light and heavy tanks

[HenkieDePost]

Although I do like the new set-up for the Tank tech tree I do agree with the OP that Paradox should add a few more options in the tree. I acknowledge that for most countries the true 'main line' of tank designs isn't really big it would be nice if some prototypes or 'failed' designs were added to the list in order to fill in the gaps. Most of the majors have alot of scrapped tank designs Paradox can use for more flavor and replayability.

Especially for the Heavy line I would say that, although maybe 'succesful' heavies are mostly known from later years in the war, heavy tanks were designed and also even build long before that. Take the French Char 2C as an example. Grand Strategy games like HoI IV are always about mixing historical accuracy with the sandbox aspect of choosing your own path. Making prototypes and other designs available for use helps with the player's ability to create his or her own alternate reality in game and thus is therefore a welcome addition in my books.

 

[mursolini]

If the definition of a heavy tank is, as stated earlier

• Heavy tank have very good combat ability but poor mobility.

then the Matilda II is absolutely a heavy.
Valentine could be a variant on Medium. It was around at the same time as the Crusader.
The Crusader could be looked at as a fast, lightly armoured, medium, and the valentine as a slow, heavily armoured medium.
But the Matilda was off the scale on armour for 39 and 40, and could barely manage walking speed.
It was also impervious to all tank guns until 42, and all AT guns except the 88.

In that case, where exactly do T-34 and KV-1 fit? Both had excellent mobility and armor protection, in particular side armor protection which tend to be a feature of heavy tank.
For all intends and purposes, T-34 has both better fire-power, similar protection due to armor slope and far better mobility than Matilda II and ironically, it was 6 tonne heavier. Not to mention KV-1 is simply in another league compared to Matilda II.

Matilda II is ridiculously outclassed by 1939 heavy tank and 1940 medium. Please, don`t be ridiculous on it being impervious to 75 and 76mm tank guns before 1942. Soviet AP and German HEAT rounds had more than enough capacity to deal with it.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Please lets stay on topic and dont go into which tank could or could not be destroyed by what. The topic is whether there needs to be more lvls or steps in the tank research tree.

 

[Alex_brunius]

then the Matilda II is absolutely a heavy.

Matilda II was 25 tons, a 40mm gun and was designed in 1937... If it's a heavy tank the 1934 model works fine, because not a chance it would be considered a heavy tank by 1939 standards comparable with KV-1 and being close below the Tiger 1 in capability ( as pointed out above by mursolini )

Throughout the war the Japanese made light tanks, and not much else.

And none of their designs was more advanced then 1941 technology + top variants already allow (from all XP they get in their long land war in China), so we are fine.

The americans had designs for heavy tanks (M6, M14) , but due to internal army politics and decisions to build huge numbers of mediums rather than smaller numbers of heavies they didn't reach the troops.
But they should be available as options.

They are available as options. The first prototypes of the M6 rolled of production in 1941, and we have a heavy tank tech for year 1941.

No idea what the M14 is though. You got a link?

The french had the Char B1 in 1940, and plans for both light and heavy tanks for later years.

The Char B1 entered production in 1935, which seems close enough to be covered by the 1934 tech IMO. It was far from being considered as a modern heavy tank by the time the war broke out in 1939 with it's 28 ton. It had a 75mm soft attack howitzer/artillery and a 47mm tank gun in turret.

Also remember that HoI4 will have support for variants, so you can make a historical upgrade of it in 1937 to the Char B1 bis model if you want.

Just like ships and airplanes only have 1 model every 4 years tanks don't need to have models every year since you can get a long way using XP to do variant upgrades covering models in between.

 

[Daddl]

You shouldn't compare different tanks from different nations to determine if they are heavy or not. Of course a T-34 from 1942 is more advanced and weights more than a Matilda from 1939, but this neither says that the T-34 was heavy nor that the Matilda wasn't. I think you need to look at each nation seperately, what tank models they had and how they used it. Compare their armour, firepower, mobility and weight to tanks of the same nation and it allows to determine much easier which tank model should be considered as what.

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

In that case, where exactly do T-34 and KV-1 fit? Both had excellent mobility and armor protection, in particular side armor protection which tend to be a feature of heavy tank.
For all intends and purposes, T-34 has both better fire-power, similar protection due to armor slope and far better mobility than Matilda II and ironically, it was 6 tonne heavier. Not to mention KV-1 is simply in another league compared to Matilda II.
The original premise didn't mention weight. The T-34 may have been 6 tons heavier. Which is not relevant to its function, or the purpose of this forum. In Soviet armies the T34s usage was as a medium tank.
It's superior mobility actually argues against your point - the low mobility of the Matilda II, and its usage in commonwealth armies as an infantry support tank, is in contrast to the usage in Soviet armies and in line with the function of a Heavy tank.

