Pz III with 50mm gun?

[unmerged(36245)]

In HOI was possible to research different tank guns (Pz III with 30, 50 mm).
Can I in HOI2 upgrade Pz III divisoins (30mm to 50mm)?
I have looked the screenshots (tecthrees) but I found no answer....

 

[Permanganate]

In HOI was possible to research different tank guns (Pz III with 30, 50 mm).
Can I in HOI2 upgrade Pz III divisoins (30mm to 50mm)?
I have looked the screenshots (tecthrees) but I found no answer....

The answer's there; you can't. The tech tree in HoI2 is clearer and better distinguishes the sides, but it's much less complicated. You can build your Early, Basic, Improved, and Advanced Medium Tanks and one of them's a PzIII.

 

[unmerged(36245)]

The answer's there; you can't. The tech tree in HoI2 is clearer and better distinguishes the sides, but it's much less complicated. You can build your Early, Basic, Improved, and Advanced Medium Tanks and one of them's a PzIII.

Hooray

Ok but Pz IV..... it is big difference, do you have early Pz IVC or late Pz IVF2. I realy dont like this "simple" system".

I hope, that some patch will fix this problem and we can upgrade our panzer divisons

 

[TheLand]

The answer's there; you can't. The tech tree in HoI2 is clearer and better distinguishes the sides, but it's much less complicated. You can build your Early, Basic, Improved, and Advanced Medium Tanks and one of them's a PzIII.

Obviously this means some of the subtlety is lost, but I have to say I'll live. HOI1 never distinguished between the 75mm gun found on the the M3 Grant and the one on the Panther.

The system in HOI2 is more abstracted than HOI1 and the research teams work differently. Will have to play it to be able to rate it properly.

 

[Tachikaze]

Obviously this means some of the subtlety is lost, but I have to say I'll live. HOI1 never distinguished between the 75mm gun found on the the M3 Grant and the one on the Panther.

The system in HOI2 is more abstracted than HOI1 and the research teams work differently. Will have to play it to be able to rate it properly.

I can tell you right now that the research system in HoI2 is very very different from the one in HoI1 (but you already knew that, right? ). The most major change (on the armour side at least) is that you research techs like Improved Medium Tank straight away instead of researching specific tracks, armour and guns (these are all included in the tech itself). I agree that this is quite boring in the way that it limits your options for changing history quite severly but still it's kind of wonderful since all techs you research give effect and you don't have to take care of any micro-management at all! And believe me, with all the new things in HoI2 you'll need that relief.

 

[unmerged(18237)]

Hooray

Ok but Pz IV..... it is big difference, do you have early Pz IVC or late Pz IVF2. I realy dont like this "simple" system".

I hope, that some patch will fix this problem and we can upgrade our panzer divisons

I second that, it was one of the biggest mistake in HOI1, and if they made the same "mistake" in HOI2...
The germans might have won the war if they focussed their development and production to ONE tank, instead of producing many different tanks like the Panther, Tiger I and the King Tiger, and they also kept producing the PzIII for way to long, it was opsolete in 42' but they kept producing them.

Comparing the Pz.IV.D with the Pz.IVF2 is like comparing the Abrams to the Leopard 2, the Abrams is way to old :rofl:

Frank2u
Ohh and merry Christmas

 

[TheLand]

Hooray

Ok but Pz IV..... it is big difference, do you have early Pz IVC or late Pz IVF2. I realy dont like this "simple" system".

I hope, that some patch will fix this problem and we can upgrade our panzer divisons

I agree it's cool to be able to distinguish every type of tank that was produced during WWII and be able to encapsulate the difference between a Pz IVC, a PzIVH, a T-34/76, a T-34/85, a Sherman M4A1 and a Sherman IIC Firefly. It would also make historical scenarios slightly easier to set up.

However that would take a huge amount of work to set up, and be very confusing for people who aren't really aware of the fine differences. It also wouldn't make a huge difference at a strategic level. A game like Combat Mission literally has every type of AFV in service, but then it's a tactical rather than a strategic game.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

It did work well in HOI1 didnt it? Didnt have many posts about the tech tree (i.e that it was a bad idea). In HOI2 it seems they wanted to simplify it. Truthfully I love the tech tree in HOI1 as you could mod your army into a specific direction. Seems that in HOI2 you cant do that? However I can understand the motivation of Paradox - i.e making it simpler for the masses.

