Request to Johan & co.

[unmerged(37697)]

There's been a lot of debate (amongst other things) on the topic of the game's research system, which apparently will go more down the original HoI route, as opposed to HoI2's tech team approach.

Anyway... I just wondered if you could possibly post a screenshot or two showing the current state of things regarding research/technology.

Just to put a few minds at rest... please...

Oh, and I realise they'd still be alpha...

 

[comagoosie]

I second this. The most interesting thing about HOI3, imo, is the technology. We don't have too much information, besides little tidbits. I can't even imagine how it will work without tech teams.

 

[Pioniere]

time line request!

I would say its best to have the time line of hearts of iron 2 doomsday 1936- 1953/54 or something similar. The reason would be to have chance to get 2 world wars plenty of troop models and a various technology’s.

 

[Darth Tracid]

time line is 36-48

 

[McNaughton]

Technology is best left abstracted, as it tends to be a repetative and ends up with too much control and an unrealistic concept that technology wins wars.

The issue is, technology tends to be based upon need, rather than genius invention. Most developments were done by basis of realizing that your current technology is not useful. Country A develops weapon 1, Country B develops weapon 2 to counter weapon 1, Country A then develops their counter. This is why Germany started their campaign in Russia with PzKpfw.III, encountering T-34 (better than PzKpfw.III), and developed the PzKpfw.V (better than T-34), and so on.

Technology does not necessarily equate 'better'. Only a few weapons were 'revolutionary' or 'better' in regards to previous quality. Aircraft and Tanks were the primarily evolving technology piece through the war timeframe, as most other weaponry (Warships, Small Arms, Artillery) remained the same for decades. Indeed, some early war weaponry was actually of better quality than later war weaponry, which was developed in order to ease mass production (Thompson SMG vs M1 Grease Gun for example). Some additional weaponry was developed (such as improving man-portable anti-tank weaponry, radar for warships), but in reality, the average soldier was similarly equipped in 1935 as they were in 1945.

What is more important than technology was evolving strategy, combat experience, and unit composition. A German division of 1939 was different to that of 1944 primarily due to a decrease in size (removal of a few battalions to create new divisions), but also an increase of firepower, this resulted in a smaller, yet stronger division. The equipment employed by a 1944 German division was virtually the same as that of the 1939 division (in fact, many cases much older equipment).

Technology would be best placed outside of human control, responding to actual game situation rather than player desire. While winning, a nation tends to keep the same strategies, and same equipment, usually resulting in a slump of development. While losing, a nation devotes as many resources in order to counter enemy developments (British ASW, German Jets, etc.). In the end, it isn't the technology that makes or breaks armies (An allied division was just as powerful as a german division, albiet through different methods).

A lot of technology was done by individuals outside of government control, or, a government request was issued, and industries competed for design. The push and pull for technology was a greater factor than actually manifesting the development. All technology used in WW2 was technically attainable at any point, but when the tools you have now are completely effective, why waste resources developing new and flashy ones? This is a paradox in most technology based games, where the drive to research is purely based on no motive, other than to get the next best thing, even though, in reality, you probalby don't 'need' it.

Issues pressing technology...

1. Necessity (what you have is not working)
2. Level of Innovation (how open your nation is to new ideas)
3. Policy and Existing concepts (national strengths and weaknesses, Britain is more interested in Air Defense issues than a strong armoured force)

This is probably not what people want, but, in regards to reflecting a closer reality in the R&D aspect of military conquest (significantly less of an issue than production), it may be good to address it.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Since when has requesting by a majority of people actually worked? If it did, we would be looking at 'Vicky 2'

 

[Mr. G]

time line is 36-48

Shorter than HoI 2 DD, interesting.

 

[SeedSnatcher]

I can't even imagine how it will work without tech teams.

Install HoI1 and find out.

 

[unmerged(85121)]

Shorter than HoI 2 DD, interesting.

But larger than HOI 2(36-47).May be HOI 3 DD 2 would be extended until 55 and then,who knows,HOI 3 DD 2 ARMA 2 beyound 1966!

 

[unmerged(37697)]

But larger than HOI 2(36-47).May be HOI 3 DD 2 would be extended until 55 and then,who knows,HOI 3 DD 2 ARMA 2 beyound 1966!

I hope not. The early 50s would have been the best end-date, IMO.

 

[Pioniere]

time line is 36-48

I know that! that's why I came with the doomsday timeline.

 

[unmerged(101225)]

I hope not. The early 50s would have been the best end-date, IMO.

Meh... Game should be over by the 50's anyway, I've never come close to playing a game that long.

I'd rather they focus on the '36-'48 timeline, specifically the buildups and early war period.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Meh... Game should be over by the 50's anyway, I've never come close to playing a game that long.

That's you, not me. Some people have different playing styles. Personally, I prefer a longer period of re-armament, hence ideally I'd like a '33 start date.

Still, diff'rent strokes...

 

[L'Afrique]

That's you, not me. Some people have different playing styles. Personally, I prefer a longer period of re-armament, hence ideally I'd like a '33 start date.

Still, diff'rent strokes...

I like the '53 end because the Korean War was basically the culmination of the HoI tech tree and the end of WW2 style-warfare. '33 is good for the rise of Hitler and the nice even 20 years.

