Equipment: Leaps and evolution

[Axe99]

Hence, when looking at WW2 "tech", what's important is not to look at individual technologies, but at how they were used as a system. Radar alone for instance didn't win the Battle of Britain - it was an integrated system that combined coast watchers, anti-air batteries, and a centralized fighter command.

I wasn't suggesting that radar alone won the Battle of Britain, but the integrated fighter command network was far, far more effective and able to respond because of it, so it would still come under the umbrella of a significant technological revolution. If Germany hadn't have got its own radar stations up lickety-split they would have been at a significant disadvantage in the Western European air war. I agree with all your points about the integration of the tech being important, but you need the tech in the first place to integrate it.

As for the integration of the technology, that could be more covered by the doctrines where there is the potential to not use the tech as effectively. That way if you wanted to split the tech from the integration (which isn't a crazy thing to do), you could develop the radar (or better artillery, or what-have-you) and then have to develop the doctrine to use them (preferably with their being some kind of choice as to how it was used - if there was no choice, then it's probably worth leaving as the one tech, as it becomes gameplay busywork rather than choice).

 

[Porkman]

I second the "integrated systems" approach.

Having merely sufficient arms is far more important than shiny toys. 200 new tanks or giving 10 infantry divisions with their full listed complement of machine guns, mortars, AT guns, light artillery and logistical vehicles? The second one would be way more helpful but it's not what got done.

I've noticed this in the design philosophy and it seems like the designers are focusing on flash over substance.

I'm reminded of this line from Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-1945.

General Feng's Chief of Staff came next day to ask "a lot of questions about planes, tanks, rifle grenades, etc." followed by the tuchun himself, who talked to Stilwell for an hour about weapons. "They haven't the slightest idea of the use of the new weapons and talk of guarding a bridge with a tank." Stilwell "doped out a Stokes mortar" for Feng, and "tried my best to explain what airplanes, tanks and rifle grenades were designed for and could do, and how useless it was for him to waste money on them. With his infantry and machine guns, there is nothing in the province that he could not clean up in short order.” This was not what Feng wanted to hear but Stilwell persevered. "in hopes of keeping this really admirable man from wasting his resources on what, to him, would be the frills of war."

I feel like so many of the fans and the Devs are general Feng. Not realizing that the backbone of a WW2 game is the basics, the infantry, the artillery, the tanks and the logistics. The frills are cool and many are important, but they come later.

No one wants to hear about transport planes unless they're doing sexy things like dropping paratroopers.

We'll put in super heavy tanks in the game but don't want to track something far more important like how many machine guns/mortars a division has.

Something as important as the logistical backbone of a division (horses/trucks/nothing) gets abstracted... but look! Rocket Interceptors!

The production system is definitely a step in the right direction as is the division builder, so there is that, but the fact that the meat of the war (logistics, basic infantry) and it's importance is downgraded in favor of frills gets me upset.

World War 2 wasn't won by amazing feats of tactical brilliance (though those were important). It was won by, to paraphrase Clausewitz, doing the simple but difficult things correctly.

 

[Axe99]

The production system is definitely a step in the right direction as is the division builder, so there is that, but the fact that the meat of the war (logistics, basic infantry) and it's importance is downgraded in favor of frills gets me upset.

While I fully agree that it'd be great to have trucks/horses and the basics in the game in force, they're not being downgraded - if anything, if the game does include 'infantry kits' to supply divisions with, then it's a step in the direction we want from HoI3 (or 1 and 2), which had none of these things.

In terms of integrated systems, for example, the systems they've got in place could support that kind of approach, with the tech required to develop the particular kit (tank/infantry kit/what-have-you), and then the need for the appropriate doctrine to be researched, and then the need to build the kit and ship it to the appropriate divisions so they can use it. We don't know how far the game will go down this track, but I'd be surprised if we didn't have most of it, it'll more be a question of implementation than anything.

 

[Mabzie555]

8 mustang =\= 1 me262

No way.

 

[Mabzie555]

Also, I love the pissing contests on these forums.

Basically, metallurgy won WW2.
So everyone can shut up.

It's always x is more important than y because that's related to *insert personal bias*. Blah blah blah blah blah.

 

[Kovax]

8 mustang =\= 1 me262

No way.

1 Mustang > 1 Me262 that's still on the runway, which is where a LOT of them were caught.

It may have taken 8 P-51s to prevent 1 Me-262 from reaching the bombers, but the performance difference in a 1:1 dogfight between the two wasn't really all that much, except that the jet could break contact more easily if it chose to do so.

