So about 39 if historical, I guess? Still quite behind Germany, Italy and UK, I believe. France can get it sooner too, but I am not sure if the AI will do that.
- 2
USA 6 research slots?
- Thread starter Denkt
- 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.
So about 39 if historical, I guess? Still quite behind Germany, Italy and UK, I believe. France can get it sooner too, but I am not sure if the AI will do that.
No, they had case studies (or contingency plans) for the invasion of Canada, Mexico, the UK, France, the USSR, and pretty much every other country on Earth. That is what the war department is supposed to do, plan for any contingency.
- 4
You need to look closer at the Icons in the videos and stop relying on old Screenshots. The Icon for "Treaty with Germany" is a beaker with shaking hands, and gives them bonuses for Armor R&D and Synthetic Fuel R&D (if Germany agrees).
Beaker by itself = Extra Research Slot (don't let anyone convince you otherwise)
Beaker with shaking hands = Research Bonuses
- 2
Canada even had a case study plan to invade the US !?
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1
Sorry but i don't get that. Why catch up at all? They start at the amount of slots of other major powers and i assume that they won't start at a stone age tech level. It makes no sense in this regard.
In HoI 2 they were also limited to the same amount of tech slots. Their tech teams were reasonably expertised in some areas (and they had a bunch of excellent teams to research in one area simultaneously) while in some they were just 'good'. I have yet to hear any cries that US was underpowered in HoI 2.
I believe it is highly debatable whether US out-teched all other nations in every technology field, which is the effect of this design decision. As a player, one certainly doesn't need any buffs for the US (actually it becomes boring after one game - as playing them is just pressing the 'i win' button).
Instead of going the easy way (making them OP), i would prefer to put more effort in AI so that AI controlled US makes a difference in the game.
- 3
I don't think anyone else has pointed this out in this thread: a prerequisite further up the focus tree from Scientist Haven requires that the United States is a democracy (and also at war with a major power, so it's not a simple matter to get the focus and then flip), so if like me you're daydreaming about world conquest as a fascist US, plan around having 5 slots like everyone else.
- 2
I disagree; that is not the effect of this design decision. The US starts the research field with 4 slots, and can only open the 5th when World Tension is high enough, and the 6th slot over a year after they have gone to war with a major power. Many of the other majors should be able to get to 5 slots before the US, so it is unlikely they will "out-tech" them. Not only that, but other nations have research bonuses embedded in their focus trees that help them advance faster along the way. The real effect of this extra slot is to enable the US to shine in extreme late game when much of the world has been heavily bombed but scientists are presumably still working there in solitude.
The more practical problem I foresee is that the current AI mechanics seem to make the world already conquered one way or the other long before the US can even reach this point. Who cares if they can now research slightly faster than a Germany who has already conquered the Soviet Union?
I agree with you there, and hope the AI is improved in that direction. Though I wouldn't call them OP from the start, since they are the only country in the game that starts with both the Undisturbed Isolation and Great Depression negative attributes.
- 1
The Corsair, Hellcat, and Bearcat compared to the proposed German carrier fighter, the navalized BF-109T which had the following characteristics imminently suitable for a carrier aircraft:
1. Lightweight construction not purpose-built for sustained carrier operations
2. Water-cooled engine, vulnerable to seizing due to combat damage to coolant systems during long flights over open ocean.
3. Short range, when a carrier fighter had to be both escort and interceptor
4. Non-folding wings, when space aboard a carrier was at a premium.
5. Poor air-to-ground payload, when an effective fighter bomber aircraft can effectively double a carrier's strike capability when needed. The USN even began deploying dedicated VBF (fighter bomber) squadrons later in the war, but hey, what the hell did they know about carrier ops?
6. Difficult landing characteristics and poor cockpit visibility, you know, the things that caused the F4U so many problems.
7. Narrow-track landing gear
Also of of your listed fighters:
1. 190D - Excellent fighter, good job on that one Dr Tank
2. Me-410 - Night fighter and wounded bomber hunter, carrying around extra crewman and rear gunner for no good reason, P-38 or F7F would fly rings around it, to say nothing of the Mosquito.
3. Do 335 - Never achieved anything in combat, only a handful built. Saw about as much combat as the F8F.
4. Me 262 - a fine aircraft if you have spare engines laying around after every other sortie.
5. Me 163 - combat-ineffective death trap
6. He 219 - good design, but was it especially amazing compared to Allied night fighters? Keep in mind aircraft like F6F and F4U could equip radar pods with relatively minimal modifications.
7. Hs 129 - tank kills by airplanes are hugely overstated IL-10 had much better performance, US fighters had much heavier bombload, also check out some of the firepower the B-25 and A-26 attack variants used in the Pacific were packing.
8. Ar-234 - Was used most often as a recon aircraft, not a bomber. Useless against total Allied air superiority, germany needed better fighters in 1944-45, not more bombers.
- 2
- 2
Were you paying attention to the discussion? We were just talking about this last page/beginning of this page. The USA starts with 4 slots, but only gains the 5th much later, while most majors can have it relatively quick, so they will be outclassed at the start of the war. And the 6h only comes more than an year after the US enter the war, so the advantage is only there for a comparatively small amount of time.
Yes, i have. I still believe that US gets an abundant advantage this way. They may get the 5th a year later than the active powers (while being neutral themselves - does not matter much) and get 20% extra research for second half of the war - 3 years on average.
As HoI 2 showed there is no need for this buff anyway.
- 3
I agree, The United States is already very powerful. I'm not so sure on this because I haven't played the game yet, but I think can compete with other major powers without any problems with what they already have.
Well gameplay wise it is needed according to Podcat as they might fall behind if they want to research all of it, and if anyone should that should be US. They also start less able to go for focuses that give research speed. UK and Germany have loads of those. Short term UK+Ger will be much better than US at teching, which US will only catch up to after it goes to war with a major, which might be post 1942, or after several aggressive stream games have already ended. It also adds further weight behind not waking the giant, they have a whole tree that happens when they go to war with a major and it is the final focus in that that gives them the sixth slot.
As for competing with other major powers, the US competed with the combined weight of all the powers. We are talking about 50% of world GDP, but GDP is a bad metric.
US already starts nerfed. We are talking about 80% of the world navy at the end of the war. They outproduced the Axis powers combined with room to spare. They gave to the USSR the same number of trucks Germany had. US gave ~40k planes to UK, or about half of what Japan had in total and twice what Italy had. Their Pre-war stance versus Japan was ignore as any US-Jap war was basically a foregone conclusion. They provoked Japan to attack them so they could go to war with Germany. Now a full ground truth production US is not very fun for the game, so I can understand it not being in, but if research slots are based on scientist funding they should get ten. From a mathematical economy standpoint, the side US joined will win WW2. They might not have the manpower or warwillingness for world conquest, but they certainly had the industry and the funding.