Where are my Bismarck and Kaga

[Greywolf]

Dont you notice that nearly all tech advance have no sense at all ??

Especially artillery and gun and so...

Please dont be silly , all of WWII nation know about 150mm+ artillery ( and even far more ) in 1936.

Same thing with tank gun in worse... after all in 1939 France know of 20 mm, 25mm, 47mm and 75mm and have already a 90mm in test. Germany have 20mm, 50mm and 75mm and was searching better tube.

The real problem is that the tech trees names were to be generic for ALL nations thus they put generic name with some historical flavour to a gameplay artifact.

Only solution for it to make sense is to have a different tech tree for all nation and that it is far more than the current possibilities ( especially memory wise ) and time avaliable....

Any way just imagine what could happen if you give their real technology with the current tech trees to all nation...

In 1936 everyone know of all artillery type.

Czechoslovakia fight against Germany using Medium tank with 30mm+ canon versus light tank MG...

in 1941 Germany have to fight against Heavy Tank 150mm+ and 75mm+ with medium 75+...

And with the navy it is even worse...

Frankly forget all hope to have 'historical' simulation, this is a good boardgame with a lot of WWII flavour and really much more complicated than 3R or A&A but it is NOT a historical or realistic simulation about WWII as EU2 was close too history. The game engine just isn't made for that. Even if the effort is really really succesfull anyway. Pray for HoI 2 to be much more realistic.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by Yozhik
Why don't you give Germany a few advanced naval units but not the tech, so that they don't instantly overrun the British?

Not much chance of them over running the British with the resources than can devote to build BB's. Plus I think it is silly to have ships at sea and not be able to build more of the same. I will hold back further planning though until I have the game and see how long it takes to research techs and how everything is implamented

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by Greywolf
Dont you notice that nearly all tech advance have no sense at all ??

Especially artillery and gun and so...

Please dont be silly , all of WWII nation know about 150mm+ artillery ( and even far more ) in 1936.

Same thing with tank gun in worse... after all in 1939 France know of 20 mm, 25mm, 47mm and 75mm and have already a 90mm in test. Germany have 20mm, 50mm and 75mm and was searching better tube.

The real problem is that the tech trees names were to be generic for ALL nations thus they put generic name with some historical flavour to a gameplay artifact.

Only solution for it to make sense is to have a different tech tree for all nation and that it is far more than the current possibilities ( especially memory wise ) and time avaliable....

Any way just imagine what could happen if you give their real technology with the current tech trees to all nation...

In 1936 everyone know of all artillery type.

Czechoslovakia fight against Germany using Medium tank with 30mm+ canon versus light tank MG...

in 1941 Germany have to fight against Heavy Tank 150mm+ and 75mm+ with medium 75+...

And with the navy it is even worse...

Frankly forget all hope to have 'historical' simulation, this is a good boardgame with a lot of WWII flavour and really much more complicated than 3R or A&A but it is NOT a historical or realistic simulation about WWII as EU2 was close too history. The game engine just isn't made for that. Even if the effort is really really succesfull anyway. Pray for HoI 2 to be much more realistic.

That makes me feel a whole lot better

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Greywolf
Dont you notice that nearly all tech advance have no sense at all ??

Especially artillery and gun and so...

Please dont be silly , all of WWII nation know about 150mm+ artillery ( and even far more ) in 1936.

Same thing with tank gun in worse... after all in 1939 France know of 20 mm, 25mm, 47mm and 75mm and have already a 90mm in test. Germany have 20mm, 50mm and 75mm and was searching better tube.

The real problem is that the tech trees names were to be generic for ALL nations thus they put generic name with some historical flavour to a gameplay artifact.

Only solution for it to make sense is to have a different tech tree for all nation and that it is far more than the current possibilities ( especially memory wise ) and time avaliable....

Any way just imagine what could happen if you give their real technology with the current tech trees to all nation...

In 1936 everyone know of all artillery type.

Czechoslovakia fight against Germany using Medium tank with 30mm+ canon versus light tank MG...

in 1941 Germany have to fight against Heavy Tank 150mm+ and 75mm+ with medium 75+...

And with the navy it is even worse...

Frankly forget all hope to have 'historical' simulation, this is a good boardgame with a lot of WWII flavour and really much more complicated than 3R or A&A but it is NOT a historical or realistic simulation about WWII as EU2 was close too history. The game engine just isn't made for that. Even if the effort is really really succesfull anyway. Pray for HoI 2 to be much more realistic.

I think you are being a bit too harsh here. HOI is very historically-based, & I think the tech tree is one of its strongest components in this regard. Wait until you see all of the components working together, & I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[unmerged(9385)]

Originally posted by Panzer39
That is pretty much why I plan on editing the game to let Germany start with Improved BB tech. It would not be the Bismarck class but for all intents and purposes would give the Germans the ability to lay down a ship in 1936 (as they did IRL)that could out run and out gun the Brits. At least for a while that is. It would also make sence because if for some reason I want to put more research into ship design I can and get the Advanced BB which is more or less an H-class.