F

 

[Zanza]

Well, you aren't researching a specific armor in HoI2, but an armored division. Naming the division by its most important component, the specific tank, is a bit misleading, but just naming every division "Basic Tank Division" etc. would have been even worse IMHO. So they had to make a choice for a name for each kind of division. But as the game is on a strategic scope, it doesn't really matter if the tank has a calibre of 50mm or 60mm. That's just one of hundreds of details which would need to be worked out. You don't specify how many infantrymen, guns etc. your division has, so why should you specify what calibre your tanks main gun has? If you specify that you open a can of worms. The next thing would be how broad the tracks of your tanks should be, or how thick the armor. Or what ratio of recon vehicles, what ratio of radios, what kind of command structure etc. your division should have. Not exactly things that are feasible on a grand strategic scope where you can easily have 200 or 300 divisions as the Soviet Union.

 

[unmerged(16832)]

I really don't think the gun on a tank really mattered in the strategic scope of things.

 

[jpd]

I really don't think the gun on a tank really mattered in the strategic scope of things.

well, yes and no (no pun intended). When the choice is between a 50mm and 60mm, and both can penetrate the opponent's armor, on a stratetic level there is little difference.

But, if your choice is between a 30 mm that cannot, and a 50mm that can, then there is a big difference on the strategic level, as the British found out in the desert of Africa.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(31954)]

well, yes and no (no pun intended). When the choice is between a 50mm and 60mm, and both can penetrate the opponent's armor, on a stratetic level there is little difference.

But, if your choice is between a 30 mm that cannot, and a 50mm that can, then there is a big difference on the strategic level, as the British found out in the desert of Africa.

Jan Peter

I have to agree with jpd. The gun on a tank could make a huge strategic difference. Even with the same size gun, a 75 mm gun is not a 75 mm gun is not a 75 mm gun. The 75 mm short-barreled gun on the early PzIV was good for infantry support, but had little armor piercing ability. The long-barreled 75 mm gun was a good tank killer. The 75 mm gun on the Sherman was not the same as the 75 mm gun on the Panther. The US made a strategic decision on what kind of tank it would build, and that decision had major ramifications. Had they designed the Sherman for destroying tanks and given it an adequate gun, the war might have been quite different.

I think there is room in the game system for making some differences between the tanks of the different nations, and I think modders can add techs to do that.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I have to agree with jpd. The gun on a tank could make a huge strategic difference. Even with the same size gun, a 75 mm gun is not a 75 mm gun is not a 75 mm gun. The 75 mm short-barreled gun on the early PzIV was good for infantry support, but had little armor piercing ability. The long-barreled 75 mm gun was a good tank killer. The 75 mm gun on the Sherman was not the same as the 75 mm gun on the Panther. The US made a strategic decision on what kind of tank it would build, and that decision had major ramifications. Had they designed the Sherman for destroying tanks and given it an adequate gun, the war might have been quite different.

I think there is room in the game system for making some differences between the tanks of the different nations, and I think modders can add techs to do that.

Keep in mind there wasn't just one tank model in a WW2 size tank division, with a single tank model just having a single barrel size.
Shermans came with 3 different barrel sizes, the Germans had from 3 to 7 different guns for each of their basic tank model, and often all of them were used in the same division, sometimes in different roles depending on gun type/size, sometimes not.

How would you go about modelling that?

 

[TheLand]

I think there is room in the game system for making some differences between the tanks of the different nations, and I think modders can add techs to do that.

It might be better to model the tank design philosophy as much as / more than the tanks themselves.

 

[unmerged(16832)]

Frankly, there's two primary reasons tank guns and tank quality in general doesn't matter. First of all, the differences between tanks are very overrated by wargamers in general, e.g. the Sherman did exactly what it was supposed to, and it was more than adequate for the infantry support roles it often recieved. It's that tiny minority of encounters that involve the big tanks that made the Sherman a non-well recieved tank.

US tank doctrine involved not only armored divisions, but also including armor in infantry divisions. This couldn't have been done without a mass-production tank. As a result, US infantry divisions had a lot more options on the attack than their counterparts. Also, the US combined arms doctrine eliminated the need for the 'bestest' tank in the world, because tanks weren't the only thing meant to take out tanks.

