What about a generation based technology system?

[Der Phonix]

I mean, instead of armor 1943, third generation (WWII) tank. Likewise, instead of 1944 bomber, fourth generation (WWII) bomber.

Why is such a system superior to one based on the year a given prototype was tested or produced? Because when something is tested or produced in a country is not a good relection of its level of technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations

 

[dav77-b]

Stuff like "armor 1943" isnt part of HOI IV I thought. Or did I misunderstood the dev diary

 

[Fletz]

Stuff like "armor 1943" isnt part of HOI IV I thought. Or did I misunderstood the dev diary

i guess he meant tanks/panzers with "armor".

 

[Der Phonix]

Stuff like "armor 1943" isnt part of HOI IV I thought. Or did I misunderstood the dev diary

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=103241&d=1394189778

As I interpret that, we are talking about "armor 1943"

 

[aruon]

I mean, instead of armor 1943, third generation (WWII) tank. Likewise, instead of 1944 bomber, fourth generation (WWII) bomber.

Why is such a system superior to one based on the year a given prototype was tested or produced? Because when something is tested or produced in a country is not a good relection of its level of technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations

well the problem is that there seems to be no general consensus as to what the definitive parameters of a generation are. plus both those links version of generations omit the pre-cold war era, which totally defeats the purpose.

i've never thought of tanks in generations, they're just too generic. it's not like anyone has a particularly definable 6th generation MBT or a 11th generation plasma mortar tank. the closest you have to tank gens is the era in which they were devised and built.

aircraft on the other hand fit perfectly in generations, assuming the "generations" you define can be understood and agreed with by others.

I see aircraft gens like this:

1st: biplanes and triplanes of WWI and soon after.
2nd: monoplanes and rocket fighters of WWII. (just about everything up to the Messerschmitt Me 262 and Gloster Meteor)
3rd: just about any jet from the cold war but before the conversion to digital
4th: post-analog jets and digital-upgraded variants of older jets.
5th: present day jets
6th: next gen jets. just don't look at the F-35

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Every time i hear word generation i think of consoles, and how PC is superior to them since every week when new part (graphics card and processor mainly, but also new kind of memories like DDR4) comes it is "new generation", but rather there are no generations in PC world and they are just constantly getting better, and are constantly superior to console`s newest generation.

 

[Beagá]

Generation definition is Always something arbitrary and open to criticism.

The fact is that things evolve most of the time as a progressive line instead of leaps.

 

[aruon]

Every time i hear word generation i think of consoles...

hey, i'm still waiting for the xbox 2! or whatever will replace the Wii U Virtual Boy 2

 

[TheRomanRuler]

hey, i'm still waiting for the xbox 2! or whatever will replace the Wii U Virtual Boy 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWiXCPSN350
But also

I understand why people like consoles, but it should not come with cost of PC, and it just is too expensive for someone who plays a lot. (console games are more costly and you can get same parts for PC much cheaper- in fact you can`t get any parts for consoles)

 

[Liquid Sky]

They should link the technology to what the other side is currently at. For example the pre-req for German heavy tanks should be the Russians researching T-34's

 

[Dalwin]

They should link the technology to what the other side is currently at. For example the pre-req for German heavy tanks should be the Russians researching T-34's

Even though there is logic to that and much of tank progression historically was in response to what your enemy was putting up against you, that would still be a terrible idea in a game. It would be so easy to abuse in multi-player.

 

[Wilbry]

You may find the tech system is going to be a little like that anyway - PDS havent done a dev diary on it yet.

I'd like to see tech development strongly linked to combat experience: the environment and opponent determine where the xp/tec points go....so fighting a t-34 with your PzIII will yield a lot of xp towards armour and AT guns. That way a natural arms race can be created as one side gets a bonus to development until they have an edge over their opponent, who then get a bonus until they trump, etc. Tech would then be developed through play experience rather than player direction.

I hate myself for building PzIVh divisions for my invasion of France, I can only imagine the self-loathing of people who have Tigers rumbling into Warsaw in '39.

 

[mursolini]

They should link the technology to what the other side is currently at. For example the pre-req for German heavy tanks should be the Russians researching T-34's

T-34(or more precicely it`s upgrades from A-20 version to T-34 we know of) was largely a response to Russian tests of Pz3s they managed to find in Poland and buy some extra from Germany.
So aperently Soviets shouldn`t be able to reserch T-34 untill they obtained enough Pz3s to run test.
And what if German player skips Pz3 entirely in favor of Pz4? The development stops and Germany can sit on Pz4 forever?