Twitter screenshot 3-18 - Upgrade question

[Radu]

This is regarding the screenshot released by the devs on twitter. My question is regarding the upgrade process:

1) How will it work?

Example : I have just researched model X tank gun.

Will it immediately begin to upgrade (thus the old tank model will "morph" into a new one with the single difference being a better tank gun) or can the player "cue" the upgrade process once he has researched all the components he feels he can implement with decent cost and in fast enough time?

Bottom line : will an armored brigade modernize one component (gun first,then armor,etc in whatever order) at a time,or will the player be able to trigger an upgrade "across the board" (rather than just 1 component at a time)?

Possible problem : The USSR did not produce an intermediary between the BT-7 and T-34. There was a clear jump in armor,armament,reliability,everything.

It wasn't a step-by-step process where a BT-7 with a 76.2mm F-34 gun appeared (the BT-7 turret couldn't even withstand the stresses of such a powerful gun) (and no the BT-7a did not field the F-34 gun but a low-velocity howitzer,it was a close-support variant not a true tank) then the chassis and finally the engine. Or something along those lines.

The players themselves should be allowed to "cue" a quality jump in their own time rather than be forced to "inch forward" one 'component' at a time.

Also,I would express further hopes that proper prerequisites are set so that players cannot "beeline" in any single direction (example,leave everything 1918 model save for the gun).

2) Why isn't there a differentiation of tank calibers?

For one, small caliber doesn't equal "old gun" just like large caliber doesn't equal "new gun".

Similarly some heavy tanks sported unimpressive armament (the British Matilda I was only armed with a machinegun) just like some light tanks had some pretty decent anti-tank armament (the BT series was armed with a 45mm anti-tank gun)

A Matilda II and a KV-1 might be contemporaries and possess similar advantages and drawbacks, however a clear differentiation in firepower can be seen. Matilda's tank gun was a 2 pounder (40mm),the KV-1 had a 76.2mm gun. In a head-to-head fight the Matilda II would have zero chance of destroying a KV even at point-blank ranges (the Germans couldn't pull it off with a bigger 50mmL42 gun) while the KV-1 could potentially knock out a Matilda.

It might be quite late in development, but lumping together tank guns in the 20-30mm+ range, 40-50mm+ range and 70-100mm+ range won't exactly benefit the game. Or if the decision is final,at least provide the modding tools to allow modders to represent this (important,IMHO) caliber branching.

A big gun wasn't always fitted on a heavy chassis just like a small gun wasn't always fitted on a light chassis.

The British heavy tanks were notoriously under-gunned while the Germans continued to up-gun the "light medium" Pz-IV and PZ-III chassis with the most powerful gun the turret structure could withstand.

Some countries like the USA with their Sherman tanks or USSR with their T-34 chose to improve armor and reliability while keeping the tank guns virtually unchanged for most of the war. Barely well into 1944 both the US and USSR chose to up-gun their main armored "work-horses".

Are gun calibers really all the same?

-Last question : In the tech tree what does the number near the "X brigade" mean?

 

[Thomas Kenobi]

I think the first part of your question is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Specifically, the way that the upgrade system will work for vehicles. My personal preference, would be to be able to make whatever changes one wants and can (however many or small) and then have a choice to define his new design as a production model and start upgrading.

However at this point, as we are nearing the beta, I'm more interested in finding out what the game devs have in mind, than to make suggestions.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

This is regarding the screenshot released by the devs on twitter. (snip)

-Last question : In the tech tree what does the number near the "X brigade" mean?

Tech tree? X Brigade? Can you be a little more specific about where you are pointing? I assume it is in this same screenshot?

 

[Delta107]

The players themselves should be allowed to "cue" a quality jump in their own time rather than be forced to "inch forward" one 'component' at a time.

I agree.

Also,I would express further hopes that proper prerequisites are set so that players cannot "beeline" in any single direction

I think that in tech research there are the traditional tech prerequisites, so there should be no problems with this.

2) Why isn't there a differentiation of tank calibers?

This is abstracted because as you said a given calibre gun doesn't necessarily equal the same caliber gun of the enemy because of different specifics.

