans trying to move Mouse from garage...
Last edited:
Super heavies are in game as a dead end of tank development that players can explore. I always suspeced that they made into game because most of the players are war machines nuts and ability to play with big, German tank is what makes them more happy then playing with small German tank.
Important thing is, effects of having super heavy tank brigade attached to the normal unit can be somehow simulated in game though the series of stats modifications that in the end, make such unit more or less useless. You don't need special new game mechanics to do it - you just set brigade stats and viola! Big, useless Maus brigade for you.
Siege artillery on the other hand is much more tricky to implement. What exactly would it do, except from exisiting? Would it slow unit attached to? But it was not used directly with some other ground unit, it was usually long range support.
You would basically need completly different mechanics for siege artillery, that simulate fortification/dig-in reduction factor, extreme vulnerability to the enemy attacks, no-retreat mode taken from garrison units (but unlike them it could move normally, instead of using SR only). You would also probably need to change whole fortification bonus system, to actually make it scale in a way that makes super heavy artillery (like railroad pieces or naval ones) much better in fighting heavy fortifications, while normal artillery is still better against more mundane targets (thanks to the better rate of fire and numbers).
All in all, lots of work to set up something that was as dead end of artillery development as Maus was for tanks. No wonder Maus got in, but Dora didn't.
So yes, if you take criteria of "spice unit" as the sole one, you are right. But if you consider other ones, it's obvious why some of the spice got into HoI2 and some did not.
For HoI3, I'm somehow split on that matter. Maus-like units definetly remain "spice" - and game-wise, they can be skipped without much problem. On the other hand, why take away something that is already decently implemented and doesn't cause any harm? Keeping expensive and mostly useless Maus for those RPers makes sense then.
But Doras and Leopolds had some action, actualy masacred Americans in Anzio and Russians in Odessa.While superhaevy tanks didnt have allmost any use in history,actualy exactly dint haev any use?
Two spices.One with historical implementation ,one without,both being of very small usefullnes and very expencive..
Why only have one,and that one never being used?
You didn't answer my argument, only repeated yours.
In fact, it looks like you have read only the last part of my post?
You didn't answer my argument, only repeated yours.
In fact, it looks like you have read only the last part of my post?
What was first part?About some players being haevy tank nuts?
Well how about guys being haevy gun lovers(whatever Freud could say about this obsession).
I would like to have Guns of Navaron,two superhavey guns Germans mounted in Greece that prevented British conwoys.And dosens of haevy guns alonside Atlantic wall,plus dosen of mobile on railway and on tracks.
You annecesary complicated problems of representation of superhaevy artillery in your post.
Superhaevy artillery should be a brigade that will ,once atouched on infantery unit ,have those influences:
1.Division SHA(superhaevy artillery) is atached becomes not mobile-only transported by strategical redeployment like garrison.
2. Division gets rised atack values.
3.Division gets one aditional order on disposal-logistical strike on adjacent provinces,thus simulating efect of those weapons when used on sige,or when shelling some pockets of enemy(Anzio).So infantery unit with SHA atached could be used to lower infrastructure of the borderline province...,without any pretumbations in game mechanism you are afraid of.
Last edited:
There is no such mechanics in HoI2 as brigade that turns division into immobile unit (you can cheat a bit by making it modify unit speed by -X, where X is the max speed of any division - but it will backfire, especially for AI). New code is needed. Just for that one "spice".
Why would it rise attack values? Can you use Dora to support normal ground unit while it's defending (remember, in HoI2 attack value is number of attacks, not damage modifier that unit gets when attacking) or for that matter, in any dynamic combat situation? It just have too slow fire rate and ability to follow the new coordinates. In result, it's useful only in siege scenarios.
To make siege units rise "attack values" you would have to change whole combat system to make attack values mean what you want (damage value while attacking), not the one it means in HoI2 and most likely in HoI3 (number of "shots" unit does every hour against the enemy in any combat situation, no matter if it's attack or defense).