The Germans did not build very good surface ships. Good looking yes, good warships no. Their light cruisers were relegated to the Baltic due to a regrettable tendency to crack, their destroyers couldn't steam in a heavy sea or fight well in a calm one, the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau were under gunned and the Bismarck is possibly the single most over-rated BB of all time. The Hipper class CA's had junk engines and the Graf Spee would have been eaten alive by any of the Japanese Treaty cruisers, much less a US Baltimore or Des Moines . The H-class would have fared far worse than the Yamatos in a hostile air environment because Japanese builders at least understood about HA fire.

Bismarck fired a light (1700lb) 15" shell (lighter salvo throw weight than the Nelson/Rodney or even the ten gun KG V's) with good optical sights and a useless (breaks at the first shock of firing) radar. has pathetic AA (HA directors stink), no DP secondary and a horizontal armor scheme straight from WW1. Other than a lucky hit on the Hood (a seagoing antique) the Bismarck is notable for having inflicted not so much as a scratch on a British fleet despite being fully operable in her last battle. Compared to the Richelieu or the US South Dakotas/Washingtons, the Bismarck was a poor member of her class. Only the British KG V's with their weak 14" and the Littorios with their horrendously bad fire control and silly Pugilese underwater protection rate worse among real Washington Treaty BB's. Iowa or Yamato were of course significantly superior.

The Kreigsmarine of WW2 had a justly bad reputation for poor surface ships, badly handled and ineptly fought with the U-boat arm the only genuine threat. With the exception of Bismarck/Hood the loss of the Spee, Scharnhorst, Blucher and the Bismarcks final battle all argue for Donitz over Raeder. When playing Germany I plan to treat anything that isn't a submarine as a perfect waste of steel.

 

[unmerged(5961)]

Truth hurts

 

[unmerged(11149)]

Originally posted by Greywolf
Dont you notice that nearly all tech advance have no sense at all ??

Especially artillery and gun and so...

Please dont be silly , all of WWII nation know about 150mm+ artillery ( and even far more ) in 1936.

Same thing with tank gun in worse... after all in 1939 France know of 20 mm, 25mm, 47mm and 75mm and have already a 90mm in test. Germany have 20mm, 50mm and 75mm and was searching better tube.

The real problem is that the tech trees names were to be generic for ALL nations thus they put generic name with some historical flavour to a gameplay artifact.

Only solution for it to make sense is to have a different tech tree for all nation and that it is far more than the current possibilities ( especially memory wise ) and time avaliable....

Any way just imagine what could happen if you give their real technology with the current tech trees to all nation...

In 1936 everyone know of all artillery type.

Czechoslovakia fight against Germany using Medium tank with 30mm+ canon versus light tank MG...

in 1941 Germany have to fight against Heavy Tank 150mm+ and 75mm+ with medium 75+...

And with the navy it is even worse...

Frankly forget all hope to have 'historical' simulation, this is a good boardgame with a lot of WWII flavour and really much more complicated than 3R or A&A but it is NOT a historical or realistic simulation about WWII as EU2 was close too history. The game engine just isn't made for that. Even if the effort is really really succesfull anyway. Pray for HoI 2 to be much more realistic.

I think you shouldn't just think of the tech tree as "discovering" new weapons, obviously everyone had "heard" about different techs and weapons other nations had or may have been working on. Instead think of the tech tree as an investment into designing the weapons locally, building(or retooling) the necessary factories, testing, retesting, and finally prototyping before you can actually manufacture the weopons. Just becouse you "know" 150mm artillary is possible dosen't mean you can run done to the local armerments factory and expect them to start cranking out units that work reliablly in combat.
just my $0.02.

 

[unmerged(8894)]

I will reserve my judgement until I actually have the game and played it a few times on how historic the game can be. Also I definately want to see which of the techs on the tech tree the countries start with in 1936 and 1939 and was to see if I can by starting in 1936 have a better all around tech in 1939 than what the game has set then. I imagine that some countires have more starting techs in one or more catagorie than the others and the only way you would be starting the tree totally from scratch would be with a truely pathetic minor.

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by ACAD
I think you shouldn't just think of the tech tree as "discovering" new weapons, obviously everyone had "heard" about different techs and weapons other nations had or may have been working on. Instead think of the tech tree as an investment into designing the weapons locally, building(or retooling) the necessary factories, testing, retesting, and finally prototyping before you can actually manufacture the weopons. Just becouse you "know" 150mm artillary is possible dosen't mean you can run done to the local armerments factory and expect them to start cranking out units that work reliablly in combat.
just my $0.02.

LOL, yes of course but did you know 150mm+ artillery where build in France since late 1800 ?? Same for Germany.

Nearly all the guns the army of WWII use are as old an design as 1850. Of course the AT gun are somewhat newer in design, same as the AA ones. And there was progress made in coordinating fire technics.

