Rifles - hell, no. Artillery and trucks - ironically, here current system is quite okay.
- 3
Fiat's CR.42 biplane is a neat little nod to history, highlights the game's "No Brainer" non-decisions
- Thread starter billcorr
- Start date
-
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.
Na, don't think so. A rifle or AT gun is a way less complex thing than a weapons system like a ship, tank or airplane. It comes down to cost, quality, calibre and ammunition, but there is precious little else to modify about a howitzer.
Sure, you can add muzzle breaks or a different carriage, but then again, these were pretty ubiqitous - or irrelevant to strategic Performance
- 2
- 1
If we use the same conceptual system as with ships - no, it is the same plane with better engine and guns, and mass of those cripple it a lot.
From the memories of Pierre Clostermann (book title is "the big show" which I strongly advise to anyone who's interested in ww2 and planes), I remember his statement about german and allied planes he fought with and against on the western front.
in 44, the Bf 109 in G and K version, is a light fighter, outclassed by heavy planes like Fw190 and Tempest, but still dangerous especially at some altitudes. Closterman writed that the Me-109's performances in those late versions are comparable to p-51. That tells how good was the Me-109 design, a 1936 design still capable in 1944 to be competitive. I think no other design of all ww2 had such longevity.
in 44, the Bf 109 in G and K version, is a light fighter, outclassed by heavy planes like Fw190 and Tempest, but still dangerous especially at some altitudes. Closterman writed that the Me-109's performances in those late versions are comparable to p-51. That tells how good was the Me-109 design, a 1936 design still capable in 1944 to be competitive. I think no other design of all ww2 had such longevity.
- 3
- 1
My impression was that the 109 basically suffered from weak engines late in the war, but that was about it.
I'd say, it was stuck in the endless death spiral of "need more speed - add more powerful engine - new engine weights more - need to strengthen frame - increase of mass forces to strengthen chassis - all improvements add too much mass - speed increase is not enough - add more powerful engine".
Yeah, but a more powerful engine don't need to weigh a lot more. You obviously need to stiffen the airframe, but that's not so weight heavy. Given the bf109 was a "zoomer" type, I think the loss in maneuoverability is OK. Speed matters more.
- 1
I don't remember all the details on the article, I read on the matter couple of years ago, so that's what I did remember.
- 1
Clostermann's said the 109's agility was underrated, especially it's roll rate. It was often compared to the spitfire which was one of the most manoeuvrable fighter of ww2 and came very close, giving him a reputation of "not as manouvrable as spitifire plane". Clostermann's also writed, that, even if the 109K was harder to control, any german pilots he talked with would trade that without any hesitation for the improved guns and power. Many german's ace choose to keep their 109, even if offered to switch to 190. And those men were probably the most experienced and capable pilots ever, so I tend to believe they did that choice with good reasons.
- 2
- 1
Hartmann stayed with the 109, and his JG 1 was the most successful Outfit of the war. But he was against dogfights, preferring attacking with high speed from above.
- 1
Remembered the problem - airframe of Bf.109 was built on a principle of power-bearing sheathing instead of power-bearing carcass. This made production easier but "strengthening the frame" meant basically making the sheathing thicker, and so heavier.
Add "weak" chassis to the equation. They needed strengthening too. That means more mass added. Wing needs rework - to fit new chassis in. Also we must strengthen the wing to adapt it to the growing G-force during the maneuvering on the higher speeds. Engine radiators weaken the wing and you can't put them under the "body" like on most planes, because there is no space there - making frame "thin" took its toll.
- 1
That's a misrepresentation, because the japanese were able to develop the sucessor of the A6M Zero and of the Haybasusa Ki-43 (You can see their sucessors in the game). The primarily reason of why the japanese lost the air war, was because of the lack of trained pilots. Unfortunately for them, they were in a state of disaster when they realized that and little could be done at the time in the war. Something similar happened to the germans too.
Another funny thing, is people talking about the lack of power that the engine of the BF-109 had. What people is forgeting is the altitude that these fighters were fighting. At the start of the war, nobody was thinking about defense against bombers in high altitudes. (And the BF was excelent.) They thought that nobody would be able to aim bombs from such high places. The USA started this race for altitude with their strategic bombers, and even so, made the same mistake of the germans, thinking that their bombers wouldn't need a fighter to scort their bombers. (See Battle of Britain.)
I think the biggest problem in the Axis was their lack of vision of what was turning the shape of the war against them (i think they were so concentrated in the small problems, that they couldn't see the whole figure) and their lack of cooperation. Both put them behind the curve against the Allies.
