Hearts of Iron IV - 46th Development Diary - 26th of February 2016

[The_Meme_Man]

 

[agentgb]

 

[Havebeard]

Can George V become the british Kim Il Sung?

Added to my suggestionbox!

Someone mentioned about the BUF and Britain going Axis. Maybe when King George V dies it will trigger an event chain regarding the Abdication Crisis, and despite the gross exaggeration it would be to suggest that Edward VIII was a Nazi-sympathiser, his perceived fascist leanings could be used to increase fascist support in the UK.

That's just my suspicion judging by the "we have something in mind."

It's probably going to be simpler than you imagine.
Kill king. King abdicates. Get new king.

 

[keynes2.0]

release the game

btw, i feel obliged to share this information:

 

[EleventhAvenue]

The thing with this assumption is that it means all light tanks will have a base speed that's far too slow for their model (if the Matilda goes there). There were lightly armoured and armed, and fast British tanks, which fit that slot, and would match the base stats of any light tank model very well, but the Matilda isn't one of them.

As for the variant system, we don't know too much, but we were told that a maxed-out variant would be a little better than the next model. In this case, we're saying a maxxed out light tank 1938 will have more armour than a basic light tank 1941. The issue here is that a Matilda II was far better armoured than a 1941 model light tank, so the variant system, as we understand it, wouldn't represent this well.

As for your comment on CVs, this would be fair if there weren't also medium and heavy lines in the tank tree, but there area. If you're talking dividing tanks based on size (as you suggest in your post), the Matilda II at 25 tons is a good deal heavier than the next model on the UK 'light' tank tree, the Valentine, at 16 tons - so it doesn't work on size. It gets far, far worse when you compare the Matilda II and Valentine to actual light tanks - the Panzer II (9 tons), the Light Tank Mk VI (5 tons), or the Matilda II to the medium tanks (the Crusader came in at a little under 20 tons and the Cromwell - the medium tank model 2 slots below it, is only 3 tons heavier). Of the first eight tanks on the UK tank tree, the example given for the 1937-38 light tank (the second tank on the light tank tree - I can't recall which year exactly) is the fourth heaviest.



Are you saying a 9 pound tank cost about the same to produce as a 25 ton tank that required some special machining for its armour? Unless the Germans had some spectacularly inefficient manufacturing processes (compared with the British, not the US) then this is something of a stretch. I'd be very interested in your sources. I'm just going off the "complicated to make, weight nearly three times as much" to indicate that it would have been more expensive, but that's a fairly safe assumption. On the other hand, the assumption that something that's complicated to make and three times as heavy as the Pz II is the same cost to produce, is somewhat bold.



Except that beefy, well-armed infantry Matilda is no longer a light but now a heavy tank (keep in mind that the later infantry tanks are in the heavy tank side of things - based on what you're arguing, why aren't the Churchills also light tanks?) Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we'll be able to mod things to sort out the tech tree, but the Matilda II makes as much sense in the 1938 light tank slot as the Tiger I would make in the 1941 Germany light tank slot. You could apply all the arguments you've made about the Matilda to the Tiger, and come up with the same results.



I agree it's a step forward (not least because the greater transparency of the tech trees mean that it's easy to see when something's a bit off), and other than the missing heavy slot for 1939 and a missing late light tank slot the tank tree looks pretty good. Most of us aren't criticising the system, just some of the examples used. Apologies if I sound a little sharp with my comments, am a bit crook today, but I'm genuinely confused as to why you think the Matilda II is the best choice (or even a good choice) for that tech slot.

For example, I'd be very interested in your explanation of why the Matilda II a better choice for that light tank slot than the Light Tank Mk VI?

Improving armour reduces vehicle speed, so no, don't worry, the basic light tank does not need to have Matilda-level speeds.

