• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 4, 2001
2.082
0
holmanserver.homeip.net
This all depends on how long the game period will be. I'd suggest somewhere before 1926, since that is when China gets really messy. If it goes past 1926, there will be a lot of tags required to represent the revolution properly.

Warlord groups in 1926:
Feng-tien faction (Cahng Tso-lin)
Kuo-min-chun (Feng Yu-hsiang)
Chihli faction (Wu P'ei-fu)
T'ang Chi-yao

The Northern Expedition:
Kuomintang (the future Nationalist China... in 1926 it the Kuomintang was an alliance between the very small Communist groups and of course the fairly strong Nationalists)
 
Last edited:

unmerged(11758)

Private
Nov 18, 2002
18
0
Visit site
Hey, when do you guys plan on releasing this bugger? I'm really anxious to get my hands on it and help in any way I can.
 
Jul 10, 2002
798
0
Visit site
TF means Territorial Force... more generals/personalities/naval stuff...

Thanks for the kind words fellows. I'm just glad to be of service.

What is the prospective scale? Like should I provide the names/numbers of the various battalions involved?

TF means Territorial Force, the British version of the militia though, I would expect from its performance during the war, more than a few were of even better quality than 'normal militia'. It was part of Kitchener's snobbery that these divisions were sort of 'looked down upon' and received numbers of lower seniority than Kitchener's 'New Armys' of volunteers, but many later rendered good service including the 51st Highlanders and 54th Lancashires. It was the same case for the Yeomanry cavalry, many regiments having gained invaluable experience in the Boer war. British militia should, I suspect have a naturally higher value than militia of other nations (though perhaps the US National Guard would be comparable to it) and some, like the Russian Opolenchie were of miserable quality. I suppose it would be more 'realistic' in game terms to make the militia/TF of equal quality but have certain upgrades available to make them of better fighting quality. The TF contingents SHOULD be included as militia divisions as many later were upgraded to fighting divisions. Many districts actually had more than one... perhaps we could actually arrange it with the District as the Corps size unit and the cadre of divisions as the subunits. Would that be better? I'll use this listing here as Corps basis and fill you in on the subunits. I would petition, however, for the Guards Brigade to be included as a separate Corps size unit as later the regiments (all regiments were) expanded and the whole Brigade became divisional sized (the famous Guards and during WW2 Guards Armoured Division).

The TF would be present only in the British Isles and Ireland. Elsewhere there would be locally raised defense forces, local Corps and the like. The first few divisions (Cavalry, 1-8th Regular) were part of the BEF. I could provide a corps organization if you would want but I'll need to know the scale we're going for. Likewise the Indian Army would be subdivided into various territorially based brigades (I have the info somewhere but I'll have to look for it).

I hope the naval tech tree wasn't too 'heavy' but the ship developments particularly the 'generations' of dreadnoughts were really, I believe, accurate to the development of the ships. There were tiny appreciable differences - early dreadnoughts guns were not all along the centerline and as such broadside weights would not be as heavy as lets say later guns. Upgrades would not have been an option (any way to disable this) and it was easier to scrap ships or send them off to far away stations to 'show the flag'. If you could show me how to (as if I was a 3 year old in the words of Denzel Washington) I could do your naval tech tree for you. I don't mind doing those many divisions in warships and I think that each little development reflected a relevant concern of naval thought. I only included the tech tree as going back to the 19th century to reflect either the minor navies or the 'primitive' navies. Again, please let me know just which countries will be finally involved. But for our purposes we should start with The Steel Navy on the tech tree (the others are for that hypothetical pre-1914 scenario or earlier). By the way, the prerequisite for all 'The New Navy' developments should be 'MAHAN, Influence of Seapower on History' w/c influenced just about all naval thinking, even national thinking, of the period. Simply stated it postulates that a Nation's power was equivalent to her naval power and the way to victory was through control of the seas, specifically by the destruction of the enemy's battle fleet. It went against the ideas of the Jeune Ecole (Young School) - perhaps the two can be conflicting ideas or different options (you can go with one but not the other) because one (Mahan) focuses on building powerful battle fleets with the objective of destroying the battle fleet of the enemy (offensive doctrine) without dissipating strength for raiding cruisers and lighter ships and the other (Jeune Ecole) focuses on a more defensive strategy with coastal defense warships, raiding cruisers to harass sealanes and torpedo boats for local defense.

As to Carriers and Subs, thanks for filling that in DrBolo - first level should be plain experimentation and the various components such as seaplanes, cranes, flight decks, steam and steam catapults should be researched, the next level should be converted small warships/merchant ships, next should be converted big warships w/c became the first true carriers (Furious, Courageous, Glorious, Eagle) - any chance that we could send certain ships back to the force pool for repairs (and conversion)? Then and only then did navys start building from the keel up dedicated carriers but these were tiny little things (Argus, Hermes and Hosho). Metal decks did not become the vogue till WW2 neither were hurricane bows (ala Ark Royal or Illustrious w/c were so called because they closed up the bow area against heavy seas w/c protected crew and aircraft, unlike the earlier open bowed carriers such as Yorktown or Akagi class.) so ships would be pretty much similar designs to the Furious (first design - the second design was the all flat deck with a small island) or Courageous. I seriously doubt any aircraft carrier at that time would be able to carry 2 air divisions. All aircraft carried were strike aircraft vs ground targets. Midway-esque combat was probably not even thought of at that time. Perhaps you could have a 'Billy Mitchell' event or something that would spur research into this but realistically it would not be a viable option.