I would say that ussually the design of a unit type is upgraded over time, but a significant quality jump needs a new design. So, for example you can't mount on a T-26 a 76mm gun. But you can design the T-34 which can use that given model of gun.

Now, in game implementation is another thing.

Once the right technology levels are reached the brigade (or air unit) will change model name to reflect it’s new stats. In the case of air and land units you always build at the best technology available.

So, I assume that ones you research all those techs you get a new model with stats. I don't know if I am right.

 

[King]

THe upgrade system inches forward.

 

[Radu]

THe upgrade system inches forward.

But won't that mean we will see fielded brigades "transition" through "models" that were never fielded in real life?

Here is an example :

Let us assume that proper prerequisites are in place (one must research a better tank chassis that can withstand the stresses of a more powerful gun).

That means the player cannot take the engineeringly impossible route of placing the high-velocity Panther 75mmL70 gun in a Pz-IV turret.

But this means that the players will be forced to research the new armor (implied new chassis unless I am mistaken) and forced to see their Pz-IVs morph into something that was never meant to be produced : an under-gunned Panther tank equipped with the medium velocity 75mmL48 gun.

With so many combinations possible what we will get won't be flavor,it will be a zoo of armored "abominations" and involuntarily so.

Assuming realistic prereqs will be in place to prevent tech beelining, the natural depndency graph will be Armor->Gun+Engine->Reliability.

Because of the 1-step limitation all tanks will go the way of the Matilda tank : up-armored but either under-gunned or under-powered. This was simply not a universal rule. Tank development simply did not necessarily follow the 1-step increment rule.

I mean,the player could potentially micromanage things to go the historical way (disable upgrading,waiting for the new components to build up then enable,prioritize and allocate ample resources), to cause a semi-realistic "landslide" upgrade so that under-gunned Panthers or M26 Pershings or whatever will be fielded for a week or so if he's lucky until the gun upgrade kicks in, but does the team really want that? Does the team really want to force the players to jump through hoops like that?

Or... throw realism out the window and let the players run amok and create technological impossibilities like a Model '45 gun on a '39 chassis with '18 engine and '36 reliability.

That's a right dilemma here :
1) Enable the fielding of weapons systems that defy the rules of engineering
2) Implement realistic prerequisites,but then force the players to upgrade the armor first (because it's the armor that has to be researched first,the gun is dependent on the chassis and the engine is dependent as well),thus spreading a "Matilda" (under-gunned/under-powered) epidemic : Tiger tanks with low-velocity 75mm guns and the like.

Sigh...

 

[oribiasi]

Possible problem : The USSR did not produce an intermediary between the BT-7 and T-34. There was a clear jump in armor,armament,reliability,everything.

Didn't "historically" produce one, Radu. In this game you (or, the AI) can do whatever it likes. :rofl:

 

[Delta107]

I don't agree. An intermediary is not a viable option here, so this must be represented. Besides that these are two different tank types.

 

[Radu]

Didn't "historically" produce one, Radu. In this game you (or, the AI) can do whatever it likes. :rofl:

But that's not the point. I'm ok with anything within technically achievable bounds.

My point is that if one wants to take the historical path (which sometimes means a multi-component jump) he can't. He re-routed through a non-existent interim design.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Interesting thread.

Since it was announced that countries will have some predefined distinctive templates for historical units I sopose they will implement historical situation like british problems with tank guns at the start of the war?

For instance British were masters of good tank armour early in the war.Matilda was allmost inpenetrable for Italian and German tank guns early in war,but allso Brits had real problem of low quality and low caliber of their tank guns,Matilda had only 40 mm gun with even not high velcity.Britain tank industry struggled to mount 57 mm gunn on their tanks while in the same period Germans started to mount of 75-88mm high velocity guns on their tank chasey.
Only arrival of US 76 mm gunn(Sherman) licence/purchase partialy saved this critical problem.

Will game respect this historical differences?

 

[King]

Interesting thread.

Since it was announced that countries will have some predefined distinctive templates for historical units I sopose they will implement historical situation like british problems with tank guns at the start of the war?

For instance British were masters of good tank armour early in the war.Matilda was allmost inpenetrable for Italian and German tank guns early in war,but allso Brits had real problem of low quality and low caliber of their tank guns,Matilda had only 40 mm gun with even not high velcity.britain industry struggled to mount 57 mm gunn on their tanks while germans started production of 75 high velocity guns and Russians even bigger.Only US 76 mm gunn licence partialy saved this critical problem.

Will game respect this historical differences?

Although you are right the 57mm 6pndr gun wasn't that good, but the British 76mm 17pdr gun is not the same as the US gun. It was vastly superior and considered the best allied anti-tank gun of the war.

However as for those historical differences, that is up to you. If you want to focus in on tank armour or reliability then you can. If you want to go for tank gun you can. If you want to produce more balance tanks designs then again you can. The model templates at which the tank changes name are set according to what our research pointed to in the tank designs.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Although you are right the 57mm 6pndr gun wasn't that good, but the British 76mm 17pdr gun is not the same as the US gun. It was vastly superior and considered the best allied anti-tank gun of the war.

However as for those historical differences, that is up to you. If you want to focus in on tank armour or reliability then you can. If you want to go for tank gun you can. If you want to produce more balance tanks designs then again you can. The model templates at which the tank changes name are set according to what our research pointed to in the tank designs.

Thanks.I am aware that excellent research system in HOI III will enable various solutions while game is going on.I ment to ask about predefined differences between some major countries at the start of scenarios.
British 17 pdr was excellent gun but if I am correct came mounted on tanks in 1944 and was result of british effort to improve US 76 mm gun in combination with nightmare encounters with Panthers and Tigers.And tanks with this gun were not deployed in large quantities before the end of war.
However,yes,you are correct, Britain closed the gap by the end of war.
But how about situation at the start of the war or fiew years before?

What I wanted to ask, will game in,say 1939 scenario have predefined those historical differences?Say historical british neglection of tank design-though they had resources to make excellent tanks,they simply,relatively, neglected tank gun developement just before war except armour,becouse of diiferent way of looking on tank role in future war(infantry support).So in 1939 scenario for instance to have british techs and expirience for tank guns being beyond Germans(tank guns not artillery)and armur better?Of course than player could make an effort higher than historical to close the gap more quickly than historical.
But will some differences be predefined according to historical situation?
For instance in 1939 Player as Britain to have only 40 mm tank gun tech available with not much expirience on that field,while Germans 50 mm with more "expirience" on that field to more quickly advance?.
How about Italian time lag of some 20 years and Japan backwardness of some 10 years in tank developement in 1939?

Of course,this sad it is clear that in 1936 scenario things could be set to be more equal,but in 1939,and 1941 scenario should be much different.

 

[Peekee]

But that's not the point. I'm ok with anything within technically achievable bounds.

My point is that if one wants to take the historical path (which sometimes means a multi-component jump) he can't. He re-routed through a non-existent interim design.

In a choice between inching forward or going bigger steps then I am in favor of inching forward. Would be a bit messy to try and implement both at the same time. I guess the compromise is that the names will jump accordingly but you will get sub-versions "BT-7+39**" (or however they name them...) that did not historically exist but are needed to get to the next historical version.

I guess the problem here is that historically some versions of tanks were not possible to upgrade and once they got to a certain point development stopped completely. I suspect that trying to implement that in a game though would just be annoying with too many country specific details to be worth the effort.

 

[King]

Thanks.I am avare that excellent reserch system in HOI III will enable various solution while game is going on.I ment to ask about predefined diferrences at the start of scenarios.
British 17 pdr was excellent gun but if I am correct came in 1944 and was result of british effort to improve US 76 mm gun in combination with nightmare encounters with Panthers and Tigers.And tanks with this gun were not deployed in large quantities before the end of war.
However,yes,you are correct, Britain closed the gap by the end of war.
But how about situation at the start of the war or fiew years before?