Based on what I've seen of how adding stats to variants changes unit stats, it seems very unlikely that the armour of a maxed 1939 Light will only be ''slightly better'' than that of a basic 1941. Maybe this statement means it as an average of all stats (improving armour will nullify a significant amount of the improvements to speed from engine, for example), or maybe the variant system has too small impact to model things like Matildas. In that case, that needs to change.
We don't know how much armour the various light tanks have, of course. It may be the the development of the light tank armour might go something like 1-2-3 during 1936-1939-1941, and I think the armour increase with 1 per level no matter the base armour. So... uh, that might work out. Or not. I don't really know.

You're right about the Matilda II being quite heavy... but what if you give it Panzer II-level armouring? I think you're still looking at things backwards, they're chassis, the finished tanks in the comparisons are after. It's not like in DH or HoI3, the research is for tank chassis. Maybe the Matilda just weighs 12 tonnes. Maybe the Matilda is called Argleblargle Mk.III, but the most produced variant is the one made as an AA vehicle.

And really, for the CV comparison, I think that this mostly is about people thinking that tanks are a bigger deal than CV's. As I've said, I think that it's a bit of a compromise. You're right in that you could just have one tank line, but that would require the base tank to be pretty slow and very poorly armed/armoured, and spending army experience on variants pretty much mandatory. Also, the different production costs would not be possible. I understand that you for the same reason could argue that there should be a difference between fleet carriers and escort carriers. I think that this simply is a design decision. The system is not consequent, because paradox decided that they didn't want it to be like that.

I think that you're still stuck in the old way of thinking when it comes to tank types. You think that a beefed up Matilda is a heavy tank? I thought that it was an Infantry Tank! But the chassis, the chassis is a light chassi. The Independent and the Churchill are Heavy chassis. Why aren't the Churchills light tanks? Can you imagine Churchills as light tanks? I can't, but maybe, if you really want, you can get them to work a bit like lights by using the variant system. Still, they're a heavy chassi. All the stats you are using are for the finished tanks. What weight does a hypothetical Matilda have? How much does a theoretical Churchill cost to produce?

Once again, I return to the question: Can you think yourself a 10 meter long Matilda with four turrets? In a system where you control so much of the stats outside the research, you're not going to get anywhere from reasoning about things like vehicle weight and other stats, but the Matilda is still a Matilda.

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

The chassis for the Matilda II was not a light chassis.
The drivetrain, chassis members, bogies, wheels, and overall layout were designed and built for a slow moving heavily armoured vehicle.
If you compare the layout with Pz II, Vickers Lt, or any other light tank, of any country, at any time the difference is chalk and cheese.
The bell crank suspension system on the Matilda was only suitable for a slow vehicle, and was a fundamental part of the design.
The U.K. were already using the Christie suspension system on the Cruiser tanks, and Horstmann suspension on Vickers lights.
Both of these other systems were superior for faster tanks, the Christie system being specifically designed for speed.

And, to reinforce previous posts, Matilda I and Matilda II were completely different.
Matilda I was designed by Vickers, Matilda II by Woolwich Arsenal, working independently, at opposite ends of the country, to different specifications.

 

[EleventhAvenue]

The chassis for the Matilda II was not a light chassis.
The drivetrain, chassis members, bogies, wheels, and overall layout were designed and built for a slow moving heavily armoured vehicle.
If you compare the layout with Pz II, Vickers Lt, or any other light tank, of any country, at any time the difference is chalk and cheese.
The bell crank suspension system on the Matilda was only suitable for a slow vehicle, and was a fundamental part of the design.
The U.K. were already using the Christie suspension system on the Cruiser tanks, and Horstmann suspension on Vickers lights.
Both of these other systems were superior for faster tanks, the Christie system being specifically designed for speed.

And, to reinforce previous posts, Matilda I and Matilda II were completely different.
Matilda I was designed by Vickers, Matilda II by Woolwich Arsenal, working independently, at opposite ends of the country, to different specifications.

That, I think, would count as part of the reliability in the variant, rather than chassi type. I would rather look at dimensions, turret ring size capability, and things like that. If you want to use suspension capability as a base for determining what chassi type your tanks are, I imagine that we'll get some odd results...