 

[The Balbinater]

mcnaughton

made a really good post.

if this is thread is a petition for more information, then i sign it...

bal

 

[Raczynski]

(lenghty well-thought post)

Prepare to assaluted by tanks fanboys

 

[unmerged(37697)]

One of my biggest qualms with HoI2 is that ship classes are identical across the board. I'd really like to see certain nations having more powerful variants of the same class of ship to other nations, as was the case historically. Presumably, the new (or, rather, old) tech system will see to this; at least I hope so...

I realise that these games don't take into account the limitations of the London Naval Treaties (historically, a massive impact on Allied shipbuilding in particular), but it would be nice to see German and Japanese ships in particular being larger and more powerful than their British and American counterparts.

Still, I suppose if we're able to pick what sort of components to research, we can indeed customise (to a degree...) our capital ships, which would be mighty cool indeed. I do hope factors such as speed are taken into account were this the case, not just armour & armament.

Fingers crossed.

 

[humancalculator]

One of my biggest qualms with HoI2 is that ship classes are identical across the board. I'd really like to see certain nations having more powerful variants of the same class of ship to other nations, as was the case historically. Presumably, the new (or, rather, old) tech system will see to this; at least I hope so...

I realise that these games don't take into account the limitations of the London Naval Treaties (historically, a massive impact on Allied shipbuilding in particular), but it would be nice to see German and Japanese ships in particular being larger and more powerful than their British and American counterparts.

Still, I suppose if we're able to pick what sort of components to research, we can indeed customise (to a degree...) our capital ships, which would be mighty cool indeed. I do hope factors such as speed are taken into account were this the case, not just armour & armament.

Fingers crossed.

Yamato will have naval attack of 127 while American ships of the same class will have a naval attack of 2.

 

[unmerged(87183)]

Since when has requesting by a majority of people actually worked? If it did, we would be looking at 'Vicky 2'

Lol.

I think the majority got what they wanted. A new HoI.

Hopefully it is good.


On the topic, I'm for TT retainment, just don't pull any of the one TT crap like Tibet and alot of the Middle East countries got.


Maybe change the Historical year to the year that the tech becomes availible to research. Idk, just keep it unique for everyone.

 

[McNaughton]

One of my biggest qualms with HoI2 is that ship classes are identical across the board. I'd really like to see certain nations having more powerful variants of the same class of ship to other nations, as was the case historically. Presumably, the new (or, rather, old) tech system will see to this; at least I hope so...

I realise that these games don't take into account the limitations of the London Naval Treaties (historically, a massive impact on Allied shipbuilding in particular), but it would be nice to see German and Japanese ships in particular being larger and more powerful than their British and American counterparts.

Still, I suppose if we're able to pick what sort of components to research, we can indeed customise (to a degree...) our capital ships, which would be mighty cool indeed. I do hope factors such as speed are taken into account were this the case, not just armour & armament.

Fingers crossed.

At the end of the day the difference between vessels really was not that great. Individual performance showed that there was little difference between naval vessels, even in lieu of some vessels being 'over tonnage'. A contemporary British/American destroyer had similar gunnery (4.7-5") to German and Japanese vessels even though they were of greater tonnage. Protection in a destroyer, regardless of nationality, was minimal. The end result is that the difference truly was not significant. Japanese heavy cruisers were not 'superior' to those of the Allied counterparts, even with their greater size. The Allies, although restricted by following treaty size, had the benefit of generations of warship development that individually their ships were 'better put together', with those built in excess of the treaty ended up with loads of stability and structural problems. Sure, the Long Lance torpedo offered them a certain advantage, but this was then counteracted by Allied Radar.

There is a lot of mythology in regards to the second world war and the impact of technology and military weaponry to the course of the conflict. In reality, the greatest impact was through the human factor, the generals and men, as well as industrial production prividing adequate quantity of weapons of war. Japan abandoned its method of building larger destroyers during the war when it realized that greater numbers of smaller warships ended up being more useful platforms given the investment (i.e., the cost of a large Japanese destoyer did not offer any significant benefit over a smaller contemporary allied vessel in actual combat).

This is also a game of divisions and air groups, not tanks and air planes. In lieu of everything, a 1944 German Panzer Division was probably equal in power to a 1944 Allied Armoured Division, based primarily on the basis of 'general' German qualitative superiority (even here only half, if that, of their tanks were panthers, the rest Mark IVs), with the fact that there were substantially more tanks in an Allied division, and they were more likely at full strength.

The greatest era of technology affecting warfare actually happened in the First World War. The air war was significantly affected by aircraft quality, where one side gained superiority through the introduction of a new type, and then swung back to their opponent with their introduction. The Second World War did not have such examples, as even in lieu of having superior weaponry (Russians in 1941, Germans in 1944) nations were at a severe disadvantage. The Germans beat Russia's qualitative advantage by superior training and operations, the Allies beat Germany's qualitative advantage by superior quantity.

World War One was a war about technology. World War Two was a war about mass production.

What I would like would there be a strong focus on using the materials that you have, with production choices taking presidence over technological choices.

For example, as Germany, do you try and produce the Panther, in small numbers, or rely on the Mark IV which will be produced in greater numbers? It isn't simply getting the Panther and using as the superior war winning strategy, but make a conscious choice that I have technology, do I apply it? It wasn't that the Germans had a special tank that nobody else could have (the British and Americans also had their equivalents), but was a production decision (Allies relied on the Sherman in mass numbers, Germans went for the Panther in smaller numbers). However, in the HoI1 or HoI2 universe, the idea of keeping the Sherman in production would be luduicrous, given that technology always prevailed.