"Fan Tech Tree" - Armor (WIDE! Pictures)

[unmerged(83175)]

There are a couple of mistakes.

Firstly the Jagdpanther shouldn't replace the Jagdpanzer IV or Panzer IV/70. The Jagdpanther was placed in the Schwere-Panzerjäger-Abteilungs.

Because it is fully moddable, more slots should be created..

I am going to write it very briefly, as the RPM team will surely make an Air/Navel/Tank model mod as we did with HoI3.
I always like to post a couple of quotes from players. I can't help myself.

I am glad to see Vorwärts Panzers! lives and is being worked on and has move to a new and better base of RPM 2. The old Vorwärts Panzers! gave me so much enjoyment, I am glad to be able to contribute this version. Thaegen's development of tank models is the Best that has been done in HOI3. His coding is great and inventive to achieve this. I have learned a lot from looking at his coding. This has been expanded with RPM 2 to other weapon systems. No one mod fully meets my desires in HOI3, but RPM2/VP! is a major part of what I want HOI3 to be. While we wait for HOI4, RPM2/VP! will be a great game to play!

Congratulations team, in my opinion you have brought the freshest approach to the mod scene in years. HPP, TRP, BI and AHOI all have excellent components and far exceed the vanilla. For originality you take the first prize in a strong field. I would love to see a 'use historical models' option in HOI4 (along with the finest features of the other mods)

I think a 'great deal of players' should try RPM. In the search for ever increasingly realism, unit types, province enhancements etc it seams strange now that players accept bland, 'one size fits all' unit stats. I go back to hoi1 and have looked forward to each new release. From what I have read in the dd's the RPM approach would dove tail very well with production runs. Please keep up the great work, I have my fingers crossed that somebody at Paradox Tower has seen your work and said 'aha I've just found a way of making hoi4 much better' (with due credits to RPM of course).

Ok, now after this shameless self promotion...

Podcat said that it is full moddable, so we can add much more.

Your SP-AT battalions should be split up in at least two battalionsanzerjäger and Schwere-Panzerjäger.

In the Panzerjäger units a couple of equipment pools should be used.

Pool 1: Panzerjäger I - > Marder Variants -> Hetzer
Pool 2: StuG III from Ausf F to G 'late' -> StuG IV ending with the E-25
Pool 3: Jagdpanzer IV -> Panzer IV/70(V) - E-25

How it will work exactly I will need to see when the game is released.

Schwere-Panzerjäger-Abteilung
Pool 1: Hornisse/Nashorn
Pool 2: Ferdinand/Elefant -> Jagdtiger -> Jagdtiger II
Pool 3: Jagdpanther -> Jagdpanther II

Also not to add the PzKpfw 38(t) is blasphemy. The PzKpfw 38(t) was the main tank variant for a couple of panzer-divisions prior to barbarossa and it's chassis was used for the Marder III/Grille and Hetzer. The perfect usable slots.
More than 2000 Hetzers were produced in a year time.

PzKpfwI slot x could be panzerjäger I
PzKpfw II slot x could be Marder II
PzKpfw III slot could be StuG III
When both PzKpfw III and IV are researched Hornisse/Nashorn can be unlocked also the Hummel
PzKpfw IV slot StuG IV and Jagdpanzer IV
PzKpfw V slot Jagdpanther, slot sturmpanther
PzKpfw VI slot ferdinand, slot jagdtiger

... the possibilties are endless.

As battalions use different equipment pools and you can mod as many upgrade slots as you want and probably more equipment pools. I think modders will have an immense freedom,

The player should get a lot of freedom how he wants to equip his battalions, which should be influenced by how the war goes and his industrial capacity.

Making accurate equipment pools, is the only think I really want to mod.

 

[Radu]

@Gamer_1745,klucz13

Of course they will progress! That's how the equipment system works from what was presented to us. The Equipment system is geared towards modeling *upgrades* for a given Battalion type, not redundancies.

In the case of Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Battalions, if you have model X (old) and model Y (new), then the newer Y model will slowly replace the older X model out of the SP-AT's Battalions equipment.

When(if) the replacement is complete, you will have new Y models equipping your SP-AT Bns and old model X in "mothball" awaiting either "refitting" (Podcat did mention that an as-yet-unimplemented feature will see existing Equipment "refit" to newer one in the case of up-gunning/up-armoring of the same chassis via special "Refit Production Lines"), being given/sold to allies or being scrapped.

