Tambourmajor said:
Those other topics will be and have been covered as well. They don't exclude the discussion of this topic.
Last edited:
-
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.
Those other topics will be and have been covered as well. They don't exclude the discussion of this topic.
GS_Guderian said:
This is fine. As long as we have the ability to model those vehicles then you have that variation. You seemed to indicate you were against this. I misunderstood.
Note that this will still leave the minors at a disadvantage since they will not be able to research as effectively. They will fall behind in many areas and this will lead to instances similar to those you argued against.
EDIT: I would never imagine that the heavier tanks would cost the same in research or production. I'm pretty sure I indicated that. In fact they should be much more expensive to operate and maintain as well. No one should be able to field a Russian-sized armored force of Tigers.
GS_Guderian said:
That's exactly right... check out what they're saying in the tech/research thread. We're gonna go back to researching 75mm, long-barrel'd anti-tank guns, baby!! And this time, not just "improved optic gunsights"... I actually want to be able to decide what TYPE of rangefinder the gunner is going to be looking at. Vertical bars, or circular, etc.
Copper Nicus said:Because Tigers are cool.
It's a fact.
Just look at the HoI3 trailer. Tiger here, Tiger there. Oh, and U-boat. They are cool too.
Not as cool as they're going to be, after I've gone deep into the "unlimited" (hey, that's what they said!) tech tree, and I move the transmission & drive wheels to the back - lowering the profile, add some sloped armor to the hull, some side skirts, an improved turret that will allow room for a later upgrade to the 88 L/71, etc. -So much easier to upgrade guns, than whole tanks.
I'm going to go all out. HoI 3 is really just going to be one giant custom panzer factory. I'm going to take those Ferdinands into Kursk... all equipped with seventeen (17) x MG 42's on each vehicle! Like, totally unstoppable, dude. YOU don't even know!! Myth's sticky bombs = useless!! I'm going to lay waste to the whole area, and clean out the province, after I charge the 15.2cm ART's and blow them to shreds! How does that play into your Grand Stratégie, IKE?!
Jagdmaus said:
Hey, aslong as Costa Rica, Argentina and Mexico can do they very same (of course slower due to techs missing 1936 and propably worse tech teams overall), then I can comfortably live with it.
I think from the information we have that you will be able to do much of this in HOI3. However, some of it's complexity would certainly scare off a lot of potential customers. Hopefully you can do all that you want to do, but if you have to do all that to be in top notch, I am betting that the game will be given a huge learning curve.Jagdmaus said:That's exactly right... check out what they're saying in the tech/research thread. We're gonna go back to researching 75mm, long-barrel'd anti-tank guns, baby!! And this time, not just "improved optic gunsights"... I actually want to be able to decide what TYPE of rangefinder the gunner is going to be looking at. Vertical bars, or circular, etc.
Not as cool as they're going to be, after I've gone deep into the "unlimited" (hey, that's what they said!) tech tree, and I move the transmission & drive wheels to the back - lowering the profile, add some sloped armor to the hull, some side skirts, an improved turret that will allow room for a later upgrade to the 88 L/71, etc. -So much easier to upgrade guns, than whole tanks.
I'm going to go all out. HoI 3 is really just going to be one giant custom panzer factory. I'm going to take those Ferdinands into Kursk... all equipped with seventeen (17) x MG 42's on each vehicle! Like, totally unstoppable, dude. YOU don't even know!! Myth's sticky bombs = useless!! I'm going to lay waste to the whole area, and clean out the province, after I charge the 15.2cm ART's and blow them to shreds! How does that play into your Grand Stratégie, IKE?!
I'm sure that you won't have to. To make the learning curve easier for noobs, how about making it so you can just click on a research "goal", and the player's AI-helper will automatically queue up the tech research needed to reach that goal?Bullfrog said:
Yes this was done in CIV4, and hopefully PI will manage to replicate the "end goal" feature in their own whacky style.blue emu said:
Bullfrog said:
Perhaps each nation would have its "historic" choices saved as the "default path" or as suggestions, so when someone choose an end goal then it could research along that path unless manualy told to divert to something new.
That way new players could get their Tigers and Iosef Stalin tanks, but the more advanced players could give their "Tigers" 50mm pop guns if so desired.
:rofl:
PlacidDragon said:
No. It was not a feint. A feint means implies fake. There was nothing about the attempt by Hoepner's troops to cross the Meuse that was fake. Crossing the Meuse and breaking out of the bridgehead there was an important military objective all on its own, which the Germans pursued agressively, as part of their plan to squeeze the Allies and knock the Belgian army out of the war. It was, if anything, in the grand scale of things a pinning action.
This does not mean that the Germans pretended to attack, and does not mean that the fighting was not real and intense. Hoepner's orders were to make a bridgehead, and advance, while the French orders were to hold Hannut, for two days. That is what they did -- it was not one of Hitler's ridiculous stand firm orders. Success is measure on how well one carries out ones mission: The French Cavalry succeeded in their mission and then withdrew as according to their plan.
But that is really irrelevant to the whole issue at hand, because, even if it was a feint, as part of a larger operation to fool the French and English into making bad choices, that has nothing to do with doctrine. Generals have been trying to fool each other, and disguise their intentions, since the dawn of war, and that has nothing to do with "Blitzkreig" as a doctrine.
You have no evidence to support this assessement. I have outlined specific things that Gemelin did that entirely fit within a concept of mobile warfare, using the French Cavalry Army to stem the advance of the German attack in Belgium, in order to delay the attack in order to set up proper defenses is one, ordering an immediate counter attack from the North against the flank of German attack in the Ardennes is another.
Try not to forget that the assements of contemporaries such William Shrirer, are highly influenced by politics, and that he was first and foremost a journalist trying to sell popular books, while anything said by the British, especially Winston Churchill are also highly political statements intended to argue a case that reflects well on the British army that he led during the war.
This is not to say that Gamelin was a superior commander, and indeed I have quite clearly outlined his mistakes in all of my posts, but to say that he was not particularly hindbound or stuck in a WW I framework is very hard to support, as can be seen by his actions on the field. He obviously believed in the value of rapid manouver, provided by mechanized divisions, as opposed to static warfare, otherwise he would not have immediatly dispatched the French armour to the front, as he did. There was a lot of blame to go around, and Gamelin is a particularly easy target for a number of reasons.
As Stephen T points out the problems were to do with the lack of co-ordination, and the British attack at Arras would more rightly considered a probing action, one which almost defeated Rommel, and had this attack been part of a larger assault carried out with French support, and hypothetically speaking had not the Allied command misintepretted the German actions, and had the First French Cavalry been on hand, then I dare say the attack on Rommel at Arras would have been succesful.
StephenT said:Considering that the British Expeditionary Force was only 10% of the size of the French army - and even the Belgian Army was twice the size of the British - I'm not sure how many divisions Gamelin expected Gort to produce...
But not 10% of the forces in the operational theater.
It is quite obvious that Gamelin and Gort were not on speaking terms, and this is at least part of the reason that Gort refused to provide even a single division from his front to attack to the south. Even Ironside went to Belgium to try and convince Gort to attack with the French to the south. And he refused. It is pretty clear that Gort was committed to running away as soon as the actual German intentions were revealed.Regardless, Gort had no problem trying to run his divisions away, in an effort to save them. I find Gort's explanation uncovincing -- Either they were needed on his front, or not. This action doomed not only the BEF, but also the Belgian army, and the French army by ripping out the center of the Allied line.
In short, it looks like Gort panicked.
Technically speaking the pocket the German created by encircling the BEF and allies in Belgium was a huge beechead, and hardly one that was not defensible on its own. Belgium is indeed a country and one that was almost certainly easy for the British to resupply with the support of the Royal navy. The Germans would have been stuck with a very difficult decision based on continuing the attack into France, and leaving this potentially dangerous army intact or reducing it by siege. Reducing it would probably have taken a great deal of time, and time bought in this way might have done a lot to change the fortunes of the French in the war.
A situation not unlike the one the Russians faced in 1944/45 with the Courland pocket. It survived until the war was officially ended. The Russians, having plenty of men, simply surrounded it and bypassed it, but this might not have been feasible for the Germans to do in 1940.
Last edited:
to be honest, im with jagdmaus on this one: I seriously still want to see multiple frigging units be used, to be VIABLE. Perhaps ive played a bit too much CoH lately, but it would be nice if anti-tank units actually performed well in their antitank role, essentially countering armour.
In jagdmaus's example of hidden brigades of jagdpanthers on a forested hill laying waste to puny jumbo shermans, aaaah, thats more the direction the game should be going towards.
I mean if you'd be going after these advanced tank hunters in superiour positions with the units theyre designed to counter, then you ought to lose, and you ought to take some huge str losses as well.
If not, then the game's gonna have these worthless shite units (sp-antitank) which will never be used due to the huge tech cost in time, TC drain and ICdays spending. So essentially, why bother teching anything from the artillery tree for example besides the odd SP-arty to marine divisions and the like? This in turn leads to ppl just using naked infantry because its always the most cost effective option. And that game would pretty much be the same hoi2 armageddon with increased number of provinces...
In jagdmaus's example of hidden brigades of jagdpanthers on a forested hill laying waste to puny jumbo shermans, aaaah, thats more the direction the game should be going towards.
