cost for adding few lines of code in txt files and pictures? really ? if they would be struggling to do that they would be bankrupt by.... now.
- 4
- 1
light and heavy tanks
- Thread starter HerrWeltkrieg
- 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.
Balancing a tech tree is not as easy as you think.
- 7
I know I did my fair share of W3 editing back in the golden days, but it should not provide such a tremendous challenge for a game developing studio.
And we are getting sidetracked here and partially by my fault.
Why don't you add Art (or "pictures") for all 7 Major nations and 3 variants (2*7*4=56 pictures) up to Paradox level of quality yourself then if it's so easy? And also do the text scriping for all 56 entries, find historical model names and translate all text/localization to 4 different languages ( or what it is EU4 has ). Maybe also need to tweak the AI so it can counter players rushing heavy tanks.
I'm sure it would be very popular mod assets! But don't underestimate how much work it takes to do high quality games, something that should be apparent by all delays if nothing else.
I'm sure it would be very popular mod assets! But don't underestimate how much work it takes to do high quality games, something that should be apparent by all delays if nothing else.
- 1
- 1
I might mod it in during long winter nights, but to answer your question, that would be because I am not paid for it and it is not in my best interest to provide the best product I can.
- 2
- 1
Germans also had VK6501 which was a 65ton tank design started in 1937 if I believe. All these played a roll in later quick development of the Tiger.
Not a lot of new designs on light tanks, but there was some mainly for use with airborne ops.
- 1
I think after you said airborne armor it could be cool to have air dropable 1941 light tank like planes can be CV type if player decides to have such design. Not a big important thing but it could give game some flavour it could be added later patches.
When I said Matilda tank I meant Matilda II. The Matilda I is in the same boat as the Pz IF - a very small but heavily armoured tank equipped with MG's only that was built in small numbers and is hard to represent in game.
The Matilda II was first proposed in 1934, but due to budgetary constraints was not developed until 2 years later. Its front glacis plate was 78mm thick and side/rear armour was 55-70mm. The comparable British medium tank of that time was the Cruiser II. While having the same 2pdr armament (not that uncommon as the KV had the same gun as the T-34) it only weighed 14t vs 25t and its armour was 14-30mm.
Looking at the Germans, the Pz III also entered design in 1934 and its first significant production variant was equipped with a 3.7cm gun and a maximum of 30mm of armour. It is a far weaker tank in combat than the Matilda II despite being closer in weight than the Cruiser, but that could be due to German over engineering - similar to the Bismarck being a much heavier battleship than the Nelson but having weaker armament and armour.
Looking at the Russians, design of the T-35 heavy tank started in 1930. It weighed 45t to the Matilda's 25t and had a crew of 11 vs the Matilda's 4. It had a low velocity 76mm gun and 2 45mm high velocity guns. Its armour was pathetically thin at 11-30mm. If a T-35 came up against a Matilda, the Matilda wins easily because the T-35 can't penetrate it. Given the differences in weight & crew, I'd say that each T-35, as an interwar multi turreted monstrosity, should probably count as two of the earliest heavy tanks in the tech tree, while the Matilda's are the next most modern heavy tank. Lets move on and look at the KV heavy tank. Design of the initial model was completed in 1939. Its armour was 25-75mm thick, making it thinner than the Matilda. It was armed with the medium velocity 76.2mm L-11 gun, an earlier gun than that most associated with the T-34 & KV tanks, the F-34. It was 30.5 calibres vs the latter's 42.5 and as such had a lower muzzle velocity of 610m/s vs 680m/s. The KV was capable of being up-gunned and armoured, and it was at the cost of even more reliability, and as such I'd say its an example of the next generation of heavy tank after that of the Matilda. If you want to look at the initial T-34 model (1940 or 76A), it only had 15-45mm of armour, well sloped but still easier to penetrate than the Matilda.
The Valentine was an easier to produce replacement for the Matilda. It had a little less armour but proved capable of being up-gunned. Later models could be represented as a variant of the Matilda with less armour but more gun power, or a contemporary medium tank variant that has had a lot of armour and some gun power added.
The way various nations used different tanks makes me wonder about the clear breaks between light, medium and heavy tanks in game. At some times a tank could be a heavy tank but later on was used as a medium tank and vice versa. For example Valentines and Matildas were early British heavy tanks, but were initially used by the Russians as mediums and later lights. The Valentines also equipped some British medium brigades. The German Pz III with short 75mm gun was a medium tank, but made up a significant portion of the early heavy battalions. The Pz II was initially the main battle tank of Germany, but by 1941 was operating in a light tank role supporting the Pz III & IV's. I'm wondering if we as the players should be able to allocate different models to different classifications, and later change those classifications. In such a way Pz II's could be medium tanks of 1939 with Pz I's the lights, but by 1941 the Pz II's have been switched to the light category. Similarly any nation with older generation medium or heavy tanks could downgrade their classification.