Submarines - there should not be a 'long range' submarine as such - subs weren't that developed yet. There should be, however, many interesting experiments particularly for the French and British in the area of 'submarine cruisers' - submarines with heavy armament that would act like raiding cruisers (this was done, I suspect, to fulfill the Cruiser rules requirements that submarines should surface, order their victim to abandon ship and then sink it - when Britain began disguising ASW 'Q-ships' as harmless merchant ships or creating AMCs 'Armed Merchant Cruisers' the Germans replied with Unrestricted Submarine Warfare). Ships like the Surcouf were a distinct possibility. This was, however, a totally different path than the one taken by Germany w/c postulated TRUE submarine warfare.

As for transports - another neglected topic, so sorry - there should be normal bulk/merchant transports - Q ships (good only vs subs) or AMC (Armed Merchant Cruisers) as defense against raiding cruisers and also Ocean Liners. These should be very expensive to raise/maintain but much faster than normal transports and armed with very minimal or no defensive armament.

I've been reading a book on theories and theoreticians of war and theres another name that I should include in the tech tree - Giulio Douhet. He was the proponent of the bomber that influenced Goering and Harris' strategies during WW2. His concept was the heavily armed bomber would always get through and war must be made on the cities and civilian population to break the civilian morale w/c he postulated was the weak link in the military chain.

I think we should consider things like this. Moral and morale considerations. Civilian morale and dissent should be important factors particularly late war with Communism and revolution and mutiny being valid concerns. Like Vietnam in WW1 - the civilian support for a war can never be underestimated. Contrasted with this is the 'gentlemanly' conduct as typefied by the Hague Convention of 1898(?) that forbade many ungentlemanly war conducts and weapons. Subscription to the Hague Convention would mean a huge reduction in dissent as the people would be happy that their men were fighting an honorable, 'civilized' war. These would, naturally be transgressed later in the war, but at cost perhaps in civilian dissent.

Interestingly enough these 'theoreticians' (so many generals in this war should be considered 'theoreticians' or 'armchair strategists') had very little practical experience at war and when war came many of their theories died with the men who were forced to test them out. Perhaps only Mahan had any real practical experience (in the ACW and Spanish American Wars). Douhet never really flew and spent the war discharged after insulting/contradicting a superior officer and one critic said that "Douhet's pilots always found their targets and Douhet's weather was always clear" so men like him should be of the lowest rank (MajGen) with maybe a value of 1 but with the quality SUPERIOR TACTICIAN.

Some leaders I can think of, just off the cuff:

