-
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.
perfect. maybe throw in a bonus for artillery fire.
tanks can just be a landtech upgrade, just like the rifle, the maxim gun and ..barbed wire.
i am not a HOI player btw, so im expecting some sort of hybrid between EU and HOI in this.
or to "lawrence revolt" arabs.
i would expect to see effectiveness of cavalry decline over time in general.
Anyone like my suggestion that artillery fire, barbed wire, etc. be simmed by drastic increases in attrition in affected areas?
Could work like pivateers in EU2 - pay a cost for a barrage or poison gas (lasting say a week or so); pay a different cost for barbed wire; pay a cost for trenching (defensive bonus/ bonus against barrage attrition); etc.
Easy to do, without endless micromanagement of units ...
Edit: the barbed wire and trenches will of course last longer than "barrage" or "gas".
With these, you could have a real fun WW1 ...
Malthus: How about a trench warfare tech that allows infantry to dig in once they have taken a province, massively increasing their defence values to the point where a frontal assault leads to heavy casualties, and then in turn a tank warfare tech that somewhat negates this defence value and allows breakthroughs to occur with less casualties.
Makes sense, and could be combined with the barrage/poision gas/ attrition idea.
There should however be a time lag and cost involved - the trenching function should not be automatic. Thus, it would be possible (in theory) to break through the line of trenches.
Tanks could have turned up earlier than they did in the UK, though not very much earlier - it was more a failure of interest at the highest levels than lack of design capability. Around the turn of the century, H.G. Wells 'invented' the concept of the tank, and predicted that they would be able to break the deadlock of trench combat as seen in the Boer War. After WWI he reportedly said that his epitaph should have been "I told them so. The Damned fools!".
I'm not sure about other countries - France always had a good record of unusual technological innovation during this period, though they often failed to follow good ideas up. Kind of like the UK post-1945 really...
I'm not sure about other countries - France always had a good record of unusual technological innovation during this period, though they often failed to follow good ideas up. Kind of like the UK post-1945 really...
A note on aircraft/balloons etc. as reconnaissance.
It should be possible to gain air superiority, thus blinding your opponnent and increasing your own intelligence.
There should be a mechanism for that.
It should be possible to gain air superiority, thus blinding your opponnent and increasing your own intelligence.
There should be a mechanism for that.
Originally posted by The Captain
You can't possibly represent WW1 without them. So you must either add them, or reduce the timeline somewhat.
I dont have a problem with abstract them to boost other troop types instead, is it really necessary to have airpower and all the extra code it brings for something that appeared during the last 5 years
I think that Da Vinci "invented" something that can be described as a tank so the idea was by no means new.
As for the implementation in Victoria.
The basic unit is said to be a division.
Were there any tank divisions?
No therfore there shouldn't be any tank units like that.
airplanes should ahve a mainly supporting role, no real big power....however tanks! should be there in the end as a seperate unit, uber calv?
tanks really did mean the allies would probably win the war no matter what germany tried, as when they started kickig out tanks by the hundreds, thousands a month.... germany is in trouble
tanks really did mean the allies would probably win the war no matter what germany tried, as when they started kickig out tanks by the hundreds, thousands a month.... germany is in trouble
Tanks were awesome.
I read a recount by Private Fraser about the charge his unit was in on day 3 of the Somme. His unit got cut down and they were pinned in no man's land and they would have been toast but ONE tank came along and completely wiped out the German position.
I think the fear factor that a had made them devastating.
Sure, they weren't the instrument of breakthrough and exploit that they were in WW2, but they packed a hard punch and made it possible to advance on entrenched positions.
The battle theory was you punched a hole in the enemy line with your lumbering tanks and then the cavalry poured though to exploit the break in the line. I never quite worked out though because of poor organization.
I think though that the idea of just attaching tanks to infantry units is fine though.
There is just so much that happened in technology in WW1 that I hope Paradox can do a good job of it. Most people don't realize how complex WW1 was.
One important thing to note I think, is that the battle for Richmond in the Cival war looked a lot like WW1, and it was 50 years previous. On the other hand, I don't think the Franco Prussian war was anything like WW1.
They had trench warfare, gattling guns, massive artillery, exploded mines under enemy positions etc...
Artillery caused something like 7 or 8 out of 10 casualties in WW1, a lot of attention has to be put towards that.
Sappers should definitely be in there somewhere as a unit or technology. In the middle of the war the main way to kick off of a battle was to dig tunnels under enemy positions and pack them with explosives.
I read a recount by Private Fraser about the charge his unit was in on day 3 of the Somme. His unit got cut down and they were pinned in no man's land and they would have been toast but ONE tank came along and completely wiped out the German position.
I think the fear factor that a had made them devastating.
Sure, they weren't the instrument of breakthrough and exploit that they were in WW2, but they packed a hard punch and made it possible to advance on entrenched positions.
The battle theory was you punched a hole in the enemy line with your lumbering tanks and then the cavalry poured though to exploit the break in the line. I never quite worked out though because of poor organization.
I think though that the idea of just attaching tanks to infantry units is fine though.
