Tank project dlc

[vonVoet]

Oh boy my first post in this forum lets see how it goes.





My thoughts on the tank designer I would really love to have one but not like the ship designer. Why? I think there were already enough arguments that showed how it really wouldn’t change a thing because people would do the same as always go for the best.



That’s why I think you should be able to be able to design the parts like motor, armour, gun etc.

First, I would implant two new resources

• Nickel (basically against rust)
• Cobalt (basically against heat)

So, what do I mean with designing the parts?

You should be able to decide which resources get used for a part to a certain degree

You tanks will fight in moist regions? Use nickel -> + reliability | + production cost

Better armour? More steal and tungsten -> + armour | + oil consumption | - speed

Better gun? Use cobalt -> + piercing | + production cost

Etc.



I think you get the idea also I think that goes without saying but you can improve your parts also through research.



Now people will still say that a country like the USA just can put everything into a tank and will have a “super” tank and its true so my idea to weaken the USA is simple

Tank XP

When you fight with a tank you get tank xp you can use it to decrease the production cost or improve different parts of your tank.

Like that a country like Germany can upgrade parts and can get tanks that would go toe to toe with fully upgraded ones.



My idea probably has many flaws but like that you wouldn’t be able to max out your tanks but you have to make sacrifices.

 

[Archangel85]

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 ?

A Mathilda-type tank would be useful to add enough armor to your infantry templates to bully other infantry, i.e. its historical role. The light gun and slower speed would make it cheap enough to offset the cost of the armor.

A three-man turret might be overkill for certain vehicles, and could come with other drawbacks - increased size of the vehicle, increased cost, reduced speed due to the bigger turret etc. It's a trade-off that countries have historically been willing to make because of the better division of labor between crew members, but even the Germans ran around with two-man turrets in their Panzer IIs, and the early model T34s also had only 2 man turrtes but still made life difficult for the Germans. Besides, three man turrets could always be linked to doctrine research and be available earlier in some trees compared to others.

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"...

The germans seemed to have little trouble winning with their "bad" pre-1942 tanks. A lot of that is down to better doctrine, but the best doctrine in the world is useless if you don't have equipment that can execute on it. Investing the resources to build a tank in 1938 that is still the best in the world 5 years later, instead of getting more "good enough for now" tanks earlier, would be an interesting choice in my opinion.

 

[Crecer13]

A Mathilda-type tank would be useful to add enough armor to your infantry templates to bully other infantry, i.e. its historical role. The light gun and slower speed would make it cheap enough to offset the cost of the armor.

A three-man turret might be overkill for certain vehicles, and could come with other drawbacks - increased size of the vehicle, increased cost, reduced speed due to the bigger turret etc. It's a trade-off that countries have historically been willing to make because of the better division of labor between crew members, but even the Germans ran around with two-man turrets in their Panzer IIs, and the early model T34s also had only 2 man turrtes but still made life difficult for the Germans. Besides, three man turrets could always be linked to doctrine research and be available earlier in some trees compared to others.



The germans seemed to have little trouble winning with their "bad" pre-1942 tanks. A lot of that is down to better doctrine, but the best doctrine in the world is useless if you don't have equipment that can execute on it. Investing the resources to build a tank in 1938 that is still the best in the world 5 years later, instead of getting more "good enough for now" tanks earlier, would be an interesting choice in my opinion.

The Soviet Union drew conclusions from childhood illnesses of the T-34 and in the summer of 1941 on the assembly line had to be replaced by the T-34M. In general, it is similar to the T-34, but has a number of changes: 60-mm frontal armor, less sloping sides that allow to install a wider three-person turret with a commander's cupola, a torsion bar suspension that increases the internal volume that Christie's suspension took away and gave more headroom for modernization ... But the war began and the USSR had to produce what is being produced while maintaining the temp. Changing the T-34 to the T-34M during the war could cost a victory.

 

[Zauberelefant]

A Mathilda-type tank would be useful to add enough armor to your infantry templates to bully other infantry, i.e. its historical role. The light gun and slower speed would make it cheap enough to offset the cost of the armor.

A three-man turret might be overkill for certain vehicles, and could come with other drawbacks - increased size of the vehicle, increased cost, reduced speed due to the bigger turret etc. It's a trade-off that countries have historically been willing to make because of the better division of labor between crew members, but even the Germans ran around with two-man turrets in their Panzer IIs, and the early model T34s also had only 2 man turrtes but still made life difficult for the Germans. Besides, three man turrets could always be linked to doctrine research and be available earlier in some trees compared to others.



