Anyway, aside from a debate over how useful are weapons with intermediate round at replacing rifles, it is hardly a question that stuff like STG44 would be far better then MP-40, and could replace SMGs at least withing the arias where ones were typically used, and improve the performance of divisions in close combat situations such as cities or hills/forests.
Tech Trees and Models
- Thread starter Bullfrog
- 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.
That's a great point... I was thinking along similar lines earlier today that the combat modifiers could be extended to weapons techs more comprehensively. So while an uptick in SA or toughness or whatever is certainly in order for some techs, things like small arms techs may instead (or in combination with stat increases) add to combat efficiency in certain terrain. As you pointed out, an automatic weapon of small caliber is most effective in close quarters... So it's addition to a unit might increase that unit's urban and woodsy terrain combat efficiency, rather than a general increase in SA. Especially considering small arms accounted for likely 5% of combat casualties.
Edit: this would also lend itself to players deciding to "stick with" one or two production lines of their nations standard small arms, as we know was usually the case, rather than totally replacing issued rifles/MGs/SMGs every couple years - which was never done, AFAIK.
Last edited:
That is a good idea. Probably worth offsetting with an increased supply consumption.
The M16 exactly proves my point. It is a rifle, designed to have a soldier carry more ammo than the M14 for the same weight, and has vitrually no similarities to the StG44.
I should be the one asking you to explain the adoption of M-16, which completely contradicts your ideas.
Hardly underused. 2million is the number produced by FN. All the various derivatives such as the British one, for example are not part of the count. Overall in the world, FN and derivatves are second only to the AK and derivatives.
1. And post war NATO modern rifles could be easily converted to "designated marksman" weapons, which was big advantage. The USSR had to develop the SVD with different round to fill in that gap.
2. And the allied post war doctrine discouraged close combat, saying it does not allow the soldiers to use their advantages on the battlefield, so the was not an advantage. Automatic fire isn't even an option for most modern rifles, nor do soldiers train for it.
3. Which was one of reasons. The other, even more important one was the ability to carry more ammo for a firefight. The Kurz cartridge was much heavier than 5.56, and closer to rile cartridges in weight
4. Ehm, you do know soldiers don't use weapons inside the vehicles? They disembark to fight. It was a theoretical option on some soviet AVFs, but in practice trying to hit something out of a moving vehicle through a small firing port is exceedingly difficult. And in any case, cold war AVFs had little armor, so a single shot from an RPG could take out a whole squad if they were to stay inside their vehicle in combat.
5. And, interestingly, the armies in the world thought otherwise, and took great measures to reduce weapon weight. Mainly for the reasons outlined above - the APC carries a soldier to the battlefield, but once there, he has to move on his 2 feet.
You can't seriously be claiming a weapon developed in the 90-s for a completely different war, on a different technological level had anything to do with a WW2 weapon that was rejected after the the war.
AFAIK, the general consensus that eventually emerged, admittedly some decades after the war, was that the combination of assault rifles, fast-firing heavy machine guns etc. that the Germans seized on in the last years of the war, was actually the right one for countering massive armies like the Soviet one.
At the very least, that's the explanation that Andrew Salmon convincingly sets out in "To The Last Round: The Epic British Stand on the Imjin River, Korea 1951", where he (and the veterans he interviews) point out that the British Army's assumption that accuracy was much more important than rate-of-fire left them poorly placed to resist the massive human-wave assaults of the Chinese army. As he also points out, it wasn't until the 1980's that the British Army finally implemented this with the GPMG and the SA80, previous to this we had still been relying on the SLR (a version of the FN FAL) which was semi-automatic only.
As I recall one of the Imjin River veterans he interviewed straight-up says "If only we had had automatics".
At the very least, that's the explanation that Andrew Salmon convincingly sets out in "To The Last Round: The Epic British Stand on the Imjin River, Korea 1951", where he (and the veterans he interviews) point out that the British Army's assumption that accuracy was much more important than rate-of-fire left them poorly placed to resist the massive human-wave assaults of the Chinese army. As he also points out, it wasn't until the 1980's that the British Army finally implemented this with the GPMG and the SA80, previous to this we had still been relying on the SLR (a version of the FN FAL) which was semi-automatic only.
As I recall one of the Imjin River veterans he interviewed straight-up says "If only we had had automatics".
Something like SMGs, semi autos and assault rifles increasing combat modifiers in urban and other terrain?
Good idea.
Yup. The idea that armies in WW2 simply replaced bolt-action rifles with semi-auto ones, and then semi-auto with fully automatic ones, is just nonsense. Instead all armies had a mix.
For the UK the mix was the Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle, the STEN and the Thomson SMGs, the BREN light machine gun, and the Vickers Heavy machine gun - and all of these weapons except the STEN were designed before the war.
For the US the mix was the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle, the Thomson SMG, the BAR LMG, and the M2 Browing HMG, and in the case of the US all of their weapons were already designed before the war started.
Sure, there were weapons designed during the war introduced into both armies - the Bazooka and the PIAT anti-tank weapons, for example, but these weren't incremental improvements on already-existing weapons, but an all-new class of weapons. There was simply no point creating a production line, logistics etc. for a weapon which would only be a marginal improvement on already-existing weapons.
Back on point, the idea of tech trees may need a reorganization to better address how technologies are developed into capabilities/equipment, and then capabilities/equipment are integrated into unit types.
The other consideration is how the US military addressed capability needs, through the obnoxious acronym DOTMLP:
- Doctrine
- Organization
- Training
- Material
- Leadership
- Personnel
- Facilities
"Policy" is often added at the end, sometime "integration" or "interoperability", depending on the context.
Regardless, the point is there is baseline technologies, that in turn can result in improved equipment, that can then be integrated into units. HOI-series does an OK job with some things, but others are tedious or result in unrealistic capability increases. (e.g., researching multiple small arms types giving significant boost to soft attack. In reality it is a mix of technology/equipment, organization, training, and tactics; integrating radios, mortars, light machineguns, etc. likely had a greater effect at the platoon level then bumping up small arms tech)
The other consideration is how the US military addressed capability needs, through the obnoxious acronym DOTMLP:
- Doctrine
- Organization
- Training
- Material
- Leadership
- Personnel
- Facilities
"Policy" is often added at the end, sometime "integration" or "interoperability", depending on the context.
Regardless, the point is there is baseline technologies, that in turn can result in improved equipment, that can then be integrated into units. HOI-series does an OK job with some things, but others are tedious or result in unrealistic capability increases. (e.g., researching multiple small arms types giving significant boost to soft attack. In reality it is a mix of technology/equipment, organization, training, and tactics; integrating radios, mortars, light machineguns, etc. likely had a greater effect at the platoon level then bumping up small arms tech)
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd use this one as it pertains to the information I'm about to bore you with.
We know from previews that particular unit type techs will be further broken down into available sub techs, in order to produce variants of that unit type. The example given referred to the chassis of pz IIIs and IVs being modified to allow production of improved sub models and tank destroyers I believe.
I hope that this great feature is expanded to much of the tech tree, but especially for the aircraft models.
I've not read anything regarding production lines being altered or broken down to sub-production lines (aka a main "chassis" production line that can incorporate all the relevant variants). But this would be interesting and would clean up a production screen that may be overwhelming to comprehend with a glance.
Anyway, any grognard knows that most large scale production aircraft were modified and improved upon; the Bf-109 being a classic example, with so many variants and specialty models having been made that it is a chore to even look at.
Continuing with that example then, I'd imagine the basic "chassis" tech would unlock the B, C or D model. Continued up-engining and arming would produce the E, F, G and K models.
As an aside I hope that existing classifications are redone, or streamlined. So a merge of the fighter/interceptor line, so that sub-techs and production options indicate the role of the fighter as an interceptor or ground attack aircraft.
We know from previews that particular unit type techs will be further broken down into available sub techs, in order to produce variants of that unit type. The example given referred to the chassis of pz IIIs and IVs being modified to allow production of improved sub models and tank destroyers I believe.
I hope that this great feature is expanded to much of the tech tree, but especially for the aircraft models.
I've not read anything regarding production lines being altered or broken down to sub-production lines (aka a main "chassis" production line that can incorporate all the relevant variants). But this would be interesting and would clean up a production screen that may be overwhelming to comprehend with a glance.
Anyway, any grognard knows that most large scale production aircraft were modified and improved upon; the Bf-109 being a classic example, with so many variants and specialty models having been made that it is a chore to even look at.
Continuing with that example then, I'd imagine the basic "chassis" tech would unlock the B, C or D model. Continued up-engining and arming would produce the E, F, G and K models.
As an aside I hope that existing classifications are redone, or streamlined. So a merge of the fighter/interceptor line, so that sub-techs and production options indicate the role of the fighter as an interceptor or ground attack aircraft.
I believe that once chassis are unlocked, chassis sub-variants can then be developed from them, yes.
All I know as someone who bought HOI3 and stopped after 30 hours only to return in the recent sales, is that I find the wall of potential techs a headache and I have spent games wasting my research in the wrong things and have only survived cause I am playing on easy.
I have read AAR's with HPP (if I could work out how to play a mod on steam I would be all over it) and it seems so much easier. It makes sense that militia and garrison units get the old weapons from the regular army instead of me having to invest tech into various parts of the army for the same thing.
I have read AAR's with HPP (if I could work out how to play a mod on steam I would be all over it) and it seems so much easier. It makes sense that militia and garrison units get the old weapons from the regular army instead of me having to invest tech into various parts of the army for the same thing.
Yes. I'd assume that if the same equipment is used to fill all divisions to an extent, such as small arms, support weapons, AT, Arty and trucks, the main differentiation among divisions would be the amounts of such equipment, rather than a classification based on ever increasing and individual unit techs.
This would mean two things...
First, there'd be little use for brigades... Instead divisions would have templates that determined what equipment it needed.
-So GAR would have less equipment, especially the heavier weapons and transport, reducing their movement and combat stats.
-MTN would have less heavy weapons but would have more support weapons. Same with PAR.
-Armor would need all the infantry equipment plus tanks of course, and perhaps SP heavy guns and AT, and a lot of trucks.
Second, the techs for divisional units would not be entirely equipment based, but rather doctrine based.
So instead of needing 1940 infantry techs to have a better division, it would be a doctrine tech that determined what that divisions TOE looked like.
For instance, in 1939 armored divisions were often very tank heavy and lighter on mobile infantry. By 1942, most nations had inverted this organization to have more or equal infantry to tank ratios.
Another example: as the war progressed, divisions often were reorganized to be smaller with more firepower. Unit templates could make use of newly researched equipment like rocket artillery and more support weapons and automatic small arms, ratio wise, per division, compared to earlier in the war. This could coincide with a slight reduction in required manpower per unit if the player wished.
Last edited:
Well I just want it to be transparent what the techs will allow me to do.
Every Pdx game you can understand the cost/benefits of new troops, Vicky 2 probably has the next comparable spread of different troops, but it is easy to understand each varieties strengths and weaknesses.
Also I would like to be able to run internal war games against the AI, this would help develop doctrines as well as help you understand the terrain and make up of your forces, plus give you something to do in the early years.
Every Pdx game you can understand the cost/benefits of new troops, Vicky 2 probably has the next comparable spread of different troops, but it is easy to understand each varieties strengths and weaknesses.
Also I would like to be able to run internal war games against the AI, this would help develop doctrines as well as help you understand the terrain and make up of your forces, plus give you something to do in the early years.
That's actually a genius idea.
It'd be great if you could press a big 'Field Exercise' button, assign a group of your own units to each 'side', then choose one side with the AI controlling the other, fighting in a chosen area of your own territory (where casualties are only simulated). You could earn, for example, 20% of the 'instutitional experience' from training battles that real battles give you, but doing wargames would drain your supplies and tire your men as in reality.