Will we be able to tech "ahead" of the year? And how huge would be the penalty? Iam sure this is answerd somewhere here in the forum but I cant find it 
o
o
Tech penalty ahead of year.
- Thread starter dav77-b
- 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.
Will we be able to tech "ahead" of the year? And how huge would be the penalty? Iam sure this is answerd somewhere here in the forum but I cant find it
I believe in a roundabout way they've said yes but how much isn't known yet, I think they are still building core mechanics and haven't bothered with balancing yet.
I hope it possible to rush a technology. I mean the predefined years are the years it was historical researched. But if I want my country to focus from the beginning on a specific project it should be possible to research it much earlier. Lets they I skip most naval tech & heavy tank tech as germany, but focus on getting strong mech or the panther.
You could do this in hoi3, and it has historical precedent, so I'm guessing you will still be able to do so. The catch is that war experience will be used to unlock new stuff for models of planes and tanks, so it might be hard to get really awesome tech levels before the war
How is it possible that in RL nations made research faster then they historical did? :rofl: NOW Iam curious too. Time Travel?
Let's explore the issue, shall we?
You said this:
There were plenty of countries that focused research into critical areas in an attempt to get ahead. Despite Stalin's certifiably insane naval build plan prior to the war, once the war kicked off, most research into naval technology was suspended. Hitler himself meddled in research plans of all kinds, prioritizing some at the expense of others, in order to get a technological edge.
In HOI3, the year limits were generic; everyone had the same impact from Medium Tank Gun 1940. You could also try and rush that same tech if you wanted, and were willing to pay the cost. In historical terms, that's not unlike various countries trying to do similar things with other techs.
So, I see no reason that you couldn't do what your historical colleagues did and focus your research to either make up a deficit or get ahead. Or be crazy and focus research on wuderwaffen while the Reich burns to the ground.
You said this:
There were plenty of countries that focused research into critical areas in an attempt to get ahead. Despite Stalin's certifiably insane naval build plan prior to the war, once the war kicked off, most research into naval technology was suspended. Hitler himself meddled in research plans of all kinds, prioritizing some at the expense of others, in order to get a technological edge.
In HOI3, the year limits were generic; everyone had the same impact from Medium Tank Gun 1940. You could also try and rush that same tech if you wanted, and were willing to pay the cost. In historical terms, that's not unlike various countries trying to do similar things with other techs.
So, I see no reason that you couldn't do what your historical colleagues did and focus your research to either make up a deficit or get ahead. Or be crazy and focus research on wuderwaffen while the Reich burns to the ground.
The answer is simple and obvious. All nations, even prewar, did not advance their techs along the same historical timeline as each other. Therefor there is historical precedent for a nation rushing tech if you compare them to each other historically.
So yes, a nation behing ahead of itself would involve some sort of paradox like time travel, but that is not really what is meant.
What I would like to see is an option during startup where the majors are allowed to pick an area of emphasis at the start of the game. The penalty for research is shifted by one year for the area chosen.
I've suggested "crash programs", too -- a temporary boost in research or production for when you really need that infantry division, ship or tech that can improve your chance to win an offensive or even a war. I imagine it could cost points to do something, and perhaps only be done so often.
And yes, I also hope we can tech ahead. Was big fun in HOI3 to experiment with that.
And yes, I also hope we can tech ahead. Was big fun in HOI3 to experiment with that.
i funny to have this "tech" time..
Russians had sloped armor really early. Germans got it 43.
German had radio in their tanks from the start, russians got it at 43.
Germans had independand tank commander WITH good observation devises right from start, russians got it in 43.
there is several years of difference.
Russians had sloped armor really early. Germans got it 43.
German had radio in their tanks from the start, russians got it at 43.
Germans had independand tank commander WITH good observation devises right from start, russians got it in 43.
there is several years of difference.
Its a giant "Catch-22"
If I tech-rush armor, then my advanced armor is going to go smash into my enemies. They're going to experience my advanced armor and go "WTF? !!?" and realize they need advanced anti-armor capability. They will know EXACTLY what they need by virtue of the fact that I have GIVEN THEM the requirements of their future anti-armor capacity.
Germany focused on spearhead doctrines, which meant forming entire armored/mechanized/mobilized formations. Then ran face-first into thousands of Russian 76mm anti-tank guns. Germany quickly realized that the Russians were already prepared for their armor, which meant that they needed MORE armor ... on their armor.
This is the part that I hate about the entire "Tech Tree" approach. Its backwards.
./././././.
You don't run a nation's R&D by staring at a list of prepared and entirely exclusive technical developments.
You have all sorts of different factors that are competing with each other for limited research dollars (pounds,marks, rubles, ...)