...and metallurgy actually was very important to the outcome of the war. Germany was badly outclassed in the manufacture of quality steel and specialty alloys in quantity. The lack of tungsten, nickel, and a few other strategic metals had far-reaching effects on the quality (or lack thereof) of German equipment in the field, despite advanced designs. In one instance, several generals had suggested copying the T-34 tank, but Germany was unable to produce the alloys necessary for several of the components, and had to settle for creating its own "work-around", the Panther.

 

[ingwe]

Also, I love the pissing contests on these forums.

Basically, metallurgy won WW2.
So everyone can shut up.

Agree with both points. That said, I would maybe say that German metallurgy wasn't bad, it was the extreme shortages that made such problems. The Me-262 would have been far more effective if they had enough fuel to keep them running and if their engines didn't break down because the necessary alloys weren't available to make critical parts. I know the Panther is taboo on the forums now, but regardless of how effective it was in history, it would have been more effective if it were made of the correct materials.

 

[Zinegata]

It's always x is more important than y because that's related to *insert personal bias*. Blah blah blah blah blah.

The entire reason why systems integration was brought up was to prevent the whole tendency to go "x is better than y" in the first place, because in reality what worked was a complete system with very many different elements coming together and not just a handful of wonder weapons.

That said, I would maybe say that German metallurgy wasn't bad, it was the extreme shortages that made such problems.

Metallurgy was in fact one of the areas where Germans were world-class leaders; albeit the Americans by this point were ahead both in quantity and quality produced. Heck, the Soviets were so impressed by American steel technology that most of their plants were based from American plants (from companies that weren't even the leaders in US steel).

The brillance of German steel-making though was the fact that they managed to produce any steel at all from the crummy ores that they got while at the same time suffering enormous shortages of the rare metals. In short, German steel quality wasn't good, but given what they started out with it's remarkable they produced the amount of steel they pumped out at all (they in fact produced three times more steel than the Soviet Union).

 

[Klausewitz]

8 mustang =\= 1 me262

No way.

Don't complain to me.
Thats a number from the 8th Air Force, what they calculated they needed in terms of superiority in the skies over Germany.
IIRC that is the number of Mustangs you need to have one able to intercept in any direction the Me might come from.

I am also no fan of d*ck-waving that has happen here again (thats what i get for being flat down with the flu for 8 days).
The question is:
Do we need the 'jumps' or can those be model by evolution.
If i read correctly and carefully (and i am not sure since my brain is at the moment swimming in a very peculiar mixture of antibiotics, bacteria, virii and assorted flu-medication) then the consensus was that, yes, some things canot and shouldn't be modelled with a slow incline but with a sharp step.
Agreement as far as that goes?

 

[Secret Master]

If i read correctly and carefully (and i am not sure since my brain is at the moment swimming in a very peculiar mixture of antibiotics, bacteria, virii and assorted flu-medication) then the consensus was that, yes, some things canot and shouldn't be modelled with a slow incline but with a sharp step.
Agreement as far as that goes?

That's how I view it. We might not all agree on what those technologies are, but I think that, ironically, HOI3 got it mostly right.

1) Jet engines (modeled as a separate tech in HOI3, but balanced poorly)

2) Radio coordination of ground forces (modeled as the +10% from having radios in HOI3)

3) RADAR (major tech on its own, spawns a ton of spin-off techs, but the air interception part was poorly implemented)

4) Elecktoboot quality submarines (poorly implemented on the submarine tech tree as incremental techs with large offsets; might as well have been a special tech)

5) Rockets (tons of spin-off techs with multiple applications. The V-2s are probably too efficient, but they are a leap in tech terms for HOI3)

6) Half a dozen capstone doctrines (all the special doctrines like Superior Firepower represent a substantial change in fighting doctrine and rewarded players with nice bonuses. All of the special doctrines were useful)

7) Acoustic Homing Torpedoes: One of the only weapons in HOI3 to provide a doctrine bonus in addition to extra firepower (a positioning bonus, to be precise). Usually comes too late to make a difference, but it's a leap, that's for sure.

8) MECH: Not the best tech in the game, but for countries that can afford MECH, it's a leap forward. (I'm looking at you, US.)

9) Nukes: While the rules for researching and employing nukes could use some adjusting, it's a leap forward in HOI3 to be sure. Even if a country doesn't surrender, incinerating the capital along with its supply and resource stockpiles is a war winner. In fact, in HOI3, it might be more useful than historically.