Col. Ernest Swinton - proponent of the tank, though his version of tank warfare
was tank support of the infantry.
Col. Billy Mitchell - proponent of airpower. Actual combat service over France.
Should have a (3) perhaps.
Capt.Alfred Mahan - proponent of naval power. Served on naval staff during
the war. Maybe a (2).
Col. Giulio Douhet - proponent of airpower. Idealistic big-mouth, proponent of
the bomber vs civilian population as a morale breaker.
Capt. Alfred Dudley Pound - captain of a BB during Jutland later became
First Sea Lord during the first years of WW2.
Capt. Miklos Horthy - Austro-Hungarian captain renowned for his daring attack
on the Otranto Barrage. Later dictator of Hungary. (4)
Gen. Hugh "Boom" Trenchard - first commander of the newly formed RAF.
Commanded during the last year of war. (3)
Col. Ferdinand Foch - aggressive, obnoxious, supposedly the victor of the
Marne. Another theoretician at war. (3)
Gen.Paul Strasser - Germany's airship commander during the war.
Germany's second aircraft carrier was named after him.(2 or 3)
FM Voivode Putnik - Serbia's Commanding General. Conducted a valiant but
hopeless campaign against the Austrians in the opening days of
the war. Tough and aggressive. (3)
Gen.Robert Baden-Powell - founder of the boy scouts and master of irregular
warfare. Not employed during the war. (2) TRICKSTER/SUP.TACT.
Gen. Douglas Haig - tough British commander in chief during the war.
Started as a Corps commander. Not above using deceptive or
underhanded political methods to get his way. Held responsible
by many (up to this day) for the slaughter of British manhood on
the Western Front. (4) OLD SCHOOL, Intriguer (?)
Gen. Edmund Allenby - big, tough British cavalry leader who found immortal
glory in Palestine. (4) BLITZ COMMANDER.
Gen. Alexei Brusilov - the most brilliant Russian commander of the war,
he was overtaken by the fateful events of 1917. (5) SUP.TACT.
Grand Duke Nicholas - brother of the Czar, he was every Russian's idea how
a Czar was supposed to look - and act! Kicked upstairs by his
jealous brother. (3)
Gen Luigi Cadorna - CoS of the Italian Army in 1914 and commander of the
Armies who was soundly defeated at Caporetto. (4)
Gen. Erich von Falkenhayen - CoS in 1914 after Von Moltke's failure at the
Marne. Failed to take Verdun 1916-17. (3) SUP.TACT.
Gen.John French - Commander of the BEF, replaced by his rival Haig
who was, ironically, a Francophobe. Cavalry commander during
the Boer war. Dismissed after failure of the Battle of Loos. (3)
Col.Ian Hamilton - CoS to Kitchener during the Boer War. Commander of the
Gallipoli landings. Felt by many to be indecisive and unwilling to
press the correct course toward victory. (3)
Gen. Paul von Hindenburg - first member of the triumvirate of successful
German generals of the war. Built up his soldier's morale and
confidence and was rewarded by Presidency of the Weimar Republic
post war (5)
Gen. Erich Ludendorff - the second member of the triumvirate he was the
brains of the operation planning the destruction of the Russian armies
and later formulating the plans that brought Germany to the
brink of victory in 1918. (5) SUPERIOR TACTICIAN
Gen.Max Hoffmann - the third member of the triumvirate he was their efficient
CoS who received the Eastern Front command after von H and L
were assigned to the western front. (4) SUPERIOR TACTICIAN
FM Conrad v.Hoetzendorff - AH's premier field commander who built up the
Austrian mountain divisions into formidable fighting forces through
merciless training. (4) SUPERIOR TACTICIAN.
Col. Alfred Krauss - later became CoS to Archduke Eugene at Caporetto.
A brilliant commander on offense and defense. (4)
Col. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck - wily commander of German SW African forces
undefeated by Allied forces to the end of the war (5) TRICKSTER.
Col.John Monash - Australian Commander known for his capture of the
Villers Brettoneux ridge by combined air-land attacks. (4)
Col. Baron Manfred von Richthoven - Red Baron, nuff said (4)
Col.Hermann Goering - Red Baron's successor, Fat Hermann Meyer (3)
Col. Georg von Trapp - the legendary head of the famous Von Trapp's
Austrias foremost sub commander of the war (4) SEAWOLF.

* Most generals unless specifically stated should be of the OLD SCHOOL.
* When marked Col. they should actually probably be Major General.
* Personally, if they are graduates of the German General Staff and not
political appointees, most German Generals should have the quality
of SUPERIOR TACTICIAN.

Perhaps we could make oil sources terribly limited so that coal would be converted for use instead of oil. Most ships except for 4th Generation Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were coal burners (I think I included Oil Fired Turbines in my list of tech advancements).

Actually a lot would really depend on what you'd want. I personally would want to include the minutae of ship developments to give it period 'flavor' - one of the reasons for the war was the naval arms race between the great powers where each development would be countered by another and ships improved and improved till their reached their epitome (for that war) with the Hood/Queen Elizabeth classes. It is a testament to the durability of the class that ships like Warspite were very nearly 'unsinkable' fighting in this war and all throughout WW2.

Regards,
Richmond
 

solops

First Lieutenant
89 Badges
Mar 30, 2001
214
27
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Impire
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Deus Vult
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Ancient Space
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
Naval Tech

Naval technology experienced incredible changes throughout WWI and the period immediately before it, particularly in the areas of capital ship design, engines, main guns and submarine tech. There are several good books on subs and the US Naval Institute publishes an outstanding two volume history of pre-dreadnought and dreadnought BBs that details a lot of the surface ship developments.
 

unmerged(3125)

Sergeant
Apr 18, 2001
73
0
Visit site
Re: TF means Territorial Force... more generals/personalities/naval stuff...

Originally posted by Richmond516
Great job so far. Like you said, Steel Navy on your chart should be a good starting point for naval tech. I also like the idea of creating two branches of naval ideologies/ship types, which I think is possible with the "deactivate" function.

However, I think that we should stick to no more than three or four ship types per class, as the more complex the tech and unit gets, the longer it will take to complete the mod and increases the chances of errors creeping in.

Besides, I believe that the real difference was in crew training and proficiency (= organization in HoI), not the actual hardware, since any nation could have purchased battleships comparable to those of the Royal Navy, but would never dare challenge British ships just because they had the same hardware. During the Russo-Japanese War, both sides had similar ships, but different levels of training which made all the difference. Therefore, it might be best to have a fewer types of ships, but plenty of breakthroughs that increase naval organization to reflect naval discrepancy around the world.

Also agree that carriers should only carry 1 air division. However, for the sake of gameplay, thought it might be a good idea to give submarines (especially Germany's) longer legs as to offset the Alliance's naval inferiority.

As for the transports, the idea of Q-ships and armed merchantmen are great, but I do not think that their bonuses will be retained once they are sent on convoy duty, which is what submarines mostly prey on in HoI.
 

unmerged(3125)

Sergeant
Apr 18, 2001
73
0
Visit site
I have worked on a few more techs over the weekend. However, I have two questions.