Some techs you DO choose from a list that SOUND important at the time you are selecting them. Some techs are developed because the daughter of the rich dude who paid for your election campaign just happens to be a specialist in that field, ...
But how much of it is Leap Frog AFTER the war has started and you find out the HARD way that you are behind?
And how much of it is Spitfire wings where you make a decision based on one group of factors only to find out that you have discovered something entirely different?
Or ... (can't think of an example, but heard of it before) where you are studying the small bubbles under water, and you come up with an amazing advantage in airplanes?
The war itself is the great equalizer. Everyone should be running off in different directions at the beginning, and then all focused on very similar research by the end.
I have always marveled at the American monumental effort to study absolutely EVERYTHING pertaining to every weapon that existed across that whole time period in excruciating detail. Before they started making anything in any serious numbers, they had masses of data from all walks of military life to generate their doctrines all the way down to their foot-soldiers.
THAT'S the way to build an army. Let the other fools run face-first into their enemies amazing tech advantage, measure it within an inch of its life, THEN devise the ultimate solution for THAT enemy.
Of course, only the Americans could do that because they were smart enough (at the time) to wait patiently to learn from everyone else's mistakes.
./././././.
I don't know what the right answer is on the Ultimate Tech-Tree Philosophy And Approach. I wish I did - I'd bottle it and sell it to every game company in the world. It is a very convoluted topic, with no room for hind-sight or reloading.
EDIT: After checking my post, it occurs to me that something that has always been missing is a simple "adviser" that actually tells you where you are behind in relation to the enemy you are facing right now. I'm playing as Germany, invading France, and the Brit's are kicking my butt in the air. An A.I. adviser tells me that the Brit's have (some combination of) more advanced doctrines, better aircraft developments or just plain out-numbers me.
THEN I should gain a tech-rush advantage in the adviser's suggestion in how to fix the problem. This is NOT the same as the "neighbor bonus" from E.U. In that case, I gain a bonus in the same field as my competitors. What I'm suggesting is a relational bonus. My enemy has better tank guns, I need better tank ARMOR. So I gain a tech bonus in Improvised Tank Armor Augmentation.
If I tech-rush armor, then my advanced armor is going to go smash into my enemies. They're going to experience my advanced armor and go "WTF? !!?" and realize they need advanced anti-armor capability. They will know EXACTLY what they need by virtue of the fact that I have GIVEN THEM the requirements of their future anti-armor capacity.
Germany focused on spearhead doctrines, which meant forming entire armored/mechanized/mobilized formations. Then ran face-first into thousands of Russian 76mm anti-tank guns. Germany quickly realized that the Russians were already prepared for their armor, which meant that they needed MORE armor ... on their armor.
This is the part that I hate about the entire "Tech Tree" approach. Its backwards.
./././././.
You don't run a nation's R&D by staring at a list of prepared and entirely exclusive technical developments.
You have all sorts of different factors that are competing with each other for limited research dollars (pounds,marks, rubles, ...)
Some techs you DO choose from a list that SOUND important at the time you are selecting them. Some techs are developed because the daughter of the rich dude who paid for your election campaign just happens to be a specialist in that field, ...
But how much of it is Leap Frog AFTER the war has started and you find out the HARD way that you are behind?
And how much of it is Spitfire wings where you make a decision based on one group of factors only to find out that you have discovered something entirely different?
Or ... (can't think of an example, but heard of it before) where you are studying the small bubbles under water, and you come up with an amazing advantage in airplanes?
The war itself is the great equalizer. Everyone should be running off in different directions at the beginning, and then all focused on very similar research by the end.
I have always marveled at the American monumental effort to study absolutely EVERYTHING pertaining to every weapon that existed across that whole time period in excruciating detail. Before they started making anything in any serious numbers, they had masses of data from all walks of military life to generate their doctrines all the way down to their foot-soldiers.
THAT'S the way to build an army. Let the other fools run face-first into their enemies amazing tech advantage, measure it within an inch of its life, THEN devise the ultimate solution for THAT enemy.
Of course, only the Americans could do that because they were smart enough (at the time) to wait patiently to learn from everyone else's mistakes.
./././././.
I don't know what the right answer is on the Ultimate Tech-Tree Philosophy And Approach. I wish I did - I'd bottle it and sell it to every game company in the world. It is a very convoluted topic, with no room for hind-sight or reloading.
EDIT: After checking my post, it occurs to me that something that has always been missing is a simple "adviser" that actually tells you where you are behind in relation to the enemy you are facing right now. I'm playing as Germany, invading France, and the Brit's are kicking my butt in the air. An A.I. adviser tells me that the Brit's have (some combination of) more advanced doctrines, better aircraft developments or just plain out-numbers me.