The germans seemed to have little trouble winning with their "bad" pre-1942 tanks. A lot of that is down to better doctrine, but the best doctrine in the world is useless if you don't have equipment that can execute on it. Investing the resources to build a tank in 1938 that is still the best in the world 5 years later, instead of getting more "good enough for now" tanks earlier, would be an interesting choice in my opinion.

Two objections. The Mathilda wasn't "cheap", and I think they would have picked a stronger engine for it if british engine procurement wasn't such a mess.
Neither was the Vickers 7ton or the Panzer II anything but a stopgap interwar solution. The doctrines/industrial powerbase to blame here.

The German Panzers were certainly not what was winning "until 1942". It was more the mistake the enemies made, French armour was better on paper, as was the T34, but both were employed/equipped to fail.

I think there is merit if you actually could Go "best tank in the world for the next decade", except "best tank" is open for debate. Sherman and T34 saw use well into the 60s (at least the Israeli Super Shermans), but are regarded as worse than the German tanks at the time.

Anyway, that's a can of worms, but I think there are strong points in favour of an abstract system as we have now.
Maybe get more research like mtg navy tech, to give certain design benefits, doctrinal changes (more effect per design XP spent?), Etc, tie tank destroyers to AT artillery research and SPG to tube arty (and AA to...).

Above all, I call for land battle overhaul that doesn't disadvantage Independent tank battalions!

 

[AndTheBestGamer]

A Mathilda-type tank would be useful to add enough armor to your infantry templates to bully other infantry, i.e. its historical role. The light gun and slower speed would make it cheap enough to offset the cost of the armor.

A three-man turret might be overkill for certain vehicles, and could come with other drawbacks - increased size of the vehicle, increased cost, reduced speed due to the bigger turret etc. It's a trade-off that countries have historically been willing to make because of the better division of labor between crew members, but even the Germans ran around with two-man turrets in their Panzer IIs, and the early model T34s also had only 2 man turrtes but still made life difficult for the Germans. Besides, three man turrets could always be linked to doctrine research and be available earlier in some trees compared to others.



The germans seemed to have little trouble winning with their "bad" pre-1942 tanks. A lot of that is down to better doctrine, but the best doctrine in the world is useless if you don't have equipment that can execute on it. Investing the resources to build a tank in 1938 that is still the best in the world 5 years later, instead of getting more "good enough for now" tanks earlier, would be an interesting choice in my opinion.

So, it will need to be like Man the Guns but with different function and that is different from Man the Guns right? Archangel85

 

[3ishop]

On the other hand, it would be nice if the tanks differed from country to country.

I agree with that, but that would be just as easily done with base vehicle stats for nations than a designer which likely ends up with similar designs for nations.

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"...

Not really. For the period there were a lot of good designs but they did become obsolete quite quickly due to the sudden investment and experience. T-34 would run in to the same lines of many early war tanks, good elements just missing a number of key parts which made it rather meh till '43.

Yeah, that has been part of my point. Why would you build the bad tanks? It's a lot of extra work across the board to encourage such play and question of how and why? If a bad tank gets game mechanics that makes it a good choice why would you switch to a good tank and lose such mechanic?

 

[Zauberelefant]

I agree with that, but that would be just as easily done with base vehicle stats for nations than a designer which likely ends up with similar designs for nations.


Not really. For the period there were a lot of good designs but they did become obsolete quite quickly due to the sudden investment and experience. T-34 would run in to the same lines of many early war tanks, good elements just missing a number of key parts which made it rather meh till '43.

Yeah, that has been part of my point. Why would you build the bad tanks? It's a lot of extra work across the board to encourage such play and question of how and why? If a bad tank gets game mechanics that makes it a good choice why would you switch to a good tank and lose such mechanic?

I think you got me wrong.
I repeat: having the benefit of hindsight, how to hinder a player to build his T34/85 in 1939?
You need a mechanic that has bad tanks the only or better choice before 1942..ish.
In the first case, well, why have a designer for that? The second case, you said it yourself.

 

[STABBY5]

Besides, three man turrets could always be linked to doctrine research and be available earlier in some trees compared to others.

An interesting idea. Poor France would still be using 2 man turrets in 1943 due to Victors of the great war even though they had a tank with a 3 man turret in the interwar. They just though it was too expensive to bother. They were very wrong. If the game had an R&D system you could do some very unique things with equipment.

