Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 9 - Vacation and Air tech

[plasticpanzers]

You use WORLD OF TANKS as a reference??????????????? Oh God, 50 years of research upended by a company that makes action games...
Please say you didn't say it. I was studying armor history before true personal home computers were even thought of as being possible.
Do you honestly intend to ignore all the WRITTEN work done in the last 69 years or so on the subject? Do you also base your game on only
Wiki and Google results and 'experts' from another (action) game company???

And I see the earlier quote on the use of MEDIUM bombers as transports. Did you see the pic of how folks and gear get in and out of
a B25? Do you think its easier seeing if i post pics of a B24 or Lancaster? Are you basing all this stuff on the Russian use of C47s as
bombers and German use of HE111s as transports? REALLY?? Do you ever look at videos of how crews get in and out of any bomber
and how ridiculous it looks to try and move supplies in and out of them and how slow?

I NEVER claimed bombers were never used as transports or vice versa. They are just, if i may paraphrase a well known game designer,
CRAP at doing each others job and I and others have shown that over and over technically and historically throuout this thread.

I honestly, truly cannot believe that the folks at PI are riding this run on a razor's edge of logic to the conclusions they have obtained.
To disreguard the incredible weight of historical fact to base and continue to argue a point undefensibe is fantastic. This is only because
some folks at PI want the game to be 'less boring'. Well imagine that. I was never bored and i think most others were not either.

I am also shocked at the responses from PI to folks well versed in history and knowlege on the subject and the massive historical info
available to destroy PIs stance on this subject (and I am not talking about my own knowledge but the many posts from others). It is
just darn shocking to hear this from a member of a design staff releasing 'the most historical version of a ww2 game'.

I am just really stunned.

Edit: I think the Pershing is the US version of the Panther but with faults unworked out. Its the M46 that will be the final result and it
won't be seen for a few years after the war.

Wow. Doesn't anybody read books anymore? So much more info in one than most google searches ever supply...

Poor damn wookie!

 

[Radu]

Not really, the World of tanks community has for example several writeups of it, one by their tank specialists(here and here). While crap is a bit strong, it was quite flawed and strategically probably not a good choice for Germany to switch to. We had a huge thread about this linking examinations by experts and historical statistics etc before.

Also claiming that bombers were never used as transports and saying we dont know history is just silly. I'v linked articles showing that many were. But yes obviously not stuff like B-17s etc (except the 17B?)


There is no bias. The panther is just as good as the pershing in HOI4. Mainly because people are in love with it (including me).

1) I guess the lesson here is to shy away from hyperbole given that it's hard to distinguish between that and face-value statements when it comes to the written word.

The Panther was a heavily-armored, heavily-armed, a bit it on underpowered side and rather expensive production and maintenance wise tank when compared to the other medium tanks of the era. If that's the view of the dev team, the "crap" exaggeration aside, then my concerns were unfounded.

2) Again, this is a case of "lost in transit" I'm afraid.

The complaints leveled against your statements, Podcat, weren't centered around the "never" part. Bombers being able to be jury-rigged for transport duty in case of emergency isn't the point of contention here. It's not the "Hey did you know you can use bombers to ferry supplies in a pinch?" that got people posting.

What got people posting was the fact that, and again this can all be miscommunication and also setting aside the gameplay elements which are not yet finished, your posts seemed to suggest an equivalence, an interchangeability, between Air Transports and Bombers. That in your opinion Bomb Bay = Cargo Bay.

Without wanting to rehash the past conversation, the basic conclusion is that "Transport = Bomber" is simply not true and mashing Bomb Bays and Cargo Bays together would be detrimental to the game. That seeing the 8th Air Force's Flying Fortresses get up and execute the D-Day airborne landings is a "poster child" example of completely shattered immersion.

In one of your posts here you made a key statement : that there is limited complexity to be had in the game.

I am not disputing that, nobody here does.

What we are disputing, besides the "Transport = Bomber from a strategic point of view in real life" assertion, is the wisdom of depriving Airborne Warfare of its share of complexity. Of how it reflects on the greater game to have one of the era-defining warfare types modeled with such "low resolution" that the line between Bomber and Transport is blurred when even the most cursory knowledge says the distinction is clear.

3) Panther = Pershing ?! Will this sea of blasphemies never end !

Just joking. That's actually quite astute observation. The Panther was quite "heavy" for a medium tank and the M26 Pershing "light" for a heavy tank. So that's an interesting meeting point.

You hinted at that in the Q&A when you said that the "best" variants of the previous model will be comparable to the baseline "next" model.

(Also glad to hear you are leaning towards "hard caps" of variant improvements. That will make it a lot easier to map things from real-life like tracking up-gunning and up-armoring steps and chassis limits to both.)

 

[podcat]

That in your opinion Bomb Bay = Cargo Bay

That would be terrible design if it was so.

You use WORLD OF TANKS as a reference??????????????? Oh God, 50 years of research upended by a company that makes action games...
Please say you didn't say it. I was studying armor history before true personal home computers were even thought of as being possible.
Do you honestly intend to ignore all the WRITTEN work done in the last 69 years or so on the subject? Do you also base your game on only
Wiki and Google results and 'experts' from another (action) game company??? !

you are the one that said no other gaming company considered the panther flawed, so I pointed to places they do. Also the WoT team employ actual experts on armor that do well written articles about history. You should read some of them rather than flipping out over "dirty casual games".

also, newsflash: books can be just as biased and wrong as wikipedia.

Here is another point (lets see if we can push this thread past 50 pages!): I think german armor superiority is mostly just Discovery Channel fantasy feeding and allied and soviet tanks dont get the respect they deserve (talking equipment here. Germany had superior tactics and experience for most of the war).

'the most historical version of a ww2 game'.

I dont think I'v ever said that. being the most historical is at best nr 2 on my priority list after fun.

 

[Radu]

Glad to see the disavowal of the "Cargo Bay = Bomb Bay" concept! That was really the root of the concerns expressed regarding Air Transports. Thank you.

 

[unmerged(748229)]

Hitler's meddling with the Panther is worse than we thought - it was originally intended as a Torpedo Bomber!

Best line in the thread.

 

[frolix42]

This brings me back.

Not really, the World of tanks community has for example several writeups of it, one by their tank specialists(here and here).

The conclusion of The Chieftain's article was not that Panthers were bad, but the main problem the French had with them were that their engines, specifically their final drive, wore out relatively quickly.

The French used the Panther from 45 - 49, twice as long as Germany had. Given how quickly tank design evolved in the 1940s, it's not surprising that the Panther wasn't competitive as a Medium/Heavy tank in the late 1940s. Also that the French had maintenance issues with the Panther are not a revelation either given that the factories that produced them, and more significantly their spare parts, were retooled or gone.

While crap is a bit strong, it was quite flawed and strategically probably not a good choice for Germany to switch to.

They were inexpensive, they didn't cost much more than a Pz4. They were very much less expensive than the Tiger I and Tiger II, which used a lot of rare materials and were extremely labor intensive. They were specialized for an anti-Tank role while the USSR and USA were producing tens of thousands of T-34s and Shermans. I think they were as close to strategically ideal for late-war Germany as you can reasonably get.

It may have been a good concept, but the execution was really bad.

So much as we can know the quality of the Panther, your reasoning is not accurate.

wrong armouring priorities

Post-WW2 and up to today all militaries, including the USSR with the T-54, sloped and concentrated armor on their MBTs on the front in the same way the Panther did.

Terrible suspension

In fact podcat's The_Chieftain article, the French analysis says the opposite about the Panthers:

The Panther was a large vehicle. The suspension provided very good stability. Some tanks demonstrate adverse effects from firing, particularly when firing to the sides. But not the Panther.

overweight for it`s engine

Traveled at roughly the same speed as the T-34, which was almost 20-tons lighter.

really hard to manufacture

This is particularly wrong. Especially relative to the Tiger I and Tiger II, the Panther was designed to be and was easy to manufacture.

Overall, "crap" label is deserved.

I don't think so.

 

[plasticpanzers]

I did not 'flip out' nor did I call WOT a 'dirty casual game' I have no idea where you got that idea from. I am sitting here with 5 volumes
of the US Army in WW2 history series and the US Handbook on German Forces in WW2 1945 from my shelves right next to my computer,
not from "Discovery Channe" which is as much BS as the History or Heroes Channel. I hardly consider the stack of books i just mentioned
as biased or wrong. They are 1st person recounts of the battles and information, not 3rd person that are based upon them used for making
a computer action game. I did not say their 'experts' were wrong as i have not read them but my knowledge is based upon facts learned
over 50 years of reserarch, often from direct accounts, not rewrites for game purposes.

I am not talking as much about the Panther by the way which your research, flawed at the basic level, is based but upon air transport and
its use in the real world. PIs stance on this is undefenceable...period. Yes you can have crossover but they are the exception to the rule
and PI is basing the game on the exception, not the RULE. That is just plan true irreguardless of your repeaded weak attempts to say
otherwise. It does not work that way.

Neither medium nor heavy nor light bombers work as transports except in extreme cases. It does not work ANY OTHER WAY. PERIOD.

I fear what we have here is a fait accompli in that PI has already made its decisions and the consequence they see from gamers must
be put off as long as possible. This nebulious responses and Custer like defence of a decision that goes against all historical sense and
value supports this. I wish I were wrong, I really do.

My family is all (or was) from the WW2 period. My passion is that their story be told the right way, not the easy and flashy way.

Let me add this: we are argueing over a 50(70) dollar game. If I didn't want it I would simply not buy it. Its the fact that this game
will represent hundreds of millions of people over a 10 year span of history and I feel that if PI is just looking for money then by all
means do a flashy, gimicky game and make your profit and move on. BUT if you also intend to properly represent and honor and
respect all that those millions went thru then do the best you can dammit to make it as good as you can.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Here is another point (lets see if we can push this thread past 50 pages!): I think german armor superiority is mostly just Discovery Channel fantasy feeding and allied and soviet tanks dont get the respect they deserve (talking equipment here. Germany had superior tactics and experience for most of the war).

OK, I'll jump in here, and let it be shown I am only fallowing the Devs lead (only fallowing orders) with talking tanks and wishing to go over 50 pages.

True the Allied tanks don't get the respect they deserve, but that doesn't mean there wasn't generally better German armor. I do think the T-34 does get the respect it desrves, but the Kv tanks are over looked in popular media. The Discovery Channel, History channel & the former Military channel (now AHC) often has bad documentaries talking about the invasion of France and showing movie clips of long barreled Pz IV & Tigers! I am an image oriented person and think the images shown are as important as the text & voice over for telling correct history!

Now look at the Pz III & Pz IV compared to the Soviet BT series and the French & British tanks of 1940 they are much superior! At the time the U.S. could only make the Grant tank because no U.S. company could cast a large enough turret to hold a 75mm gun. The 3 man turret & radios in every tank, other nations later matched this. The T-34/76 had a 2 man turret and it was not until 1944 with the T-34/85 did it get a 3 man turret. The German military industrial complex was under much pressure 1942 & later and the still developed the Panther (I know it had problems) and was working other new designs. I would say Germany's opponents were playing fallow the leader in tank development during the war. Tanks alone don't win major wars.

The Tiger had a fearsome reputation with the G.I. and every German tank seemed to be a Tiger to the G.I. from what I have read/seen. Was this because of German tactics or tank design?

 

[Gamer_1745]

Its the fact that this game will represent hundreds of millions of people over a 10 year span of history

I very much would like to support this part of plasticpanzers statement! As a modern teaching tool I think HoI games are very important! Many people learn and/or retain their history from games like HoI! I believe people learn more from an interactive source than just reading a book or watching TV. I know there is more information in a book, but using the information helps people to retain it. Please keep this in mind as you build the game. I know a game needs to be fun & interesting to people and a boring game would not help people to learn! The more games Paradox sells the more people can learn history, so I don't want HoI or any other game to become a boring text book learning game.

Again, please keep this in mind as you build the game.

 

[PlacidDragon]

Now look at the Pz III & Pz IV compared to the Soviet BT series and the French & British tanks of 1940 they are much superior!

Dead wrong in regards to French and British tanks. Yes, the Panzers were superior to the BT series (the BT series were light tanks), but they were markedly inferior to both French and British designs in terms of armor and firepower (the Pz. III had a 37mm cannon at the invasion of France, the Pz. IV had a short barreled 75mm designed for infantry support). A Pz. III could shoot "all day" at a Matilda and get nowhere. Likewise really with the French Char B.

As you note, the German advantage lay in the basic design of the tanks (3 man turret, etc), as well as how they were employed (in large formations). They simply overran the enemy through sheer weight of numbers, and controlled the battlefield after the fight (which let them recover any knocked out vehicles, etc).

The Tiger had a fearsome reputation with the G.I. and every German tank seemed to be a Tiger to the G.I. from what I have read/seen. Was this because of German tactics or tank design?

The Tiger I looks very similar to a Pz. IV (its just bigger), that is probably the cause of a lot of it. When you have 30+ tons of steel bearing down on you, any tank is going to seem gigantic, hehe (when i was in the army, as part of the armored infantry, we did several exercises with the tank squadrons (Leopard I's). Now, a Leopard doesn't look too big when you stand beside it.. when it comes thundering down at you, its just a monster.. if it was shooting at you (and trying to hit you) on top of all that, i'd probably need a new pair of pants, hehe

Also, Tiger's were "premium targets".. most allied personell would probably mis-identify it just because of the prestige of knocking them out.

 

[Darkrenown]

Thats good because the Panther besides your arguments that hold little water is considered by the overwhelming majority of historians
to be one of, if not the best, of WW2's medium combat tanks. Virtually any book or even Google search will support this. It has less to
do with 'ease of construction' or numbers than use on the battlefield and in 2 years it earned its spot.

This is one point that Podcat and Darkrenown are totally wrong about.

EDIT: now folks will be scouring the web for statements one way or the other....

I've had 50 years to pretty much study them already so I know.

50 years of propaganda and SS war diary lies can certainly make the Panther look good. The picture started looking a bit different once the USSR fell and western historians could finally look at both side's accounts of the Eastern front. Are you unaware of this, or do you not think that all the earlier historians only having access to German sources might bias things a bit?

 

[Gamer_1745]

Yes, the Matilda II could only be knocked out by a Flak 18 88mm AA gun at the time. I think the effect of the Matilda II on the battlefield because of it's limitations (slow speed & other) was very limited. The Char B was also very limited by the hull mounted main gun and very limited operational range. I know we can continue to trade valid stats on the tanks, but I just see the Pz III & Pz IV as a whole as much better tanks.

You are correct about the Tigers, but the root of them being "premium targets" is how effective they were. No Italian tank generated the fear the Tiger did!

 

[Axe99]

I'm not sure if we should be starting a 'tanks but no tanks' thread at some point, or start talking about the IL-2 (nicknamed, amongst other things, 'the flying tank', so keeping it on topic ) .

Here is another point (lets see if we can push this thread past 50 pages!): I think german armor superiority is mostly just Discovery Channel fantasy feeding and allied and soviet tanks dont get the respect they deserve (talking equipment here. Germany had superior tactics and experience for most of the war).

My memory being what it is, I can't recall the source, but I do recall it was pretty good (I think it was a couple of sources - Liddell Hart's book and a specific book on the desert war) but during the desert war apparently the British tanks were fairly decent matches for the Germans, and superior in some areas, but the Brits kept driving their tanks into German formations supported by emplaced 88's which chewed them up - then assumed it was the German tanks that were wiping the floor with them, which helped develop the myth of invincible German armour.

 

[Radu]

50 years of propaganda and SS war diary lies can certainly make the Panther look good. The picture started looking a bit different once the USSR fell and western historians could finally look at both side's accounts of the Eastern front. Are you unaware of this, or do you not think that all the earlier historians only having access to German sources might bias things a bit?

