When will France start with engineers and heavy tanks?

[Delpheus]

doesn't mean it's bad or worth changing either.

like really as far as i can tell, most nations undersell their tech level in the game. we might as well give all majors all 1936 or below tanks etc if we're going for historicity. then there's likely more other techs to be sorted through. but basically most majors won't end up with anything to research that isn't ahead of time, if we don't have any open 1936 tech.

I think the lack of tech to research problem can be fixed if they add more specific plane and tank technology to give players big differences in quality, capability, and cost-saving quantity. Man the guns added a nice naval tech tree. There has to be more options than you can realistically get so a player has to make choices. I think they could do the same with tanks and planes.

Right now making better tanks or planes depends on the magical experience point resource...if you want more armor on a tank you need...xp...not more steel cost or research time? Very strange to me. A tank tech tree and deeper (and accurate) differences would really help here I think.

 

[Iskulya]

I think the lack of tech to research problem can be fixed if they add more specific plane and tank technology to give players big differences in quality, capability, and cost-saving quantity. Man the guns added a nice naval tech tree. There has to be more options than you can realistically get so a player has to make choices. I think they could do the same with tanks and planes.

Right now making better tanks or planes depends on the magical experience point resource...if you want more armor on a tank you need...xp...not more steel cost or research time? Very strange to me. A tank tech tree and deeper (and accurate) differences would really help here I think.

Terrible idea imo.

Ships are individual entities in combat. Tanks and planes aren't. They're statistical aggregates of the entities that make them up, and in the case of tanks thar includes non-bank components.

This would not be a good change without huge and radical changes to how ground and air combat work.

Furthermore, it does not fit with the research system. MTG already stretched the research system past the breaking point imo. The research system only works well with vague and abstract techs. The more you add highly specific technical components, the worse it works.

Given how many other things in this game need work or overhauls, this would add far more problems to the game than it would fix while bringing little to nothing to the table.

 

[SgtFancypants]

i disagree slightly, an engineering company is a company that can repair bridges, and otherwise repair infrastructure on the 'fly'. the company's main benefit is movement over rivers, marsh and forests(clearing trees). all units can entrench natively, and if you have grand battle plan, you can already entrench as much as what a 1945 engineer company can give you. they're much more specialized than just making impromptu fortifications.

Oh I don’t disagree. I like your example and I think it makes it easy to explain the difference in focus.... combat engineers are repairing the bridges, not constructing them from scratch. The same thought can be applied to mega defensive structures like the Maginot Line. I’m sure that the officers running combat engineer companys that have high level engineering educations are capable of managing the design and construction of pieces of the Maginot, but that’s not really their job.

Of course combat engineers have specialized equipment to create makeshift bridges, but these tend to be temporary with a focus on rapid deployment rather than permanent or durable.

 

[TorAndreKongelf]

Well thanks alot for this thread really. Seems like Paradox now added this unhistorical change to France in the beta with engineers in the template. I have gone through every single division France raised in ww2 and none of them had engineers at a divisional level.

They did have signal though. Why npt ask for that instead?

There are so many easy historical fixes thar has to be made to the game. Not this.

 

[Xeonic]

There are some pretty famous french combat engineers, I don't know whether they served in France though, since they belong to the foreign legion. They are mostly famous due to their uniforms, which include some hefty axes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Foreign_Engineer_Regiment

 

[Harin]

There are some pretty famous french combat engineers, I don't know whether they served in France though, since they belong to the foreign legion. They are mostly famous due to their uniforms, which include some hefty axes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Foreign_Engineer_Regiment

Looks like an experienced crew.

 

[Louella]

Well thanks alot for this thread really.

More like tanks a lot, lol

 

[Riftwalker]

I think the lack of tech to research problem can be fixed if they add more specific plane and tank technology to give players big differences in quality, capability, and cost-saving quantity. Man the guns added a nice naval tech tree. There has to be more options than you can realistically get so a player has to make choices. I think they could do the same with tanks and planes.

Right now making better tanks or planes depends on the magical experience point resource...if you want more armor on a tank you need...xp...not more steel cost or research time? Very strange to me. A tank tech tree and deeper (and accurate) differences would really help here I think.

i hate when mods do this, because i have to spend time figuring out exactly what the different tanks do, tend to just forget it and just start making a single type of fighter and CAS and forget tanks on that mod.