I mean if you'd be going after these advanced tank hunters in superiour positions with the units theyre designed to counter, then you ought to lose, and you ought to take some huge str losses as well.
If not, then the game's gonna have these worthless shite units (sp-antitank) which will never be used due to the huge tech cost in time, TC drain and ICdays spending. So essentially, why bother teching anything from the artillery tree for example besides the odd SP-arty to marine divisions and the like? This in turn leads to ppl just using naked infantry because its always the most cost effective option. And that game would pretty much be the same hoi2 armageddon with increased number of provinces...
And you know what would have happened in real life, had the Germans tried that?Laurwin said:
"Division, this is B Company. Enemy hard target at hill 47, coordinates 34W 57N, request fire support, over."
"Roger that, Bravo Company. Wait five. Division out."
"Jack, what have we in range of Hill 47? I know the division arty is available, what about... Corps have a battery of 150s? Great! How about the flyboys? The Brits have a cabrank of Typhoons waiting... fantastic. You get in touch with them, I'll contact Corps. Set up a ToT for 0715 hours."
"Bravo Company, this is Division. You have inbound, ETA 15 minutes. Can you hold until then? Over."
"Sure can, Division. Thanks a lot. I'm buying tonight. Bravo Company out."
Or in other words: at this scale, it's combined arms and coordination and doctrine that really matter, not whether a tank has thicker armour than another.
StephenT said:
I cannot agree more. The American doctrine on how they utilized thier artillery (lots of it, and able to be used quicker and by lower ranking officers by radio) is different from the Soviet approach (lots and lots and lots of it, but utilized on carefully pre-planned missions), and that should be reflected in the units, not whether or not the artillery is made up of 5 inch or 155mm guns.
Sure, there should be a difference between different types of artillery, perhaps chosen at the division level in the regiments/brigades so I could pick whether I want my units to have medium or heavy artillery, self-propelled or towed, rocket or traditional, etc. etc.
But comparing if a Soviet 152mm was more effective than an American 155mm is useless.
StephenT said:
Hawker Typhoon rockets were extremely inaccurate. I think they had an 8% hit percentage, and that is not kill ratio. My information is that of the 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944, only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon.)
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htmTANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2
daemonofdecay said:
Well, I never said that arty wouldn't be able to counter such a fortified hill, I just think that you should also pay for that divisional arty.
I mean surely you could argue that even the naked infantry divisions would have arty, but... that would just lead to the same massing of easy-to-produce-full-gearingbonus-eternal-series of that same lame infantry...
Talk about soviet union, I'd rather like to see THEM researching their artillery as well if they'd expect to have any of that heavier stuff. Assuming that they were the ones trying to overcome that said jagdpanther hill
. I bring my SP-antitank, you bring your arty brigades/regiments/whatever, seems fair?Also a slight problem with the arty techs e.g. might lie with the fact that its such a marginal advantage to tech any better arty. Perhaps you could still have those techs and make them give more soft attack e.g, simulating better fire-control and stuff if not even newer field guns.
I'd also like land doctrines to allow e.g. this better american arty, now theres just a cost reduction to the brigade I believe?
Interesting discussion. I think we shouldn't only discuss and argue too much black and white positions.
The reality will be (hopefully) a little bit more grey. I'm sure, they find a balance for every type of customer to play with much micromanagement and also with less (maybe by custom settings).
The most important thing for me would be the ability to mod as much things as possible for the community to decide in our own Mods how deep we go into details (similar to the possibilities in Armageddon, maybe a little bit more)
The reality will be (hopefully) a little bit more grey. I'm sure, they find a balance for every type of customer to play with much micromanagement and also with less (maybe by custom settings).
The most important thing for me would be the ability to mod as much things as possible for the community to decide in our own Mods how deep we go into details (similar to the possibilities in Armageddon, maybe a little bit more)
daemonofdecay said:
Indeed, the British built exactly such a tank, and I call it the Matilda II.
So alas, all developmental options need be on the table...
Actually they are pretty much irrelvant to the core of the game. But some people like playing around with these things and I found the HOI I system to be fun and even educational sometimes, but irrelevant to the game, and this was great simulation because these details were largely irrelevant to the war, except on a tactical level. No one achieved overwhelming technological superiority on the battlefield to such an extent that it could be considered that technology determined the outcome of the war. No tactic, piece of equipment or strategic concept was so overpowering, that it determined the outcome.
Mostly the war was determined by production and manpower, and that was the truth of it. The two countries able to produce the most stuff and put the most men under arms came out as the winners, the USA and the USSR.
Yes a feature that can be turned on and off. I made this comment about the tech tree earlier:
Mostly the war was determined by production and manpower, and that was the truth of it. The two countries able to produce the most stuff and put the most men under arms came out as the winners, the USA and the USSR.