In the case of the Elefant/Jagdpanther discussion, one will be the new one, one will be the old one. One will be the replacer, other the replacee. To scrap one in favor of the other seems unwarranted given the too small difference in performance and radical difference in design (Elefant/Jagdpanther aren't a "refit" of one of the other, they are completely different) coupled with the sheer expenses of the heavily-armored chassies.

Simply put, HOI IV's grand strategic focus means that it is absolutely necessary to think in terms of "archetypes". For Germany's SP-AT you have the following "archetypes" :
- 5cm AT gun archetype (Historically the PzJg I, 5cm gun in order to avoid mention of the 47mm gun which is of foreign Czech origin)
- 7.5 cm AT gun (medium velocity) archetype (Marder II)
- 7.5 cm AT gun (high velocity) archetype (JgPz IV/70)
- 8.8 cm AT gun (high velocity) archetype (Elefant)
- 8.8 cm AT gun (high velocity) archetype (Jagdpanther)... wait,what?

See what I mean? The "upgrade increment" is far too small for something as expensive as an Elefant or Jagdpanther.

Paradox Devs, please correct me, but the "Equipment" pool of a Brigade will speak the language of "Upgrade" not "Flavor Redundancy".
In other words, the *only* instance where you have multiple types for the same equipment pool is during the upgrade transition from Model X to Model X+1 Equipment. Or, come to think of it, no Battalion will have multiple models for the same Equipment slot and in fact a Battalion upgrades only when it can make "the jump" directly.

Well, Elefant and Jagdpanther are essentially the same Model X, same archetype. I chose the Jagdpanther because its design is a more natural follow-through from the previous Jagdpanzer IV, the same low profile. The Elefant looks like an oversized Marder II.

Also ,you will notice no historical year in my screenshot. I don't believe in historical years as a tech determinant. Instead, Combat Experience should serve as a prereq/accelerant for later techs. Germany could have developed the Panther before the Tiger.

 

[Hayro]

nice one!

 

[unmerged(83175)]

To back up my example I will post a modified code that one of developers posted a couple of months ago.

Orginal code, which probably will be changed a lot when HoI4 is released:

improved_light_tank = {
	enable_equipments = {
		light_tank_equipment_2 
	}
		
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = advanced_light_tank
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
		
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = basic_medium_tank
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
		
	research_cost = 180
	start_year = 1938
		
	folder = {
		name = armour_folder
		position = { x = 4 y = 4 }
	}
		
	sub_technologies = {
		improved_light_td
		improved_light_art
		improved_light_spra
		improved_light_spaa
	}
}
	
improved_light_td = {

	enable_equipments = {
		light_tank_destroyer_equipment_2
	}
	
	research_cost = 180
	start_year = 1930
}

Which modders could change to this:
I changed this very quickly without thinking to hard about it, but it is just to show that we can really mod a great tank development with HoI4 and it shouldn't be as limited in your example.

gerlightI = { #PzKpfw I Ausf B#
	enable_equipments = {
		pzkpfwI_II_equipment_1
	}
		
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = gerlightII
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
		
	research_cost = 100
	start_year = 1936
		
	folder = {
		name = armour_folder
		position = { x = 4 y = 4 } ###needs to be changed###
	}
		
	sub_technologies = {
		panzerjagerI #Panzerjäger I
	}
}
gerlightII = { #PzKpfw II Ausf A
	enable_equipments = {
		pzkpfwI_II_equipment_2 
	}
		
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = gerlightIII
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
		
	research_cost = 100
	start_year = 1937
		
	folder = {
		name = armour_folder
		position = { x = 4 y = 4 }###needs to be changed###
	}
		
	sub_technologies = {
		marderII
			}
}
gerlightIII = { #PzKpfw II Ausf C
	enable_equipments = {
		pzkpfwI_II_equipment_3
	}
		