This is a quote from one of my books: "By 1943 the Soviets had stopped requesting any tanks from the British except those equipped with at least a 6-lber gun, except the Valentine, which they requested (in the Third Lend Lease Protocol) in "any quantity", with "any gun, even the 2-lber". This led to Valentine production in both Britain and Canada being extended solely to supply Russia. In 1943 and even early 1944, almost 2000 Valentines (Mk VIII and Mk IX) with 6-lber guns were shipped to the USSR." C.S. Sharp, Red Hammers: Soviet Self Propelled Artillery and Lend Lease Armor 1941 - 1945.
- 2
- 1
i want to try my "personal tank" tactic where i mass huge amounts of cheapest possible and least consuming tankettes to my divisions. I want every soldier to have their own personal tankette to drive around.
If i can eguip 20 divisions with tankettes, that means 20 divisions that are stronger than 20 regular infantry divisions. Don't think it will be worth the cost, but i want to try it.
Certainly if i have plenty of obsolete tank reserves i just assign them to my infantry divisions to stop enemy machine guns from being effective. Even 1939 tank provides protection against every rifle and machine gun, so having plenty of those means enemy soft attack is almost eliminated.
I just want to see what happens. Also i want to try upgrading first tank i get to fullest and from start to beginning just spamming those. Is there limit on how much i can upgrade a tank?
If i can eguip 20 divisions with tankettes, that means 20 divisions that are stronger than 20 regular infantry divisions. Don't think it will be worth the cost, but i want to try it.
Certainly if i have plenty of obsolete tank reserves i just assign them to my infantry divisions to stop enemy machine guns from being effective. Even 1939 tank provides protection against every rifle and machine gun, so having plenty of those means enemy soft attack is almost eliminated.
I just want to see what happens. Also i want to try upgrading first tank i get to fullest and from start to beginning just spamming those. Is there limit on how much i can upgrade a tank?
- 1
But lack of resources was one of main reasons why Germany built heavy tanks, was it not?
I like the idea, but it also seems possible to abuse depending on how the techs work and would require a lot of extra balancing and AI work (Or else the AI would never do it).
This is the most important part. Doctrine determines classification as much as anything else. The Americans didn't believe in tanks fighting tanks, which is one of the reasons they resisted deploying heavy tanks and resisted upgunning the M4. The British (IIRC) had the doctrine of two types of tanks, cruiser and infantry support, with wildly different abilities since infantry support had little need for mobility. The Germans obviously focused on armored breakthroughs and so needed high mobility. Doctrine determines classification as much as anything else.
That being said that sort of thing is really hard to model in game without having separate trees for each army, which gets real complicated real fast. I'd love to see 100% customized nations, but I'm not willing to pay the $200 Paradox would need to afford the developers for that.
Actually the developement of the Matilda 2 started in 1936, and they finished in with it in 1938.
The t-35 was developed in 1930-32, so it is unfair to compare it to that one.
Also you keep forgetting that a heavy tank is not equal to a tank with good armor. A heavy tank has both good armor for it's time, and excellent firepower. The matilda 2 has a good armor for a tank developed in the late 30s, but it's firepower is pathethic. Compare it to the Char b1 for example, which had a 75 mm and a 47 mm cannon. Even the T-35 had better firepower then the Matilda(and both those designs were much earlier), because after all a tank is not designed to just fight other tanks. It is also designed to fight dug in infantry. The matilda 2 only had a machine gun against infantry, because it's main gun couldn't even fire HE rounds. Even the AP rounds where quite bad, as they could only penetrate around 50mm of armor at 500 yards with AP rounds. It had only slightly better penetration value then a 7.5 cm kwk 37 firing AP shells.
So what I'm getting at is where do you put the Matilda on the heavy line? It can't go to the 1934 slot, because it was not developed at a time, but you can't exactly put it in the 1941 slot either because it was a joke compared to the KV1(not to mention the Tiger). If we really want to make justice to the Matilda the game should have a different tech line for infantry tanks(cheaper then a heavy, slow, bad firepower, but very good armor.) but I don't think that's neccessary, because we can already make slow and well armored medium sized tank with the variant system.
Last edited:
- 1
The Pershing can be considered a heavy tank (almost). Altough it saw very few action during WW II. Only during the final months, and just a handful of them.
The game has gone for a light/mid/heavy tank approach, which is accurate, but only to a certain extent. It could have also give us a second classification, that of infantry support tanks (which were usually "heavy" tanks, with good firepower against fortifications and soft targets but slow and, sometimes, low mobility) and "exploit" tanks (lighter armour and less firepower, but more speed and usually better mobility). I know in the game this infantry support vs exploit tanks dicotomy is dealed with in doctrines, but how tanks were designed had more to see with its role than with its weight/armour/firepower. Pre war designs were made thinking on its role. That is why brithish, french or german tanks were the way they were. Because they were designed with a given role in mind. Soviets were unique (until 1941) in the fact that they tried to develope a tank model that could fit in both roles (the T 34, on the contrary, Matildas or Chars were bad for exploitation, just as P IIs or P IIIs were bad for infantry support).
No need for a second classification, the game already gives us the option to make separate infantry/exploitation tanks with variants. Or something completely different, depending on how you plan to wage your war (doctrine).
