Paradox, can we have a 1936 heavy tank model please?

[Sleight of Hand]

Looking at the latest (?) tank production screen:

It seems we have 1934 heavy tank tech, followed by 1941.This is unfortunate as it misses out some of the most important heavy and infantry tank designs of the war, which I think you should correct.

Assuming, as I have read, that your plan is to have the same tech tree for everyone but with unique names and pictures for the major nations (and perhaps a few of the more important regional powers) then you could perhaps consider this:

The first name is 1934 tech, and the second is 1936. These are just approximations for gameplay, as obviously a simple template system like this is not going to yield perfect examples.

US: ???, ???
UK: Matilda I, Matilda II
France: Char B1, Char B1 bis
USSR: T-35, T-42*
Italy: ???, ???
Germany: Grosstraktor, Neubaufahrzeug
Japan: Type 91, Type 95

* Presumably the KV-1 will be 1941 tech?

I don't think Japan actually built any heavy tanks at all, but I am sure someone better-informed could help here. They are a bit of a special case in this regard, though both of the designs I have picked did exist.

I am not aware of any US heavy tank designs before about 1940, though others may be. Likewise, I don't know of any Italian heavy tank designs apart from a medium-heavy hybrid called the P 40.

Still, I do feel that there ought to be a parallel 1936 heavy tank design, alongside the light tank design. This would allow the player to focus on a smaller number of heavy tanks supporting infantry (i.e. France) rather than building large numbers of faster, lighter tanks (i.e. Germany) and being able to upgrade them before 1941. Plenty of designs existed for those nations that focused on heavy/infantry tank designs, so I think it would be fairly simple to add the 1936 tech.

What do you guys think? Also, feel free to provide any examples I am missing, or you think are wrong. Don't get too caught up on the actual stats of the vehicles, as we're never going to get all major powers' examples to be of similar capabilities, as with the other techs.

 

[Swinds]

In many ways I can see your point and it reminds me of the aircraft production tree.

I think there has to be a compromise and the compromise here is to give everyone the same Tank options. You could have more tanks listed for GB and SU but that might cause a problem for Japan and Italy. I suspect PDX have made these decisions for balance and practical reasons.

I'd have thought that the HoI3 route with default names for none existing tanks (the player can change the names after all) would give the player the change to go non historical if he wants and might give more flavour and replay.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Well, the names and pictures are essentially just there for flavor; they are irrelevant in a sense. I just think that there ought to be a 1936 heavy tank tech so heavy tanks can be upgraded before a late 1930s conflict breaks out. There was no shortage of heavy tank designs during that period, even if ultimately most of the major powers settled on mass-producing medium tanks rather than focusing on heavy tanks.

Regardless of the actual names/stats they use (which by default will be identical across the board) I do feel that an extra heavy tank tech would be beneficial, and 1936 seems a good choice as it mirrors the 1936 light tank.

Likewise, there needs to be at least one pre-1922 battleship tech.

 

[FOARP]

What's the point of having historically accurate tech trees if we're going to add a bunch of ahistorical weapons to them?

One of the big problems with HOI3 was that there was no real difference between different countries. Adding a bunch of ahistorical weapons to each tree for which each country has effectively the same weapon takes us back down the same road.

Not sure that the Matilda can really be classed a heavy tank either - that wasn't really the infantry tank concept.

EDIT: FYI, AFAIK, countries will not have the same tree - at least GPs will have tailor-made tech trees.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

1936 Heavy tanks are needed.
They existed in 1936, there were (an admittedly impractical) option to armies, therefore they should be there.

What's the point of having historically accurate tech trees if we're going to add a bunch of ahistorical weapons to them?

One of the big problems with HOI3 was that there was no real difference between different countries. Adding a bunch of ahistorical weapons to each tree for which each country has effectively the same weapon takes us back down the same road.

Not sure that the Matilda can really be classed a heavy tank either - that wasn't really the infantry tank concept.

EDIT: FYI, AFAIK, countries will not have the same tree - at least GPs will have tailor-made tech trees.

I think that's actually an advantage, as it allows all nations to pursue what options they wish. In a game like HoI4, the player is in a better position to decide what weapons are required for their game than the developer or history. Every state should have the ability to create a Tiger-esque vehicle. Simply having the vehicles that existed and no other options makes the game more deterministic. What happens if (by some miracle)I manage to make Brazil a first rate world power? Should I be required not to built particular tanks just because they didn't build them in real life?