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Heavy fighters are two jobs: be able to escort bombers early on when regular fighter range isnt good enough (still useful later on, but you can develop fighter variants with more range as well as doctrines so you can say rock Mustangs), the other job is as interceptors. They have much stronger armament so will be much better at killing enemy bombers than regular fighters.

Doesn't this mean that overall the heavy fighters are just plainly better than regular fighters, since they can better escort bombers due to better range coverage and also intercept bombers due to higher attack than regular fighters?

Are fighters still viable or are just better off focusing on heavy fighters?
This bugged me for some time from the DD about air missions I think.

 

[GsusNSV]

Doesn't this mean that overall the heavy fighters are just plainly better than regular fighters, since they can better escort bombers due to better range coverage and also intercept bombers due to higher attack than regular fighters?

Are fighters still viable or are just better off focusing on heavy fighters?
This bugged me for some time from the DD about air missions I think.

Normal fighter will probably have a better Agility and therefore won't be hit that often, while in return dash out more damage to a heavy one.
Also they should be cheaper, so you will have more of them.

 

[gamehappy]

should you build up militarily the Raj or instead ship some divisions and naval/air force units from home to reinforce them?

 

[Orlunu]

1. HEAVY TANK 1936 SLOT?

Like many, I would like Paradox to consider an extra Heavy tank slot between the "Dead-end" Heavy 1934, and the "Actually useful" Heavy 1941 slot, to support the tank design philosophy that resulted in tanks like the Matilda and Char B. Although the Char B started production in 1934, I would argue that it wasn't hopeless like the multi-turreted dead-end T-35 and Vickers A1E1.
...

2. CAN WE DO BETTER?

Assuming the Tech Tree stays as-is, is there any name better than Matilda for Light Tank 1936?

1.
I'm just hoping that they let that first heavy be upgradable to very good standards. There were certainly a few heavies rolled out in the middle that were very decent tanks, but I suppose it's alright to have them represented in game as variants.

2.
Light Tank Mk. V

The British tech tree should follow the [Class] Tank Mk. [Number] system, as that's the historically accurate one that doesn't so closely tie them to a historical vehicle or manufacturer. If they'd gone with a different design philosophy or manufacturer afte, say, the Infantry Tank Mk. I, then the next probably wouldn't have been called "Matilda", but it would certainly still have been called "Infantry Tank Mk. II".

What is there to put, for Germany, USSR, USA, Italy, France? Why make a whole tech so that a tank that is barely comparable to 1940 medium can be fit into tech tree?

Char B had multiple guns, so it is closer to T-35, not to mention it was quite unimpressive.

They should just drop the identical tech trees shtick if they're going with this system. There were tanks produced for that slot, and it should be possible to produce tanks for that slot. That should override any concerns that some nations didn't actually produce them then.

The nations didn't have identical tank development progress. That leaves two good solutions to pick from:
1) Non-identical tech trees with named units.
2) Identical and heavily populated tech trees with non-named units.

Anyway, in terms of heavy tank development between '34 and '41, the UK, the USSR, Japan, and the French all developed at least one heavy tank type in that period which would actually be sent into battle. Heavies just weren't particularly favoured by the type of war being fought then. Other countries did not develop one at all. Current tech tree idea screws with at least a couple major powers either way they do it.

Anyway, number of guns is a minor metric for comparison, number of major turrets is not.



Tech trees may need some major modding. I thought that there were just a few items that needed replacing in them, but now I see that it really calls for a far more comprehensive overhaul.

 

[Wraith11B]

Makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to have something a la HoI3, but more:

A. Armored Vehicles (top most unlocks the rest)

B. Chassis (Three options: Light, Medium, Heavy)

C. The various areas: Armor, Main Gun, Reliability, Engine (which would increase the capability of the variants system).

but not like in HoI3 how they had the four techs underneath the three main chassis. Just dictated that the chassis require a certain amount of the armor, main guns, reliability or engine.

 

[karl2025]

Home Defense
Home defense focus both on local defense such as coastal fortifications and getting rid of the The War to End All Wars spirit as well as allowing intervention to stop nations from joining the axis. You can for example step in and set up a puppet government in norway should their fascists leanings become too strong, so as to secure scandinavia from Hitler.