Matilda II is ridiculously outclassed by 1939 heavy tank and 1940 medium. Please, don`t be ridiculous on it being impervious to 75 and 76mm tank guns before 1942. Soviet AP and German HEAT rounds had more than enough capacity to deal with it.

The high velocity 75 wasn't introduced on German tanks until '42.
The German AT gun in 39/40 was the 37mm, known as the army's doorknocker. The 50mm was introduced in 41, and the PzIII upgunned to take it.
The Pz IV had a low velocity 75 until '42, which was only capable of knocking the paint off the Matilda.
So, until 42, and the introduction of the high-velocity 75, the Matilda II was impervious to everything it came up against, except the 88.
Which is what I wrote, and is not ridiculous.
It is also why the Matilda was known as "The Queen of the desert" in 40 and 41.
Outclassed by the improved PzIV in '42, but not before then.

Anyway, this is not relevant.
The core of the argument is that most of the majors had available light, medium, and heavy designs at all stages of the war.
And made production decisions on which to build, and which not to build.
Those decisions should be available to players, with consequences both good and bad resulting from that.

 

[Zaku]

You shouldn't compare different tanks from different nations to determine if they are heavy or not. Of course a T-34 from 1942 is more advanced and weights more than a Matilda from 1939, but this neither says that the T-34 was heavy nor that the Matilda wasn't. I think you need to look at each nation seperately, what tank models they had and how they used it. Compare their armour, firepower, mobility and weight to tanks of the same nation and it allows to determine much easier which tank model should be considered as what.

Both were designed in the late 30s.

 

[tommylotto]

Matilda was known as "The Queen of the desert" in 40 and 41.

I remember going to see that movie thinking it was going to be about tanks. Matilda, Priscilla, big difference.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Anyway, this is not relevant.
The core of the argument is that most of the majors had available light, medium, and heavy designs at all stages of the war.
And made production decisions on which to build, and which not to build.
Those decisions should be available to players, with consequences both good and bad resulting from that.

And they are available to the players ( where it makes sense ) since you can use variants to make your own models that fill most of the gaps.

 

[mursolini]

The high velocity 75 wasn't introduced on German tanks until '42.

HEAT ammo for short 75mm gun of Pz4 was perfectly sufficient, entered service in June 1940.

The German AT gun in 39/40 was the 37mm, known as the army's doorknocker. The 50mm was introduced in 41, and the PzIII upgunned to take it.

Actually in 1940.

The Pz IV had a low velocity 75 until '42, which was only capable of knocking the paint off the Matilda.

Try reading about HEAT shell again.

So, until 42, and the introduction of the high-velocity 75, the Matilda II was impervious to everything it came up against, except the 88.

And any German artillery gun of 105mm and higher. 88 is ludicrously overrated, German 105mm cannons have done most of the work with enemy heavy tanks.
What is even more ironical, is that British tanks had difficulties facing infantry due to lack of HE shells.

Which is what I wrote, and is not ridiculous.

It is also why the Matilda was known as "The Queen of the desert" in 40 and 41.
Outclassed by the improved PzIV in '42, but not before then.

By 1940 version to be precise.

Anyway, this is not relevant.

I`m still waiting comparison with contemporary Soviet vehicles.

The core of the argument is that most of the majors had available light, medium, and heavy designs at all stages of the war.
And made production decisions on which to build, and which not to build.
Those decisions should be available to players, with consequences both good and bad resulting from that.

By 1938 every country get such set, not sure what is your argument here.

The game, however should try to put vehicles with similar characteristic into similar slots. The good slot for Valentine seem to be the same as Panzer3, Matilda could be grouped with Pz4 and T-34, even despite it`s pretty poor stats compared to T-34.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Again please refrain from debate on what can destroy what, that is not the issue here.

Yes, many tanks had different variants which is awesome since we can do that in the game ( create variants ) but 5+ years gaps in research seems a bit excessive for a game spanning 12 year period.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes, many tanks had different variants which is awesome since we can do that in the game ( create variants ) but 5+ years gaps in research seems a bit excessive for a game spanning 12 year period.

Not for a line of technology where there was few major improvements being made, and very little actual units fielded (before 1941).

For example the gap for super heavy tanks seems to be spanning from 1934 to 1943, or 9 full years, and that's perfectly fine since no super-heavy tanks were built before 1943.


As an example would you feel better about the tech tree if it instead was calling the 1934 heavy tank model "prewar infantry support tank" ( basically what it was ), and had the first "real" Heavy tank with both good armor and a dangerous gun meant to be able to fight enemy tanks appear in 1941?