THEN I should gain a tech-rush advantage in the adviser's suggestion in how to fix the problem. This is NOT the same as the "neighbor bonus" from E.U. In that case, I gain a bonus in the same field as my competitors. What I'm suggesting is a relational bonus. My enemy has better tank guns, I need better tank ARMOR. So I gain a tech bonus in Improvised Tank Armor Augmentation.
I'm not sure that a reactive system tells the story very well with German armor. They didn't have special insight into how to make tank armor, they just decided to put more of it on their tanks. That's a doctrinal choice which is represented in the tech system by the ability to buy improvements with experience or represented how different doctrines will give differences to tanks of identical tech.
While the Americans did copy other nations technologies what was more essential was how they made doctrinal choices based off other nations experiences. They decided that the M4 was good enough and didn't need frontal armor reinforcement or a lower profile or 50 mph speeds. The only big changes I know of to factory designs (so ignoring M4 jumbo for example) is that they shifted to the 76mm gun and the HVSS suspension. The HVSS suspension wasn't used on any other tank that I know of. The 76mm change would be pretty close to what you are saying but it was happening at the same time that production of the M10 (which had a 76mm gun as well) was stopping. Thus you could say that the M4(76) was just a result of first hand experience by american forces showing that there was no point in having seperate M4 and M10 vehicles since M10s just got used in the same role as M4s.
While the Americans did copy other nations technologies what was more essential was how they made doctrinal choices based off other nations experiences. They decided that the M4 was good enough and didn't need frontal armor reinforcement or a lower profile or 50 mph speeds. The only big changes I know of to factory designs (so ignoring M4 jumbo for example) is that they shifted to the 76mm gun and the HVSS suspension. The HVSS suspension wasn't used on any other tank that I know of. The 76mm change would be pretty close to what you are saying but it was happening at the same time that production of the M10 (which had a 76mm gun as well) was stopping. Thus you could say that the M4(76) was just a result of first hand experience by american forces showing that there was no point in having seperate M4 and M10 vehicles since M10s just got used in the same role as M4s.
Russians used "NPP" doctrine witht their tanks at early war, which meant that tank purpose was simply infantry support, nothing more,.
if and when infantry failed in their attack (was gunned down by enemy inf) tanks just retreated, as they did fulfill their mission, supporting inf
I get a sense sometimes that the universal answer to the question "Why do we need/want (x machine/ship/vehicle)?" ultimately is a function of doctrines.
"We are losing a lot of (this thing) - what are we going to do about it?"
"The main reason we're losing (this thing) is because the enemy (is using this other thing or doing this other thing)."
"Well, we need those as part of this over-all strategy. Are we going to replace (this thing) with (a better thing), or are we going to change how this whole business is handled?"
So either they simply upgrade, or they re-evaluate their doctrines.
Of course, I tend to use that term in a more eclectic way than it is used in these games. Division templates should really be a function of doctrines as well, as the shape of the army would be a reflection of the approach that the nation and/or faction will be focused on.
././././.
You mention American armor, keynes. I remember one of those BBC shows about D-Day where they discussed that first major armor battle that the Americans faced. Their M4's came up the hill and were smashed by a unit of Tigers. They lost over 300 tanks in that one battle. I believe that inspired a sudden and urgent shift in the armor and/or approach that the Allies used hence-forth on the Western front.
Names ... lets see ... (googles) ... Battle of Goodwood - 400 Shermans were destroyed before they could get in range.
So there should be some kind of trigger from a battle experience that provides the loser with a bonus to research options to compensate if there is a marked disparity.
"We are losing a lot of (this thing) - what are we going to do about it?"
"The main reason we're losing (this thing) is because the enemy (is using this other thing or doing this other thing)."
"Well, we need those as part of this over-all strategy. Are we going to replace (this thing) with (a better thing), or are we going to change how this whole business is handled?"
So either they simply upgrade, or they re-evaluate their doctrines.
Of course, I tend to use that term in a more eclectic way than it is used in these games. Division templates should really be a function of doctrines as well, as the shape of the army would be a reflection of the approach that the nation and/or faction will be focused on.
././././.
You mention American armor, keynes. I remember one of those BBC shows about D-Day where they discussed that first major armor battle that the Americans faced. Their M4's came up the hill and were smashed by a unit of Tigers. They lost over 300 tanks in that one battle. I believe that inspired a sudden and urgent shift in the armor and/or approach that the Allies used hence-forth on the Western front.
Names ... lets see ... (googles) ... Battle of Goodwood - 400 Shermans were destroyed before they could get in range.
So there should be some kind of trigger from a battle experience that provides the loser with a bonus to research options to compensate if there is a marked disparity.
Goodwood was a British operation, FYI, and not a complete disaster. The Germans sustained significant losses.
...and British postwar studies showed that only 16% of Allied tank losses were to Axis tanks. AT guns were by far the big sources of losses.
