New research system has gotten better and worse at the same time..

[kingsword]

Exact proof that people don't read other people's posts!

You blame people like that and you do the same yourself. (explained below)

When you really look at things, the HoI1 tree was broken. Adding an improved Submachine Gun would do absolutely nothing to the fighting power of a division, especially since only a few hundred would be deployed. In HoI1, an improved SMG gave you a +1 SA value, even though the improved SMG was no better than the basic SMG it replaced! Why was this value in there? I don't know! It spoiled players, who gained a false belief that this would actually affect stuff.

I stated several pages before, (more than once) you can still see the techs from HoI in HoI2 as components, those are still doing the same job. When you read the five components for different infantry models, there are "service rifles", "submachine guns", "assault rifles" and advanced versions of these. There is no other component that can explain the increase of soft attack value for a newer infantry model. They still do the same job but they're bundled together so you have to look for it to see. So, you're totally mistaken about this.

 

[gunboat]

Sorta Tech Related

Why on earth is the pershing under the heavy tank tech tree? It was a medium tanks and there were going to be whole divisions of it. (more or less it was to replace the Sherman)

Maybe a change here would make us complainers feel better, make the Pershing the top level medium tank for the USA instead of the easy 8 sherman. That would at least move the sherman down the food chain a bit (where it belongs)

 

[unmerged(45611)]

Exactly. As the research part of HOI2 is, one might just as well cut it all down to an automated process where you just select how hard to press research in the varous areas and then forget about everything. There's no reason to be forced to go and click the 99% obvious choices.

Agreed.

I think the research team idea is a nice touch, and blueprints are great too. I can even live with the "historical dates" - although I think the penalites are too steep.

I think the problem with research in HOI2 is two-fold.

1. Limited to 5 research teams Please!... 20 German research teams sit idly on any given day. Same for USA. Uh, yeah... even though I've got 10K in money burning holes in my pocket. Hey, if you can pay them, they will work for you! Fix the limit, and make it much more expensive to research stuff, so that, for example, even the USA couldn't pay for more than, say, 10-12 teams at a time, Germany maybe 8-10 once they start aquiring IC (and presumably money). I'd even advocate tying research back into IC (but still keeping the monetary cost) - after all, you still needed to build research facilities (wind tunnels, proving grounds, etc.) in order to accomplish the research.
2. As mentioned elsewhere, give me some choices! I like a lot of the changes in HOI2, but compared to HOI1, I feel like research is practically decided for you. God forbid you should start anything more than a year ahead of time. And all equipment is decided for me: perhaps make the 5 subs in any research topic have options (30mm, 40mm, 50mm guns, e.g.), each with tradeoffs (cost more and takes more time to develop and/or reasearch, but works better... ). And remove so many of the pre-decisions - why can't I try my luck with researching human wave type tactics with Germany if I want to?

Frankly, with the system as is, I'd prefer to dumb it down further and just give me some sliders:

1. Amount to spend on Research
2. Percentage to spend on Infantry Research
3. Percentage to spend on Armor Research
4. ...etc.

Talk about simplifying things and making the game go quicker! Now you just get the occasional pop-up: "Your scientists and engineers have developed: the Tiger tank. Use this technology wisely, my son."

As long as I'm griping... Please allow for some specific provincial targets for air missions

Thanks for listening

 

[unmerged(29126)]

Game balance, that basically rules out any significant changes to the research system or other parts of the game.

I was in a favour of unit differentiation as well. Unfortunately there are only 10 models available for each unit type, having different models with different calibers is simply not possible. Another

 

[unmerged(31739)]

Any more idea?

 

[USAF_777]

Err...

Topic made in January 2005, last reply in May 2005, it's May 2006...

 

[Naga Niome]

A combination of HoR1 and HoR2 Research would be perfect as Steam described, where we could choose in the five skill whatever listings.

I agree with 2's lack of realism and specification however I agree with 1's overly detailed and specified research.

If both were combined and expanded alot more but accordingly, it would be excellent.

*edit* You bastard restarted an old topic.. damn you.

 

[Brasidas]

Necro-posting isn't the devil, but "reinvigorating" a year-old a discussion that died a natural death with "any more idea?" doesn't foster new debate.

 

[unmerged(51738)]

As someone who started with HOI2 and went back to Hoi1, only too see that i hate the tech-tree, it was kinda interesting, though. An example of humans despising changes?

 

[unmerged(38672)]

I don´t understand all the mean remarks about this thread being resurrected. Important topics need to be revisited, and I haven´t read this thread before.

I think the tech-tree in HoI1 was a bit too complex and "geeky" to fit in a grand-strategy style game, but HoI2 took it too far and oversimplified it. It seems silly that you need to research assault rifle and submachineguns for each of the infantry types, for example. Why not give a mini-blueprint for components that you have already researched before? If you for example have researched "Basic Decimetric Radar", you should get a blueprint for this component when researching aircrafts and ships with this component.

It also irritates me that units have basically the same stats. Doctrines and brigades give some flexibility and variation, but not enough for my taste. It is all too easy for a minor to keep up with majors in infantry techs and have basically as good infantry as the major powers.

 

[unmerged(31739)]

Necro-posting isn't the devil, but "reinvigorating" a year-old a discussion that died a natural death with "any more idea?" doesn't foster new debate.

This thread not death.

 

[Hagen II]

I liked the point about 37mm guns. As I said in another thread, 25mm AT could beat any Panzer in 1940.