1. It is agreed that we early ships should be fueled only by supplies (which comes from coal) and no oil. However, once the tech is achieved, should all naval ships, even the early models, start using oil, or should oil be used only by the newer types? Another point to keep in mind is that submarines must use oil from the very beginning.

2. In the original tech tree, we have light and heavy aircraft. However, lot of people have proposed balloons, zeppelins and dirigibles, so I had a problem trying to find a category for them, since their size range from tiny observation balloons to long-range bombers.

One solution I have is to place all lighter-than-air craft in the Light Aircraft category and all heavier-than-air craft in the Heavy category to minimize confusion. While I doubt we can actually create zeppelins, the Light Aircraft category may provide various bonuses and prerequisites for other units, like Electronics or the various Doctrines.

Armor

B100 Cavalry Technology
Bolt-Action Magazine Carbine
Modern Load-Bearing Saddle
Animal Gas Mask

B200 Military Vehicle Technology
Internal Combustion Engine
Motor Transportation
Military Truck and Utility Vehicle

B300 Early Armored Vehicle
Basic Armored Car
Motorized Earth Mover
Vehicle Maintenance Battalion
Intermediate Armored Car

B400 Tank Prototype
Tank Gear
Tank Suspension
Gasoline Tank Engine
Riveted Armor
Tank Prototype Tests
Tank Production

B500 Basic Tank
Tank MG Armament
Female Tank Prototype Tests Deactivate Male Tank PT
Female Tank
Tank Gun Armament
Male Tank Prototype Tests Deactivate Female Tank PT
Male Tank
Basic Optical Sights
Rotating Turret
Advanced Armored Car

B600 Light Tank Deactivate B700, B800
Crew Coordination (2+)
Armored Scout Tactics
Light Tank Prototype Tests
Light Tank

B700 Cruiser Tank Deactivate B600, B800
Crew Coordination (4+)
Armored Exploitation Tactics
Cruiser Tank Prototype Tests
Cruiser Tank

B800 Land Battleship Deactivate B600, B700
Crew Coordination (6+)
Armored Assault Tactics
Land Battleship Prototype Tests
Land Battleship

B900 Advanced Tank Technology
Welded Armor
Improved Optical Sights
Diesel Tank Engine
Sloped Armor
Armor Skirts

Electronics

C100 Telegraph & Telephone
C101 Coded Transmissions
C102 Military Signal Corps
C103 Undersea Cable System
C104 Field Telephone Set
C105 Divisional Telephone System

C200 Wireless Communications
C201 Ground Wireless Station
C202 Naval Wireless Set
C203 Aircraft Wireless Set

C300 Signal Analysis
C301 Signal Interception
C302 Signal Security
C303 Signal Encryption

C400 Mobile Communications
C401 Vehicle Intercom
C402 Inter-Vehicle Radio
C403 Man-Portable Radio

C500 Cryptography
C501 Tabulating Machine
C502 Encryption-Decryption Gear
C503 Electronic Data Storage
C504 Cryptographic Software
 

unmerged(12117)

Second Lieutenant
Nov 29, 2002
108
0
Visit site
Comments on Various Topics

Been tied down with work but I’ve tried to catch up with the thread. Awesome input and progress on filling in leader and technological details. Following are some thoughts based on my catching up.

RUBBER AND OIL: On the high level I think it’s agreed that Coal and Steel are the key resources in this period. Oil and Rubber were used and useful but secondary, and oil production in particular was well below later levels. If the economy, however, is hard coded in the exe files to require 1 Rubber per 2 ICs, then to reduce the importance of Rubber allow Coal to substitute by allowing 1:1 conversion, so each IC requires 2.5 Coal and 1 Steel. Rubber itself is still quite relevant, as its availability reduces the need for Coal in equal amount and therefore increases available ICs--this helps reflect the “ersatz” burdens faced by the Central Alliance, which were problematic but not crippling.

Also, if you are already converting Coal to Oil to Rubber, there's no reason not to have ships run on oil as appropriate as would AFVs and aircraft.

Rest of comments in alphabetical order:

ALLIANCES:

Could the defensive alliances in the game be represented by events? I.e., if a nation is attacked, then those other nations with which it has defensive treaties have a percentage chance of joining it in that war. If you declare war, however, you may be out of luck as there may be no treaty obligation.

Regarding aligntments, I don’t think Japan or the US could be more than loosely aligned with the Entente. The US should probably be in the middle of the triangle with an Entente bias. It was certainly not a foregone conclusion that the US would ever enter a European war.

Belgium was neutral, not only by inclination but as a key element of the European balance of power. It should only join one side or another if attacked. It should be sitting neutrally in the middle of the triangle and hoping to sit out the war like The Netherlands and Switzerland.

Shouldn’t Greece start skewed to the Entente?

As for Italy, IIRC its position was that its treaty obligations to the Alliance did not require it to go to war in 1914, but that it might have done so had the Alliance been attacked. Ultimately it was able to justify going to war on the other side (but it doing so in 1914 would be quite a stretch). Does someone fresher on the diplomatic and political history recall the details? Certainly we can all agree that for Italy Austria was the enemy and where it sought territorial justice. Maybe this is handled by placing Italy between Alliance and Entente and including appropriate events that raise Italy’s war entry.

