Request special emphasis & depth on unique AFV stats

[StephenT]

HoI3 will make you extremely happy then.

So will the different models of tanks include important things like sustained road speed, reliability, availability of radios and number of crew in the turret, rather than just armour and gun power?

And will we see different models of trucks or horsedrawn carts depicted too, because they had far more influence on the war at a strategic level than the types of tanks...

 

[Zwiback]

The question is, do all nations get the same chance or not?

If we include different "historical" tank data, however the stats are implemented, we end up with good tanks, not so good tanks and bad tanks, right?
Thus limiting the chance for Nations with those "bad tanks" to field armored division successfully. That´s not what I understand the HOI system for. You should be able to alter history. If I want to replay it, I might as well stay with history channel.

As it is right now, doctrines vs. tech teams vs. IC capability vs. Manpower it works fine with me.

I would throw in war experience, r&d, heavy industry and military tradition. These things are extremly important when it comes to developing new (and good) military hardware like tanks, planes and battleships.

 

[Evie HJ]

I'm not sure I entirely like the notion of each unit being different.

Particularly if they are nation-restricted. I heartily dislike the thought of not being able to go for high-quality tank as this or that nation because historically they did not.

 

[unmerged(92480)]

So will the different models of tanks include important things like sustained road speed, reliability, availability of radios and number of crew in the turret, rather than just armour and gun power?

There is just a "little" problenm - how to create and effectively code math. model for all this stuff

 

[StephenT]

There is just a "little" problenm - how to create and effectively code math. model for all this stuff

Reliability and road speed are easy - they affect the movement speed. I include reliability, because it doesn't matter if your tanks can go at 50 mph if they also break down every ten miles and take a day to repair... In WW2 terms, I think a Tiger II unit should actually be immobile, and unable to move except by strategic redeployment.

Communications should affect things like organisation and morale. Number of men in the turret would act as a multiplier to the attack value: it doesn't matter if you've got a 50mm gun as opposed to a 37mm gun, if your crew are so overworked that they only get to spot and fire at half as many targets.


Another important thing - more advanced tanks should cost more and take longer to build! There should be a genuine choice between building an überdeath machine (the German approach) or ten averagedeath machines for the same amount of resources...

 

[unmerged(35344)]

So will the different models of tanks include important things like sustained road speed, reliability, availability of radios and number of crew in the turret, rather than just armour and gun power?

And will we see different models of trucks or horsedrawn carts depicted too, because they had far more influence on the war at a strategic level than the types of tanks...

I like your angle: since you don´t like the idea you´re completely exaggerating the idea to make it look ridiculous.

The main idea is simple: ability to focus on mobility, firepower or protection. Nothing more, nothing less and it´s not that big an improvement (except in feel).
Same with infantry: some focus on artillery, or light armour or commandos/shock troops, or etc.

I´m totally with the idea of "flavouring" all landunits

 

[Evie HJ]

I'm against it, unless players are free to chose their flavor if they want to play it different.

Mind, I have no objection to Germany having the better teams to research panzer flavor, and American the better teams to research Sherman flavor, and Russia the better teams for the T-flavor, but if I want as America to go the extra mile and build American panzer-style tanks, I should be allowed.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

I can understand why people are saying 'so if I play France (or whoever), Ive got to have historically bad tanks with no way to change history'...

But I suppose the question is- is that worse than having some real variation between countries?

Otherwise we keep to the same system and only have variation due to doctrine. And as well all know- its not just doctrine alone that determines the outcome.

At the end of the day, if USSR's tank has 2 hard attack but the german equivalent has a hard attack of 4, I can live with that- as the price of a wiff of variation & historical accuracy.

Granted, there are questions to ask regarding a-historical scenarios & occurences but this is no reason IMHO to keep all the stats uniform.

 

[unmerged(35344)]

I can understand why people are saying 'so if I play France (or whoever), Ive got to have historically bad tanks with no way to change history'...

That is a completely incorrect statement. The Allies in 1939 had better tanks in terms of protection and firepower. Many have studied Blitzkrieg and deducted it was how the Germans used tanks that enabled their swift victories. While the Allies had them all over the front and used them cavalry-style the Germans massed them into highly mobile Panzer Corps to create break-throughs: not to move the front.

EDIT - thus you could focus on well protected but slow tanks and spread them all across your front to "simulate" the fall of France.

The one factor that made this possible is the fact mobility and range was very important for the Germans. Therefore, and very naturally, protection should come at the expense of mobility.

Or you could go all out and produce one very very very expensive tank that takes ages to build. It´s all about focus and I want it in Hearts of Iron 3 and to be applied to all land-units! T_T

 

[HMS Enterprize]

That is a completely incorrect statement. The Allies in 1939 had better tanks in terms of protection and firepower. Many have studied Blitzkrieg and deducted it was how the Germans used tanks that enabled their swift victories. While the Allies had them all over the front and used them cavalry-style the Germans massed them into highly mobile Panzer Corps to create break-throughs: not to move the front.