IMHO, what the game is lacking is a way to upgrade fighters 1 in a way that let them fight side by side with fighter 2. Like happened between the Spitfire and the BF-109. Right now, the game makes you change production frequently, making a entire generation of fighters useless. But in WW2, both the BF and Spit had received extensively upgrade to their engines, armaments, etc, but never left production. you can't do that in HOI4.
- 3
- 1
The small decisions in any game will always be no-brainer, even if the devs try to make it hard to know which is best the player can perform simulations and tests.
In terms of no-brainer choices, how would that be different than the variant system we have now though, just with extra steps?
Longer functionality gaps of a model, actual thinking on how to build a vehicle (for example, naval designer allows me to experiment a lot), more realism.
- 1
- 1
the Bf-109 A/B/C/D models were substantially different to the Bf-109E. Which was itself distinct from the F, G, and K models.
Visually, they were similar, and they used the same name, but the internal structure was different. There were many changes to things like the oil coolers & radiator placements in the A/B/C/D models.
Same with the Spitfire. Visually similar, but different internal structures.
Most of the major changes in the models were due to significant changes in the engine used by the aircraft. Due to how aerodynamics work, for piston engines, the power required depends on the cube of the airspeed. So, to double the speed, requires 2x2x2 = 8 times the power. And engine power largely depends on the mass of the engine - so, a big increase in engine mass is needed to increase speed.
So, I'd suggest that the major engine changes, like the Spitfires powered by Merlin engines and those powered by Griffon engines, make it effectively a new aircraft.
Visually, they were similar, and they used the same name, but the internal structure was different. There were many changes to things like the oil coolers & radiator placements in the A/B/C/D models.
Same with the Spitfire. Visually similar, but different internal structures.
Most of the major changes in the models were due to significant changes in the engine used by the aircraft. Due to how aerodynamics work, for piston engines, the power required depends on the cube of the airspeed. So, to double the speed, requires 2x2x2 = 8 times the power. And engine power largely depends on the mass of the engine - so, a big increase in engine mass is needed to increase speed.
So, I'd suggest that the major engine changes, like the Spitfires powered by Merlin engines and those powered by Griffon engines, make it effectively a new aircraft.
- 2
- 2
While more power needs bigger/heavier engines, the weight difference between the DB601 and 605 was merely 146 kgs, so we would have a maybe 10% mass increase to the plane if we account for larger radiators and such.
I understand the 109 was a rather high end concept with all parameters maximized, so there was little room for changes in the system, but at least for Germany, the bf109 changes were pretty much running changes, so there was no redesign like hoi4 works.
- 1
- 1
well, for the Bf-109, there were a lot of aerodynamics changes, such as wingspan/wingshape. And changes to the nose and propeller as well.
Wasn't just power, but a substantial aerodynamic improvement between each model. Flush riveting and so on.
Wasn't just power, but a substantial aerodynamic improvement between each model. Flush riveting and so on.
- 1
- 1
an interesting example though, is the Spitfire.
Take 3 of the major models that were in service - the Mk I, the Mk V, and the Mk IX. Some early Mark Vs were converted from Mark Is, and some early IXs from mark Vs. So... the Mk I, V, IX, could be a single HOI4 design, with variants. And the Mk IX was still in service at the end of the war.
But, other models of Spitfire existed - the IX for example was initially a stop-gap model, while design work on the Mk VII and VIII was completed, the Mk VIII being intended to be the next main production model.
Faced with the sudden appearance of the Fw-190, which was superior to the Mk V Spitfire, the Mk IX was hurriedly created as the Mk VIII was at that point about a year away from entering service.
In HOI4 terms, the UK spent XP to upgrade their existing aircraft, because the new model was still being researched.
Take 3 of the major models that were in service - the Mk I, the Mk V, and the Mk IX. Some early Mark Vs were converted from Mark Is, and some early IXs from mark Vs. So... the Mk I, V, IX, could be a single HOI4 design, with variants. And the Mk IX was still in service at the end of the war.
But, other models of Spitfire existed - the IX for example was initially a stop-gap model, while design work on the Mk VII and VIII was completed, the Mk VIII being intended to be the next main production model.
Faced with the sudden appearance of the Fw-190, which was superior to the Mk V Spitfire, the Mk IX was hurriedly created as the Mk VIII was at that point about a year away from entering service.
In HOI4 terms, the UK spent XP to upgrade their existing aircraft, because the new model was still being researched.
- 2
- 2
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
It looks like the research part of the game does a just about OK job, but does not represent historical issues that well.
It looks like the research part of the game does a just about OK job, but does not represent historical issues that well.
- 1