Soviets were not unique, T-34 was just a new generation of exploitation tank (so better than previous generations), KV-1 was the heavy infantry support one.
Given the slots for tanks available in the game, what is the best fit available for U.K. tanks?
Light. 34, 36, 41. I would argue that the Vickers Lt. would fit the 34 slot best, followed by the Cruiser Mk I-IV, and the Tetrarch for the 41 slot.
The early Cruisers were built in significant numbers, and fit this slot fairly well.
The Tetrarch was designed for the light tank role, and
Medium 39, 41, 43. Here I think the Valentine for 39, Crusader for 41, and Cromwell for 43.
Although the Valentine was classed as an Infantry Tank by the war office is was faster and had less armour than the others, so probably fits better here.
It was in production before the Crusader, and although they were contemporaries they should probably be this way round.
It also accounted for a quarter of all U.K. tank production, so deserves a slot somewhere, and with 65mm of armour and 15mph doesn't fit as a light.
Heavy 34, 41, 43. Churchill for 41 is good, although a bit early. Black Prince for '43? Churchill Mk VII would fit better historically, as it was a major redesign, but not a huge deal.
For '34? The Matilda belongs somewhere, as 3,000 were built and they were an important type. With 75mm of armour, and 8mph they don't fit as lights, and there are better candidates for those slots.
34 is probably too early for the Matilda. If (for U.K. only) the 34 slot could be turned into a 36 that would work.
However, as the game starts in '36, if the 34 slot had the Matilda in it, but not available to be built from the start, that might do it.
Light. 34, 36, 41. I would argue that the Vickers Lt. would fit the 34 slot best, followed by the Cruiser Mk I-IV, and the Tetrarch for the 41 slot.
The early Cruisers were built in significant numbers, and fit this slot fairly well.
The Tetrarch was designed for the light tank role, and
Medium 39, 41, 43. Here I think the Valentine for 39, Crusader for 41, and Cromwell for 43.
Although the Valentine was classed as an Infantry Tank by the war office is was faster and had less armour than the others, so probably fits better here.
It was in production before the Crusader, and although they were contemporaries they should probably be this way round.
It also accounted for a quarter of all U.K. tank production, so deserves a slot somewhere, and with 65mm of armour and 15mph doesn't fit as a light.
Heavy 34, 41, 43. Churchill for 41 is good, although a bit early. Black Prince for '43? Churchill Mk VII would fit better historically, as it was a major redesign, but not a huge deal.
For '34? The Matilda belongs somewhere, as 3,000 were built and they were an important type. With 75mm of armour, and 8mph they don't fit as lights, and there are better candidates for those slots.
34 is probably too early for the Matilda. If (for U.K. only) the 34 slot could be turned into a 36 that would work.
However, as the game starts in '36, if the 34 slot had the Matilda in it, but not available to be built from the start, that might do it.
Issue is most of the early heavy tanks had a lot of problems and took a lot of resources to produce which isn't easily represented in game, there's also the issue that a Tech Level 1 tank will max varriants is just slightly better than a plain Tech Level 2 tank. If the game represented more the traits of the tank models then it could work better.
The names are just flavour text and not linked to the stats really.
The names are just flavour text and not linked to the stats really.
Idea -- the doctrine you research has an impact on the starting variant of the tank that you research. As it is now, the British will never build a Matilda II, because they would never expend rare pre-war experience on up armoring and lowering the firepower of a medium tank. But if the doctrine researched by the British resulted in the tank model researched by the British being Matilda like, then you would have doctrine effecting tank design -- like it should. Then the British would have to expend experience to fix the deficiencies of the Matilda.
The Matilda is just an example. Every nation's doctrine could impact their starting tank model.
The Matilda is just an example. Every nation's doctrine could impact their starting tank model.
- 2
I'd go with:
Light: 34 Vickers Light, 36 early Mk Cruisers, 41 None or Valentine.
Edit: Valentine fits as light just as well as most of the pre-war French tanks.
Medium: 39 Crusader, 41 Cromwell, 43 Comet, 45 Centurion. It would be bit too much to have Crusader at same tech as Sherman and T-34. Ditto with Panther and Cromwell.
Heavy: 34 None (Vickers Independent bit old), 41 Churchill, 43 Caernavron (remember, it's King Tiger at this tech).
For US, in comparison:
Light: 34 M1 Combat Car, 36 M2 light, 41 M3/5 Stuart.
Medium: 39 M3 Lee, 41 Sherman, 43 Pershing, 45 M46-48 Patton series ('d just call it "Patton" without MXX and use picture of M46).
Heavy: 34 None, 41 M6, 43 T32. T29 series in reserve for 45 heavy due to heavier armament.
Oh well, Soviets too:
Light: 34 the Amphib light tanks, 36 T-26/BT, 41 T-70.
Medium: 39 some prototype, 41 T-34, 43 T-44, 45 T-54.
Heavy: 34 I'd actually go with T-28 for this even if not proper heavy, T-28E had decent armour. 41 KV and IS-1 (85mm). 43 IS-2 and IS-3.
Last edited: