Tech Trees and Models

[Bullfrog]

Looking at you here, HoI3...

First, the tech trees that correspond to unit models don't make sense in many cases. It seems that many techs exist just to have a tech "tree" for a particular unit type. Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly but there seems to be too many techs that research the same thing over and over.

There are many examples but here are a couple:
1. Ship AA guns. Once you research one, can't it be used on all ships? Sure there are different sizes but if I research 1940 BB AA guns, can't I use them on my BCs or CAs?

2. Infantry small arms. Ok, every nation pretty much used the same small arms throughout the war. These things just don't go through that many refinements in an 11 year period. The US used several small arms designed in 1918 or before. The BAR, Springfield 1903, the M1, the Thompson SMG. The Germans used the K98k throughout the war. The Soviets used the Mosin Nagant. Sure, there were some improvements done or some variants made, but that hardly qualifies as a new technology. Machine guns are a little more relevant here but also don't deserve a new tech every two years. Also, my militia unit doesn't use a different weapon than my infantry, cavalry or garrison unit. Some mods fixed this which was nice to see.

Secondly, many tech models come too soon. For instance the US in the 1940 scenario is capable of making p51 Mustangs, Midway Class Carriers and B-29 Superfortresses. The Germans can build the King Tiger in 1941. What gives? The late war models come before the war even starts.

I hope in HoI4 that techs are more properly representative of models and don't come so early that the oft recognized mainstays of equipment used in WW2 by the major belligerents is missed.

 

[apfelstrudel]

forgot to mention StG 44? the first proper assault rifle ever saw a combat. imagine if we could equip all german infantry with that weapon.

 

[Bullfrog]

forgot to mention StG 44? the first proper assault rifle ever saw a combat. imagine if we could equip all german infantry with that weapon.

Sure, sure. That and the MP-40 and the Gehwer 43 and FG 42. But combined their numbers were a fraction of the number of 98k rifles in the field even in 1945.

The point is that mass production and expedience gave way to innovation. It sounds like HoI4 will give this concept a nod with what we know from the previews. I hope it is done with the real history in mind though.

 

[D Inqu]

There are many examples but here are a couple:
1. Ship AA guns. Once you research one, can't it be used on all ships? Sure there are different sizes but if I research 1940 BB AA guns, can't I use them on my BCs or CAs?

2. Infantry small arms. Ok, every nation pretty much used the same small arms throughout the war. These things just don't go through that many refinements in an 11 year period. The US used several small arms designed in 1918 or before. The BAR, Springfield 1903, the M1, the Thompson SMG. The Germans used the K98k throughout the war. The Soviets used the Mosin Nagant. Sure, there were some improvements done or some variants made, but that hardly qualifies as a new technology. Machine guns are a little more relevant here but also don't deserve a new tech every two years. Also, my militia unit doesn't use a different weapon than my infantry, cavalry or garrison unit. Some mods fixed this which was nice to see.

1. IRL, replaceing ship AA guns was not easy, it was usually done during big overhauls. Although, yes, it should be upgradeable.

2. There were a few big tech jumps. The first was moving from bolt action rifles to semi-automatic, the second was moving from semi automatic to assault rifles. The problem was that military production never kept up with wartime demand, so the majority of the soldiers still fought with older models.

I agree that small arms and MG tech should not be separate for different unit types.

 

[General Baker]

1. IRL, replaceing ship AA guns was not easy, it was usually done during big overhauls. Although, yes, it should be upgradeable.

2. There were a few big tech jumps. The first was moving from bolt action rifles to semi-automatic, the second was moving from semi automatic to assault rifles. The problem was that military production never kept up with wartime demand, so the majority of the soldiers still fought with older models.

I agree that small arms and MG tech should not be separate for different unit types.

These should be addressed with game mechanics.

• Make ship/unit reconfiguration a costly/timely affair where relevant, but make it possible.
• Include small arms and other equipment in the announced Resource Pools, meaning that infantry regiments are issued with whatever make/model of weapon is available. This could allow you to replace front-line units' small arms, return the old ones to the resource pool and distribute them to militias and other reserves.
• Make different types of weapon technology their own chains. So, small arms, anti-tank, naval artillery, artillery, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Bullfrog]

These should be addressed with game mechanics.

• Make ship/unit reconfiguration a costly/timely affair where relevant, but make it possible.
• Include small arms and other equipment in the announced Resource Pools, meaning that infantry regiments are issued with whatever make/model of weapon is available. This could allow you to replace front-line units' small arms, return the old ones to the resource pool and distribute them to militias and other reserves.
• Make different types of weapon technology their own chains. So, small arms, anti-tank, naval artillery, artillery, etc. etc. etc.

I agree fully. Good ideas.

 

[apfelstrudel]

These should be addressed with game mechanics.