I'm also against the inclusion of super heavy tanks, because frankly, there would have been no way to get them to combat. They'd just be bunkers moving at less than walking speed. The crew would be more useful without the tank.

Normandy wasn't decided by Shermans or Tigers, it was decided by tactics and strategy..

 

[Spruce]

I second that, it was one of the biggest mistake in HOI1, and if they made the same "mistake" in HOI2...
The germans might have won the war if they focussed their development and production to ONE tank, instead of producing many different tanks like the Panther, Tiger I and the King Tiger, and they also kept producing the PzIII for way to long, it was opsolete in 42' but they kept producing them.

Comparing the Pz.IV.D with the Pz.IVF2 is like comparing the Abrams to the Leopard 2, the Abrams is way to old :rofl:

Frank2u
Ohh and merry Christmas

good points, but wasn't the basic reason that the Germans had more "tech teams" working on armour?

the good side of this approach was that they had the best armour technically and effectively spoken. The downside was that they had the most diverse arry of different models, with child diseases and in the end at a too high cost - so not efficiently.

In practice you are indeed right. The Koenigstiger was a bad judgement. IRRC Porsche also made some prototypes for the Koenigstiger but those where basicly not usable because the gun had problems positioning at low angles.

They should have improved the Panter and let it evolve towards the design specs for the Koenigstiger. The second model that they needed to invest in was the Jagdpanther - imho the best tank killer.

Is this difference in approach from the US to the Germans somehow modeled into the game?

 

[Grosshaus]

Although I would be the last person telling a research system is approaching tedious micromanagement I'd say HoI1 was by far closest to that. HoI2 is indeed streamlined, but it doesn't make it less fun to use or limit your strategic options. Frankly it increases them, provided that emphasis is on the word strategic. There are very important choices to be made that have far more importance than mere calibre size of a gun.

HoI2 was meant to be Grand Strategy that is Fun, with more detail on any single aspect it's nolonger Grand and for the 90% of people who couldn't care less on that single aspect it wouldn't be any more Fun.

 

[merlin2199]

I find that attempting to replicate the actual situations during groung combat at a strategic level will be rather dificult. By researching a specific tank technology you get a vehicle that has certain capabilities, ei speed, armor, and armament. What appears to determine what effect these categories affect armored divisions are the land warfare doctrine of specific countries.

From looking at the tech trees for the US and Germany in the demo you can see that the US has a firepower approach where as Germany has mobility. Each doctrine has several layers, all with bonuses to the three categories mentioned above. To be honest, I find that a great new addition to HoI as it allows you to mold your force to your personal prefrences or approach to war, without having to go through the menutia of gun sizes, armor plating, or even command structure. Even Hitler found out it was impossible to keep up with individual tank model production. If any of you have read Guderian's Panzer Leader you will recall the episode with the 50mm guns not being installed on the newer Pz.III's. It did cost the Germans in the early weeks of Barbarossa, but you live an learn. Guderian was himself later in charge of tank development and still couldn't get the production of StuG's or Jagdpanzers to go down in order to use the scarce materials for an increase in the Panther production.

All and all, I think the new system does a good job of replicating the idea of the top, in this case you, delegating matters to various subbordinates. You set the essential parameters, ie. Basic Medium tank or some such thing, and your tech teams come up with competing designs. Whose to say they will always come up with a Pz.IVD before they figure out they can mount a long 75mm gun on the same turret and end up designing a Pz.IVH instead. That is determined by the parameters you set, ie your military doctrine.

Merlin

 

[unmerged(12303)]

I wasnt really talking about the tanks as a such. What I really liked was the fact that you could go into one direction (a strategic choice) of making eg mot with art brigades and maxing out their cababilities. Here you can only go by year and by attachment and have less influence over their specialization.

However, as I said, I understand why P. did it. If it can be modded and more techs added, balanced with the 5 tech teams, upgrades then great. Maybe that will be an option for those who like to add a little more detail to their game.

F

 

[unmerged(37026)]

I don't care about tank cannons and other things you had to research in HoI1 by yourself, i like (or think i will like) the new simple system.

But i really liked the detailed information in HoI1. I would like to have both, a simple to handle research system which provides much information if anyone want to know what "spearhead doctrine" means, beside of the not really interesting org/speed/a.s.o increases.

Of course such informations for so many different countrys would be to much work to collect and implement, at least for an eye-candy/atmosphere-feature.