Kinda disappointed there's nothing for protecting Finland against the USSR in there.

 

[Axe99]

Improving armour reduces vehicle speed, so no, don't worry, the basic light tank does not need to have Matilda-level speeds.

Based on what I've seen of how adding stats to variants changes unit stats, it seems very unlikely that the armour of a maxed 1939 Light will only be ''slightly better'' than that of a basic 1941.

Would be very interested in any evidence you have to this effect (as I'm sure would be a great many forumites ). At this stage, all I've got to go on is what we've seen in WWW and dev statements, and I can't recall any that suggested this.

You're right about the Matilda II being quite heavy... but what if you give it Panzer II-level armouring? I think you're still looking at things backwards, they're chassis, the finished tanks in the comparisons are after. It's not like in DH or HoI3, the research is for tank chassis. Maybe the Matilda just weighs 12 tonnes. Maybe the Matilda is called Argleblargle Mk.III, but the most produced variant is the one made as an AA vehicle.

This starts pushing back towards the 'one tank tree' thing again though. On this logic, why not make the Tiger a 1941 light? Would make just as much sense, based on the logic you've used. If this is the approach PDS are taking, they're not taking it consistently, so there's still a case to make suggestions as to improvements.

As for the names, I totally agree that the names are only examples and suggestions, based on historic models. However, the whole case I'm making is that if we're looking for an example of a light tank, the Matilda II (the one pictured) is the worst possible example available from the British tanks of the period. There are actually quite a few tanks available around then, and the Matilda II is the least like a light tank of any of them. In this context, why are you suggesting the Matilda II is the best possible example ahead of the numerous other, far more light-tank alike tanks available?

I think that you're still stuck in the old way of thinking when it comes to tank types. You think that a beefed up Matilda is a heavy tank? I thought that it was an Infantry Tank! But the chassis, the chassis is a light chassi. The Independent and the Churchill are Heavy chassis. Why aren't the Churchills light tanks? Can you imagine Churchills as light tanks? I can't, but maybe, if you really want, you can get them to work a bit like lights by using the variant system. Still, they're a heavy chassi. All the stats you are using are for the finished tanks. What weight does a hypothetical Matilda have? How much does a theoretical Churchill cost to produce?

As @dave_r_gilbert noted, the Matilda II chassis was a heavy chassis, just like the Churchill or Tiger I. Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm mentioning this in the gentlest way possible, but this isn't the first time you've made an assertion in this discussion that's proved to be false. You'll make a more convincing argument if you do your research prior to making examples (doesn't need to be a lot - the wikipedia articles on the construction of most of the better-known WW2 tanks are pretty good - including the Matilda II (the Valentine not so much, but for some reason everyone seems to have no problem with the suggestion that the Valentine is a bad example of a light tank, but the Matilda II is fine for it, which confuses me no end, but I get confused easily ).

Once again, I return to the question: Can you think yourself a 10 meter long Matilda with four turrets? In a system where you control so much of the stats outside the research, you're not going to get anywhere from reasoning about things like vehicle weight and other stats, but the Matilda is still a Matilda.

This isn't the question though - the question most of us are arguing isn't "Where do we put the Matilda II" but rather "What's the best light tank example for the 1937-38 light tank slot"? As per my argument earlier:

- If people don't know about the Matilda II, it doesn't matter if it's not in the tech tree, or if the Light Tank slot has Light Tank Mk V/VI in it.
- If people do know about the Matilda II, having it as a light tank will strike them as way off the mark.

Therefore, if there's not an appropriate slot for the Matilda II, it should be left out. At the moment, the situation seems to be that the devs don't want to let go of the Matilda II (as it was an iconic pre-war tank) but have tech trees that are focussed on German tank development, so there are no heavy tank examples for the late 1930s (which, given Germany was coming out of the Versailles treaty restrictions is hardly a surprise). It would literally make more sense to put the German Neubaufahrzeug into the equivalent German light tank slot than it does the Matilda II in the British slot.