• Make ship/unit reconfiguration a costly/timely affair where relevant, but make it possible.
• Include small arms and other equipment in the announced Resource Pools, meaning that infantry regiments are issued with whatever make/model of weapon is available. This could allow you to replace front-line units' small arms, return the old ones to the resource pool and distribute them to militias and other reserves.
• Make different types of weapon technology their own chains. So, small arms, anti-tank, naval artillery, artillery, etc. etc. etc.

make it happen, PDS!

 

[-Toni82-]

... are a little more relevant here but also don't deserve a new tech every two years. ...

Hmm....I would say WW2 and this time, was THE catalyst of military improvements and developements.
From this:


to this:


in just few years. Pretty impressive, or not?


For game terms an including sub-category would fit some of the things.

 

[ingwe]

These should be addressed with game mechanics.

• Make ship/unit reconfiguration a costly/timely affair where relevant, but make it possible.
• Include small arms and other equipment in the announced Resource Pools, meaning that infantry regiments are issued with whatever make/model of weapon is available. This could allow you to replace front-line units' small arms, return the old ones to the resource pool and distribute them to militias and other reserves.
• Make different types of weapon technology their own chains. So, small arms, anti-tank, naval artillery, artillery, etc. etc. etc.

Agreed. I dislike that there are a million different techs that do the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I like that there are a lot of techs, but researching the same thing over and over again is frustrating. What I could see would be a "major tech" and then "implementation techs". Sure you develop some new artillery from Rheinmetall. That is major. It should take a while. Implementing it in a tank or a destroyer? That should take less time. Sorry if this is an imperfect example.

 

[Bullfrog]

Hmm....I would say WW2 and this time, was THE catalyst of military improvements and developements.
From this:
View attachment 100885

to this:
View attachment 100886

in just few years. Pretty impressive, or not?


For game terms an including sub-category would fit some of the things.

I agree with you but do we need new techs every two years for equipment that largely stayed on the battlefield throughout the war? Maybe my small arms example isn't the best, but take the doctrine trees for another example. Are military doctrines really necessary to research every two years?
As for model related techs, how about naval guns. These didn't change every two years either. Most naval guns had been around for a generation and new ships simply were designed with them in mind.

 

[Beagá]

Small arms are a very particular issue. US fought with, let´s see:

1- Garand
2- Thompson
3- .30
4- .50
5- Colt .45
6- M1 carbine, Grease gun and other minor arms.

Almost ALL of those were developed before 1936...

The decision to create a better small arms is much more related to production and retooling than tech, and HOI 3 is quite silly in that aspect (Small Arms 36, 38, 40 etc etc). It would certainly be interesting to decide as Germany to develop and use a semi auto, and how costly that would be.

 

[Traks]

Small arms are a very particular issue. US fought with, let´s see:

1- Garand
2- Thompson
3- .30
4- .50
5- Colt .45
6- M1 carbine, Grease gun and other minor arms.

Almost ALL of those were developed before 1936...

The decision to create a better small arms is much more related to production and retooling than tech, and HOI 3 is quite silly in that aspect (Small Arms 36, 38, 40 etc etc). It would certainly be interesting to decide as Germany to develop and use a semi auto, and how costly that would be.

Germany was so constrained in resources that I don't see that happening, unless taking really painful cut in other areas. At the end of war they were mostly only KAR98 because cheaper/faster/easier to make, even with all the innovations they made in weapon development. Same goes for fighters, BF109 instead of more advanced and expensive BF190.

 

[Mannstien]

Small arms are a very particular issue. US fought with, let´s see:

1- Garand
2- Thompson
3- .30
4- .50
5- Colt .45
6- M1 carbine, Grease gun and other minor arms.

Almost ALL of those were developed before 1936...

The decision to create a better small arms is much more related to production and retooling than tech, and HOI 3 is quite silly in that aspect (Small Arms 36, 38, 40 etc etc). It would certainly be interesting to decide as Germany to develop and use a semi auto, and how costly that would be.

Don't forget the venerable Springfield Model 1903 A1-A4

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Hmm, for infantry formations it would almost make more sense if developing doctrines led to brigades using more support weapons. The biggest difference between years was not as much newer better small arms but more light machine guns and stuff at squad and platoon level as well as more mortars and infantry guns organically attached to the brigade. The in game effect would be an increase in soft attack at the expense of more equipment cost. There would of course be some technological improvement as well, but not as much.

edit


Another interesting thing is that many war time developments led to cheaper more easily manufactured weapon that weren't necessarily better (the Sten comes to mind). So how about infantry gear technology mostly revolved around manufacturing improvements allowing more heavily equipped brigades at the same cost?

 

[Alex_brunius]

There are many examples but here are a couple:
1. Ship AA guns. Once you research one, can't it be used on all ships? Sure there are different sizes but if I research 1940 BB AA guns, can't I use them on my BCs or CAs?

In General there were IMO 3 broad types of AA guns in service on ships.

¤ (Light) Single or dual machine-guns manned by a single gunner on the deck in a manual swivel. Generally 7-10mm caliber and short range but very quick to ready.

¤ (Medium) Twin - Quad "auto-cannons" manned by a crew of 2-4 manually winched. Generally 20-40mm caliber and medium range, popular model was the Bofors.

¤ (Heavy) Dual Purpose destroyer main guns that could be used in a AA role manned by 3-10 crew and powered rotation. Generally 88-150mm caliber and long range, common model was the american 5" Guns.

Most ships big enough to be in HoI had all of them, but the first for example share more in common with vehicle top mounted machine guns then it does with the Heavy destroyer DP AA guns.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Agreed. I dislike that there are a million different techs that do the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I like that there are a lot of techs, but researching the same thing over and over again is frustrating. What I could see would be a "major tech" and then "implementation techs". Sure you develop some new artillery from Rheinmetall. That is major. It should take a while. Implementing it in a tank or a destroyer? That should take less time. Sorry if this is an imperfect example.

Yeah, "major" and "implementation" would be nice. You could for example have one major small arms and one major support weapons unlock implementations techs like "squad level machine guns" or "organic 120mm mortar" for infantry formations, leading to improved stats but higher equipment costs. Other implementation techs could be things like mountain guns versions and other special versions.

edit

Didn't the HOI 1 system work like this? I mean apart from research being something you built with IC.

 

[FOARP]

1. IRL, replaceing ship AA guns was not easy, it was usually done during big overhauls. Although, yes, it should be upgradeable.

I think his real point is that the AA guns used were much the same on all ships, so why research different techs for BBs, CAs, DDs etc.?

2. There were a few big tech jumps. The first was moving from bolt action rifles to semi-automatic, the second was moving from semi automatic to assault rifles. The problem was that military production never kept up with wartime demand, so the majority of the soldiers still fought with older models.

OK, take my home country (the UK) as an example - they just used different versions of the .303 Lee-Enfield SMLE (a 1907 design) throughout the war as their main infantry weapon. That wasn't because the UK was technically backward or lacked the resources to make anything else, that's just because it was (in their view) good enough for the job they wanted to do.

The only small-arms weapon designed during the war that was adopted in large numbers was the STEN (designed in 1941) - a submachine gun that regularly jammed due to the poor fit of the magazine. Of course there were some American weapons used - most notably the Thomson (a 1918 design). Its not as if the Americans did much in the way of designing new small arms during the war either, the M1 Garand (a 1941 design that got a mixed reception) was pretty much the only new small-arms adopted in significant numbers by the US - the M3 'Grease Gun' never reached the front line in large number due to all the problems with production.

I agree that small arms and MG tech should not be separate for different unit types.

Yup. hopefully the new equipment mechanism will extend also to small-arms so you can give your out-of-date stuff to e.g. militia.

 

[ingwe]

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where some majors spent money in research during the war. I realize that wouldn't be trivial and also wouldn't necessarily show anything. Just curious how many things that are in the tech tree that shouldn't really be there and how many that aren't there should be?

 

[D Inqu]

OK, take my home country (the UK) as an example - they just used different versions of the .303 Lee-Enfield SMLE (a 1907 design) throughout the war as their main infantry weapon. That wasn't because the UK was technically backward or lacked the resources to make anything else, that's just because it was (in their view) good enough for the job they wanted to do.

The only small-arms weapon designed during the war that was adopted in large numbers was the STEN (designed in 1941) - a submachine gun that regularly jammed due to the poor fit of the magazine. Of course there were some American weapons used - most notably the Thomson (a 1918 design). Its not as if the Americans did much in the way of designing new small arms during the war either, the M1 Garand (a 1941 design that got a mixed reception) was pretty much the only new small-arms adopted in significant numbers by the US - the M3 'Grease Gun' never reached the front line in large number due to all the problems with production.

One of the big issues was that this semi-automatics in the 30-s were:
1. expensive (semi automatic rifles were about an order of magnitude or even more extensive than classical rifles)
2. Required well trained soldiers to use most efficiently (which was why the bulk of the soviet infantry didn't like the SVT, but the well trained border guards and marines loved it)

Therefore, during wartime, only the US having the huge industrial base completely undamaged by war, could afford the expense of keeping the mass production of semi automatics. They were nevertheless a huge breakthrough. People talk, a lot about the StG44, but the US line of infantry weapons (and tactics) draws its origins to the M1. and, to be honest, the germans build as many semi-automatics as they did StG44.

The appearance of many submachine guns (StG44 included) on the European theater of war in other armies than the US was simple - the soldiers needed a fast firing weapon, preferably cheap and easily producible.

 

[mursolini]

The appearance of many submachine guns (StG44 included) on the European theater of war in other armies than the US was simple - the soldiers needed a fast firing weapon, preferably cheap and easily producible.

STG44 was different in that it actually was a weapon capable of replacing regular rifles. MP-40 was the German SMG, PPSH was Soviet one.

MP-40 was used to arm officers and rear soldiers. Officers just got something better then pistol, and rear soldiers were much better off with weapon that did well in short range, and allowed error.

In all honestly, US and largely UK did overrate the long range fire of rifles, compared to their actual efficiency.