How many Tiger tanks were actually present at Operation Goodwood? I think maybe 20. How many AT guns and SP-AT vehicles did the Germans have? People just dont seem to get that when you look at tank losses at the operational scale you are mostly just tallying losses to AT which says a lot more about which side had more tanks around to serve as targets then the battlefield efficacy.
How many Tiger tanks were actually present at Operation Goodwood? I think maybe 20. How many AT guns and SP-AT vehicles did the Germans have? People just dont seem to get that when you look at tank losses at the operational scale you are mostly just tallying losses to AT which says a lot more about which side had more tanks around to serve as targets then the battlefield efficacy.
Generally speaking, penalties for researching ahead of time makes sense in some fields and no sense at all in others.
Makes sense in research fields that are based on action and re-action. Classical examples:
-subs vs. surface fleet
The Allies wouldn't have developed specialized anti-sub units/weapons/doctrines without the U-Boat threat. Everything from long-range naval bombers to special depth charge bombs, all a reaction to the U-Boats. The Germans then developed better U-Boats with increased submerged speed and Wolfpack-tactics and so forth.
-fighters vs. bombers
-tank armour vs. guns (In 1938 there was neither the need for thick armour nor 120mm guns. When one side develops a bigger gun, the other side reacts with thicker armour). Later when bazookas came tanks would get special anti-magnetic alloys etc.
- doctrines in general
Makes no sense in such cases:
- secret weapons
There is no reason why you should have to wait until a certain year to start your rocket or atomic programme. It doesn't depend on other inventions whose discovery would benefit your research.
- assembly lines
The Americans had them decades before the war, other not even after the war. Yet in-game both Germany and the US will probably be able to research them at the same time...
-----------------------------
This whole historical date for techs is a cheap and dirty solution anyways. Even the techs which historically had an action-reaction dynamic won't really depend on a year. Why not simply grant a blueprint on those techs once you encounter the "nemesis-tech" in battle with your enemy? An example:
You (Germany) do Barbarossa with Panzer IIIs. Then you face the T-34 with better armour. You now receive a blueprint for the next gun-level. Why? Because only now it starts making sense to build bigger guns.
To balance everything out, they could increase tech cost for those interdependent techs by 15% percent (penalty for unnecessary research) and lower the cost for the counter-measure once faced in battle.
It would still be a viable option to tech-rush super tanks. Why? Because you would still have the initial advantage. If Germany tech-rushes Panthers for Barbarossa, they will have a significant advantage in the first years, but the Soviets will be able to offset it quicker because of the blueprint.
This would basically be a pretty close reflection of how weapon development works in reality.
Makes sense in research fields that are based on action and re-action. Classical examples:
-subs vs. surface fleet
The Allies wouldn't have developed specialized anti-sub units/weapons/doctrines without the U-Boat threat. Everything from long-range naval bombers to special depth charge bombs, all a reaction to the U-Boats. The Germans then developed better U-Boats with increased submerged speed and Wolfpack-tactics and so forth.
-fighters vs. bombers
-tank armour vs. guns (In 1938 there was neither the need for thick armour nor 120mm guns. When one side develops a bigger gun, the other side reacts with thicker armour). Later when bazookas came tanks would get special anti-magnetic alloys etc.
- doctrines in general
Makes no sense in such cases:
- secret weapons
There is no reason why you should have to wait until a certain year to start your rocket or atomic programme. It doesn't depend on other inventions whose discovery would benefit your research.
- assembly lines
The Americans had them decades before the war, other not even after the war. Yet in-game both Germany and the US will probably be able to research them at the same time...
-----------------------------
This whole historical date for techs is a cheap and dirty solution anyways. Even the techs which historically had an action-reaction dynamic won't really depend on a year. Why not simply grant a blueprint on those techs once you encounter the "nemesis-tech" in battle with your enemy? An example:
You (Germany) do Barbarossa with Panzer IIIs. Then you face the T-34 with better armour. You now receive a blueprint for the next gun-level. Why? Because only now it starts making sense to build bigger guns.
To balance everything out, they could increase tech cost for those interdependent techs by 15% percent (penalty for unnecessary research) and lower the cost for the counter-measure once faced in battle.
It would still be a viable option to tech-rush super tanks. Why? Because you would still have the initial advantage. If Germany tech-rushes Panthers for Barbarossa, they will have a significant advantage in the first years, but the Soviets will be able to offset it quicker because of the blueprint.
This would basically be a pretty close reflection of how weapon development works in reality.
We don't know even how you get techs, maybe you have to spend experience which would force you to priortise and would be rather realistic to.
I hope not the historical years have to big of an effect, some they could have but they should not be forced like in Vicky2.
I hope not the historical years have to big of an effect, some they could have but they should not be forced like in Vicky2.