 

[EleventhAvenue]

Would be very interested in any evidence you have to this effect (as I'm sure would be a great many forumites ). At this stage, all I've got to go on is what we've seen in WWW and dev statements, and I can't recall any that suggested this.



This starts pushing back towards the 'one tank tree' thing again though. On this logic, why not make the Tiger a 1941 light? Would make just as much sense, based on the logic you've used. If this is the approach PDS are taking, they're not taking it consistently, so there's still a case to make suggestions as to improvements.

As for the names, I totally agree that the names are only examples and suggestions, based on historic models. However, the whole case I'm making is that if we're looking for an example of a light tank, the Matilda II (the one pictured) is the worst possible example available from the British tanks of the period. There are actually quite a few tanks available around then, and the Matilda II is the least like a light tank of any of them. In this context, why are you suggesting the Matilda II is the best possible example ahead of the numerous other, far more light-tank alike tanks available?



As @dave_r_gilbert noted, the Matilda II chassis was a heavy chassis, just like the Churchill or Tiger I. Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm mentioning this in the gentlest way possible, but this isn't the first time you've made an assertion in this discussion that's proved to be false. You'll make a more convincing argument if you do your research prior to making examples (doesn't need to be a lot - the wikipedia articles on the construction of most of the better-known WW2 tanks are pretty good - including the Matilda II (the Valentine not so much, but for some reason everyone seems to have no problem with the suggestion that the Valentine is a bad example of a light tank, but the Matilda II is fine for it, which confuses me no end, but I get confused easily ).



This isn't the question though - the question most of us are arguing isn't "Where do we put the Matilda II" but rather "What's the best light tank example for the 1937-38 light tank slot"? As per my argument earlier:

- If people don't know about the Matilda II, it doesn't matter if it's not in the tech tree, or if the Light Tank slot has Light Tank Mk V/VI in it.
- If people do know about the Matilda II, having it as a light tank will strike them as way off the mark.

Therefore, if there's not an appropriate slot for the Matilda II, it should be left out. At the moment, the situation seems to be that the devs don't want to let go of the Matilda II (as it was an iconic pre-war tank) but have tech trees that are focussed on German tank development, so there are no heavy tank examples for the late 1930s (which, given Germany was coming out of the Versailles treaty restrictions is hardly a surprise). It would literally make more sense to put the German Neubaufahrzeug into the equivalent German light tank slot than it does the Matilda II in the British slot.

Ah, maybe I've misunderstood the discussion a bit.
No, the Matilda is not a heavy chassis. The Tiger I and Churchills are larger. The Matilda is like a Pz III. They're really pretty tiny. The larger Tiger and Churchill chassis are obviously not lights.
Really, the Matilda is not that big. Yeah, our Matildas are pretty heavy (well, around half the weigth of a Tiger, but still, pretty heavy). Still, not a heavy chassis.

I don't get what's wrong. It's appropriately sized... its capabilities can be represented well, why not have the Matilda as a 1936 Light?
And I don't get why you like the Mk. VI so much. It's too modern for the 1934 slot, and it would just be odd to put it as the equivalent of the Panzer III. It's a tank for ants!

Oh, and for the armor... we know that it's a numerical value, and I think we've seen armor changes from a screenshot of the variant editor, and it always increases with one for each point invested... I think. I haven't seen it for light tanks specifically.

 

[Scutatus]

Devs! @podcat ! Lend me your eyes!

You need to restructure the British tank tree this way:

Infantry Tanks like Churchill, Matilda II, and Valentine should go into the Heavy category. Get rid of' the Black Prince', that was just a prototype upgraded Churchill.

'Heavy Tank' is the closest equivalent for British Infantry Tanks.

Cruiser Tanks and Universal Tanks like Cruiser I-IV, Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, and Centurion should go in the Medium category.

'Medium Tank' is the closest equivalent for British Cruiser tanks.

Light Tanks like the Vickers Mk. VI and the Tetrarch would obviously then be in the Light category.

This one is self explanatory.