So, lots of new code. Just for "spice".
In HoI2, land units can't perform logistical strikes. So, more of the new code.
Compared to that - SHA brigade is using standard brigade template. It requires zilch work from programmer, all what Johan had to do was asking their art guy to make tiny icon and small photo for such brigade. Its statistics (that simulate its uselesness) can be adjusted by any player in game with text editor.
That's why one is in HoI2, but other is not.
For HoI3, they can be gone, I don't mind. Or the one that is already in game might be kept for RP reasons. But there is very small chance another "spice" like Dora's will get in. I wouldn't mind, really - it would be great for modelling Great War pieces and could tie up original HoI3 with (hopefully) Great War expansion. But I don't expect it to be a priority.
Last edited:
We are talking about HOI III,arent we?
You seems to think that HOI II mechanics will be transalted to HOI III totaly?
I dont know that.I hope it will not be so rudimentary and inflexible.
Anyway I am challenging any superhaevy tank loverin on this forum to opose me with historical example of using superhaevy tank in battle.
Let me start my serie of stories with "Anzio Annie".
There were two guns that made up the German K-5 RR battery that shelled the Anzio Beachhead.Those 2 guns grounded 11(ELEVEN) allied divisions in the bridgehead for months,spreding terror and destruction.American soldiers even wrote a poems about allmost mythical apearance of thiss terrible weapon.
Now,tell me something about suoprehaevy tanks in action?
In the meantime please watch this movie,about real"spice".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOediCqrukw
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't have time to read all the post, so I may say something already mentioned. From one of the alpha screens we saw that there will be lots of different tyeps of brigades. I don't see why not include also super heavy tanks, if the point of the game is "do ww2 your way". What I think it should be done is to give this brigade type fair stats. Only few thoughts as they come out of my mind: -2 speed, low air defence, high fuel consumption, high hardness (duh!). The most important thing will be production time and cost, but it is easy: how many pathers took to build a maus? I think it was like 5 (I may be wrong): there it is, cost of heavy tank brigade = 5 x cost of medium (advanced) tank brigade.
No?
Ricroma
No?
Ricroma
Ok,but whatabout people want to have superhaevy artillery which was used more than SH tanks?
Shouldnt we have allso them?
I think if game will feature SH tanks than argument for SH artillery allso, is anbeatable.
Shouldnt we have allso them?
I think if game will feature SH tanks than argument for SH artillery allso, is anbeatable.
They should have both. I don't think that there should be a hard limit to the number of brigades in game, for modding reasons. There were some interesting ideas about division building where you would put in a larger number of components (regiments) to build your divisions.
That being said, a few stupid or dead end technology should be in the game if the player wishes so it can represent the choices some leaders made, but only those that are feasible from any realistic standpoint.
And SH-A and Artillery both did play a role in the war, although railway guns and other big artillery pieces did more than any super heavy tanks. As long as the stats reflect their true nature, then they should be in.
# The Maus (SH-A in general) should be in the game, as it did have a working prototype. The brigades should have huge supply and fuel consumption, very low speed (it has the optimistic speed listed as 13 km/h :rofl, cost large amounts of manpower (tanks like that would need a corp of mechanics around) and low air defense. The attack ratings should only be little better than the late-/post-war tank designs, but a large defense rating would make sense from the armoured bunker standpoint.
, cost large amounts of manpower (tanks like that would need a corp of mechanics around) and low air defense. The attack ratings should only be little better than the late-/post-war tank designs, but a large defense rating would make sense from the armoured bunker standpoint.# SH-Artillery (railway guns and the like) should also be in, but they need even more stringent controls. I'd argue that they should only be buildable in divisions of their own type, and that any division with them in it should have the lowest speed possible to allow them to attack, but force a player to have to strat. redeploy them for action again, making them only useful in sieges and against well dug in enemy forces and not on fast moving fronts.
Huge manpower and IC costs to build, and a low defense of all kinds, and low org as well. Very high attack stats, but these should come with a modifier that reduces their effectiveness by a large margin when combat occurs against enemies not dug in or in fortifications to represent the fact that you didn't use railway guns against enemy forces that were maneuvering.
Huge manpower and IC costs to build, and a low defense of all kinds, and low org as well. Very high attack stats, but these should come with a modifier that reduces their effectiveness by a large margin when combat occurs against enemies not dug in or in fortifications to represent the fact that you didn't use railway guns against enemy forces that were maneuvering.
The main argument for these two being in is that they were used historically. But their negatives need to be modelled to keep the Super-Heavy tanks from being effective.
But I think the line should be drawn at somepoint:
# The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte and P. 1500 Monster, however, should not. They were technically infeasible, a complete waste of resources to even develop, and would have been even more worthless then the Maus. They weigh 1,000 to 1,500 tons apiece! Not every designed weapon should be in the game: Churchill's idea for a floating iceburg CV is another example.
Furthering this discussion, I think that because so many nations explored the feasability of Super-Heavy Tanks they should be in. Indeed, I think that regular Heavy tanks should be an earlier option in game, and that the Super-Heavies should branch off to remain seperate. Heavy Tanks were feasible/practical weapons of war, while the SH-A were not. That way a Germany could persue a Tiger III but not have to deal with the Maus or Lowe.
The first Heavy Tank designs would represent how some nations explored Heavy Tanks in the interwar period: the French Char B1 and 2C, the Soviet T-35 and SMK tank, the Japanse Type 95, the German Neubaufahrzeug and the British Independent A1E1. Perhaps even designs like the Italian Fiat 2000.
This first Heavy tank branch should be available earlier in the game (in HoI2 terms, a 1936 or '37 tech), and should be a seperate branch from the Light/Medium tank tree. Heavy tanks should also remain an option during the length of the game, as both sides in the Cold War took an interest in Heavy Tanks: the American M103 and Soviet T-10 served until the 70s.
Super-Heavy tanks would be an offshoot of the early Heavy designs, and should be limited in the numbers of researchable techs. Ideas like the Maus progressed far enough to enter the prototype stage, and as such I believe that they should be in but made into a realistic depiction of their capabilities.
The first Heavy Tank designs would represent how some nations explored Heavy Tanks in the interwar period: the French Char B1 and 2C, the Soviet T-35 and SMK tank, the Japanse Type 95, the German Neubaufahrzeug and the British Independent A1E1. Perhaps even designs like the Italian Fiat 2000.
This first Heavy tank branch should be available earlier in the game (in HoI2 terms, a 1936 or '37 tech), and should be a seperate branch from the Light/Medium tank tree. Heavy tanks should also remain an option during the length of the game, as both sides in the Cold War took an interest in Heavy Tanks: the American M103 and Soviet T-10 served until the 70s.
Super-Heavy tanks would be an offshoot of the early Heavy designs, and should be limited in the numbers of researchable techs. Ideas like the Maus progressed far enough to enter the prototype stage, and as such I believe that they should be in but made into a realistic depiction of their capabilities.
Wading in a little late but I say get rid of super-heavy armour, its just a waste of a brigade slot...a more viable brigade would be assault guns...at least those were a used branch of armoured warfare (at least by the Germans anyways)
And while we are on the subject of tinkering with units...put CVL and CVEs in the game as seperate entities...PLEASE!
And while we are on the subject of tinkering with units...put CVL and CVEs in the game as seperate entities...PLEASE!
This is actually represented in HoI2. Remember that there are two branches of tanks (light and regular, starting with Great War tanks) that merge into regular tanks in the early 1940's (as light tanks and early medium tanks upgrade to basic medium tanks). The Early Medium Tank, I believe, represents all those lumbering pre-war monstrosities, like the T-35.
- Status