Interwar Fighters: do the right nations in HoI4 start with fighter technology compared to a list?

[billcorr]

The purposes of this thread are to:

1. Determine if nations that produced at least one fighter model in real life anytime between 1920 and 1935 are identified in HoI4 as having "Interwar Fighter Technology".
2. Identify nations that are awarded "Interwar Fighter Technology" in HoI4, but did not historically research and build at least one fighter between 1920 and 1935.

Method: Identify which nations designed and produced at least one fighter from 1920 to 1935. The fighter did not have to be a production model.

The data are from the wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft

The data were sorted based on date of first flight.

• Planes on the list whose first flight occurred between 1920 and 1935 were included in the list.
• Planes on the list whose first flight was documented in the wiki article to have occurred before 1920 or after 1935 were excluded.
• Planes not listed in the wiki article also were not included in the analysis.

Results:

HoI4 awards 23 out of 24 nations that designed and flew a fighter (1920 to 1935) with having researched IW fighter technology.

31 out of 57 nations that did not design and build at least one fighter (as recorded in the Wikipedia article) are awarded with "Interwar Fighter Technology" in HoI4:

Discussion:

The HoI4 rules do a good job awarding Interwar Fighter technology with those nations listed in the Wiki article as designing and building at least one fighter between 1920 and 1935. Finland is the only nation that appears to be overlooked.

On the other hand, HoI4 awards "Interwar Fighter Technology" to 54% of those nations not documented to have designed and built a fighter between 1920 and 1935.

There are limitations to this analysis.

• The analysis assumes that the wikipedia article is 100% accurate and identifies all nations that designed and built at least 1 fighter between 1920 and 1935.
• The analysis does not take into account other sources that might identify fighter technology existing in nations such as Brazil, Philippines, and Iraq.
• Aviation research and production before 1920 is not accounted for. Denmark and the Austro-Hungarian Empire built fighters during WW1. But this method does not credit Denmark and Austria with having "Interwar Fighter Technology".
• There are other limitations which will be added to this essay as they become apparent.

Recommendations:

If designing and building 1 fighter between 1920 and 1935 historically is the criteria for awarding "Interwar Fighter Technology", then

• Change Finland's starting technology to include "IW fighter technology"
• Remove "IW fighter technology" from the 1936 scenario from the following nations:

1. What Guatamala
2. Canada
3. El Salvador
4. Nicaragua
5. Columbia
6. Ecuador
7. Peru
8. Venezuela
9. Brazil
10. Bolivia
11. Paraguay
12. Argentina
13. Chile
14. Uruguay
15. Cuba
16. South Africa
17. Portugal
18. Denmark
19. Luxembourg
20. Austria
21. Estonia
22. Latvia
23. Bulgaria
24. Turkey
25. Iraq
26. Iran
27. British Malaya
28. Dutch East Indies
29. New Zealand
30. Philippines
31. Nationalist China

What aspects regarding "Interwar Fighter technology" should be addressed or edited?

 

[AHappyCub]

In my opinion, it would made a lot of sense for the higher member of the British Commonwealth (such as Canada) to recieve their interwar fighter from the British Goverment to provide a sufficient local force to help defend their territory until reinforced by the whole empire
This also work for any other nation that have purchased IW from other nation
I would like to hear more about this discussion

 

[Bronterre]

I would suggest that some other factors as to whether a nation should have interwar fighter (and bomber for that matter and possibly 1936 types of other aircraft) should be included.

1. The state of non-military aircraft industry, particularly of similar types. For example racing aircraft for fighters, mail planes for bombers, etc. The difference between pre/early war civilian aircraft and military was often a reduction of frills and addition of weaponry.

2. Did they make any under licence during this period or produce any from kits. While this wouldn’t give them design experience they would be able to see how they were designed and gain experience in manufacture and testing.

3. Did they significantly modify aircraft provided by another nation.

4. Are they a colony of a nation with a significant air production with reasonable industry themselves. Definitly Canada and Australia at least would have been able to produce fighters but if you can get them cheaper from Britain why bother?

5. Did they have a significant military air contingent or have had people serve in previous wars/other air forces. With the exception of the engine interwar fighters are fairly simple, if you know how others have built them and what works and doesn’t then it’s much easier to make your own.

 

[Fulmen]

Finland used way more different fighter models between 1920 and 1935 than just 3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_Finland

 

[billcorr]

It might be that the developers reviewed existing airforces in 1936. If a nation's order of battle listed fighters in that nation's inventory, then the HoI4 designers could have considered that sufficient that the nation had the technological capability to design and build fighter aircraft.

But it may well be that the nation had the money to buy fighter aircraft.

It may come to pass that in HoI4, players can buy aircraft, instead of researching, building, and fielding the fighters.

 

[billcorr]

Finland used way more different fighter models between 1920 and 1935 than just 3.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Poor choice of words on my part. I did, in fact, use the words "nation having flown a fighter" . That phrase is not good enough.

Should be, "nation designed and built and flew a fighter" (or there is perhaps a better phrase).

 

[Oridaellin]

I agree, except for the Commonwealth, specifically Canada, (though this might be patriotism speaking) who repeatedly told the UK that they were going to build an air force, but were just told not to bother by the British army.
I would suspect that at some point in their plans they had a working fighter design that they never produced, which likely justifies the tech.

Either way, for the Commonwealth, which are reasonably advanced industrial nations, I think it's a bit tough to take away fighter production without giving the ability to buy fighters from the UK.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes indeed. Keeping in mind that HoI4 has no arms trade it's important for nations that historically did operate an airforce to be able to build their own airplanes since buying them isn't an option.

 

[billcorr]

Yes indeed. Keeping in mind that HoI4 has no arms trade it's important for nations that historically did operate an airforce to be able to build their own airplanes since buying them isn't an option.

That makes sense.

From a game mechanic standpoint, giving IW Fighter technology to nations that historically did not have that capability allows that nation to build sustain its historic airforce. (Edit: At the start, the game gives an air force to nations that historically did not build, but instead purchased, their fighters. The question then is "how can they sustain their airforce)

Sure, that is reasonable.

Keeping in mind that HoI4 has no arms trade...buying them isn't an option.

Could that change?

Or is a ban on buying and selling equipment part of HoI4 design philosophy?

(Just wondering...there are certain aspects that the game stays away from. Arms trade might be one of them).

 

[Louella]

It's probably because there isn't really a "currency" or "money" thing that would make sense for being able to buy/sell equipment.

 

[philjd]

It's probably because there isn't really a "currency" or "money" thing that would make sense for being able to buy/sell equipment.

There is the new fangled licensed production - which sort of equates to buying them in...?

 

[billcorr]

There is the new fangled licensed production - which sort of equates to buying them in...?

That is a very good point.

The licensing aspect of the game was introduced after the original game was released.

HoI4's original justification for granting nations technology that they did not historically possess might have been "We need a mechanism to allow nations to build an air force. They had an air force in 1936. The only way to give the nation the capability to build planes is to grant them the technology."

But then Together For Victory was released, which provided the licensing game mechanic.

Licensing might be an alternate way to allow nations to build an air force like the one they had historically in 1936.

 

[scroggin]

The ability to trade for equipment should be introduced before the ability to research and produce them yourselves is removed.
A lot of arms trade occured between democratic minors before the war. And between members of the allies after war broke out.

Im not disagreeing with the OP’s point, just saying arms trade should come in before arms reseach and production is made more realistic.

 

[Fulmen]

Poor choice of words on my part. I did, in fact, use the words "nation having flown a fighter" . That phrase is not good enough.

Should be, "nation designed and built and flew a fighter" (or there is perhaps a better phrase).

Nah, I didn't read the picture text properly (sorry, made that post at 4:33am). You only refer to domestic fighter designs, which in light of the information on Wikipedia, is technically correct. I also counted 3. However Wiki only lists the designs that were actually produced, meaning there were probably many, many more designs that never left the drawing board.

There were also several other types of aircraft, such as trainers, maritime aircraft, and so on, that were domestically designed and produced, as well as license-built foreign designs, probably with some domestic alterations.

The game should have more interwar plane techs (not just FTR & TAC), an arms trade mechanic and a license mechanic that's actually worth using for production and not just for the research bonus. Right now the times you want to actually license-produce are rare and mostly limited to niché cases in multiplayer.

 

[kettyo]

Last time as Italy i have licensed a modified (armor boosted) PzIV from Germany in 1939 i think and actually produced a lot of that since my own armour was old shit.

 

[billcorr]

Last time as Italy i have licenced a modified (armor boosted) PzIV from Germany in 1939 i think and actually produced a lot of that

If this licensing experience (described in the quote above) worked out for one player, perhaps licensing IW fighters could replace awarding IW fighter technology to countries that historically had not designed, built, and flew a fighter between 1920 and 1935.

"Why would we want to do that?" is a reasonable question.

 

[Secret Master]

If this licensing experience (described in the quote above) worked out for one player, perhaps licensing IW fighters could replace awarding IW fighter technology to countries that historically had not designed, built, and flew a fighter between 1920 and 1935.

I have some experience with licensing myself. In SP, it's usually too much of a bother, but in MP we use it sometimes.

Some things to consider with licenses.

1) They are pricey for non-faction members. Minors don't really have the CIC to be buying licenses unless they are puppets/commonwealth buying from their master, or unless the country they are buying from is also buying a license in turn.