I'm probably leaving some out, but I think that HOI3 didn't do a bad job of having "leaps" in key areas for techs. The problems usually involved how those techs were implemented. The jet engine is the most egregious example, but if it had been balanced better, it would have been a game changer.

The capstone doctrines, to me, are most striking in their there status as "leap" techs rather than evolutionary techs. It's hard to get them all, but they are all useful to just about every major power (the only exception I can think of is the width reducing tech for MIL/GAR for the US). They have a huge impact on the game, but they aren't incremental. I actually really like how they are implemented in HOI3, and I'm curious to see how they are set up in HOI4.

I know they aren't "equipment" in the same sense as nukes and jet engines, but they may have the effect you are looking for with certain kinds of equipment.

 

[Saltspring]

I guess I will put in my comment about Jet Fuel. The usage of jet fuel which is mostly kerosene would most likely have greatly helped Germany with its fuel problem as most Jet Fuel even now is Kerosene based. And Kerosene is one of the bi-products of synthetic fuel production at a ratio of about 1 part kerosene for 2.5 parts gasoline. Kerosene was largely an unwanted by product as it doesn't work particularly well for fueling piston engines. It works fine for jet engines though. So the jet engines would most certainly have helped Germany's aircraft fuel issues. The main issue was actually transporting the fuel to to the aircraft due to the air superiority the allies had allowing them to paralyze German rail and road traffic.

And while the the Me-262 certainly had its flaws it is not fair to say that because it was easy to shoot down while taking off and landing that it was defective. Any aircraft is incredibly vulnerable when that close to the ground traveling at low speed. If air superiority over Germany had not already been claimed by the allies when the 262 started to appear in numbers it is quite possible it may not have been remembered as quite the lame duck it was though it likely could not have changed the outcome of the war.

 

[Klausewitz]

@Me262
With the Bomberstream problem increasingly turning into a mirror image of the convoy problematic in the North Atlantic the Me 262 was a superb weapon for that situation.
Fast enough for hit and run attacks so they could attack and actually make it back to base and also heavily armed with guns capable of taking out the bombers with very few hits (IIRC something between one and 4 hits from a 30 mm could destroy an American bomber) and the R4M to spray into the formation the me 262 was the weapon for that.

 

[higrosco]

1 Mustang > 1 Me262 that's still on the runway, which is where a LOT of them were caught.

1 whatever aircraft > 1 whatever aircraft on the runaway.

The problem with the use of horses/trucks in the game is that you can see the raw numbers an therefore know the optimal balance in whatever case which is was really difficult to see in reality, so if you have it separate of the "infatery kit" you will end up building the same trucks and the same horses for the same exchange of IC.

 

[Porkman]

1 whatever aircraft > 1 whatever aircraft on the runaway.

The problem with the use of horses/trucks in the game is that you can see the raw numbers an therefore know the optimal balance in whatever case which is was really difficult to see in reality, so if you have it separate of the "infatery kit" you will end up building the same trucks and the same horses for the same exchange of IC.

I disagree with this.

There won't be an optimal balance because every nation has different constraints.

Germany is fuel limited, therefore less trucks

Japan is IC and fuel limited therefore less trucks and horses.

The US is not limited so all trucks, all the time... Except that they want to fight in Burma, in which case bad terrain favors horses.

Every nation would have to balance the bonuses that come from having a good logistical backbone with the costs in IC, fuel, and suitability to the terrain. For every nation, that balance is going to look different so I don't think there's as much risk of having a min maxed optimal ratio.

 

[Peekee]

The difference in say a KAR-98 to a MP-44 is probably mainly in production cost, rather than unit stats. If there was a change in unit stats then I think it would be a very marginal change in their soft attack values and possibly a slight increase also to their toughness and defensiveness values. (E.g. they can keep enemy's heads down)

Broadly speaking this is the same across anti infantry weapons. A gradual increase in effectiveness but never revolutionary changes. On the other hand they often did become much cheaper to produce and certain items were more widely deployed. On the other hand tactics, doctrine and training (Essentially the correct use of those weapons) made a huge difference in the capabilities of anti-infantry fighting.

Comparing that to anti-tank weapons and tanks there definitely was more of a "one-up" approach. If facing the wrong AT weapons tanks could have a very hard time, on the other hand when they could shrug off AT fire then their effect could be devastating. Even here (though to a lesser extent than anti-infantry weapons) the correct use of tanks / anti-tank made a huge difference. If you purely count the stats of tanks and the numbers then both in France and Barbarossa Germany did much better than they should. It was how they used the weapons that made such a huge difference.