So the reason for the dismissal of any German or US/British/French sources is that they are all pro-German bias...

Okay.

And how exactly are Soviet sources more reliable?

Let me rephrase : How exactly are the sources belonging to a totalitarian, murderous regime more reliable? What, the USSR was some pinnacle of a politics-free academia where absolutely no facts would be distorted?

You're presenting this as though the Western sources are these skewed Orwellian accounts where they've "always been at war with Eastasia" while the USSR holds the "true" story.

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but as somebody from a country that was on the wrong side of the Iron Courtain, to uplift Soviet historical sources above Western ones simply by the merit of confirming some preexisting biases, that's... that's not conducive to an immersive WW2 experience.

EDIT :

Really... to call 50 years of research "propaganda" and nigh-on pro-Nazi bias. This kind of blanket statement dismissing the lifelong works of individuals these past decades?

I'd expect this kind of statement from an internet troll.

And yet it comes from a HOI 4 dev. With precisely zero interest in research that doesn't confirm the views already in place.

 

[unmerged(83175)]

Ofcourse the Panther wasn't a bad tank and certainly not a 'crap' tank.
Was it the best tank of WWII or the best tank for Germany during WWII. That I don't know.

But overall it was imo a good tank.

The problem with the Panther tank was that it was a rushed design. The D variant wasn't good at all. The A was better and G was turning into a good tank. (The Ausf G was the third series of the Panther. Many design changes were made with this model, brought by recommendations from the troops in the field manning the Ausf D and A). The bold part is the important part.

The text between () is quoted from this book I have Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle. (1999 Edition).

Anyway for HoI4 it doesn't matter as tank are generic with an added flavour name. Same as every other model in HoI3 or 4.

AFAIK only two mods for HoI3 gave models unique stats instead of generic ones.

Edit:

So the reason for the dismissal of any German or US/British/French sources is that they are all pro-German bias...

Okay.

And how exactly are Soviet sources more reliable?

Let me rephrase : How exactly are the sources belonging to a totalitarian, murderous regime more reliable? What, the USSR was some pinnacle of a politics-free academia where absolutely no facts would be distorted?

You're presenting this as though the Western sources are these skewed Orwellian accounts where they've "always been at war with Eastasia" while the USSR holds the "true" story.

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but as somebody from a country that was on the wrong side of the Iron Courtain, to uplift Soviet historical sources above Western ones simply by the merit of confirming some preexisting biases, that's... that's not conducive to an immersive WW2 experience.

EDIT :

Really... to call 50 years of research "propaganda" and nigh-on pro-Nazi bias. This kind of blanket statement dismissing the lifelong works of individuals these past decades?

I'd expect this kind of statement from an internet troll.

And yet it comes from a HOI 4 dev. With precisely zero interest in research that doesn't confirm the views already in place.

Don't bother to try discussing with Darkrenown... It is a waste of time.

 

[PlacidDragon]

Yes, the Matilda II could only be knocked out by a Flak 18 88mm AA gun at the time. I think the effect of the Matilda II on the battlefield because of it's limitations (slow speed & other) was very limited. The Char B was also very limited by the hull mounted main gun and very limited operational range. I know we can continue to trade valid stats on the tanks, but I just see the Pz III & Pz IV as a whole as much better tanks.

They were both flawed in different ways, yes. And from a design standpoint, again yes, the German tanks were far better (not to mention, they were used better by the army). But in terms of sheer killing power (the few times the allies managed to point them the right way at the right time...lol), it wasn't even an uneven match. It was no contest at all, just a slaughter. But fortunately for the Germans, it was nothing that the flying artillery (Stuka's) and the 88's couldn't solve

You are correct about the Tigers, but the root of them being "premium targets" is how effective they were. No Italian tank generated the fear the Tiger did!

No tank at all, except possibly a T-34 in 1941 (before Germany could "upgun" its vehicles, did

And yes podcat, 50 pages here we come

 

[Darkrenown]

So the reason for the dismissal of any German or US/British/French sources is that they are all pro-German bias...