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = gerlightIV
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
		
	research_cost = 100
	start_year = 1938
	
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = pzkpfwIII
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
	
	folder = {
		name = armour_folder
		position = { x = 4 y = 4 }###needs to be changed###
	}
}
gerlightIV = { #PzKpfw II Ausf F
	enable_equipments = {
		pzkpfwI_II_equipment_4 
	}
		
	path = {
		leads_to_tech = gerlightIII
		research_cost_coeff = 1
	}
		
	research_cost = 100
	start_year = 1941
		
	folder = {
		name = armour_folder
		position = { x = 4 y = 4 }###needs to be changed###
	}
		
	sub_technologies = {
		Wespe
			}
}

##################	
panzerjagerI = {

	enable_equipments = {
		gerlighttd_equipment_1
	}
	
	research_cost = 180
	start_year = 1939
}
marderII = {

	enable_equipments = {
		gerlighttd_equipment_2
	}
	
	research_cost = 180
	start_year = 1941
}

Edit: Ofcourse we don't need to add so much PzKpfw II variants, but it's just to show what we can do and code is always much clearer than a picture.

 

[Radu]

@Thaegen

3 reasons against Heavy SP-AT Battalions :

1) I covered 3 of the biggest industrial powerhouses in the war. Only Germany would need it own specific Battalion type. No offense, but this isn't Hearts of Germany.
2) The Heavy SP-AT Bns would normally be Corps-level attachments. Since there's no word on the issue of in-game Corps attachments, that counts as another reason against the idea.
3) Captured Equipment. If Heavy SP-AT Bns are Germany-specific, if another country captures this equipment, does that mean they won't be able to use it?

That's why I took the decision to bend Germany to everybody else and just have one SP-AT Bn whose equipment improves in a "straight path".

The point about Captured Equipment also refers to the historically commandeered Czech tanks. They can be equivalated to Pz IIIs and coverted to PzIII-compatible variants.

Not perfect, but again, when you take a snapshot of the world, you have to crop the edges, *particularly* when considering captured/leased equipment there *must* be an overall common denominator, a common "language" all militaries "speak".

That's why the tech trees are about capturing essential strategic capabilities that transcend national borders type-wise, they are about not leaving out an entire class, archetype of equipment. I am more worried about archetype gaps and type mismatches. That's why while the Hetzer is a glaring omission, it's also in the class of capabilities of the later-war StuG : turretless thus simpler construction and heavier armor and equipped with a medium velocity 7.5 cm gun.

EDIT : And that goes for the Elefant/Jagdpanther as well as other examples. That's the reason why some units don't make the cut.

 

[unmerged(83175)]

@Thaegen

3 reasons against Heavy SP-AT Battalions :

1) I covered 3 of the biggest industrial powerhouses in the war. Only Germany would need it own specific Battalion type. No offense, but this isn't Hearts of Germany.
2) The Heavy SP-AT Bns would normally be Corps-level attachments. Since there's no word on the issue of in-game Corps attachments, that counts as another reason against the idea.
3) Captured Equipment. If Heavy SP-AT Bns are Germany-specific, if another country captures this equipment, does that mean they won't be able to use it?

That's why I took the decision to bend Germany to everybody else and just have one SP-AT Bn whose equipment improves in a "straight path".

The point about Captured Equipment also refers to the historically commandeered Czech tanks. They can be equivalated to Pz IIIs and coverted to PzIII-compatible variants.

Not perfect, but again, when you take a snapshot of the world, you have to crop the edges, *particularly* when considering captured/leased equipment.

The tech trees are about capturing essential strategic capabilities, about not leaving out an entire class, archetype of equipment. I am more worried about archetype gaps.

PzKpfw 38(t) tanks were captured, but than produced and improved for years. So it earns a slot in the German tech tree. Also we don't know how captured equipment will be implemented.

I think we are talking about how to mod the game? I am not going to mod HoI4, so that each nations tank are the same progression wise as another nation, just with another flavour name.
This is what HoI4 will provide, which is great, but I want to mod it be something more.

So when I captured T-34 tanks, they shouldn't be the same improved_tank_design (PzKpfw IV) as Germany, but a bit different, with a small statistic change. So it's a bit more than just a couple of improved_tank_designs with a different flavour name added to your equipment pool.

Also you can add more equipment pools to a battalion. If I understood correctly. Thus a battalion doesn't mean 1 equipment pool, but various equipment pools. Or atleast this is what hope. If this is not the case, there are other solutions
So it shouldn't replace anything.


As we are talking about modding. I think each major and a couple of minors should recieve an unique tank development and not the same as the other majors with another flavour name. There should be different slots and upgrade paths for each major.
So ofcourse each major should have it's own type of battalions. Germany and USSR build more tank TD's/AG's variants than the other majors so in a 'mod' they should get more choices.

Inexample an upgrade slot for the T-34 could be T-34/85, SU-85, but I will also add the T-34/57 upgrade as an addition tank destroyer to add to x tank destroyer battalion.
So many possibilities, so why would you limit yourself to generic equipment pools with just different flavour names?

Same for the USA. The M10 and M18 shouldn't be called in your example the 76 mm Tank Destroyer. But should follow each up or added to different equipment pools.

For the UK we have the M10 Achilles and the Archers, imo those should also be placed in two different equipment pools.

Lots of possibilities and lots of mods will take a different approach.

Edit: Also Schwere-Panzer-Abteilungs existed, so why wouldn't we add it for Germany, now we can finally make more historical divisions? Germany had panzer-abteilungs and schwere panzer-abteilungs, so it should be added with mods.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Radu,

You seem like a nice guy and you know your stuff when it comes to WWII tanks. When I read 'The Equipment system is geared towards modeling *upgrades* for a given Battalion type, not redundancies.' and 'In the case of Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Battalions, if you have model X (old) and model Y (new), then the newer Y model will slowly replace the older X model out of the SP-AT's Battalions equipment. ' I think we are talking about different games. Again this my understanding of what will be HOI4, One set of factories will likely be producing the JgPz IV/70 (because it is much cheaper to change production from the Pz IV) and another set of factories will be producing the Jagdpanther (because it is much cheaper to change production from the Panther) at the same time. To change a set of factories from Pz IV hull production to Panther Hull production will cost alot (production delays) so you might as well just produce new factories for the Panther. This sets up the real life scenario that you will have 2 production lines with one producing Pz IVs and another producing Panthers. Yes, you can/will have tech improvements/progression but you may not always have progression/replacement of the equipment in the units.

 

[Radu]

With so few HOI IV details available so far I figured I'd adopt a "defensive design" for the trees.

Essentially these trees are the most "vanilla-like" trees that still cover each individual capability/cost category that made (or could have made) an impact in the war.

That's why for the Pz III there are 3 models. Suppressing either means conflating together models with 3.7 cm, 5 cm L/42 and 5 cm L/60 guns as well as significantly different armor thicknesses, differences that are very much strategically relevant.

As such the trees are the most "Complex Simple" ( or "Simple Complex" ) trees. From here on out details can be added as HOI IV features are revealed.

@Gamer_1745

Precisely! But the Jagdpanzer IV is clearly inferior to the Jagdpanther. Still, what happens when you have Jagdpanther and Elefant, 2 vehicles with the same general capabilities? Who replaces who? And why? Why would an Elefant replace a perfectly good Jagdpanther and vice-versa?

On the other hand, for the Elefant and Jagdpanther to coexist, they would each need to be in a different "Equipment Slot". Like "Small Arms" is different from "Halftracks" for a Mech Inf Bn. But what happens when inevitably there will be a deficit of either Jagdpanther or Elefant? The player will see is "Hey look, my SP-AT Bns have met their Jagdpanther quota but their are under-strength because of Elefant decifict! But they are similar vehicles, why can't Jagdpanthers pick up the slack?" Well because we just established that Elefant and Jagdpanther co-exist, that means they are as different from each-other as "Small Arms" from "Halfracks". For that to be solved you would need to define a 3rd state variable "the kinda-sorta the same but different"... which is completely unfeasible game design-wise.

Ok, then what about including the Jagdpanther and Elefant in a different unit? Say Elefants being in their own Heavy SP-AT Battalions.... aaaand we arrived at my discussion with Thaegen nation-specific Battalions likely part of Corps assets, which I addressed in the post above.

Short version : There needs to be a difference, significant difference between the capabilities of two vehicles if one vehicle will replace the other and place it in reserve. EDIT2 : For my approach to be consistent, I mean.

 

[unmerged(83175)]

With so few HOI IV details available so far I figured I'd adopt a "defensive design" for the trees.

Essentially these trees are the most "vanilla-like" trees that still cover each individual capability/cost category that made (or could have made) an impact in the war.

That's why for the Pz III there are 3 models. Suppressing either means conflating together models with 3.7 cm, 5 cm L/42 and 5 cm L/60 guns as well as significantly different armor thicknesses, differences that are very much strategically relevant.

As such the trees are the most "Complex Simple" ( or "Simple Complex" ) trees. From here on out details can be added as HOI IV features are revealed.

We know the current code behind the tank tech tree. I posted the code above and how I would modify it. Ofcourse the code will look different when the game is released, but the code shows a much better picture from what is behind the tech tree. The code shows what the possibilities are and what I think we can do with it.

I only hope they don't forget the TFH command usable_by = { TAG } to the units and hopefully we can make different tech trees for different nations (make a GER_armour_folder and a ITA_armour_folder and so on...). If not there are other solutions as used in HoI3, but we will see.

Edit: Maybe a dev could answer the bolded part? As it would make it much easier for modders to go wild on the different nation tech trees.

 

[Joppos]

We know the current code behind the tank tech tree. I posted the code above and how I would modify it. Ofcourse the code will look different when the game is released, but the code shows a much better picture from what is behind the tech tree. The code shows what the possibilities are and what I think we can do with it.

I only hope they don't forget the TFH command usable_by = { TAG } to the units and hopefully we can make different tech trees for different nations (make a GER_armour_folder and a ITA_armour_folder and so on...). If not there are other solutions as used in HoI3, but we will see.

Edit: Maybe a dev could answer the bolded part? As it would make it much easier for modders to go wild on the different nation tech trees.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-15-15cest&p=17511902&viewfull=1#post17511902

 

[unmerged(83175)]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-15-15cest&p=17511902&viewfull=1#post17511902

Thank god!

The future looks good for the modding community. I think lots of great different mods will be made for HoI4.

 

[Taishair]

I like these tech trees I appreciate the simplicity and elegence of your decisions while still holding onto the national flavors that they represent!

 

[lemonsquid]

thread title is misleading, no "(WIDE! Pictures)"

 

[Der Phonix]

Would be cool if you coud do some minors

 

[Jace]

I approve cant wait to see how the mod community will expand on the tech tree and model system.

 

[Radu]

So, as I continued to research the Armored Tech Trees for nations, I was met again and again with the large diversity of armored vehicles used by nations in WWII.

Some nations pushed the armament/armor spiral further and further for one type of armored vehicle or another, other were content to stagnate for a while. Others did not progress forward. The reasons ranged from doctrine/policy, strategic context to simple facts like losing(or even winning) the war before certain plans reached fruition.

But the fact remains that no matter the research, France's or Italy's tailored Armored Tech Tree would be shortchanged due to their historical defeats in 1940 and 1943 respectively.

Here's the thing though, since HOI IV is a game, it allows for things happening differently.

I think every nation simply being stuck to its own historical "path" when it comes to Armored Vehicle Designs, or anything else,really, is not necessarily a given.. it can change. Be it the "historical year" or design.

Historically Germany's Medium Tank designs took a "slowly-slowly" approach, going through numerous iterations and variants of Pz III/IV main guns and armor thicknesses while the USSR or USA made a much cleaner "jump" to their workhorse designs of T-34/M4. Is there any good reason why Germany couldn't do the same? No,not really. I mean sure, there's a price to pay industrially, but at the end of the day it was a matter of where resources were allocated than missing know-how.

What I'm trying to say is that armored designs were not necessarily the "property" of a given nation or another. It was firmly within Germany's ability to roll out a KV-1 grade heavy tank in 1939 with heavy armor and a 7.5cm gun if there was the willpower for it. Same for the UK. Nothing really stopped the UK from attempting to design a 76.2mm AT gun that could be fitted on a heavy Matilda II-like chassis.

But it all comes down to priorities and resource allocation. I think it's descriptive that USSR's F-34 76.2mm tank gun was, at the time of its introduction, by far the most powerful tank gun in the world... but at the same time USSR's navy was obsolescent. Priorities and resource allocation.

That's why I'm going to make a new "Unified Armored Tech Tree" that allows for this, for nations to choose their armored designs. Note that this doesn't mean they are free from restrictions.

Considerations about a particular nation's Doctrine (France would need to jump through additional hoops to develop mobile tanks) , National Priorities (a nation with a strong navy might not be willing or able to relinquish its naval edge by diverting R&D and production resources for better tanks) and Combat Experience ( pre-war, adapting existing 85mm,88mm,90mm AA gun designs for AT duties should perhaps even spark a bureaucratic revolt against what people would see as a pointless boondoggle) should still apply!