You're confusing self-loading rifles and automatic weapons. To answer your question, though, my argument was that you didn't need 2.5, it would just be a nitpicky option.
Modifier(s) for Semi-Automatic Rifles?
- Thread starter Shaka of Carthage
- 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.
You're confusing self-loading rifles and automatic weapons. To answer your question, though, my argument was that you didn't need 2.5, it would just be a nitpicky option.
@Zauberelefant, I usually start out by building a line of inf I when playing a minor who needs to go to war before the war (Hungary, Romania), and it feels like the weapons get ate up extremely fast. This is all single-player, and it's only a feeling, so take a grain of salt.
Well, the hoi4 German situation is a bit different, you get Austrian and Czech stockpiles, have abundant industry and can conquer a few minors to boot.
However, I think your experience supports my point:
You want more guns before better guns.
Sure, for the purpose of NF manpower requirements, more before better makes sense. As Germany, though, I’ve never found the need to continue old production because there’s enough industry to support new. So more better weapons trumps all.
That's what I said. However, this is not historical. Germany could have produced better rifles, but not the needed 20 million of them.
Because that's an absurd position. WW2 was not fought by 40k Orks, and "de new wunz gots more dakka" was not the only concern. An SMG battalion vs a late war rifle battalion are very different things, even if the PPS and G43 were developed in the same year. It's not just that one has more firepower than the other, it's that they fulfil different roles. Majors choosing to produce the cheaper equipment being represented by whether or not to research better weapons is a complete nonsense; not only is it a complete non-question in terms of strategy in game, but it also doesn't even vaguely model the nature of the actual decision which was between a lot more or a little better rather than "oh, but it'll take up research capabilities".
It is not an adequate portrayal, because it is not an even vaguely accurate portrayal. It shows neither the reasons nor the results - nor even the mechanisms - accurately.
As to "Comparing a 9 ton tank to a 22 ton tank is NOTHING like comparing soft attack infantry weapons."... Let me have a go: Comparing an infantry platoon built around LMGs supported by bolt actions to a platoon built around SMGs and grenades is NOTHING LIKE comparing tanks of similar role, armour, speed, and armament which are ambiguously either side of an arbitrary medium/light distinction that isn't even settled.
Exactly. Historically, it was a question of strategy. In game, it's a non-question.
- 2
- 1
Tier 3 infantry weapons are significantly better than Tier 1. Combined with the passive boosts from the intermediate techs between them, I'd argue that high tech infantry weapons are already potent.
I would never do such a thing. I especially wouldn't do that as a way to shave a few MIC off the infantry weapons category to put those MIC on tanks or planes. And I have certainly never set up staged infantry kit production and only slowly swapped them over to newer types so I could keep a steady stream of equipment in production.
I resent the implication, sir! I would never deprive Germany of high quality equipment in an effort to economize IC and save steel!
I've played MP games as Germany where I never swapped all MIC on infantry kits over to Tier 2 or 3. My plan for doing so depends heavily on what DLC I've been playing and how we've tweaked our MP mod, though. There was about a year where I wouldn't bother to upgrade infantry kit production at all (even after Paradox made higher tier equipment worthwhile), because I didn't value infantry kits as much as other things I could slap that MIC on. I don't do that anymore, but the lessons I learned from that have stuck with me.
- 2
- 1
- 1
I think it’s best to think of the techs as ‘better guns’, rather than their actual titles, which are there for flavor. ‘Better guns’ tech allows for easier gameplay. If you’re lookIng to represent actual production of equipment you’d might as well start looking into the actual roles of equipment (plenty of people talking about it in this thread), in which case we’d be need a squad load out designer similar to MTG ship designers. I’d rather it be abstracted, and have a cool picture to click on in the research tab.
From my SP amateur point of view, I thought that the described approach is just uselessly self limiting.
It is actually heartening to see that at highly competent levels, the game actually rewards such historical play.
Some time ago I found a mod that took advantage of the DLC that allowed you to convert equipment (eg light tanks I into light tanks II) and allowed you to upgrade the infantry equipment. So I could just create the k98 version 2 and convert the weapons (also from other countries) to k98 v2. Or convert infantry kit 1 into infant kit 2 (or 3) are very usefull
The issues remain: higher cost per unit, while MIC is needed for modern tanks and planes.
Here's a practical bit of production advice:
I almost never put more than 15 MIC on a single production line. So, I might have 3 production lines on infantry kits, and I might have 20,000 production lines on tanks and planes.
With planes, I tend to just swap them all over to the new plane at the same time due to the vast differences in performance between different types. But with infantry kits, I will swap one line over and let it build some decent production efficiency before swapping the next one over. Depending on how I time it, I might have Tier 3 researched right at the point I would swap the final line over, so it gets swapped from Tier 1 to Tier 3, while the Tier 2 lines produce the numbers. I might win the war before all production lines are swapped over.
- 2
- 1
You are wrong. US was first to equip semi-auto rifles because they managed to make a good model first. There was a huge issue of poor reliability and need for better and more complicated manufacturing, that Soviets only managed to over-come in SVT-40 model in 1940, Germans in G43. Most semi auto rifle (at least for Soviets and Germans) designs rejected in 30s were rejected due to poor reliability of weapon delivered, and need to spend more time on refinements.
It wasn`t just an issue of throwing money at a problem. Making a model that was reliable, didn`t cost a fortune and could be manufactured in high volumes was a huge technical issue.
Soviet PPSh units were created due to industrial limitations, since SMGs were not just cheap to produce, they could be produced on less advanced factory equipment, with less qualified labor, which was a huge factor, especially for USSR`s less qualified on average labor force.
How is it inadequate, if more or less all that it did, was creating somewhat more capable infantry?
On the tanks, a medium tank is an entirely different weapon than a light tank.
They recently made higher tier inf equipment cheaper, they went exactly in the wrong direction. If higher tier is so much more complex and even includes mortars, MGs, small cannons, etc, to justify the huge increase in soft attay, then the price difference should be higher and make the choice meaningful between less better stuff or more worse stuff.
- 5
- 1
You are wrong. The British trialled and rejected the Garand. The difference between the US converting to the Garand and the UK rejecting the Garand in favour of updating the Enfield wasn't that the Garand was a much better rifle than the Garand, it was the difference in requirements and strategic situation between the countries making the choice.
The question is wrong, so...
- 1
- 1
At the squad or company (Tactical) level, it makes a huge difference and a change would be needed.
However, this is a *strategic* level game. The way the game handles it is fine. From where you sit (in the rear with the gear) a gun is a gun is a gun.
However, this is a *strategic* level game. The way the game handles it is fine. From where you sit (in the rear with the gear) a gun is a gun is a gun.
- 2
can you elaborate on Britain’s difference in requirements and strategic situation?