Look at this list for more ideas, Paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tanks_of_the_United_Kingdom

I completely agree. I would happily go without the Black Prince if it meant the Matilda was placed in the "heavy" (British Infantry Tank) line, where apparently, many of us feel it should be. There aren't enough slots to represent all of the Cruiser/Universal tanks, but Crusader, Cromwell and Comet are good examples. And in the Light, as has been said, there should only be true light; Vickers Mks up to Vickers MK-VII Tetrarch.

And Paradox, I am but one voice, But I personally really don't care if a tank comes a year early or a year late, so long as it's the right tank, in the right slot. You have hamstrung yourselves trying to use a cookie cutter one size fits all tech tree, and it doesn't always work that well - UK tanks being a prime example. So maybe obsess less about the year things entered service (which you have ignored when it suits you anyway - most inconsistent), and just please, put the Matilda and Vickers light in more appropriate places. Please?

 

[EleventhAvenue]

I completely agree. I would happily go without the Black Prince if it meant the Matilda was placed in the "heavy" (British Infantry Tank) line, where apparently, many of us feel it should be. There aren't enough slots to represent all of the Cruiser/Universal tanks, but Crusader, Cromwell and Comet are good examples. And in the Light, as has been said, there should only be true light; Vickers Mks up to Vickers MK-VII Tetrarch.

And Paradox, I am but one voice, But I personally really don't care if a tank comes a year early or a year late, so long as it's the right tank, in the right slot. You have hamstrung yourselves trying to use a cookie cutter one size fits all tech tree, and it doesn't always work that well - UK tanks being a prime example. So maybe obsess less about the year things entered service (which you have ignored when it suits you anyway - most inconsistent), and just please, put the Matilda and Vickers light in more appropriate places. Please?

Would you like to describe? I still wonder how this system will fail to represent the abilities of the british tanks. Giving the Matilda the same base stats as the Tiger chassis would, on the other hand... be problematic. What of Soft attack, for example? Not to mention production costs.

I think you all need to stop being so hung up over the light/medium/heavy divisions. Maybe you can cover the text up with tippex or something. What we need to look at is how it works as part of the game, with variants, manufacturing companies and division structure in play.

 

[Nats]

I think the tactical bombers could do with changing. For one thing the Whitley wasnt flying anywhere near 1933 it was the Heyford around that time. And I think the Hampden was far more famous than the Beaufort - I think it should be something like Heyford, Whitley, Wellington/Hampden, and then the Mosquito.

And the Blenheim wasnt really a heavy fighter.

And what about the Hawker Fury instead of the 'Hector' whatever the heck that was.

And the Spiteful? Waht the heck was that - only a handful were ever built - surely better with the Spitfire Mark 14?

Some strange choices there.

 

[EleventhAvenue]

I think the tactical bombers could do with changing. For one thing the Whitley wasnt flying anywhere near 1933 it was the Heyford around that time. And I think the Hampden was far more famous than the Beaufort - I think it should be something like Heyford, Whitley, Wellington/Hampden, and then the Mosquito.

And the Blenheim wasnt really a heavy fighter.

And what about the Hawker Fury instead of the 'Hector' whatever the heck that was.

And the Spiteful? Waht the heck was that - only a handful were ever built - surely better with the Spitfire Mark 14?

Some strange choices there.

Well...
The Spitfire Mark 14 is a Spitfire. It's built on the Spitfire chassis. Remember, a well-upgraded Spitfire variant might very well outmatch a base Spiteful.
Coming from DH and HoI3, I understand your reasoning, but the chassis-based system of HoI4 really takes a bit of a different approach.

 

[Axe99]

Ah, maybe I've misunderstood the discussion a bit.
No, the Matilda is not a heavy chassis. The Tiger I and Churchills are larger. The Matilda is like a Pz III. They're really pretty tiny. The larger Tiger and Churchill chassis are obviously not lights.
Really, the Matilda is not that big. Yeah, our Matildas are pretty heavy (well, around half the weigth of a Tiger, but still, pretty heavy). Still, not a heavy chassis.

