Tech Discovery Rate suggestion

[DEY123]

One thing that bothered me about HOI3 was that you knew exactly when your technology research would be complete. In real life I doubt the USA knew when they would have their first successful A-bomb test (they just knew they wanted to focus on it and beat the Germans to it).

What I think would be a nice change is that you can decide how much to focus on certain areas and this would reduce the MTTH. Naturally, there should be huge negatives to researching certain chains ahead of time (need to prevent nukes in 1939). What this would do is it would mean you could not always be sure you would be able to start producing the next unit at a certain time. Additionally there would need to be some diminishing returns so that assigning 10 times as many scientists does mean something is discovered 10 times as fast).

Additionally, if you are researching old tech the MTTH time would be the other way. As an example if its 1940 and you are finally researching 1938 tanks it would be faster then researching the tech in 1938. Its always easier to copy then break new ground. This could of course be further complicated by spies / allied discovery etc...but that me be too much for a grand strategy game.


So basically my suggestion comes down to not knowing when exactly you will discover a tech, but still allowing the player to focus on certain techs as more important then others.

 

[telesien]

Personally I prefer the way it is now. You have more control and based on the image I have from many documentaries, army usually had a pretty good idea when new tanks or planes will be ready for production

 

[DEY123]

I think once a vehicle entered production phase they knew, but some technologies / tactics could not be easily predicted as to win they could start utilizing these things. Its not like nations decided to unlock sonar / radar / jet engines etc... at a certain time (or in the same amount of time for every nation). Also things in the game like improved small arms I think represents tactics more so then weapons alone. Its not like each year new mortars / rifles were coming out.

 

[telesien]

I think once a vehicle entered production phase they knew, but some technologies / tactics could not be easily predicted as to win they could start utilizing these things. Its not like nations decided to unlock sonar / radar / jet engines etc... at a certain time (or in the same amount of time for every nation). Also things in the game like improved small arms I think represents tactics more so then weapons alone. Its not like each year new mortars / rifles were coming out.

Actually...

For example new planes were usually created in a way that was pretty much just like unlocking new technology. Military announced what they expect from the new plane and than went through designs done by private engineers based on their conditions.

I don't say it represents every type of research, but one might think about the rest as government research in practical application of existing theoretical concept (instead of creating the theoretical research first)

 

[DEY123]

That is a great distinction. Some things (like adding a bigger gun) can just be done with more design vs creating something revolutionary which you need to figure out how to do. So maybe theory vs practical like you say.

On the other hand many Military research programs today end up being behind schedule for new deployments (probably not limited to just military research ..even something like HOI4 has an internal release date but they will probably have to leave bugs in the game or delay the release). Maybe this did not happen back in WW2, but I find I don't like the predictability / consistency that always occurs in the game (given a specific starting point that matches 2 countries can end up at the exact same end point on particular tech streams if they have the leadership to support it).

As an example wiki has a couple pages on the F-35 cost and schedule overruns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Program_cost_increases_and_delays

 

[Blecky]

Again AoD has a feature that comes close to what you request. When starting a new research it will give you the estimated date of completion but has a random factor that can delay things or speed them up.

 

[phantomrider]

That is a great distinction. Some things (like adding a bigger gun) can just be done with more design vs creating something revolutionary which you need to figure out how to do. So maybe theory vs practical like you say.

On the other hand many Military research programs today end up being behind schedule for new deployments (probably not limited to just military research ..even something like HOI4 has an internal release date but they will probably have to leave bugs in the game or delay the release). Maybe this did not happen back in WW2, but I find I don't like the predictability / consistency that always occurs in the game (given a specific starting point that matches 2 countries can end up at the exact same end point on particular tech streams if they have the leadership to support it).



As an example wiki has a couple pages on the F-35 cost and schedule overruns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Program_cost_increases_and_delays

I think that the modern aircraft example is really not appropriate for WWII research and development (with the possible exception of the nuclear programs). When you are designing "new fighters" in the present era you are planning for 20-40+ years in the future (previous US fighter which the F-35 is supposed to replace (F-15, F-16 and F-18) were designed in the early 1970s based on lessons learned primarily in Vietnam and in turn replaced fighters designed in the 1950s (F-4, A-7, air force f 100 series). In order to achieve this longevity you are trying to anticipate and/or force materials (structure and engine), radar signature vs flight characteristics, avionics and multiple mission requirements in design that are not really available when design of the aircraft starts.

In WWII era, everything was on a much shorter time frame (we need new planes now, next year) and there was much less "pushing" the envelop for new technologies or holding up a new plane because you think that next year a more powerful engine will be available-- it was go with what you know will work in your design. At best, if the designer anticipated say a better engine in 6 month to a year they might work with the engine developer to be able to accomodate it in their design. While the performance of WWII aircraft improved dramatically all of the changes were of the incremental type (better speed, armament, manueverability, payload range etc) rather than truly game changer with the exception of the introduction of jet engines which only the Germans pulled off (with the allies ~1 to 2 years behind).

 

[1alexey]

Problem is more that large scale "random" doesn`t fit into HOI game`s timeline, while + or minus a few month is not really crucial as with new production and variant system you may not even want to jump the new model right away, but introduce it somewhat gradually to ensure that your reinforcements don`t fall to almost zero for a few month, and you would want to get experience to upgrade the new model, so it can truly shine.

We can see some cases of such random "luck" in WW2, like USA being the first to make actually military-worthy semi-automatic rifle at least 3-5 years before other countries(while many tried as well, but failed due to various reasons), Germans being first by far to create an "assault rifle", and such, but it does work for a game like Victoria II where you have 100 years timeline and after you research a tech, there are a number of random discoveries that could mean there will be noticeable random gap between you researching a tech and getting full advantage of it, in HOI, it would just either not meter, or be very frustrating.

I think that the modern aircraft example is really not appropriate for WWII research and development (with the possible exception of the nuclear programs). When you are designing "new fighters" in the present era you are planning for 20-40+ years in the future (previous US fighter which the F-35 is supposed to replace (F-15, F-16 and F-18) were designed in the early 1970s based on lessons learned primarily in Vietnam and in turn replaced fighters designed in the 1950s (F-4, A-7, air force f 100 series). In order to achieve this longevity you are trying to anticipate and/or force materials (structure and engine), radar signature vs flight characteristics, avionics and multiple mission requirements in design that are not really available when design of the aircraft starts.

In WWII era, everything was on a much shorter time frame (we need new planes now, next year) and there was much less "pushing" the envelop for new technologies or holding up a new plane because you think that next year a more powerful engine will be available-- it was go with what you know will work in your design. At best, if the designer anticipated say a better engine in 6 month to a year they might work with the engine developer to be able to accomodate it in their design. While the performance of WWII aircraft improved dramatically all of the changes were of the incremental type (better speed, armament, manueverability, payload range etc) rather than truly game changer with the exception of the introduction of jet engines which only the Germans pulled off (with the allies ~1 to 2 years behind).

Not necessarily. There were rifles, artillery pieces and some other equipment that was usually too expensive to fully change gears during the war.

Tanks, planes, radar are obvious examples of quick development, but most of the equipment was not actually that different from today.