Also, making all weapons the same (apart from cosmetics) allows combat to make much more sense and be much more balanced, I know... I know... but in a wargame such as HoI4 with so many other factors requiring my attention, I'd rather not have to bother about finding out if there's Tiger Is, Tiger II (Ps) or Tiger II (Hs) in that Heavy tank brigade opposite me. Just give me the year of heavy tank and I'm fine. There's other games out there for dealing with exact types etc, but when I load up HoI4 next year, I know I'll be looking at some of the best in alternative history gaming there can be, and that's part of the fun. Some factors (the AI invading Poland) I can take as given. Other factors are not given and that's the joy of it. I'll be forced to make decisions on different situations but ones very, very similar to the ones that the leaders of the period did.

 

[FOARP]

So, basically: "Tigers for everyone!"

In which case everyone will build Tigers, if this is the optimal path, and there will be no difference between countries, again.

I'm not sure this is actually a good way of making a game. A good game should force you to make meaningful decisions, not simply follow an optimal path on autopilot.

 

[Oakfan]

I guess if you plan to go to war in the early-mid 30's that may help. Aren't you able to modify the Grosstracktor stats, if you have experiece, to accomidate any needs?

 

[Vidkjaer]

Still, I do feel that there ought to be a parallel 1936 heavy tank design, alongside the light tank design. This would allow the player to focus on a smaller number of heavy tanks supporting infantry (i.e. France) rather than building large numbers of faster, lighter tanks (i.e. Germany) and being able to upgrade them before 1941.

If i understand your post correctly you are under the assumption that you can upgrade your tank?
You cant upgrade your tanks from one design to another when you research better designs in 1941. They will still be 1936 models with the exeption that you can create a modified 1936 version using the variant system. But a 1936 tank will not be upgraded to a 1941 tank. When you have researched the 1941 design you can only produce them, not upgrade existing older designs.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

So, basically: "Tigers for everyone!"

In which case everyone will build Tigers, if this is the optimal path, and there will be no difference between countries, again.

I'm not sure this is actually a good way of making a game. A good game should force you to make meaningful decisions, not simply follow an optimal path on autopilot.

You're not seeing the wood for the trees here, FOARP.

If spamming heavy tanks is the optimal path, then that is a flaw in how they are represented, not that they are available to research and build in the first place. All of the major powers had the potential to mass-produce heavy tanks, but really only the French did initially, and then the Soviets and Germans later on. Did the King Tiger and Maus win the war for Hitler? No. Did the Char 2C save the French in 1940? No.

There is a difference between having the option to do something and trying to make it work, and not having the option at all because you're simply convinced that it wouldn't work.

HoI IV is supposed to introduce sandbox and 'what if?' elements; a rigid, historical tech tree is not conducive to this.

 

[mursolini]

France: Char B1, Char B1 bis

Char B1 would probably be 1934 heavy, and B1 bis will be it`s variant.

So, basically: "Tigers for everyone!"

In which case everyone will build Tigers, if this is the optimal path, and there will be no difference between countries, again.

I'm not sure this is actually a good way of making a game. A good game should force you to make meaningful decisions, not simply follow an optimal path on autopilot.

What was special about Tiger aside shitty suspencion?
It`s gun wa no better than Soviet 85s or US 90mm, it`s armor sheme wasn`t new, it`s engine was typical airplane engine, downthrottled for ground usage.

Having special stats for every country is also bad, it doesn`t force meaningfull decisions, it simply means you will stick to outstanding weapons, and ignore underwhelming ones, like IF Tiger is crap, just ignore building it. And if Tiger 2 also is, just ignore heavies altogather. Countries have a meaningfull choice of company that designs tanks influence on variants.

All of the major powers had the potential to mass-produce heavy tanks, but really only the French did initially, and then the Soviets and Germans later on. Did the King Tiger and Maus win the war for Hitler? No. Did the Char 2C save the French in 1940? No.

Somebody forgot Matilda 2 and Churchills

 

[Denkt]

Everyone use the same tech tree but which companies (tech teams) each country have is not the same and you also have to take acount for the model/variant system. Light tanks will be the most reliable and fastest tanks but they lack the combat power of heavier tanks. Medium tanks have more firepower but are not as mobile. Heavy tanks are powerful in combat but the low reliability mean you have to be careful with moving them, they are like fortress on tracks. Super heavy tanks are your best choice if you need to defeat fortified enemies or defend your own forts.