Jesus dude, I said 'France' as an example to illustrate my point not to make a verdict on the atributes of French tanks or their employment....read between the lines a bit.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

It's interesting that Johan has signalled that this game will step back a bit from the generic quality of units in HOI2.
I wonder if he's thinking the same for the tech trees. I wouldn't mind a little more CORE-type complexity and variability in them, especially with respect to doctrines. I found researching doctrines boring because you had so few real choices. (dharper's idea is a great one, imho)

 

[Volt]

I suggest a division-building-kit as it has been proposed several times.
Players would be able to design unique divisions by throwing together different regiments or battalions. Country-specific attachments like heavy tank or heavy AA sections (Tiger tank, 88) could also add some flavor.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

I suggest a division-building-kit as it has been proposed several times.
Players would be able to design unique divisions by throwing together different regiments or battalions. Country-specific attachments like heavy tank or heavy AA sections (Tiger tank, 88) could also add some flavor.

I think that would be loads of fun, but I seriously doubt that will be in the mix. (Johan, feel free to tell me I'm wrong! ) It apears his thinking is running more to integrating the game at levels above a division, not below it.

 

[Markusw7]

I suggest a division-building-kit as it has been proposed several times.
Players would be able to design unique divisions by throwing together different regiments or battalions. Country-specific attachments like heavy tank or heavy AA sections (Tiger tank, 88) could also add some flavor.

Johan or king already implied as much in another thread

 

[Mr. Domino]

I think HoI2 doesn't get enough credit in this department. German tank groups were different from Soviet or American.

Germany had more and better panzer leaders. Germany had the best tank tech teams in the world, letting them rush it. Germany had better slider settings. Germany doctrine was much better, much earlier, and gave specific bonuses to tanks and mot/mechanized. Germany had low MP and lots of IC so it was pushed to make a lot of tank divisions. Load up the 1941 if your really curious and check out the morale and org for german armored divisions. Its something like 33% higher than their soviet counterparts IIRC.

If we are moving to more specific equipment its an interesting question of how accurate is it. Can you build something better than your nation had historically? Is it still "somewhat" generic (ie 3 levels of treads: high quality, mediocre, or poor) or does each and every nation get individualized? Do ships, planes, inf divisions get the same treatment.

 

[Chaplain]

But fighting itself isn't simply about individual weapon system capabilities, but how they work together. Armored divisions only had a handful of battalions of actual tanks at most, the far greater proportion was infantry, artillery, anti-tank artillery, signals, recon and logistics elements, etc. Once this is all put together, on the whole, the capabilities of similar division types was largely similar. Not that I don't agree that technology wasn't important, but it was only one of a trinity of things that made the capabilities of any fighting unit what it was, and the least important at that. IMHO I'd rank the three like this: tactical doctrine, then divisional organization and only then the actual technology used. All three should be present in the tech tree, for instance, and should depend on each other so that you can't really ignore one to rush on the other two or anything, but doctrine would have the largest single set of effects, then organizational, and only then technology.

This is absolutely, critically true. The T-34 was a superior tank in itself,but without a radio it was little more than a target. And the Matilda was ingeniously armored , but that little 2-pdr and its slow speed made it practically useless in the desert. And the French Char-B1 was superior to anything the Germans had in 1940, in and of itself, but when it was used the way it was (according to Allied doctrine at the time) it was nearly useless. Myth is spot-on with this one.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

HoI3 will make you extremely happy then.

Johan, you make me proud to be a Swede.

 

[dublish]

Reliability and road speed are easy - they affect the movement speed. I include reliability, because it doesn't matter if your tanks can go at 50 mph if they also break down every ten miles and take a day to repair... In WW2 terms, I think a Tiger II unit should actually be immobile, and unable to move except by strategic redeployment.

I'd rather see reliability factored in through something akin to the current attrition system. If a few tanks break down, it doesn't slow the whole division, but it does affect the combat power. Taking a couple of strength points off every month would work well, especially as ICs would need to be allocated towards reinforcing/replacing/repairing the unit... assuming the attrition and IC systems remain largely unchanged from HoI2 to HoI3, of course.

 

[unmerged(35344)]

I'd rather see reliability factored in through something akin to the current attrition system. If a few tanks break down, it doesn't slow the whole division, but it does affect the combat power. Taking a couple of strength points off every month would work well, especially as ICs would need to be allocated towards reinforcing/replacing/repairing the unit... assuming the attrition and IC systems remain largely unchanged from HoI2 to HoI3, of course.

Again: why not abstract that into a focus on "mobility" (rather no focus on it)?

Mobility <> Firepower <> Protection... simple as that? No need for details like specific armour thickness or reliability or whatever. Just abstract, that´s what HOI is about

 

[daemonofdecay]

Just abstract, that´s what HOI is about

And keeping it abstract also keeps people from arguing about whether or not the Panther should really have 2 more soft attack than the T-34/85.

:wacko: