Generic Focus Trees too weak?

[BulgarianFocusTree]

Other focus trees have crept up with the expansions, to the point that I think countries stuck with the basic focus tree are a wet match in a dark cave.

Any thoughts on the matter from people who might be a bit more mechanically savvy than me?

 

[a_sophist]

+7% recruitable population from fascism and -100% research time on late game equipment are both very strong bonuses

 

[Ironside121]

Well most nations with the trees currently exist to be worthless roadblocks, or to be conquered, so I'm not too concerned with their trees. I'm more concerned with the balance and strength of the majors. US and UK particularly now.

 

[BulgarianFocusTree]

US definitely needs...well, I'm not even sure what it needs.

It probably needs the Japan/Germany treatment, where it can have three different paths.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

+7% recruitable population from fascism and -100% research time on late game equipment are both very strong bonuses

Yeah, and you get pretty good ones for land, air, and sea. Industry is just so-so and tech slots come late, but there are only a handful of trees I'd take over it in a vacuum.

 

[Jorge Firebomb]

Far too many times I have seen the US get stuck in its war plan color tree. I was playing as NatChina and the USA went down the path to declare war on Japan, which was great. Except they never took the focus Pearl Harbor Gambit. Every time I checked it said they didn't have enough capital ships in Pearl Harbor. This resulted in the USA never having an impact on the world stage, even though I played that game through 1945. The USA just sat there, unable to do anything at all except be a source of materials for the rest of the world, including Japan that they had embargoed. I definitely agree that the USA at least needs a lot of work. I haven't really looked at Great Britain at all, and I have never played as either country because they don't sound all that interesting.

 

[GothicEmperor]

US definitely needs...well, I'm not even sure what it needs.

It probably needs the Japan/Germany treatment, where it can have three different paths.

Wait, are you talking about the vanilla/base game focus trees for major powers, or just the generic one for minors?

 

[Secret Master]

The generic trees for minors are incredibly potent.

I've had people complain more than once that minors getting special trees in TfW and WtT made them far weaker.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

US definitely needs...well, I'm not even sure what it needs.

It probably needs the Japan/Germany treatment, where it can have three different paths.

Or maybe it needs to be more historical. How about that?

 

[Covfam]

The vanilla tree are powerfull i could see only some minor tweaks for flavor' maybe make 3 seperate vanilla focus trees that add some minor flavor, for example make a norther vanillia tree that the scandinavian and baltic nations would use with say some extra cold weather bonuses say to attrition and movement. maybe one thats a generic one for central and south america that have some other slight bonuses for flavor. And then one for Turkey,Persia and the Arabian Peninsula again nothing major just a few small bonuses for flavor. But the essence of the "vanilla" shouldnt be changed as they are powerfull. I cant tell you how many times ive made atgentina or brazil into a superpower in south america or formed the Svea Rike while controling denmark,norway, finland, sweden, kola peninsula and was a major power initself. and with the new infrastructure boosting of resources have made them even more powerful imho

 

[Belryuminus]

Hi,

as many said, dont agree with OP.

The generic tree for minor countries is really polyvalent and strong.

If it has a problem, it's that that tree is everywhere. And you often play it quite the same way as a lot of minor countries face the same problems (low manpower, not many industrial power at the beginning, in need of PP to change the governement at start, etc.)

I know that the very definition of a generic tree is to be generic but a little bit of variance by geographical zones, or even best, a work to add specific trees to "not so minor countries" like Spain, Sweden, Mexico, Brazil etc etc would be great.

 

[DicRoNero]

No way, it's really strong.

Up to the point where I'd introduce more checks whether the nation is legit to pick things like Secret Weapons or those ahead-of-time ones - much like Research Slot II, it shouldn't be available to just any OPM.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No way, it's really strong.

Up to the point where I'd introduce more checks whether the nation is legit to pick things like Secret Weapons or those ahead-of-time ones - much like Research Slot II, it shouldn't be available to just any OPM.

