Revamping or Tweak Technology Trees

[Gefallener_Held]

A couple recent threads have brought this issue to light. There is a thread about scout planes, and how many nations had them, how the mechanics of scout planes may be off. Someone else correctly pointed out that Schwerer Gustav / Dora was on a whole different level that more pedestrain rail guns, such as the k5.

Playing single player Germany, there are several technologies I use the console command to get, because Germany already them. Eg, radio, the 1922 level weaponry in the infantry tab.

I have always advocated that Germany should have 1940 level battleships to start, because the Bismarck was laid down in early 36. Actually, someone made a good case that battleship teachs (and perhaps other surface ship techs) should be staggered at 34, 38, and 42.

Field hospital attachments are another. I will confess I am somehwat ignornant of the exact particulars of Germany's sonar technologies at 36, what level of depth charges were researched when. What other technologies do contributors here think need to be reworked or revised, or that a certain country should begin with having researched already?

 

[Trans_Atlantic_Drawl]

Most major nations should start with the first Electronic Engineering tech and 1918 infantry support. Field Hospitals as well.

Naval techs are probably fine as they are (with a few exceptions) but the dates could probably stand to be tweaked. Certain 1940 Minelaying tech and gun modules seem a bit late, I might suggest bumping them forward a year.

I know a lot less about armoured trains and railway guns, but my gut feeling tells me at least one or two majors should start with those (Germany for example).

 

[PtY]

I have always advocated that Germany should have 1940 level battleships to start, because the Bismarck was laid down in early 36. Actually, someone made a good case that battleship teachs (and perhaps other surface ship techs) should be staggered at 34, 38, and 42.

If you have Man the Guns, Bismarck-class battleships are represented as 1936 heavy hulls (check the naval units list), not 1940 battleships.

The tech tree is never going to comport exactly with historical reality or game art, unfortunately. For example, the German 1940 medium tank chassis in No Step Back has the 2D art of a Panzer IV, but the Panzer IV variant in the game is built on the 1934 chassis with the 2D art of a Panzer III to represent the fact that Germany designed both tanks simultaneously in the mid-1930s. As far as I can tell, there aren't any historical German tank designs that match the 1940 medium chassis - the Panther is clearly meant to be have a 1943 medium chassis, and all historical variants of the Panzer IV used the original chassis with few changes.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

If you have Man the Guns, Bismarck-class battleships are represented as 1936 heavy hulls (check the naval units list), not 1940 battleships.

The tech tree is never going to comport exactly with historical reality or game art, unfortunately. For example, the German 1940 medium tank chassis in No Step Back has the 2D art of a Panzer IV, but the Panzer IV variant in the game is built on the 1934 chassis with the 2D art of a Panzer III to represent the fact that Germany designed both tanks simultaneously in the mid-1930s. As far as I can tell, there aren't any historical German tank designs that match the 1940 medium chassis - the Panther is clearly meant to be have a 1943 medium chassis, and all historical variants of the Panzer IV used the original chassis with few changes.

Yes I have it, see my profile banner. 36 hulls do not properly represent what the Bismarck class was. This has been discussed. As I stated, I like the idea of staggering hills to 34, 38, 42. Someone else in last threads also suggested having Germany start with Blink and Boss to get a bonus that way.

 

[PtY]

Yes I have it, see my profile banner.

I did. It's not there. (Not that owning or displaying MtG is particularly important.)

36 hulls do not properly represent what the Bismarck class was. This has been discussed. As I stated, I like the idea of staggering hills to 34, 38, 42. Someone else in last threads also suggested having Germany start with Blink and Boss to get a bonus that way.

I suggest linking to whatever other topics you're referencing in your OP if they're critical to this discussion. I haven't seen them and I'd guess many other people haven't either.

If 1936 hulls are truly bad representations of the Bismarck, why isn't taking the Plan Z focus and tech-rushing the Bismarck the answer instead of giving Germany a tech that's four years ahead of time?

I do like the idea of giving some countries particular designers at game start. I could get behind staggering techs differently if it didn't take away too many opportunity costs in tech research. There's something to be said for having to choose which techs you stay current in because many key techs have the same research dates.

 

[Trans_Atlantic_Drawl]

If 1936 hulls are truly bad representations of the Bismarck, why isn't taking the Plan Z focus and tech-rushing the Bismarck the answer instead of giving Germany a tech that's four years ahead of time?

Agreed. And as already pointed out Bismark was laid down in 1936, making it a 1936 hull by very definition.

Which historical ships have which hulls in game are a different issue altogether than tweaking the tech tree, but to get back to the original point moving say Heavy Guns III earlier in the tech tree would help the player build a ship like Bismark in a more accurate timeframe without giving Germany the unnecessary (and possibly inaccurate) advantage of early 1940 hulls.

 

[DaleDVM]

I am all for giving majors some extra techs and/or designers. Minor countries have so many research slots that they can often concentrate and have better weapons than the major powers.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I suggest linking to whatever other topics you're referencing in your OP if they're critical to this discussion. I haven't seen them and I'd guess many other people haven't either.

No. I have no interest tracking down a thread that was written two years ago or more. I mention it in lassingz in case the person who suggested happens to see it

I did. It's not there. (Not that owning or displaying MtG is particularly important.)


I suggest linking to whatever other topics you're referencing in your OP if they're critical to this discussion. I haven't seen them and I'd guess many other people haven't either.

If 1936 hulls are truly bad representations of the Bismarck, why isn't taking the Plan Z focus and tech-rushing the Bismarck the answer instead of giving Germany a tech that's four years ahead of time?

I do like the idea of giving some countries particular designers at game start. I could get behind staggering techs differently if it didn't take away too many opportunity costs in tech research. There's something to be said for having to choose which techs you stay current in because many key techs have the same research dates.

I believe plan z gives tech research bonuses. Not sure that reflects whatI am getting at, namely superior armor and armament of the Bismarck not reflected in the 36 hull. Whether that is better addressed by a staggered 34 38 tech (with German y getting 38 tech), fertig. 4p Tech, or getting 36 armor with research bonus is up for debate. My position is simply that the Bismarck was better than an ordinary 36 hull.