The weapon list has rocket launchers, yes you can make the Calliope and Whizbang
- 1
HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer
- Thread starter Archangel85
- Start date
-
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.
The weapon list has rocket launchers, yes you can make the Calliope and Whizbang
I think it'd be useful for both majors and minors alike. Majors will be collecting a bunch of tanks that they may not necessarily want or need, and they'll be left unused in their stockpile- say if you are Russia or Britain and you capture some specialized German armored AA or artillery for instance. You'd rather use those tanks than not at all, but you probably aren't going to design a new division for them, nor devote your industry to make enough to fill up a battalion. Similar if you are a minor nation- you may want to armor up your divisions, but you won't have many options as to how to outfit them with various types of tanks. Maybe as Poland you want to make some heavy tanks, but you are very unlikely going to make enough to outfit a whole division- so better to just add some beefier tanks instead to a mixed battalion. This becomes even more useful in the event your a government in exile and had fielded armor- you will lack enough factories to reinforce whatever tank divisions you have left or want to field, instead focusing on rifles and basic stuff. So say if you are Poland or France and still want to field some armor, better to use a mixed armor batalion than have no armored division (in a poland campaign I did, I captured several german tanks before capitulating, but couldn't field them because they were the wrong type of tank for my divisions, meaning I could really only pass them on to the UK rather than field them).
I missed this one when I posted elsewhere.
Why not have them be "Engineering tanks" and a variation of the Engineering battalion (much like you can have light armor recon or armored car recon), and have the tanks that should go in there designated by "engineering tools" (just like amphibious drive designates a tank as amphibious)?
(The tank engineering battalion could also get slightly better entrenching, and be slightly better on plains and a bit worse in mountains)
(Still probably just a wishlist feature rather than a major deal, but I think it'd be better for them to not take up a new support slot, or be additive to engineers)
I am convinced that such an important mechanic as a tank designer will be part of the paid dlc as a naval designer step in MTG
- 1
There will be some way to unlock predefined models of the most representative variants of each country to be formed automatically, something I think would help those who do not have much of an idea
exact on certain modules are the most similar to their historical counterparts
exact on certain modules are the most similar to their historical counterparts
possibly the night vision for armored vehicles will be implemented later a new technological framework when they do dlc of the Wunderffawen, since these were experimental technologies and it was hardly used in a general way
This looks so good! I'm really looking forward to playing with this!
On the debate culture, other than the dev diaries (which I love reading) I avoid the forum because of the weird toxic culture that seems to hate the game, calling it "tough love". Sure there are plenty of good posts as well, but overall I would say reading it makes me want to not play the game. So it's bad, sadly.
On the debate culture, other than the dev diaries (which I love reading) I avoid the forum because of the weird toxic culture that seems to hate the game, calling it "tough love". Sure there are plenty of good posts as well, but overall I would say reading it makes me want to not play the game. So it's bad, sadly.
- 2
I agree I should enlarge the models vehicular elements, especially the armored and motorized ones, as some mods do.
and even certain nations should change generic skins for something more flavor, for example, the communist china's armory should have greenish components similar to their Soviet counterparts due to their clear influence.
Cast armour is cost effective when producing in bulk. The smaller the batch, the better welding and riveting comes out.I really liked the latest developer blog. Especially the part where a lot of images were designed for the vehicles. Because of that, I probably won't have to re-create the new images for the Hungarian Flavor mod.
But unfortunately I found some huge mistakes in it that affect the whole designer.
Riveted Armor: armor protection is really weak because the rivet pieces that came off due to the hit could have caused serious injuries to the crew, but in reality it is the most expensive armor.
Cast Armor: it gives good protection, but in reality it is the cheapest armor that can be produced.
Welded Armor: indeed lies between the two in terms of cost and protection, this is indeed true and at the same time not true.
This is because when different alloy armor plates are combined, the protection of such armor exceeds that of cast steel armor. Later, modern armor evolved from this. The first such armor appeared on American T-95 experimental tanks in the 1950s.
But experiments in this direction had already taken place in the second world war, but was not introduced due to the high demand for raw materials.
composite armour
The production of the Hungarian Turán medium tanks (riveted armor) took 31,000 working hours, while the much more powerful PzIV H / J (welded armor) took 8,000 working hours.
Turcsányi Károly: Nehéz Harckocsik page: 201.
The production of Tiger I was 34,000 working hours, which was equivalent to the cost of producing 4 pieces of PzIVH or 5-6 pieces of T-34 (cast armor) or 1 pieces Turán if we looked at only the working hours required for production.
Turán porduction cost 380000 pengő (without armaments and radio)
pengő
Looking at the 1935 exchange rate it is easy to calculate the Turán it was not a cheap vehicle (without arms and radio more than $ 86,000 ).
But in the attached picture, we can also compare the production costs of several vehicles.....
It also shows that, conversely, riveted armor is the most expensive, welded armor is the middle category, and cast armor is the cheapest.
I know the price of vehicles is greatly influenced by the quantity produced so I would also recommend looking more at the amount of work required for production. Because Turán was made in a fairly small series and there is no money in the game at the moment.
With these in mind, I think I should make some changes to the designer before the release.
Riveting requires the least advanced/Specialized tooling. Welding is sort of a middle ground, better engineered than riveting, cheaper when considering the whole production process, and more effective when introducing weird shapes or regular changes.
@Archangel85 maybe give better efficiency retention vs higher max efficiency for the production methods?
- 1
- 1
I think the armored designer seems somewhat simpler than the naval designer and surely the developers learned lessons from that designer for some controversialists
I would really appreciate it if we got as much freedom as we can with this. Would be sad to see that in the end we get restricted by Slot Types and end up building the same tanks as before just with the illusion of freedom.
I would even suggest to keep the possibility to build a moving fortress with 5 secondary turrets. Just balance it by price and speed and maybe allow secondary turrets based on hull. For example the super heavy should be able to fit at least 4 secondary's. Just like the Ship hulls fit more Guns the bigger they get.
I would even suggest to keep the possibility to build a moving fortress with 5 secondary turrets. Just balance it by price and speed and maybe allow secondary turrets based on hull. For example the super heavy should be able to fit at least 4 secondary's. Just like the Ship hulls fit more Guns the bigger they get.
Oh sorry I forgot it was only partially made with casting technology.
In the dev blog, riveted armor is considered to be the cheapest, which requires an extremely long working hours compared to the other two, as well as special tools ... etc.
Which reduces the cost of all armor in the same way, but does not change the fact that riveted armor requires an extremely long working hours.
Here's the list of all possible weapons from the first posting: (I highlighted the rocket launchers)
to react to the price discussion:
it's called mass production. Everything built in larger numbers is cheaper, due to higher effectiveness. Riveted armour was put on tanks in nations, who usually didn t have the industry size or quality, to properly produce cast-armour mass-produced tanks. If we would dig deeper into this, we would see that early on the war everything cost more outside of russia, since only russia really produces tanks in streamlined factories. This meant that early on nearly every tank cost more.
Most riveted tanks were produced in factories more akin to workshops: made by hand, no streamlined production, no mechanized production. So these are produced far less efffectively, raising their costs.
If today's world would turn into a war, everybody would start to produce tanks on mass, in more streamlined manner. It would decrease the cost of today's rather pricy tanks to a fraction.
it's called mass production. Everything built in larger numbers is cheaper, due to higher effectiveness. Riveted armour was put on tanks in nations, who usually didn t have the industry size or quality, to properly produce cast-armour mass-produced tanks. If we would dig deeper into this, we would see that early on the war everything cost more outside of russia, since only russia really produces tanks in streamlined factories. This meant that early on nearly every tank cost more.
Most riveted tanks were produced in factories more akin to workshops: made by hand, no streamlined production, no mechanized production. So these are produced far less efffectively, raising their costs.
If today's world would turn into a war, everybody would start to produce tanks on mass, in more streamlined manner. It would decrease the cost of today's rather pricy tanks to a fraction.
- 3
- 1
You license the entire design.
Stay tuned for the changes to the combat system, which we will talk about in future Dev Diaries.
That's...a good point actually.
No, unfortunately. We thought about it earlier in the design process, but felt that ultimately it would deviate from the core concept and end up being a little confusing if you have stuff in an Armored Car Battalion that is actually a light tank. Same with mechanised equipment. The suspensions being available for light chassis is what is left over from that (we had already gotten the art).
We have a task internally to look into this.
It's not quite so simple. Monetary cost is not the only factor in determining production cost. Like I said, there are arguments to be made for either interpretation. Riveting for example is cheap in countries with a developed naval industry, because it doesn't require very skilled labor and if you are already producing rivets in the millions to build ships, using them for tanks is pretty cheap. Casting requires you to have heavy industry capable of producing the casts at the scale necessary for mass production (but of you do, it is pretty cheap, yes). Welding was the new thing in the 30ies, required specialized equipment as well as training, and in some countries there was resistance from trade unions for example because a single welder could replace several riveters. So you have a lot of factors, but for a game you want something simple that can be grasped easily. So I went with this split of advantages and disadvantages, even though reality is a bit messier.
- 26
- 17
- 2
- 1
I agree. Rivets should just be the starting armor because it was the most common at the time and if you want more efficiency in production you need to research other types of armor. Perhaps for some countries there should be a bonus for welded or cast armor. For example the USSR. To historically emphasize a lot of work in this direction. But I'm confused about how to force some countries even in 1943 to produce their tanks on rivets. For example, Italy, which even has the most modern tank (P 40) was riveted.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Firstly, I totally agree with this. You're doing a great job, even though it's possible to disagree with some design choices.
Secondly, a comment concerning wheeled vs tracked armoured vehicles: Along roads, wheeled vehicles will usually be much faster and have higher reliability (less vibrations). However, in bad terrain and snow they are literally useless. That's why South Africa has wheeled tanks, Norway doesn't. Can this be reflected in a good way in this game system?
- 3
- 1
Interesting idea. Maybe somehow implement the production of tanks in shipyards, this would make riveted armor really necessary. But then you have to choose either ships or more tanks. Historically, the USSR produced tanks at factory # 112 (Krasnoe Sormovo), although these T-34s were not riveted.
Or, for example, give a bonus to the production of tanks with riveted armor. If you have X number of shipyards, your tanks with riveted armor will be built Y% faster.
Last edited:
- 1