Cpack said:
Yes a feature that can be turned on and off. I made this comment about the tech tree earlier:
Cueball said:
Last edited:
Laurwin said:
You my friend, know what you are talking about. They really are smarter in Finland. I'm trying to tell these guys; as soon as they get into LOS/LOF, those Allied tanks are wasted. End of story. Let's give them some credit, and actually implement them into the game properly, so that IF Germany can manage to produce (or concentrate) a decent number in an area, it's real bad news.
But see, that's the EXTREME I have to go to... Jagdpanthers in a moderately forested, hilly area, waiting in ambush. That's a virtual deathtrap. Nevermind the fact that a platoon of hull-down Panther G's on a hill in an open area can hold up an entire Allied armor division's advance (until they get bombed). But before people accuse me of being 'ridiculously tactical', let's just consider... the number of "Big Cats" that were fielded by Germany, and the kill ratios they were able to achieve. Now, WHAT IF Germany were actually able to produce 10x as many, and actually match the Allies in France, one-for-one? Would that still warrant... equal combat performance ratings??
It took 5 or 6 Shermans to kill a Panther, the Sherman tankers would complain. (Same things on the 'tech tree', you must note) Yet, IF Germany can build as many divisions as the Allies in France... HA! -That's really no sweat for the Allies, because what-da-ya-know... they're all actually equal anyways! How 'bout that!
But, you know what... it doesn't matter... what happens on the front. Fact is; we have "thousands of trucks and men"... lots of pixels - on BOTH sides. So, it all equalizes... in the end, you know. That should be obvious!
Some people have no respect for the critical importance of ballistics in WWII combat. I think that's the real issue here. I mean sheer weight of numbers is important, yeah. But at some point IF those numbers start to even out (as they never really did, historically), it would be a whole different ballgame.
Quality. Quality must be identified, and represented accurately. Otherwise you do it no justice (and that's a crying shame in my book). We obviously have no problem representing quantity accurately. So why not try to reach some kind of balance...? At least attempt! Better to attempt, and be slightly off, than not attempt at all.
This theoretical engagement probably happened at sometime during the war. The Germans were very good at improvising such things. They lost, regardless of the fact that they produced equipment that was at least as good, and if not better than their enemies. They lost because they could not produce enough of it, and put enough men under arms to use it.
The very fact that you are talking about tactical level concepts, underscores the point that is being made. This is not a tactical level game. Counter-strike is a tactical level game, as is Battlfield 1942. These games already exist.
There is actually only one really good WW II simulation game that plays out at the Strategic/Operational level, and the HOI series is it. There are good Operational level games, such as TOAW, but this game is about something else. HOI is popular because it fulfills this niche which is not often served by the game design market.
My concern is that cluttering up the game by trying to appeal to much to the design features that one wants in a tactical or operational level game, may undermine the fundamental concept of the game that is its strength, in the market, and its strength as a game overall.
The game is about access to resources and production and manpower and diplomacy, the primary factors that determined victory, on the level of grand strategy. I am fine with flavour, but not at the detriment of the simulation of these dynamics of the war.
The very fact that you are talking about tactical level concepts, underscores the point that is being made. This is not a tactical level game. Counter-strike is a tactical level game, as is Battlfield 1942. These games already exist.
There is actually only one really good WW II simulation game that plays out at the Strategic/Operational level, and the HOI series is it. There are good Operational level games, such as TOAW, but this game is about something else. HOI is popular because it fulfills this niche which is not often served by the game design market.
My concern is that cluttering up the game by trying to appeal to much to the design features that one wants in a tactical or operational level game, may undermine the fundamental concept of the game that is its strength, in the market, and its strength as a game overall.
The game is about access to resources and production and manpower and diplomacy, the primary factors that determined victory, on the level of grand strategy. I am fine with flavour, but not at the detriment of the simulation of these dynamics of the war.
... but Shermans and Panthers (or JagdPanthers) will be nowhere near each other on the HOI-3 tech tree. When you call them "the same"... you are thinking of HOI-2, not HOI-3.Jagdmaus said:
Let's reverse the roles:
Picture a Division of German Mk-IVs (which are roughly equivalent in HOI-3 techs to the Sherman... 75 mm high velocity gun, Welded or Cast Armor, similar Engine) approaching a forested hill where a bunch of US Pershing or Patton tanks lie concealed. These models are roughly equivalent (in HOI-3 terms) to the Panther or Jagdpanther... similar gun, armor, engine, etc.
What would be the result?
Why do you see a need for a nationality-specific or model-specific bonus, when the basic tech stats should give exactly the result you are asking for?