2) A license lets you build the equipment in question, including specific variants. The AI is kind of dumb, but humans can buy the license for the right version of a plane, as long as the other human points out the right one to license. Usually it's the latest, but every once in a while, you might want a longer range variant of something, or one with better reliability.

3) There is a penalty to production, up to 30%. That's enough to make some players avoid them completely...

4) ... but you also get a research boost on the tech in question. And you can build production efficiency using the licensed equipment first. So, what I've done in the past is license, say, 1940 fighter from someone. I start building them while researching the tech. When I get the tech, I swap the line over to my version of the plane. I still lose some efficiency, but it's better than starting from scratch. And I have some 1940 fighters in service already.

5) The dirty little secret of license equipment, though, is that you can change the variant with your own XP. I've licensed Japanese NAVs as Germany before. I had no intention of ever researching them myself. But as time went on, I decided to tweak my copy of it with my own XP.

These mechanics make licenses very flexible for representing things minors did to get air forces in the period. The CIC cost can be prohibitive, though.

 

[kettyo]

So, what I've done in the past is license, say, 1940 fighter from someone. I start building them while researching the tech. When I get the tech, I swap the line over to my version of the plane. I still lose some efficiency, but it's better than starting from scratch. And I have some 1940 fighters in service already.

The same i've done with licensing PzIV. I didn't even have medium 1. Later i got my own medium 2 but still the licensed PzIV was a lot better since ExpertAI Germany invested a lot of XP in it.

 

[Fulmen]

4) ... but you also get a research boost on the tech in question. And you can build production efficiency using the licensed equipment first. So, what I've done in the past is license, say, 1940 fighter from someone. I start building them while researching the tech. When I get the tech, I swap the line over to my version of the plane. I still lose some efficiency, but it's better than starting from scratch. And I have some 1940 fighters in service already.

This is one of the few reasons to ever license-produce and even that's very iffy. Some people in MP do it with Australian FTR 2s as USA and even the UK. Personally I've tried it several times as USA.

As America you can only pump out around 400-800 of them before you switch to your FTR 2s in 1938, and you're building them at -40% efficiency while also paying 5 civs to Australia who has an economic depression modifier of his own, meaning some of them go to building toasters. Sometimes I've had over 900 of them but that's usually if I fucked up by forgetting to hard-research FTR 2s as soon as I bought the license from Australia.

Mind you, that obviously being the primary plane factory of the Allies, you do still buy the license and hard-research them almost ASAP, even if you don't produce them.

Oh and don't forget, if you do produce them, you then need to re-buy the license in 1939 to lend-lease them to the UK or Canada, because of the way the LL system works. It's variant-specific too, so say if Australia somehow got more air XP and upgraded its variant further, and you license-built both the Boomerang (Aussie FTR 2) Mk. I and Mk. II, in 1939 you'll likely be paying 10 civs total for both licenses for at least a month, more if LL'ing to the UK due to lack of convoys. Gotta love Paradox logic.

5) The dirty little secret of license equipment, though, is that you can change the variant with your own XP. I've licensed Japanese NAVs as Germany before. I had no intention of ever researching them myself. But as time went on, I decided to tweak my copy of it with my own XP.

Too expensive, especially since you're going to want to research and upgrade your own anyway. IIRC even 1 engine upgrade on a licensed FTR is like 105 XP. Might remember the exact number wrong, but I know it's way too high to be worth the limited time you might be license-producing to build up efficiency, an action whose rationale in itself is debatable.

EDIT: Might actually be the 2nd engine upgrade that costs 105 XP on a license, since licensed FTR 2s in MP tend to already have one engine upgrade made by the country of origin.

 

[billcorr]

Oh and don't forget, if you do produce them, you then need to re-buy the license in 1939 to lend-lease them to the UK or Canada, because of the way the LL system works.

How does the LL system work?

If my wife asks me, "So. How does this Lend Lease system work in that game you play?"

I'll reply, "Well. I thought it was, 'Here. Have some stuff.' But now, I'm not too sure. I just learned that if I want to lend lease planes to the UK or Canada, I need to buy a production license from Australia."

And she'll reply, "Gotta love Paradox logic."

The only answer to that is, "Yes, dear."

And then I'll sit down and have a bowl of ice cream.

I understand ice cream.

Vanilla ice cream with hot, hot, raspberries that have been heated up in the microwave.

But I just don't understand all this business about...

"Mind you, that obviously being the primary plane factory of the Allies, you do still buy the license and hard-research them almost ASAP, even if you don't produce them.
Oh and don't forget, if you do produce them, you then need to re-buy the license in 1939 to lend-lease them to the UK or Canada, because of the way the LL system works."​