I think you got me wrong.
I repeat: having the benefit of hindsight, how to hinder a player to build his T34/85 in 1939?
You need a mechanic that has bad tanks the only or better choice before 1942..ish.
In the first case, well, why have a designer for that? The second case, you said it yourself.

When it comes to tanks, you only need something adequate for what you're facing. Anything else is wasted. Why would you spend the cost to build a Panther as Japan when china has no tank nor anti tank guns. You don't need Tigers if you're only fighting Stuarts. The ability to be upgraded is a major factor in the lasting usefulness of a tank. The Germans used the Panzer 4 for the entire war and it was designed in 1936. Not to mention the fact that army experience is supposed to model this very situation for the division designer.

 

[Adrianuse]

Another thing that I have thought of now is that only a limited number of countries use tanks. Mainly because the game mechanics lack the motivation that would make smaller countries invest any research and industrial forces in this field. It seems more reasonable to have a classic inf + art.

Also, many countries produced, for example, tankettes, which are currently (e.g. in the case of Poland or Italy) treated as Light Tank 1. In case of Italy, when I am going to light tanks, I have no motivation to create tankers (light tanks 1), because one upgrade (168 days) and at the cost of +1 steel and +1 production cost (compared to light tank 1), I have a light tank (light tank 2). And yet, historically Italy had over 2,000 of these tankers.
In short, there is no motivation (or reason) in the game to create these weaker tanks (e.g. tankers), although in history I believe it was.

And the PzKpfw I (light tank 1) seems to be a different vehicle class than the L3 or TKS (also light tank 1).


Maybe the tanks technology trees (or aircraft) shouldn't be identical? Or, on the contrary, extensive enough (like ships) to make these differences visible in the gameplay.


Well, but it sounds like a huge change already: D

 

[Zauberelefant]

When it comes to tanks, you only need something adequate for what you're facing. Anything else is wasted. Why would you spend the cost to build a Panther as Japan when china has no tank nor anti tank guns. You don't need Tigers if you're only fighting Stuarts.

The game disagrees. It's obviously superior to have better tanks, because it reduces the need for them.

The ability to be upgraded is a major factor in the lasting usefulness of a tank. The Germans used the Panzer 4 for the entire war and it was designed in 1936. Not to mention the fact that army experience is supposed to model this very situation for the division designer.

I do not see the relevance here. The Panzer IV H has only a passing resemblance to the IV D im terms of Performance. The research system has you replace that 36 Tank 3 times.

Also, I fail to understand what a designer along MtG lines would achieve here that would not been achieved more consistently, more conveniently and mor plausible by an abstract system like the current one.

Please Make your case, how should it look/work?

 

[STABBY5]

Please Make your case, how should it look/work?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tank-designer.1317700/

Well like this. I have since updated the spread sheet but have not posted any revisions.

Also, I fail to understand what a designer along MtG lines would achieve here that would not been achieved more consistently, more conveniently and mor plausible by an abstract system like the current one.

The ability to model tanks to your doctrine. Infantry tanks are simply not in the game for example. The ability to affect the cost of the tank. The ability of minors to use modern but cheap tanks, to model the armor arms race on the eastern front, and to model the difficulties of developing a domestic tank design from scratch.

 

[1 Star General]

When it comes to tanks, you only need something adequate for what you're facing. Anything else is wasted. Why would you spend the cost to build a Panther as Japan when china has no tank nor anti tank guns. You don't need Tigers if you're only fighting Stuarts. The ability to be upgraded is a major factor in the lasting usefulness of a tank. The Germans used the Panzer 4 for the entire war and it was designed in 1936. Not to mention the fact that army experience is supposed to model this very situation for the division designer.

Precisely. Panzers 3 and 4 were perfectly adequate to do the job they were suppose to do as per German doctrine. And as campaign in France and Barbarossa showed they performed very well in the role they were assigned. Panzer 4 was arguably one of the most successful designs, as it fought well throughout the whole war. More advanced tanks were only needed once the enemy fielded something superior enough to make it a trouble and not a minute earlier.

Now when it comes to the tank designer discussion, from what I read it revolves around the ideas of 'better' or 'best' tanks. I don't think discussing it in those terms has a lot of sense with regards to reality, but it might be that in the game it is the best way to model armor. IRL tanks were designed for specific roles as per doctrine of operational usage. I'd love to have a designer reflecting that. Sadly, this may be beyond the scope of Hoi4 , as the roles tanks were supposed to play were determined by 'tactical' usage, and the game hoovers above that, on the 'strategic' level. In game, I think, there definitely is room for improvement, mostly through adding more relevant technologies to research and organizing them in ways that would create some meaningful strategic choices. Also, making variant building a bit more complex. But I also think that making it too detailed and complicated would be counterproductive, since from the strategic simulation perspective too much inconsequential minutia would just be unnecessary clutter.