Research slot 2 requires 51 factories. Not "just any OPM" is going to get 51 factories in a timeframe that matters. If you're making the case that more of the tree needs to be locked down as such, I'm not convinced. Outside of multiplayer licenses the utility is questionable...either you're going down industry first just so you can build stuff (delays ahead of time tech and limits what you can practically field) or you're working off only a couple factories tops while pushing for early equipment...that you still need focuses to start producing.

Even in MP, non-generic trees on stronger nations can carry the license torch if that's the route you're going.

 

[DicRoNero]

Research slot 2 requires 51 factories. Not "just any OPM" is going to get 51 factories in a timeframe that matters. If you're making the case that more of the tree needs to be locked down as such, I'm not convinced. Outside of multiplayer licenses the utility is questionable...either you're going down industry first just so you can build stuff (delays ahead of time tech and limits what you can practically field) or you're working off only a couple factories tops while pushing for early equipment...that you still need focuses to start producing.

Even in MP, non-generic trees on stronger nations can carry the license torch if that's the route you're going.

It's more of a perception thing, than real necessity. I, for one, am irked when Luxembourg-sized powers pursue nuclear techs - my own nation doesn't seem all that advanced any longer.

Besides, it could be made the other way around with generic focus tree getting extra focuses, unlocked when certain conditions are met. That would spice things up a little without too much of an effort.

 

[Wintermist]

I don't think it's weak, but man it's quite dull.

 

[Enriador]

Except they never took the focus Pearl Harbor Gambit. Every time I checked it said they didn't have enough capital ships in Pearl Harbor.

I have played a good number of 1.5 games, and so far the AI refuses to put any capital ships in Pearl Harbor. Most disturbing!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's more of a perception thing, than real necessity. I, for one, am irked when Luxembourg-sized powers pursue nuclear techs - my own nation doesn't seem all that advanced any longer.

At most Lux will have 4 slots though, and will fail to attain even a single nuke...in contrast to actual expanded major powers that can produce dozens or hundreds late game while carrying completely researched doctrines and 1944 tech.

The reality is that even right this moment, small minors can't do that. It seems a decent enough model in that regard.

 

[Constans]

I'm of the camp the generic tree is actually pretty well-rounded and let's people do a bunch of different things.

Generally, the political focuses are the most potent, but that's to be expected. +7% recruitable for fascist nations is a lil cray and should probably get pulled down to make the democratic/commie branches more equal. Perhaps adding stability bonuses in the democratic tree, + war support bonuses in the commie branch will move the needle closer, but really that 7% should come down to like 4 or 5.

The ahead of times are also HUGELY effective. I mean, SH BB2 in 1939? dayummmm.

As for the nuclear boosts, i'm of the camp that realistically there should only be a handful of nations even capable of getting nukes in the time-frame of the game: US, UK, USSR, GER, and maybe JAP and FRA.

The bonuses to nuclear in the generic tree should be removed. If you want Nukes as one of these super ahistorical countries, it should reallllllly cost you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The ahead of times are also HUGELY effective. I mean, SH BB2 in 1939? dayummmm.

How many of these can most minors build though ?

As for the nuclear boosts, i'm of the camp that realistically there should only be a handful of nations even capable of getting nukes in the time-frame of the game: US, UK, USSR, GER, and maybe JAP and FRA.

Bonuses maybe, complete restriction is arbitrary. A 700 factory nation could probably manage it no matter who said nation is. Accepting that such a nation could build nukes is a much smaller leap than allowing for it to exist.

 

[billcorr]

The ahead of times are also HUGELY effective. I mean, SH BB2 in 1939? dayummmm.

Also, regarding the building of capital ships by minors (to include nations like Canada and Romania and Siam) it should reallllllly cost you.

This could be accomplished by introducing:

• Light dockyards for the building of destroyers, submarines, and cargo ships
• Heavy dockyards for the building of light cruisers, cruisers, carriers, battleships and super heavy battle ships.

Haiti's ability to build SH BB2's is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge.

This is the dimension of imagination.