What I wanted to ask, will game in,say 1939 scenario have predefined those historical differences?Say historical british neglection of tank design-though they had resources to make excellent tanks,they simply,relatively, neglected tank gun developement just before war except armour,becouse of diiferent way of looking on tank role in future war(infantry support).So in 1939 scenario for instance to have british techs for tank guns far beyond Germans(tank guns not artillery)and armur better?Of course than player could make an effort higher than historical to close the gap more quickly than historical.
But will some differences be predefined according to historical situation?
For instance in 1939 Player as britain to have only 40 mm tank gun tech available with not much expirience on that field,while Germans 50 mm with more "expirience" on that field to more quickly advance?.
How about Italian time lag of some 20 years and Japan backwardness of some 10 years in tank developement in 1939?

Of course,this sad it is clear that in 1936 scenario things could be set to be more equal,but in 1939,and 1941 scenario should be much different.

You are not correct the 17pdr entered service in 1943 and for the invasion of France Shermans were being refitted to carry them (the Firefly vairient) and I could go on here.

However each major country has historical models that define how we think the tank worked. The OOBs pick up these historical models. For example we believe that British tanks in 1939 had reliability issues so we give them low reliability tech values in comparison to their German counterparts.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

You are not correct the 17pdr entered service in 1943 and for the invasion of France Shermans were being refitted to carry them (the Firefly vairient) and I could go on here.

However each major country has historical models that define how we think the tank worked. The OOBs pick up these historical models. For example we believe that British tanks in 1939 had reliability issues so we give them low reliability tech values in comparison to their German counterparts.

Thats what I ment.Will be some differences.
Of course its up to You to define those differences.
I am glad there will be some.
Thanks,I am satissfied.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Im still missing that tanks won't have a light artillery or light AT component researched like Infantry.

Imo these techs should be central and improve all your brigades relevant component at the same time. Why can't militias use the same light artillery youve just researched for your infantry? And wouldn't below brigade/regiment size support elements in a panzer division benefit from the same improved light artillery too?

Hopefully this will be or is already corrected somewhat since the infantry tech screenshot is old. But its obviouslly still a problem with tanks.

 

[Ankor]

Possible problem : The USSR did not produce an intermediary between the BT-7 and T-34. There was a clear jump in armor,armament,reliability,everything.

They didn't MASS produced one. But there were designs that were tested and some were (AFAIK) ready for production (for example A-20 (BT-20) (approximately 1939-40), but due to production capabilities this project was dropped, there were also earlier designs in 1937-38).
The reason of this jump is simple combined track/wheeled movement as on BT series was proved to bring little benefits, while restricting fitting better armor and gun (weight problems). And with dropped wheeled movement series evolved into T-34.

 

[Ankor]

You are not correct the 17pdr entered service in 1943 and for the invasion of France Shermans were being refitted to carry them (the Firefly vairient) and I could go on here.

However each major country has historical models that define how we think the tank worked. The OOBs pick up these historical models. For example we believe that British tanks in 1939 had reliability issues so we give them low reliability tech values in comparison to their German counterparts.

Is there difference between light/medium/heavy tanks reliability techs?
If so what about Soviet heavy tanks (T-35, KV-1, KV-2)? (AFAIK there were problems with it, prior to KV-1s).

 

[Kikaider]

I think as long as I don't ever see 75mm long barrels on a PzKpfw.1, I'll be happy

 

[oribiasi]

In a choice between inching forward or going bigger steps then I am in favor of inching forward. Would be a bit messy to try and implement both at the same time. I guess the compromise is that the names will jump accordingly but you will get sub-versions "BT-7+39**" (or however they name them...) that did not historically exist but are needed to get to the next historical version.

I guess the problem here is that historically some versions of tanks were not possible to upgrade and once they got to a certain point development stopped completely. I suspect that trying to implement that in a game though would just be annoying with too many country specific details to be worth the effort.

I agree with PeeKee here. I am sure it would be nice to mount a larger tank weapon on a BT-7 frame and call it a BT-7A, but think of the engineering here. Larger weapon means more kickback, which means more stress on the chassis, which means more damage eventually, over time, to the tank itself, even if it is never hit with an enemy weapon. This also has to be taken into consideration.

The early tanks could not support the later tanks' larger guns.