 

[AndTheBestGamer]

Precisely. Panzers 3 and 4 were perfectly adequate to do the job they were suppose to do as per German doctrine. And as campaign in France and Barbarossa showed they performed very well in the role they were assigned. Panzer 4 was arguably one of the most successful designs, as it fought well throughout the whole war. More advanced tanks were only needed once the enemy fielded something superior enough to make it a trouble and not a minute earlier.

Now when it comes to the tank designer discussion, from what I read it revolves around the ideas of 'better' or 'best' tanks. I don't think discussing it in those terms has a lot of sense with regards to reality, but it might be that in the game it is the best way to model armor. IRL tanks were designed for specific roles as per doctrine of operational usage. I'd love to have a designer reflecting that. Sadly, this may be beyond the scope of Hoi4 , as the roles tanks were supposed to play were determined by 'tactical' usage, and the game hoovers above that, on the 'strategic' level. In game, I think, there definitely is room for improvement, mostly through adding more relevant technologies to research and organizing them in ways that would create some meaningful strategic choices. Also, making variant building a bit more complex. But I also think that making it too detailed and complicated would be counterproductive, since from the strategic simulation perspective too much inconsequential minutia would just be unnecessary clutter.

And when they make the Panther?

 

[1 Star General]

And when they make the Panther?

?
Is there something specific in the quote you're referring this question to?

 

[AndTheBestGamer]

?
Is there something specific in the quote you're referring this question to?

Yes, before you was speaking about how perfectly adequate are the Panzer III and Panzer IV and what about the Panzer V just called the Panther?

 

[1 Star General]

Yes, before you was speaking about how perfectly adequate are the Panzer III and Panzer IV and what about the Panzer V just called the Panther?

As per next sentence in the quote, namely:

More advanced tanks were only needed once the enemy fielded something superior enough to make it a trouble and not a minute earlier.

The story of rushing Panzer 5 into production as reaction to more and more capable models of T34 is a rather well known one.

 

[Zauberelefant]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tank-designer.1317700/

Well like this. I have since updated the spread sheet but have not posted any revisions.

The ability to model tanks to your doctrine. Infantry tanks are simply not in the game for example. The ability to affect the cost of the tank. The ability of minors to use modern but cheap tanks, to model the armor arms race on the eastern front, and to model the difficulties of developing a domestic tank design from scratch.

I tend to follow bitmode's line from the linked thread. Not useful enough, too small scale.

 

[Gondwana]

Tanks do not play a historical role in the game. They don't support the infantry, but the infantry supports them. Until they solve the problems with the game engine and write better, this will only make it worse.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I already know that some don’t like the dlc Man The Guns but I think it would be a nice dlc for the people that like make their own tank project for make new variant.
For exemple make a Tiger II variant with a Simmering Graz Pauker Sla16 turbo Diesel engine with different cannon and different equipment and other think.
Based on Man The Guns dlc but instead make ship you make your own tank project.

Such a DLC should feature a full-fledged Tank designer like the MTG ship designer.

There are multiple suggestion threads for details.

 

[BeauNiddle]

When it comes to tanks, you only need something adequate for what you're facing. Anything else is wasted. Why would you spend the cost to build a Panther as Japan when china has no tank nor anti tank guns. You don't need Tigers if you're only fighting Stuarts. The ability to be upgraded is a major factor in the lasting usefulness of a tank. The Germans used the Panzer 4 for the entire war and it was designed in 1936. Not to mention the fact that army experience is supposed to model this very situation for the division designer.

It's interesting to see the differences of actions intended by designers & the actions taken by players.

The current game design is based around action/counter/counter-counter. The whole bit with piercing vs armour & upping variants armour / guns for bonuses. You can tell the designers intended a cat'n'mouse style back and forth where each country sends a new unit to the front lines and their opponents have to scramble to find a counter. Add another battalion of AT guns,, make a variant of your tank, research XYZ.

As soon as the players got their hands on the game it became "tech rush to X, 1st unit in production should be a variant with +5 whatever". It's why I like Secret Masters stories of the games he plays with likeminded players who can afford the time to study the game (and their mod that brings out the features). Everybody else is 1944 fighters in '41, 40 width tanks, GG EZ.

What's the current META - unarmoured CAs with all light guns.

Players - optimising the fun out of games since year dot!