Hearts of Iron IV - Development Diary 2 - The Tools of War

[Vacceo]

There is a little detail I actually love: the last model is the grandpa of nowadays MBT´s, thus phasing out heavy and super heavy tanks. It may sound stupid, but it actually makes a lot of senses as most tank designs in the world phased-out the hevies or basically unified the heavy and medium concept.

I also wonder how the system will manage stockpiles. I guess it will be abstracted, as factoring the chaos in the armament of conflicts like the Spanish Civil War (Republicans used almost anything avalible, from mosins to mausers, to BAR´s, even arisaka´s). I guess it can all be abstracted to "rifles from 1936".

 

[dschoen]

Very interesting...

A criticism I wish to level here, however is regarding the bit about having 4 variants per chassis. Please do not make the unit trees symmetrical - Pz IV should not have the same number of variants as Pz VI Panther, or Sherman, or Ha-Go. German industry had a very distinctive approach to design, so did US, so did USSR, etc.
Homogeneity, symmetry is attractive, but ultimately boring. Differences, quirks are what make it all interesting and distinct.

Seconded.

Having more or fewer variants per chassis would reflect real-life design decision and, as you mentioned, would give each nation a much more distinctive feel. Since each country had unique development philosophies, this would be both historically accurate and immersive.

 

[Niko92]

Having unique tech trees for certain countries could be quite interesting.

You could have something like armor_technology.txt that is generic to all countries, and then GER_armor_technology.txt to replace a tech branch just for a certain country.

 

[jat85]

Seconded.

Having more or fewer variants per chassis would reflect real-life design decision and, as you mentioned, would give each nation a much more distinctive feel. Since each country had unique development philosophies, this would be both historically accurate and immersive.

But why should the game prevent you from making different design decisions? Flavor is certainly desirable, but not unnecessary restrictions IMHO.

 

[Vacceo]

There is another element, I have just realized, that sounds very promising. Managing division composition brigade by brigade is a awful lot of micromanagement especially for production. If you can configure a division that has a template for troop types (x tanks, y soldiers, z pieces of artillery...) and let the chain of production fill it it it will save a huge amount of time.

 

[mursolini]

There is a little detail I actually love: the last model is the grandpa of nowadays MBT´s, thus phasing out heavy and super heavy tanks. It may sound stupid, but it actually makes a lot of senses as most tank designs in the world phased-out the hevies or basically unified the heavy and medium concept.

Yes, but MBT is a concept that is was implemented least a decade after games end, and that is by generous estimate.

Both Americans and Soviets did develop, build and futher developed heavy and medium tanks into 1950s, and did theoretical designs in 1960s.

And the Soviet tank doctrine had several ifferent types of MBTs present, more quality and expencive(T-64 and T-80), and more oriented for mass production(T-55 and T-72) respectivly, which kinda questions about can Soviet cold war tank doctrine be actually called MBT, as it had several "main battle tanks" which renders the name moot.

 

[Vacceo]

That´s why I call it the "grandpa" of MBT´s.

After Yom Kippur, Soviets clearly realized that a heavy tank was not that great idea. But still and honestly, any MBT of the 60´s was pretty much a heavy by WWII standards, so...

 

[mursolini]

That´s why I call it the "grandpa" of MBT´s.

After Yom Kippur, Soviets clearly realized that a heavy tank was not that great idea. But still and honestly, any MBT of the 60´s was pretty much a heavy by WWII standards, so...

Yes, however, MBTs were not built untill midlle into 1950s, and tank doctrine focused around them didn`t arrive till later. Having MBTs in WW2 is ridiculous and defies history.

Soviets built IS-3, IS-10 and used them till mid-70s, while the main tank of army was T-55, and later T-62, T-64, and only T-64A and futher thanks were deemed MBTs.
US had M46,M47, M48 mediums and M103 heavies in service till 1957.

MBTs should not be in the game, nor should an MBT doctrine be.

As for "grandpa of MBTs" IS-2 would definitely qualify far better then E-50.

 

[LeeDub]

Yes, however, MBTs were not built untill midlle into 1950s, and tank doctrine focused around them didn`t arrive till later. Having MBTs in WW2 is ridiculous and defies history.

Soviets built IS-3, IS-10 and used them till mid-70s, while the main tank of army was T-55, and later T-62, T-64, and only T-64A and futher thanks were deemed MBTs.
US had M46,M47, M48 mediums and M103 heavies in service till 1957.

MBTs should not be in the game, nor should an MBT doctrine be.

As for "grandpa of MBTs" IS-2 would definitely qualify far better then E-50.

Nowhere in that tech tree does it say "MBT"... Nothing to worry about.

 

[mursolini]

Nowhere in that tech tree does it say "MBT"... Nothing to worry about.

It has a single tank variant in 1945, while realistically heavies should have their models at least till 1955.
and even then, you would have a few paralel lines of MBTs, at least for SU.

 

[Centurion1973]

It has a single tank variant in 1945, while realistically heavies should have their models at least till 1955.
and even then, you would have a few paralel lines of MBTs, at least for SU.

Well I would say that Centurion was pretty good MBT - first were delivered in 45 and with some upgrades it still wiped the floor with T-55s and T-62s in 1973.

btw.: concept of MBT was significantly different in USSR and West - their designs were close to difference between medium (USSR) and heavy (West) tanks.

 

[Big Nev]

There is a little detail I actually love: the last model is the grandpa of nowadays MBT´s, thus phasing out heavy and super heavy tanks. It may sound stupid, but it actually makes a lot of senses as most tank designs in the world phased-out the hevies or basically unified the heavy and medium concept.