 

[mursolini]

Light tanks will be the most reliable and fastest tanks but they lack the combat power of heavier tanks. Medium tanks have more firepower but are not as mobile. Heavy tanks are powerful in combat but the low reliability mean you have to be careful with moving them, they are like fortress on tracks. Super heavy tanks are your best choice if you need to defeat fortified enemies or defend your own forts.

That, was the theory, but in practice of HOI3, it didn`t work well, with most people prefering to get one type of tank(medium or light), or at most, 2.

I`m curious how it will work in HOI4, but unless combat system is radically redesigned, people will probably just stick to one-tank-fits-all style, as single tank type is easier to both quickly upgrade with exp, and manage production lines and rearmament.

 

[Denkt]

One thing that Hearts of Iron 4 have that Hearts of Iron 3 did not have is the reliability factor.

 

[Oakfan]

Everyone use the same tech tree but which companies

No reason to read the rest of your argument after that initial statement. Even with the lack of information on the tech tree for ALL nations, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that all nations have the same tech tree.

What about the stats on all the differant equipment? I find it unrealistic that a German tank has the same stats as a Italian tank

 

[Sleight of Hand]

@mursolini

I didn't forget the British, it's just that were infantry rather than heavy tanks -- even if, from a HoI perspective, we'd call them heavy tanks.

I assume the Churchill is the current British 1941 heavy tank tech.

 

[mursolini]

One thing that Hearts of Iron 4 have that Hearts of Iron 3 did not have is the reliability factor.

Which helps how?
It pigeonhols you into single tank even more, since you can bump it`s reliability far more than that of 3 separate models simultanuously.

No reason to read the rest of your argument after that initial statement. Even with the lack of information on the tech tree for ALL nations, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that all nations have the same tech tree.

Everyone has same tech tree, only names are different.

@mursolini

I didn't forget the British, it's just that were infantry rather than heavy tanks -- even if, from a HoI perspective, we'd call them heavy tanks.

I assume the Churchill is the current British 1941 heavy tank tech.

What is the practical difference between heavy tank and infantry tank?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

What is the practical difference between heavy tank and infantry tank?

In many ways, very little. In terms of design, however, infantry tanks were supposed to move slowly alongside infantry, drawing fire and destroying fortifications such as pillboxes and bunkers. They were designed with the WW1-era mentality of slow-moving forces moving over trench-riddled battlefields. In game terms these would be heavy tanks.

Conversely, the cruiser tanks were lighter, faster, better armed but poorly armored; they were designed to flank and destroy enemy tanks. In game terms these would be light and medium tanks.

Heavy tanks were fewer in number and slower but had better armor and bigger guns; they were designed to destroy great numbers of enemy tanks whilst taking very little damage in return.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1#The_one-man_turret (paragraph 2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank#Raseiniai

 

[Premu]

What is the practical difference between heavy tank and infantry tank?

The Matildas were heavily armored and very slow - but could only shoot HE-ammo, making them rather useless against other tanks. A heavy tank is very good against lighter tanks, the infantry tank isn't.

 

[Denkt]

Well the 1934 heavy tank may not offer the greatest firepower in 1940, maybe the infantry tanks are supposed to be self propelled artillery variants of the 1934 heavy tank, that maybe work

 

[FOARP]

The Matildas were heavily armored and very slow - but could only shoot HE-ammo, making them rather useless against other tanks. A heavy tank is very good against lighter tanks, the infantry tank isn't.

Wasn't the 2-pounder a solid-shot gun only?

You're not seeing the wood for the trees here, FOARP.

If spamming heavy tanks is the optimal path, then that is a flaw in how they are represented, not that they are available to research and build in the first place. All of the major powers had the potential to mass-produce heavy tanks, but really only the French did initially, and then the Soviets and Germans later on. Did the King Tiger and Maus win the war for Hitler? No. Did the Char 2C save the French in 1940? No.

There is a difference between having the option to do something and trying to make it work, and not having the option at all because you're simply convinced that it wouldn't work.

HoI IV is supposed to introduce sandbox and 'what if?' elements; a rigid, historical tech tree is not conducive to this.

HOI3 was supposed to be very sand-box in terms of tank-design, but it ended up being very generic since everyone followed the same, optimal path. I'm worried that if every country has the same options then everyone will just choose the same path. Instead, different countries should play differently - in game terms this increases replayability because you don't always end up doing the same things, and it also reflects history better..