Planes also definitely has a "one-up" effect where even a slight edge in altitude / speed / turning (range?, survivability?) could change the outcome of a fight. Add to that advances tech in AA, RADAR, etc that often worked along side the actual planes and here in terms of results its almost like a constant stream of revolution rather than a constant stream of evolution!

 

[1alexey]

I feel like so many of the fans and the Devs are general Feng. Not realizing that the backbone of a WW2 game is the basics, the infantry, the artillery, the tanks and the logistics. The frills are cool and many are important, but they come later.

No one wants to hear about transport planes unless they're doing sexy things like dropping paratroopers.

We'll put in super heavy tanks in the game but don't want to track something far more important like how many machine guns/mortars a division has.

Something as important as the logistical backbone of a division (horses/trucks/nothing) gets abstracted... but look! Rocket Interceptors!

The production system is definitely a step in the right direction as is the division builder, so there is that, but the fact that the meat of the war (logistics, basic infantry) and it's importance is downgraded in favor of frills gets me upset.

World War 2 wasn't won by amazing feats of tactical brilliance (though those were important). It was won by, to paraphrase Clausewitz, doing the simple but difficult things correctly.

To put it simply, that is because PI is in for larger niche of players than, say Gary Grisby games.

But seriously, you are absolutely wrong, the basis of ALL HOI games are industry, infantry and logistics. The approach of limiting yourself only to units that you absolutely need, and rolling them in quantity and quality is the winning approach. You don`t need tanks as most nations, it many cases you can just ignore planes aside from getting enemy planes to not attack you.

Doctrine techs and officer ratios(quality) are far more important then individual weapon techs. Some doctrines are hugely important.
Proper leaders in charge of division, also make a lot of difference, especially in difficult terrain or for difficult operations.
Putting right units to fight in right terrain makes much larger impact than individual tech.

HOI3 does most of basic things *right* for the level of abstraction, it`s that just some people miss the bussy work of other games, and don`t notice HOI series systems as the "choice" is obvious for them.

 

[higrosco]

I disagree with this.

There won't be an optimal balance because every nation has different constraints.

Germany is fuel limited, therefore less trucks

Japan is IC and fuel limited therefore less trucks and horses.

The US is not limited so all trucks, all the time... Except that they want to fight in Burma, in which case bad terrain favors horses.

Every nation would have to balance the bonuses that come from having a good logistical backbone with the costs in IC, fuel, and suitability to the terrain. For every nation, that balance is going to look different so I don't think there's as much risk of having a min maxed optimal ratio.

Yeah something like that will be quite cool, but if I understand correctly the dev's approach for the game (it' is a game about decisions), in your case, again, we have the same problem: you know the raw number and you will make the optimum build for each country or situation, then we can abstract it and assume each country deals with their logistical issues in the best possible way (like you can do with few maths). So, unless you make an entirely new supply system from scratch, I dont see how only addind the tedious part of produce the correctly amount of trucks and horses apart of the division can make it better.

 

[Spyro Magno]

I guess I will put in my comment about Jet Fuel

If i may add, german tanks and most german engines used gasoline, and not diesel; gasoline is more expensive to produce due to the additives needed and a gasoline engine is not suited for high torque applications like in a heavy vehicle leading to higher fuel consumption and lower relaiability.

All of this without getting in to details but the end result is the same

 

[Porkman]

To put it simply, that is because PI is in for larger niche of players than, say Gary Grisby games.

But seriously, you are absolutely wrong, the basis of ALL HOI games are industry, infantry and logistics. The approach of limiting yourself only to units that you absolutely need, and rolling them in quantity and quality is the winning approach. You don`t need tanks as most nations, it many cases you can just ignore planes aside from getting enemy planes to not attack you.

Doctrine techs and officer ratios(quality) are far more important then individual weapon techs. Some doctrines are hugely important.
Proper leaders in charge of division, also make a lot of difference, especially in difficult terrain or for difficult operations.
Putting right units to fight in right terrain makes much larger impact than individual tech.

HOI3 does most of basic things *right* for the level of abstraction, it`s that just some people miss the bussy work of other games, and don`t notice HOI series systems as the "choice" is obvious for them.

I get where you're coming from, but explain to me how HOI3 or HOI2 was about logistics? Both games had a supply system, HOI2 was understandable because it was simple, while HOI3 had a "system" which didn't reflect much at all. It was a god unto itself.

I'm not knocking the influence of proper doctrine, I like that this is the emphasis. Germany did a lot with obsolete tanks because they knew how to use them, same with Finland. As for the ability to just roll up with proper infantry and win, that's also fine, but it's something that the base game sort of hides from the player. The game is set up to encourage the frills. I want more interesting decisions even if just building infantry.

Mainly it's about giving the minors more interesting decisions.

Yeah something like that will be quite cool, but if I understand correctly the dev's approach for the game (it' is a game about decisions), in your case, again, we have the same problem: you know the raw number and you will make the optimum build for each country or situation, then we can abstract it and assume each country deals with their logistical issues in the best possible way (like you can do with few maths). So, unless you make an entirely new supply system from scratch, I don't see how only addind the tedious part of produce the correctly amount of trucks and horses apart of the division can make it better.

1) They should do a new supply system, HOI3's was not good.
2) There won't be a "best possible" anymore than there is a best possible composition of infantry to tanks to mountaineers.

A game is about giving players interesting decisions and deciding what you want to use for a logistical backbone is important. Do you build trucks to make your infantry more robust and help their mobility and reorg or do you use that production line for tanks? It's a classic quality vs. quantity debate.

 

[Secret Master]

To put it simply, that is because PI is in for larger niche of players than, say Gary Grisby games.

But seriously, you are absolutely wrong, the basis of ALL HOI games are industry, infantry and logistics. The approach of limiting yourself only to units that you absolutely need, and rolling them in quantity and quality is the winning approach. You don`t need tanks as most nations, it many cases you can just ignore planes aside from getting enemy planes to not attack you.

This is quite correct.

It's easy to focus on the cool stuff like PARA and acoustic torpedoes and V-2s and King Tiger tanks, but at the end of the day, none of that matters if you don't have a basic infantry division that works, proper doctrines researched, a good officer ratio, and your logistics sorted out.

How many times have I heard new players whine that they can't effectively deploy or utilize multiple armored divisions in the hinterlands of Siam? How many times have I heard new players complain that they can't defeat France, only to discover that their officer ratio was sitting at 100? And how many times have I seen players complain that they can't even get a historical build for their country, only to be reminded that they are trying to reach that historical build while using excessively high training laws, bad ministers, or failing to secure the required resources to fuel 100% of their IC?

Experienced players argue about the minutia of the game, mainly because we just assume that you have the basics nailed down. What's the point in debating whether or not you need a division with 11 kph when you don't even have basic logistics sorted out?

I get where you're coming from, but explain to me how HOI3 or HOI2 was about logistics? Both games had a supply system, HOI2 was understandable because it was simple, while HOI3 had a "system" which didn't reflect much at all. It was a god unto itself.

The supply system was opaque, but it was also serviceable. Say what you want about how mystifying the supply system of HOI3 could be, but it was the key to making or breaking key aspects of the war. Once you better understand the supply system in HOI3, you can do amazing things with it.

It should definitely be made more understandable, but don't confuse "The system is opaque" with "The supply system was not the backbone to the game" as you indicated in a previous post.

I'm not knocking the influence of proper doctrine, I like that this is the emphasis. Germany did a lot with obsolete tanks because they knew how to use them, same with Finland. As for the ability to just roll up with proper infantry and win, that's also fine, but it's something that the base game sort of hides from the player. The game is set up to encourage the frills. I want more interesting decisions even if just building infantry.

Mainly it's about giving the minors more interesting decisions.

Well, aside from the war goals problem, I'm not sure what you mean here. What is more fundamental to HOI3 than putting a good infantry division into action? Do I need to dig up countless threads where the utility of various foot infantry formations is debated? Hell, I even address it in the strategy guide as a fundamental part of winning the war.

1) They should do a new supply system, HOI3's was not good.
2) There won't be a "best possible" anymore than there is a best possible composition of infantry to tanks to mountaineers.

A game is about giving players interesting decisions and deciding what you want to use for a logistical backbone is important. Do you build trucks to make your infantry more robust and help their mobility and reorg or do you use that production line for tanks? It's a classic quality vs. quantity debate.

Now I'm really confused. Ever since TFH came out, the range of possible division builds went up. The inclusion of penetration and the revamping of some brigades and terrain penalties makes choices interesting even at the infantry division level. I wouldn't even presume to lecture a player on the composition of an infantry division until I knew what country they were playing, who they were fighting, and where that division was being employed. French MTN divisions in the Alps have entirely different requirements from Chinese formations guarding ports from amphibious attacks. German infantry divisions with superior firepower unlocked are facing radically different choices than Soviet formations preparing to run August Storm. And this doesn't even begin to address the requirements of the Pacific.