I also wonder how the system will manage stockpiles. I guess it will be abstracted, as factoring the chaos in the armament of conflicts like the Spanish Civil War (Republicans used almost anything avalible, from mosins to mausers, to BAR´s, even arisaka´s). I guess it can all be abstracted to "rifles from 1936".

Seconded.

Having more or fewer variants per chassis would reflect real-life design decision and, as you mentioned, would give each nation a much more distinctive feel. Since each country had unique development philosophies, this would be both historically accurate and immersive.

Also seconded.

Or is it thirded?

The quirks & odd-ball variants are what makes it interesting.

The TD, as separate from an AG is a must, as is the AG IMHO. SP artillery on the basic chassis, also a must. Rockets on tanks? Yes, it was done so let’s have it at least as an option so you can mass produce them if you want.

And then three’s my personal favourite sub-tech for light tanks. The amphibious, torpedo tank.

Applause please for the Ka Mi armed with a pair of Long Lance torpedoes.

Please PDX. Don't abstract this out to Amphibious Warfare tech' or Engineers Assault Equipment.

And speaking of the Long Lance... Will we see a decent naval combat model with crap Western torpedoes & propper "Oh SHIT! we've struck a mine!" Japanese torpedoes.

 

[mursolini]

Well I would say that Centurion was pretty good MBT - first were delivered in 45 and with some upgrades it still wiped the floor with T-55s and T-62s in 1973.

btw.: concept of MBT was significantly different in USSR and West - their designs were close to difference between medium (USSR) and heavy (West) tanks.

Centurion was not an MBT when it was designed. There were also real attempts to build a heavy british tanks. All the "first generation" of MBTs is basically clasified as such much later, after they were already in service for quite some time. They were developed as mediums, and often had heavy conterpart in service.

 

[Centurion1973]

Centurion was not an MBT when it was designed. There were also real attempts to build a heavy british tanks. All the "first generation" of MBTs is basically clasified as such much later, after they were already in service for quite some time. They were developed as mediums, and often had heavy conterpart in service.

IMO Centurion fits western MBT description pretty well - most western MBTs could in HoI terms be considered as heavy tanks, because they prioritized armor and firepower over mobility.

 

[Stafroty]

hope there is not going to be superheavy tanks.. i think there wasnt bridges too strong for them..

 

[Surt]

hope there is not going to be superheavy tanks.. i think there wasnt bridges too strong for them..

Tell that to Hitler, Stalin and the Military-Industrial-Complex!

 

[mursolini]

IMO Centurion fits western MBT description pretty well - most western MBTs could in HoI terms be considered as heavy tanks, because they prioritized armor and firepower over mobility.

Yes, but again, a Centurion was not an MBT when it was developed, nor was it intended to be an MBT on the drawing board. The doctrine was developed after tanks like Centurion appeared. So, as I said, MBT as a doctrine and MBTs that are specifically designed to be "MBT"s started in 1960s. 1950s were spend doing reserch on what could be achieved in heavy tank departments, with M103, IS10, and FV 214 Conqueror heavy tanks being developed and produced in 1950s, and only then, did both sides of cold war decide that having both heavy and medium tanks were not worth it. Having an MBT, not as a medium or heavy tank that was chosen to be the only tank, but as a tech tree where you only get a single tank choice, in 1945 or even 1948, is ridiculous and against the history. Heavy, light, and medium trees should have their continuation into 50s in HOI4 tech tree not have an invariable MBT as the only option at 1945 tech level.

 

[Sky_WKing]

Centurion is designed as a "universal tank" since the Brits didn't classify their tanks as "light", "medium", or "heavy". Instead, they had infantry and cruiser tanks. The universal tank is one that can be used as either. The conqueror was a response to IS-3 and T-10; very few were built, and were short lived in service. Therefore it is safe to say Centurion was the first MBT. The T-54/55 was designed as a medium, though it was in fact an MBT. The "one tank doctrine" was not immediately adopted by the Soviets after the war. That's because Kotin, designer of the IS series, was a very powerful figure in the armament department and used political tricks against his oppositions, who advocated T-54/55 as a single standardized tank. The Soviets went on spending enormous amount of money and resources on the useless heavy tanks, until Kotin lost grip on the armament department after Khrushchev took power.
In fact it's the Americans that came in 10 years late in the MBT game. They were too stubborn and stuck to the idea of separate "76mm-gun", "90mm-gun", and "120mm-gun" tanks. And when they designed the M60 Pattons, the Brits and Soviets already had superior designs like Chieftain and T-62 (at least more impressive on paper).

 

[Red_warning]

Nope, worst case they have "Basic/Improved/Advanced Medium tank" etc.

Add Swedish armour please, we had a pretty big industry during the war.

It could be quite interesting tbh, a country that will be neutral in most games that other minors could buy blueprints from.

 

[scroggin]

Very interesting...

A criticism I wish to level here, however is regarding the bit about having 4 variants per chassis. Please do not make the unit trees symmetrical - Pz IV should not have the same number of variants as Pz VI Panther, or Sherman, or Ha-Go. German industry had a very distinctive approach to design, so did US, so did USSR, etc.
Homogeneity, symmetry is attractive, but ultimately boring. Differences, quirks are what make it all interesting and distinct.

This raises the question of should HOI4 only be capable of simulating what was done or should it also be able to simulate what could have been done?