Okay.

And how exactly are Soviet sources more reliable?

Let me rephrase : How exactly are the sources belonging to a totalitarian, murderous regime more reliable? What, the USSR was some pinnacle of a politics-free academia where absolutely no facts would be distorted?

You're presenting this as though the Western sources are these skewed Orwellian accounts where they've "always been at war with Eastasia" while the USSR holds the "true" story.

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but as somebody from a country that was on the wrong side of the Iron Courtain, to uplift Soviet historical sources above Western ones simply by the merit of confirming some preexisting biases, that's... that's not conducive to an immersive WW2 experience.

EDIT :

Really... to call 50 years of research "propaganda" and nigh-on pro-Nazi bias. This kind of blanket statement dismissing the lifelong works of individuals these past decades?

I'd expect this kind of statement from an internet troll.

And yet it comes from a HOI 4 dev. With precisely zero interest in research that doesn't confirm the views already in place.

Don't be stupid, if you don't think having access to sources from both sides in a conflict makes for a more accurate picture than only using one... well, I don't know what to say to you there. The myth of German tank superiority almost always comes down to their claimed kills on the Eastern front, if you only look at the Panther vs the Allied forces in western Europe it gets traded at a slightly worse rate than the Sherman and horribly loses in one pitched battle - it's the stories of how 5 plucky German tanks held off 5000 rabid Soviets that people use to say the Panther was the bestest tank ever, but when these numbers could finally be cross-checked it turned out there were often far less tanks on the battlefield than the Germans claimed to have destroyed.

Of course, maybe the maintenance documents for Soviet tank armies were all elaborate forgeries designed for the express purpose of being sealed away for 50 years in order to discredit [the predicted] post war diaries of long-dead Germans only after the USSR fell

 

[frolix42]

50 years of propaganda and SS war diary lies can certainly make the Panther look good. The picture started looking a bit different once the USSR fell and western historians could finally look at both side's accounts of the Eastern front. Are you unaware of this, or do you not think that all the earlier historians only having access to German sources might bias things a bit?

This narrative doesn't make any sense.
1) What motivation would Soviet historians have to hide information about how the Panther was not a good tank? Seems like if anything their motivation would the same as most Russians today, to minimize Fascist accomplishments as much as possible.
2) What knowledge about the Panther's "bad qualities" were hidden from historical analysis by supposed Soviet secrets? History knew about the failure of the Panther at Kursk long before glasnost.
3) It is not like we had access to only German accounts of WW2.
4) Or that the mainstream post-war German historiography of the Third Reich have been in any way non-critical. It's been exceedingly critical in some cases, after all Albert Speer (who was notorious for exaggerating, taking credit and rewriting history) said that the Panther was too heavy because of that darn Hitler.

But then again according to Albert Speer practically everything Germany did right was because of Albert Speer. Everything Germany did that was foolish or evil was because of Hitler and Speer's political enemies, who were conveniently not around to defend themselves.

 

[Beagá]

People, not this again...

Wanna talk about it, history forum or OTHER thread.

 

[unmerged(83175)]

Don't be stupid, if you don't think having access to sources from both sides in a conflict makes for a more accurate picture than only using one... well, I don't know what to say to you there. The myth of German tank superiority almost always comes down to their claimed kills on the Eastern front, if you only look at the Panther vs the Allied forces in western Europe it gets traded at a slightly worse rate than the Sherman and horribly loses in one pitched battle - it's the stories of how 5 plucky German tanks held off 5000 rabid Soviets that people use to say the Panther was the bestest tank ever, but when these numbers could finally be cross-checked it turned out there were often far less tanks on the battlefield than the Germans claimed to have destroyed.

Of course, maybe the maintenance documents for Soviet tank armies were all elaborate forgeries designed for the express purpose of being sealed away for 50 years in order to discredit [the predicted] post war diaries of long-dead Germans only after the USSR fell

Phew lucky for us you can't accuse the former Soviet Union or today Russia from a bit of patriotic news spreading or bending history.