It might have a name for the most popular nations, but it can have the exact same stats and quite possibly be the wrong engine for the named tank. It's just flavour text.
- 1
Tank project dlc
- Thread starter AndTheBestGamer
- Start date
-
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.
I think the current tank system is absolutely fine. A tank of that time is not a ship, a tank is a set of compromises. Chassis, turret width. All this limits the increase in armor (the T-34-85, which did not work out to be improved to the T-34-85M with 75-mm frontal armor, the Pz.4 suspension limit did not allow to improve the turret armor), the installation of a new cannon (Black Prince , T-34-85). So no, the ship builder is not suitable for tanks.
Just look at the French tanks, they are not at all adapted for modernization, they were designed for one person turret and you cannot do anything about it due to the width of the hull, only the conversion into something else that the Germans did.
Just look at the French tanks, they are not at all adapted for modernization, they were designed for one person turret and you cannot do anything about it due to the width of the hull, only the conversion into something else that the Germans did.
Last edited:
- 2
I mean, historically, the tank designs used by the different countries were all compromises, based on the availability of various metals, the capabilities of industry, the doctrine of how the tanks were to be used, and so on.
So, ingame, why would you play as Britain, and design something like the Matilda - heavy armour, slow speed, light gun, instead of a more useful design that better fits the game mechanics ?
Why would you fit a two-man turret to any tank, when you have the option to just fit a three-man turret ? Why would you limit your designs when you're not faced with the constraints that made those historical decisions rational ?
- 8
- 1
I feel that difference is quite significant, at least in tank design.
You cannot handwave this as tiresome minutiae abd ask for a meaningful Designer in the same breath
- 1
- 1
It was in reality, not in game terms.
Yes I can. For it to be worth having you'd need to go in to huge amount of detail, but then it would be pointless as these are such small things that are no brainers. Do I want a pointless tank or a good one?
I guess you need to come up with a system that somehow rewards the pointless tank, until your country figures out what not to do?
If the tank designer is not done well, then @Louella will be correct and the player will be stuck clicking the same choices in every game to build the exact same best tank versus something "not-the-best". Every effort would have to be made to ensure a best tank design is not possible to produce and trade offs are the rule. That is what the nations faced during the war. No one was able to build the best tank possible due to costs, reliability, resources, efficiency loss in the factories, technology, complexity, and etc...
A well designed tank designer would incorporate costs in resources, research time and timing, IC cost, and loss of efficiency when changing designs versus upgrading a current design. Some research could be, like in real life, inconvenient in timing. For example, it might well be possible to research a large 88 mm into a new turret, but the engine that can haul it around is a year behind. This is what always plagued tank and aircraft designs. The know-how to build a better tank or plane was most always ahead of the power plant that could haul or fly it. I suspect that is true for ships, too.
Having different efficiency losses for the various upgraded parts of a tank could also make it much harder to build the best tank immediately. Instead, to build the best tank would require researching multiple items/systems, each one costing a different amount of efficiency loss to incorporate on an existing production line. For example, adding better/wider tracks may cost little efficiency time, but would cost more IC, so still slowing production at least a little. Changing the turret to fit a larger gun (which was researched under guns) would cost a large loss in efficiency due to refitting the factory to forge, lift, and place new turrets. Changing the hull and turret of a tank would most likely mean losing all efficiency and starting at zero efficiency. A hard hit to take.
There is so much room to play with research right now. For one thing, there is to little of it in the most critical areas, tanks and planes, and it is to easy to build those same critical items years ahead of time. Adding more to research could change the rushing of planes and tanks into something more realistic. If anything, many players could get many hours of fun trying to build that "best" tank for those two or three critical moments in history and in numbers that matter.
A well designed tank designer would incorporate costs in resources, research time and timing, IC cost, and loss of efficiency when changing designs versus upgrading a current design. Some research could be, like in real life, inconvenient in timing. For example, it might well be possible to research a large 88 mm into a new turret, but the engine that can haul it around is a year behind. This is what always plagued tank and aircraft designs. The know-how to build a better tank or plane was most always ahead of the power plant that could haul or fly it. I suspect that is true for ships, too.