ALLIANCE AND COMINTERN: Rather than a third Independent part of the triangle, there could be a Comintern that is simply inactive until red revolution of some form strikes one or more countries after several wearying years of war. It happened in Russia, and the Bolsheviks managed to come out on top since the more numerous democratic and republican interests were divided and uncoordinated (and much weaker than in Western European countries). Attempts in other European countries ultimately failed in the ‘10s and ‘20s. However, socialism was a strong force in other European countries and a revolution was a possibility there as well, probably tied to Dissent, casualties, and military defeat. BTW, under this model the first country to go Red should get a large stockpile of Diplomatic Influence points as the standard bearer of the new order, and there should be some automatic diplomatic adjustments to other countries upon revolution based on strength of the Marxist movements there and the war situation, thus increasing the probability of a coup succeeding.

This approach makes more sense if the game runs for 10+ years. I can just see people trying to engineer themselves into a red revolution.


ARMED MERCHANTMEN AND TRANSPORTS: Represent by increase in anti-sub capabilities of destroyers used on escort duty. As this basically allowed the surface ships to surprise the sub, sub detection might the factor to focus on.

ARMOR: Why have Female and Male tank types preclude each other? I would suggest allowing the proliferation of weird early experimentation before limiting a country to a doctrinal path later on.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS: It’s looking like these may be hard to implement in an easily understandable and effective way. Given that both sides use of these ultimately cancelled each other out, I would suggest not getting stalled on this relative detail.

ELECTRONICS: I like the basic communications categories, signal analysis and cryptography. However, some of the innovations are somewhat “sci fi” for this period, such as aircraft wireless and man and vehicle portable radios (particularly ones reliable in field conditions).

INFANTRY TECHNOLOGY: Looks good, Dr Bolo. I assume that some of the artillery developments are also going to feed into infantry combat factors.

NAVAL: Awesome detailed input. Kind of sad that, Jutland aside, the admirals never got to fully play with all their new toys, something which may be different in the game.

PROVINCE SCRIPTING/ECONOMY SIZE: I would suggest starting with the HOI 1936 scenario and the 2 most important adjustments: reduction of US and Russian industrial capacity. Basing ICs for game purposes on raw production stats is misleading as the US totals should be further reduced because of the civilian and non-military nature of the economy and industrial base as well as technology development. Unlike today, the US was a nation unready for war and it took time to adapt to military production. Remember American fliers had to use French airplanes for lack of domestically produced ones. The US was just getting into full gear with war conversion when the war in Europe suddenly ended.

Using this as a measure, I suggest initial US ICs at about the level of the UK and have four +50 IC boosts at 6-month intervals after the US goes to war.

Personaly, I've looked at some of the data files and can understand what they are supposed to do but I don't have the hang of HOI scripting myself.

SL
 

unmerged(3125)

Sergeant
Apr 18, 2001
73
0
Visit site
Re: Comments on Various Topics

Originally posted by SilentLawyer
Been tied down with work but I’ve tried to catch up with the thread. Awesome input and progress on filling in leader and technological details. Following are some thoughts based on my catching up.

Good to have you back. I can't answer all of the questions, but...

Could the defensive alliances in the game be represented by events?

Perhaps with the use of events, a nation within an alliance can refuse to enter an offensive war with some penalties (+ dissent, loss of trade agreements, etc.).

Regarding aligntments, I don’t think Japan or the US could be more than loosely aligned with the Entente.

Your point about the US is valid, but I thought Japan had an alliance with the UK, thus placing Japan closer to the Entente.

ALLIANCE AND COMINTERN: Rather than a third Independent part of the triangle, there could be a Comintern that is simply inactive until red revolution of some form strikes one or more countries after several wearying years of war.

Can we keep an alliance inactive? My concern is that some small nation becomes head of the Comintern and later drag the Soviet Union into unrelated wars in Latin America or Asia.

ARMOR: Why have Female and Male tank types preclude each other?

Perhaps not historic, but to add a bit of spice to the gameplay, where a player can decide whether he wants to get less effective tanks earlier or wait a while to get more effective tanks. I like that feature of HoI, where the player can decide on the armament of the tank, but if people don't like it, perhaps we can work on a different armor tech tree.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS: It’s looking like these may be hard to implement in an easily understandable and effective way.

Agreed.

ELECTRONICS: I like the basic communications categories, signal analysis and cryptography. However, some of the innovations are somewhat “sci fi” for this period, such as aircraft wireless and man and vehicle portable radios (particularly ones reliable in field conditions).

Mind lending me a hand? It has been a while since I studied the Great War and I am bound to have mistakes.

PROVINCE SCRIPTING/ECONOMY SIZE:

If the UK is going to control the entire British Empire, perhaps somebody should also look into the total resource and industrial base of the British.
 

unmerged(12117)

Second Lieutenant
Nov 29, 2002
108
0
Visit site
Response to Dr Bolo Comments

Thanks, Doc.