Tanks got larger (substantially) as the war went on - using 1941 and later tanks to compare heaviness with a 1936 slot (I've just checked with the Wiki, we're talking about the 1936 light tank slot) is hardly a fair comparison. If we do that, then all the pre-T-34 tanks are all lights as well. Much better to compare the Matilda II with other tanks in 1936 for what's heavy or otherwise - so here goes (all from wikipedia because I'm not a tank guy, but I can have a look at Jane's Armoured Vehicles of WW2 if anyone thinks any of these numbers are dodge for a better source), in declining weight - the British tanks are in italics:


- T-35, produced from 1933, 45 tons
- KV1, produced from 1939 - 45 tons
- Vickers A1E1, produced in 1936, 33 tons
- T-28, produced from 1932, 28 tons
- Char 1B (a French heavy tank), produced from 1935 - 28 tons
- Matilda II, produced from 1937 - 25 tons
- Panzer IV, produced from 1936 - 25 tons
- Neubaufahrzeug, produced from 1934, 23 tons
- Panzer III, produced from 1936 - 23 tons
- Char D2, produced from 1938 - 20 tons
- M2 medium tank, produced from 1939 - 19 tons
- A13 Mk II Cruiser Mk IV, produced from 1939, 15 tons
- Type 97 tank, produced from 1938 - 15 tons
- A10 Cruiser Mk II, produced from 1938 - 14 tons
- A13 Cruiser Mk III, produced from 1938, 14 tons
- BT 7, produced from 1935 - 14 tons
- Char D1, produced from 1931 - 14 tons
- A9 Cruiser Mk I, produced from 1936 - 12 tons
- M2 light tank, produced from 1935, 12 tons
- FCM 36, produced from 1938 - 12 tons
- M11/39, produced from 1939 - 11 tons (conversion from lbs, could be a little off depending on whether imperial or US tons, but should be close)
- Panzer 35 (t), produced from 1936 - 11 tons
- Renault R 35, produced from 1936 - 11 tons
- Panzer 38(t), produced from 1939 - 10 tons
- M1, produced from 1935, 10 tons
- T 26, produced from 1931 - 10 tons
- L-60, produced from 1935 - 9 tons
- Panzer II, produced from 1935 - 9 tons
- L6/40, produced from 1939 - 7 tons
- Type 95 tank, produced from 1936 - 7 tons
- Light Tank Mk VI, produced from 1936 - 5 tons
- Panzer I, produced from 1934 - 5 tons

The Matilda II is the second-heaviest British tank (of numerous available), and the equal-6th heaviest tank overall and the heaviest tank in service in the British Army in the 1930s. Thus, the argument I and others have been making is that why is the least appropriate choice for a light tank in the light tank slot. I agree that the Light Tank Mk VI might be a little too light, but if this is the case, then the early cruisers are still far better light tanks than the Matilda II.

I don't get what's wrong. It's appropriately sized... its capabilities can be represented well, why not have the Matilda as a 1936 Light?

If the sixth heaviest tank in service in the 1930s, heavier than one of the models represented by the 1934 heavy tank (the Neubaufahrzeug), can be represented by something in the light tank tree column, then every tank should be able to be represented by light tanks, and we get back to not having a distinction between light, medium and heavy.

And I don't get why you like the Mk. VI so much. It's too modern for the 1934 slot, and it would just be odd to put it as the equivalent of the Panzer III. It's a tank for ants!

That's fair - going through the tanks in more detail, the early cruisers are probably a better fit. Not sure what you mean by the Pz III reference though - the Panzer III is a German medium tank, and I'm fairly sure the 1939 Medium I. No one has suggested putting it the equivalent of the Panzer III. I'm not sure where you get this from - are you able to reference someone suggesting this?

Would you like to describe? I still wonder how this system will fail to represent the abilities of the british tanks. Giving the Matilda the same base stats as the Tiger chassis would, on the other hand... be problematic. What of Soft attack, for example? Not to mention production costs.

No one, in this thread, has suggested giving the Matilda II the same base stats as the Tiger. Your argument will carry more weight if you can keep it disciplined and accurate, rather than making distracting and unhelpful assertions like this.