Having different efficiency losses for the various upgraded parts of a tank could also make it much harder to build the best tank immediately. Instead, to build the best tank would require researching multiple items/systems, each one costing a different amount of efficiency loss to incorporate on an existing production line. For example, adding better/wider tracks may cost little efficiency time, but would cost more IC, so still slowing production at least a little. Changing the turret to fit a larger gun (which was researched under guns) would cost a large loss in efficiency due to refitting the factory to forge, lift, and place new turrets. Changing the hull and turret of a tank would most likely mean losing all efficiency and starting at zero efficiency. A hard hit to take.
There is so much room to play with research right now. For one thing, there is to little of it in the most critical areas, tanks and planes, and it is to easy to build those same critical items years ahead of time. Adding more to research could change the rushing of planes and tanks into something more realistic. If anything, many players could get many hours of fun trying to build that "best" tank for those two or three critical moments in history and in numbers that matter.
- 1
- 1
The only reason I want this is so I can put lasers and super heavy armor on all my tanks and give it a jet engine. Eventually when we get wonder weapon dlc. Lol
- 2
I would build the Matilda has a haevy tank with slow spead and other historical thing for have a tank is heavily procteted with slow speed and major chance of survivality ot the tank and the crew
And plus with the historical tank project and not historical you can choose what cannon use in your tank porject for exemple a Tiger II with a 105mm cannon on a five man turret
Unfortunately, not all tanks can do this. The IS and Tiger 2 were able to change the cannon, only the Tiger 2, besides, theoretically, it was already overloaded, which led to permanent breakdowns, and the new heavier gun with heavy cartridges further exacerbated this situation. KV-85, T-34-85, Black Prince, Pz. 3, Cromwell. These tanks had to be seriously altered, or it was impossible to install a more powerful weapon at all.
- 1
Which is yet more depth they'd need to add to the system and mean going against history as the bad tanks tend not to fair well.
- 1
I know that but it was only an exemple and plus the Tiger II with 105mm of cannon was a real project but it remained on paper, that mean the Tiger II with 105mm is a real blueprint
I also think the idea of a tank designer has a lot of potential problems.
On the other hand, it would be nice if the tanks differed from country to country.
On the other hand, it would be nice if the tanks differed from country to country.
- 3
- 1
I made reference to other posts here. Although the idea sounds great, because I love ship designers and trying less optimal strategies in multi is cool, it may not work with tanks.
First of all, it is the already mentioned fewer functions of the tank in the current version of hoi4. Even today, some types of tanks are rarely used, such as heavy tanks. This is where the battle and/or logistics system would have to be reworked to make different tank configurations more needed.
Secondly, the additionally growing amount of micromanagement (new resistance system has reduced what I think is a plus) with the introduction of the tank designer. It is less of a problem with ships because it is rarely done. I think someone from Paradox wrote about it.
If I had to go into something with tanks, I would rather modify their parameters per country and maybe slightly expand the technology tree to take into account, in a simplified way, the differences in the approach to armored forces (communication problems of Russian tankers, etc.). So that a country investing more money in tanks wouldn't only have more of them, but also better.
First of all, it is the already mentioned fewer functions of the tank in the current version of hoi4. Even today, some types of tanks are rarely used, such as heavy tanks. This is where the battle and/or logistics system would have to be reworked to make different tank configurations more needed.
Secondly, the additionally growing amount of micromanagement (new resistance system has reduced what I think is a plus) with the introduction of the tank designer. It is less of a problem with ships because it is rarely done. I think someone from Paradox wrote about it.
If I had to go into something with tanks, I would rather modify their parameters per country and maybe slightly expand the technology tree to take into account, in a simplified way, the differences in the approach to armored forces (communication problems of Russian tankers, etc.). So that a country investing more money in tanks wouldn't only have more of them, but also better.
- 2
Ok, I understand what you mean but after you reseach a tank you need to make the project of it before put it on production
Problem is, most tanks were rubbish until ca 1942, with the exception of the soviets, whose T34 was arguably better and worse than the others.
But a Tank designer would need to take into Account the benefit of hindsight, lest the player would build his Sherman or Pz IV G in 1939, because he knows better than historical designers and military staff.
Something the naval designer has less of an issue with because of naval warfare's Rock-Paper-Torpedo Bomber mechanics, while tanks are more Like "More Rock than You"...