JAPAN: The alliance was oriented to preserving both countries’ positions in the Pacific, only obligating them to go to war if multiple powers went to war against the other partner. The Japanese commitment was minimal, opportunistically seizing German holdings in China and the Pacific, many of which islands became famous in WW2. We probably want to see this in the game too, but Japanese landings in South America and Europe always concerned me.

TANKS: My thought was that committing to Light, Cruiser or Land BB tanks later on would represent the choice of committing to one or the other. BTW tank development should be LONG in time, but not necessarily very expensive. The US was wealthy, but did not develop a tank arm during the war.

ELECTRONICS: Let me think on this. Telephony was a big advance over runners. Stationary wireless was useful, but man-portable radios were in the future. My main thought is that this doesn’t need to be a long tech tree, just nice add-ons. For cryptography, for example, I might put decryption advances as a single application under Signal Analysis. Do you have some tentative effects and dependencies plotted out for the items on the Electronics list?

SL
 

unmerged(3125)

Sergeant
Apr 18, 2001
73
0
Visit site
Re: Response to Dr Bolo Comments

Originally posted by SilentLawyer
JAPAN:
Perhaps Japan remains perfectly neutral, but have claims over German Asian-Pacific holdings. That way, Japan will be happy to remain neutral and take advantage of Germany's distraction without joining the Entente. Plus, events dealing with China can lead to a Japan-China war to prevent Japan from sending troops too far from Asia.

TANKS:

Since many early HoI tanks only have machineguns, thought it might be consistent to have MG-only tanks for some nations and give players greater control over weapons development. Again, nothing is set in stone right now.

ELECTRONICS:

This is what I have so far with nothing changed. Please feel free to go over it for errors and improvements.

Code Technology Effects

C100 Telegraph & Telephone Theoretical
C101 Coded Transmissions Allows C102
C102 Military Signal Corps Land org +
C103 Undersea Cable System Naval org +
C104 Field Telephone Set Allows C105
C105 Divisional Telephone System Land org +

C200 Wireless Communications Theoretical
C201 Ground Wireless Station Allows C202, C203
C202 Naval Wireless Set Naval org +
C203 Aircraft Wireless Set Allows Land-Air Coordination

C300 Signal Analysis Theoretical
C301 Signal Interception Enemy detect +
C302 Signal Security Surprise +
C303 Signal Encryption Surprise +

C400 Mobile Communications Theoretical
C401 Vehicle Intercom Armor org +
C402 Inter-Vehicle Radio Armor org +
C403 Man-Portable Radio Land org +

C500 Cryptography Theoretical
C501 Tabulating Machine Allows 502
C502 Encryption-Decryption Gear ??
C503 Electronic Data Storage Enemy detect +, allows
C504 Cryptographic Software Surprise +
 

unmerged(10997)

Second Lieutenant
Sep 12, 2002
125
0
Visit site
Japan theoretically has many options open to them.

#1. Resume war with Russia, independent of Germany (didn't have many connections with Germany)

#2. War with China, while the Europeans are distracted, they can duke it out with China (which would be much tougher then in WW2 as forces are more equal).

#3. War with Germany, however I do not know if this could be independent of joining the Allies (most possible occurance).

However, in 1902 the United Kingdom and Japan had a military treaty which was very important to the Japanese for the following reasons.

#1. Shipbuilding: The vast majority of Japanese vessels were built in the UK until the Kongo Class (Kongo was actually built in the UK). The Japanese had trouble building multiple capitol ships at one time due to a lack of shipyards. Since the Japanese relied on the UK for a vast number of ships, as well as virtually all of their ship guns.

#2. Their link to the UK was Japan's first major connection with a European power. Japan was trying for years to get 'into' the European community, and would do anything to get involved as an equal partner. Japan's war with Russia, their partnership during the Boxer Rebellion, etc., etc., etc., were attempts to get recognized by Europe as an equal partner.

This treaty was important for the British for the following reasons.

#1. The UK did not have the forces to contain the main German battlefleet, have an army in France, secure German Central Africa, among other fronts that would inevitably arise (Middle East, Balkans, Italy, etc.). The UK needed the Japanese army to seize the strong German defenses in China (were actually fairly tough forces), as well as to keep the German Pacific Fleet on the run (strong in Cruisers and very successful).

#2. Having Japan as an ally means that you won't worry about them as an enemy. Japan could have resumed their war against Russia, for further gains in Manchuria, but this could lead to disaster with Russia being forced to send troops East.

Basically, the Japanese owed everything up to that point on the British. They built their ships, weapons, had military observers, and formed the model of the Japanese Navy, which was the primary reason for the success of the 1905 War. Japan declared war on Germany on August 23, 1914, a few days after England went to war. If this game is starting in 1914, Japan was already 100% tied to the United Kingdom, moreso then Italy was tied to Germany in the September of 1939.

Should the Scenario have started in 1905, (3 years after the treaty between Japan and England) then Japan might have had a few more options. However, the connection between Japan and England began in the late 19th Century. It was only after WW1 when Japan had enough industrial production to become comparatively self sufficient. It was only by the middle 1930's when Japan became independent enough from England that they could actually start looking upon them as an enemy instead of an older brother.

So, should Japan and/or England be computer players, then Japan should always join the Entente. Should Japan be a human player, they should have to do a lot of work, and refusing, to keep out of the war. An English human player should have no trouble getting Japan into the Entente (it should almost be immediate after England joins the war). Should Japan find a way to keep out of the war, they might end up facing the fact that the Kongo will be heavily delayed or cancelled by the British (the Kongo was a very important addition), as well as all of the 14" guns meant for the 3 other Kongo vessels built in Japan being used by the British.

Japan should face MAJOR penalties should they break their agreement with the British, both economic and politically. There would be NO way that the UK would allow Japan to keep any territorial gains made on any nation should they independently go to war.
 

unmerged(12117)

Second Lieutenant
Nov 29, 2002
108
0
Visit site
Japan

TY for the additional info, Catholic Dog.

So we can assume Japan will join England when at war with multiple powers.

The game issue is that all Japan did was seize German possessions but as a belligerent in the game it can do far more. Letting a human player assume military control or otherwise make full use of the Japanese would seem to go too far. I don't think Japan is intended for human control. If Japan under a human did DOW China, for example, there should be some serious consequences, particularly with the US. Definitely some more work to be done.

SL
 

unmerged(12117)

Second Lieutenant
Nov 29, 2002
108
0
Visit site
Electronics Tech

DrBolo, here are some thoughts working from your list:

C100 Telegraph & Telephone Theoretical
C101 Coded Transmissions (Allows C207), IntOpChanceThem -10%
C102 Military Signal Corps Land (Allows C104) +1% org
C103 Undersea Cable System +1% Naval org
C104 Field Telephone Set (Allows C105 Div Tel System; Allows I___ Forward Observers (Art), which in turn allows L__Counterbattery Fire; Allows ____ (Coordinated Air Defense); Allows ___ Enhanced Observation Balloons?)
C105 Divisional Land Telephone System (Requires C104, Allows C201 Ground Wireless; Allows L_____Fire Adjustment; Allows L___ Coordinated . . . ) Ground Defense Efficiency +10%; +2% all foot unit org.

C200 Wireless Communications Theoretical (requires C100 Telegraph & Telephone; C102 Military Signal Corps)
C201 Ground Wireless Station (Requires C105; Allows C202 Wireless Signals Units, C203 Naval Wireless, C210 Vehicle Mounted Wireless).
C202 Army Wireless Signals Units (Requires C201; Allows C204 Signal Analysis) +1% Land unit org.
C203 Naval Shipboard Wireless Sets (Requires C201) +3% Naval org; +7% Sub org.(Maybe also increase detection ratings slightly--not very familiar with the Naval tech factors used in HOI--or allow an appropriate Naval doctrine)

C204 Signal Analysis (Requires C202) ArmyDetectChanceUs +5%, IntOpsChanceUs +5%
C205 Signal Interception (requires C204) ArmyDetectChanceUs +10%; IntOpChanceUs +10%; SurpriseChanceThem +5%
C206 Signal Security (Requires C204) SurpriseChanceThem +5%.,IntOpChanceThem -5%
C207 Signal Encryption (Requires C101, C206 Signal Security, Allows Advanced Cryptography C208), IntOpChanceThem -10%
C208 Advanced Cryptography (Requires C207), IntOpChanceUs +10%, IntOpChanceThem -5%

C210 Vehicle Mounted Wireless (Requires C201) +3% Armor org; +5% Ground Defense Efficiency
C211 Aircraft Wireless Set (Requires C211), Allows Land-Air Coordination? Zeppelins yes, but typical A/C would not be able to carry wireless sets. I suggest leaving this out or making sure it’s a late development used on advanced bombers.
 

Johan Elisson

ex-Great War[lord]
87 Badges
Apr 11, 2002
1.160
0
www.elisson.eu
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
I'm going to work now, but I just wanted to say that I'll look into the IC/raw material stats for major countries tonight, so you don't have to do that. Se you later!

BTW, someone asked if we have a preliminary release date? Nope! :D I'd guess before summer at least... :D

/Elisson
 

Johan Elisson

ex-Great War[lord]
87 Badges
Apr 11, 2002
1.160
0
www.elisson.eu
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
Posted by Vonsson:

US - 100
UK - 40
Ger - 40
Rus - 22
Fra - 20
Ita - 15
AH - 12
Jap - 8

Abstract IC numbers to compare with the numbers below. USA is as above 100.