There is just so much that happened in technology in WW1 that I hope Paradox can do a good job of it. Most people don't realize how complex WW1 was.
One important thing to note I think, is that the battle for Richmond in the Cival war looked a lot like WW1, and it was 50 years previous. On the other hand, I don't think the Franco Prussian war was anything like WW1.
They had trench warfare, gattling guns, massive artillery, exploded mines under enemy positions etc...
Artillery caused something like 7 or 8 out of 10 casualties in WW1, a lot of attention has to be put towards that.
Sappers should definitely be in there somewhere as a unit or technology. In the middle of the war the main way to kick off of a battle was to dig tunnels under enemy positions and pack them with explosives.
I think that tanks are really pretty necessary to simulate accurately what war was like by the end of the period. Besides use in Europe, imagine what might happen in alternate history scenarios - like Turtledove's alternate history Civil War books, it's going to be entirely possible in this game that the CSA would still exist by WWI and war with the USA around that time, and tanks in the wide-open spaces of western America would have made a HUGE change to how war was fought, as opposed to the relatively cramped forests and trenches of Western Europe where the change was minor enough that it could possibly be dismissed...
I think that given that this isn't a flat historical simulator we need to consider what might happen if ahistorical wars occurred, and a WWI-type war in North America might well have gone on in a radically different way than it did in Europe. For that matter it's disappointing to plenty of military buffs if they don't have any representation of the beginnings of the modern military that emerged during the first world war - and planes (largely for scouting, as it's been said), tanks, and submarines WERE considered important tools; that's why they sent people to their deaths using them.
I for one will enjoy playing the end of the game substantially less if I feel like war is still more like the Franco-Prussian War than like WWI - and the world of trenches, poison gas, and military machines was really substantially different than anything that had come before it. The "war to end all wars" killed off a ridiculous proportion of Europe's young men and really was something new, and a lot of that was due to the increased mechanization of war that really started in earnest with the Gatling gun.
I think that given that this isn't a flat historical simulator we need to consider what might happen if ahistorical wars occurred, and a WWI-type war in North America might well have gone on in a radically different way than it did in Europe. For that matter it's disappointing to plenty of military buffs if they don't have any representation of the beginnings of the modern military that emerged during the first world war - and planes (largely for scouting, as it's been said), tanks, and submarines WERE considered important tools; that's why they sent people to their deaths using them.
I for one will enjoy playing the end of the game substantially less if I feel like war is still more like the Franco-Prussian War than like WWI - and the world of trenches, poison gas, and military machines was really substantially different than anything that had come before it. The "war to end all wars" killed off a ridiculous proportion of Europe's young men and really was something new, and a lot of that was due to the increased mechanization of war that really started in earnest with the Gatling gun.
Remember that HOI went beyond 1948 era tech a bit to reward those people who put researching over just about everything else. As long as it is prohibitively hard to do such a thing(too small and army/navy, which makes it hard to police your empire) they should go into the 1930s of tech, in my opinion.
I guess it would be asking too much though to ask for a seperate rocketry or nuclear tech tree, eh?
I guess it would be asking too much though to ask for a seperate rocketry or nuclear tech tree, eh?
You know how in HOI, you can put a ton of reserach into, say, tanks, and the Germans can have Tigers by like 1938? This thread is giving me horrible visions of tanks rolling down the city streets of Gettysburg and aircraft bombing Union positons at Vicksburg.
Besides, considering the timeframe and what the developers said about diplomacy and industrialization, and considering the static nature of warfare from the time period (compared to the mobile warfare of WWII), I don't think warfare will be the biggest concern to the developers.
Besides, considering the timeframe and what the developers said about diplomacy and industrialization, and considering the static nature of warfare from the time period (compared to the mobile warfare of WWII), I don't think warfare will be the biggest concern to the developers.
Re: Re: Re: What about Tanks, Aircraft, etc?
This quote wins the prize for most disturbing of the night.
I've said many a crazy thing in my day but I've never longed to fight in the First World War......
Originally posted by TheArchduke
He must have been a hell of a fighter. And I would love to have lived at that time!
This quote wins the prize for most disturbing of the night.
I've said many a crazy thing in my day but I've never longed to fight in the First World War......
Tanks were not that important in WW1 - they should should just be a tech that adds to your attack.
Same with aircraft - they were hardly an independent airforce capable of anything much beyond observation.
Hardly Blitzgreig style close air support.
NAVAL POWER on the other hand...
Same with aircraft - they were hardly an independent airforce capable of anything much beyond observation.
Hardly Blitzgreig style close air support.
NAVAL POWER on the other hand...
Now that you mention Naval power, it'll be interesting how the ship race of Germany with Britain, the limits of the Russian Navy after the Crimean War, how some improvements rendered whole navies obsolete in the blink of an eye, etc, will be modeled.
the biggest problem I can see is that during WW1 the battles where very different in that you didn't just meet for a few days then bugger off home,often they'd sit in trenchs quite close to each other casually shelling one another but not launching a major offensive,how would that be represented?
would they have a single contested province with both armies or would they just sit in opposite provinces or something different?
would they have a single contested province with both armies or would they just sit in opposite provinces or something different?