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Not for a line of technology where there was few major improvements being made, and very little actual units fielded (before 1941).

For example the gap for super heavy tanks seems to be spanning from 1934 to 1943, or 9 full years, and that's perfectly fine since no super-heavy tanks were built before 1943.


As an example would you feel better about the tech tree if it instead was calling the 1934 heavy tank model "prewar infantry support tank" ( basically what it was ), and had the first "real" Heavy tank with both good armor and a dangerous gun meant to be able to fight enemy tanks appear in 1941?

This is a game not RL so maybe players would like more freedom on it? T o decide that their country is going to make a breakthrough in the field?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The main addition I'd like in the techtree are 1945 light and heavy tanks (for example, Chaffee and T34 for US), besides that I think it's okeyish. That being said, if we are going to represent infantry tanks as variations of early light and mediums then the speed and armor variations at these levels should be very high (in the region of +-50%). Having a seperate infantry tank tech at 1936 and 1939 would be more natural I think (Matildas, Valentines, most French tanks would be 1936 infantry tanks).

and that's perfectly fine since no super-heavy tanks were built before 1943.

Char 2C? I mean yeah it's the same weight as much later heavy tanks, but even in late '30s it does qualify as super heavy.

 

[Alex_brunius]

This is a game not RL so maybe players would like more freedom on it? T o decide that their country is going to make a breakthrough in the field?

Not if it allows you to skip and bypass historical steps and thought process behind those decisions and "breakthroughs". Just like you shouldn't be allowed to build a 80000 ton supercarrier in 1936 with the knowledge that Carriers will rise to become the best naval weapon...

Simplifying alot but basically:
The reason medium tanks were built was to defeat light tanks ( noticed in combat experience in 1939 )
The reason heavy tanks were built was to defeat medium tanks ( noticed in combat experience in 1941 )
The reason MBTs were built was to consolidate production, supply and get large amounts of balanced weapons ( noticed in combat, production and logistics experiences in 1943-45 )

If the player can sidestep all these things and build directly a Heavy tank in 1936 or even a MBT, the game makes no sense, and your cheating an AI that tries to follow the history and will try to fight your big tanks with light tanks in 1939.

To be able to progress down the tree and unlock powerful models you should need both fighting experience (land XP for good variants) and research efforts.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

What I am saying is that there should be contemporary techs for both lights and heavies not that heavies should be OP.

 

[Alex_brunius]

What I am saying is that there should be contemporary techs for both lights and heavies not that heavies should be OP.

No one is saying heavies should be OP, but do you think they should win over light and medium tanks?

If the answer is yes, then they will be better then the light and medium tanks other nations ( and a well made historical AI ) fields in 1936-1941 and give you a combat edge.

Char 2C? I mean yeah it's the same weight as much later heavy tanks, even in late '30s it does qualify as super heavy.

Okay sorry. It was designed in 1917 so that means super heavies have a tech gap of not 9 years but 26 years. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

No one is saying heavies should be OP, but do you think they should win over light and medium tanks?

If the answer is yes, then they will be better then the light and medium tanks other nations ( and a well made historical AI ) fields in 1936-1941 and give you a combat edge.

And they will be more expensive have bigger maluses in bad terrain and will be build in smaller number so that should be a viable choice to balance.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The reason MBTs were built was to consolidate production, supply and get large amounts of balanced weapons ( noticed in combat, production and logistics experiences in 1943-45 )

If the player can sidestep all these things and build directly a Heavy tank in 1936 or even a MBT, the game makes no sense, and your cheating an AI that tries to follow the history and will try to fight your big tanks with light tanks in 1939.

There should not be any true MBT in the game to begin with, just 1945 medium. Centurion's 17 pounder would be totally insufficient against IS-3, and even the 20 pounder would struggle and that's barely within game's timeframe (which makes sense, seeing that the IS-3 was meant to deal with 88mm/71 which was comparable to 20 pounder). That's the reason for Conqueror in the '50s.

 

[Alex_brunius]

And they will be more expensive have bigger maluses in bad terrain and will be build in smaller number so that should be a viable choice to balance.

I'm sure it will be easy to mod it in yourself ( or find a mod that does ).

But Paradox have made their choice, probably influenced by the lack of iconic real heavy tanks that can give you a good immersion into the game, and I still think it's the right choice to focus the way they have done. With limited art and history research available putting an extra heavy and light tank model in the tree where you want it probably means they need to add them instead of two of the other tank models from the game.

Which would you like them to remove? Maybe 2 of the medium tanks so there only is a single medium tank? Or would you like the game to be further delayed or cost more to compensate for the extra cost of adding more of everything?

For HoI3 Paradox said they wanted to give us more, more more of everything, and It turned out it didn't work that well...