Numbers for the majors and some major minors. Not including resources from puppets, which are not to numberous.
Code:
USA
IC:         881 100
Coal:     2 158
Steel:      770
Rubber:      10
Oil:      1 506
Manpower:   366

Germany
IC:         362  41
Coal:     1 365
Steel:      320
Rubber:      30
Oil:         15
Manpower:   183

Austria-Hungary
IC:         230  26
Coal:       531
Steel:      195
Rubber:       0
Oil:         42
Manpower:    93

Italy
IC:         129  15
Coal:       480
Steel:       60
Rubber:       0
Oil:          0
Manpower:    83

France
IC:         188  21
Coal:       371
Steel:      325
Rubber:     135
Oil:          0
Manpower:   146

Great Britain
IC:         521  59
Coal:     1 765
Steel:    1 110
Rubber:     980
Oil:        178
Manpower:   283

Ottoman Empire
IC:          79   9
Coal:       210
Steel:      100
Rubber:       0
Oil:        229
Manpower:    14

Russia
IC:         444  50
Coal:     1 434
Steel:      850
Rubber:       0
Oil:        338
Manpower:   167

Japan
IC:         168  19
Coal:       470
Steel:      405
Rubber:       0
Oil:         10
Manpower:    82

China
IC:         123  14
Coal:     1 469
Steel:    1 210
Rubber:      20
Oil:         36
Manpower:    26


Romania
IC:          29   3
Coal:        40
Steel:       30
Rubber:       0
Oil:         80
Manpower:     7

Bulgaria
IC:          34   4
Coal:        45
Steel:       40
Rubber:       0
Oil:          0
Manpower:     8

Sweden
IC:          65   7
Coal:       120
Steel:      185
Rubber:       0
Oil:          0
Manpower:    37

Belgium
IC:          53   6
Coal:       150
Steel:      100
Rubber:      90
Oil:          0
Manpower:    13

Netherlands
IC:          73   8
Coal:        95
Steel:      100
Rubber:     600
Oil:        170
Manpower:    16

Serbia
IC:          20   2
Coal:        60
Steel:       20
Rubber:       0
Oil:          0
Manpower:     4

Greece
IC:          27   3
Coal:        75
Steel:       30
Rubber:       0
Oil:          0
Manpower:     5
It seems like we have to cut down a lot of IC on Russia, Great Britain, Japan and A-H.

About the alliances, the anti-colonial "alliance" seems hard to do, and it would probably be better to leave one edge of the triangle open for SU when/if they appear. I don't think there should be a problem with any minor taking the lead of that alliance.

I've thought about Italy and I also thought I had solved the problem, but since there is no "leave alliance" action, the idea I had fell straight to the ground...

/Elisson
 
Last edited:

Johan Elisson

ex-Great War[lord]
87 Badges
Apr 11, 2002
1.160
0
www.elisson.eu
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
Yes, the startdate is as I can see it finally fixed to January 1, 1914. The enddate is not decided, but I have set it to 1924 in my "test"-scenario, and I think it should be somewhere between 1922-1928. Not to early, but also not to late as there where A LOT OF things happening in the world at that time. :)

I would go for 1924, 1925 or 1926.

So I don't think you need to extend the research. :cool:

/Elisson
 

unmerged(12117)

Second Lieutenant
Nov 29, 2002
108
0
Visit site
Population and Economy

Hi,

Below are some population statistics for 1910:

Russia 125.5
United States 92.0
Germany 64.9
Austro-Hungary 51.4
Great Britain
and Ireland 45.2
France 39.6
Belgium 7.4

Russia was able to field more troops in total than AH and Germany combined, which translates to manpower.

I was not able to locate per capita statistics, but from memory the US and UK were in the leading range (as was prosperous Argentina, at this time) and Germany slightly behind. As I mentioned above, however, the US economy was less adapted to war and, to achieve the right game result, should probably start in the same range as UK and Germany and have war conversion bonuses that expand it greatly once war is declared. Remember the US had manpower but a real shortage of equipment when first deploying to France.

The US lagged in military technology, and should have a lot of catching up to do. I think the simplest approach is to limit US 1914 technology and to have a lower peacetime IC base that, along with consumer demands, limits the ability to ramp up until war is declared. With war conversion, it would expand and allow the US to catch up over 2 years. My concern is that mass technology transfers could easily push the US ahead too fast

Not only were ICs lower in this period, but other resource production was lower as well. Rather than changing everything, however, it sounds like only ICs will be scaled. Some powers will start with more formations already raised and more technology already developed than others (e.g., France and Germany were the most prepared militarily and industrially for a land war).

So, my suggestions on approximate numbers:

USA: 360 + 60 on DOW + three 60 IC additions 6 months apart thereafter, bringing the US to 600, with very limited manpower until DOW so that the AI doesn't overbuild the army early. This will allow the US to conduct some catch-up research (not too much) and economic development while at peace.

Germany: 320
UK: 260 in Britain and 80 overseas (including the Commonwealth)

France: 170 + 20 in overseas possessions; the French should experience severe manpower issues earlier than Germany and the UK in a long war

Russia: 160, centered heavily in western urban areas; the large size of Russia's army should leave few ICs to spare for innovation

Italy: 120; with AH fighting on two fronts, Italy had a local advantage in numbers it had a hard time capitalizing upon

AH: 110; Aid from German forces should turn out to be important to AH survival and success
Japan: 75
Ottomans: 60
China: 50
Belgium: ~40
Sweden: ~40
Serbia: 16

Cheers,

SL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.