What I found silly is not the tech tree idea ( as it is a need ), it is his labelisation. It is a pretty standard system, where discovery bring new unit and alter stats. What make me mad is the 'naming convention' of thsoe progress. Of course it is far more fun to say "Heavy mortar", " Artillery gun 150mm+", "Bolted armour", "Iron cast armor" than Art4, Art5, Arm1, Arm2 ... But frankly that just as plain as silly as those naming have absolutely no relation between ingame and reality.

I would rather have supported the same tech trees but with other naming like actual weaponary but then you have to get one tree by nation anf you are doomed by the lack of model upgrade...

In the not so military research the system work better... except perhaps for doctrine and engeneer techniques...

 

[unmerged(11770)]

Just because you "know" 150mm artillery is possible doesn't mean you can run done to the local armaments factory and expect them to start cranking out units that work reliably in combat.

Spot on. Take Romania as an example. Its engineers knew perfectly well how to design an artillery gun. They knew how to design an AFV - take the Maresal for example, the inspiration for the Hetzer. But could they build either? Not really. Their industrial base was not up to it. They could upgrade old artillery pieces, and eventually produced probably the best 75mm gun of the war (better than the PAK40) - but too little, too late. Similarly, they designed their own perfectly respectable fighter, the IAR 80. But they could not keep up on the development of bigger and better engines - they were essentially stuck with copying the pre-war French Rhones. And for aircraft armament, they were reliant on imports - first from Belgium, then from Germany. Most cockpit instruments came from Germany.

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by DBS
Spot on. Take Romania as an example. Its engineers knew perfectly well how to design an artillery gun. They knew how to design an AFV - take the Maresal for example, the inspiration for the Hetzer. But could they build either? Not really. Their industrial base was not up to it. They could upgrade old artillery pieces, and eventually produced probably the best 75mm gun of the war (better than the PAK40) - but too little, too late. Similarly, they designed their own perfectly respectable fighter, the IAR 80. But they could not keep up on the development of bigger and better engines - they were essentially stuck with copying the pre-war French Rhones. And for aircraft armament, they were reliant on imports - first from Belgium, then from Germany. Most cockpit instruments came from Germany.

Yes of course, but there we are speaking of 'minor' countries, wich is quite a special case. Except perhaps for Czecoslovakia who was producing among the finest armor at tehre time and plenty of other weaponary too, or swedish Bofors.

For those small country that start the war still in the WWI era the tech trees work nice. But for the major countries it simply dont.

And to be clear on that: the tech trees system WORK as intented for the gameplay and gamebalance issue. What it dont do currently is depicting historical situation realisticaly.

 

[grumbold]

Labelling something in a way that has immediate recognition for the less expert gamer is a good thing. The arguement that you may know about a bigger bore gun in theory but haven't got a modern design tested and factories tooled up for production is also telling. The research tree is there to ensure that roughly the right development occurs at roughly the right time, with the early war testing, development and production concentrating on mostly small bore low velocity guns, because they were thought to be entirely adequate.

 

[MacGregor]

Just a couple of notes. The Bismark would have been only a "basic" battleship design in game terms. It was outclassed easily by later US and Japenese designs. Making it an "advanced" battleship design would be ahistorical.

Second, as Johhny Canuck said, the tech tree, while basically generic in that all countries have the ability to research the same techs, is much more complicated than the sense you get just looking at the FAQ pages. That's because the "unit" faq only shows the basic attributes of the unit. The specific techs you have researched that ADD to the units strength are not shown there. So one countries "basic" unit can be significantly stronger in the field than another countries. You'll find that countries with a larger capacity to research will have definate advantages over similar units by less well off countries. If you want to build a tank with the specific attributes of the Panther, you can. This gives the player the ability, in large sense, to design their own weapon systems, rather than be hamstrung by history. If you want a super Panther, you can do that too (but it'll take a little longer).

 

[grumbold]

Originally posted by MacGregor
Just a couple of notes. The Bismark would have been only a "basic" battleship design in game terms. It was outclassed easily by later US and Japenese designs. Making it an "advanced" battleship design would be ahistorical.

Wouldn't that make it easy pickings for a basic British BB, simply because they start with significant advantages in naval tech and doctrine?

I agree with everything else you say about customising each unit. Its not possible to give a tank model a historical name purely on its chassis and gun. Its all the little tech extras that will distinguish a panzer division equipped with Panther A's from Panther D's,J's or another tank entirely.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by MacGregor
Just a couple of notes. The Bismark would have been only a "basic" battleship design in game terms. It was outclassed easily by later US and Japenese designs. Making it an "advanced" battleship design would be ahistorical.

I disagree. Yes it was outclassed by later US and Japanese ships later in the war, Iowa, Montana, and to some extents Yamato. However, I never said it should be an "advanced BB" I said I would make it an "improved BB" to give it a bonus over all of those WWI refitted BB's the RN and USN had at the onset of WWII. I am not going to debate the quality of the Bismarck with members of this forum, I am a history major and have a passion for the Kriegsmarine, and with a large library of Naval books I believe I can formulate my own opinion of the quality or lack there of the Bismarck. However If it does not qualify as an 'improved BB", what designs in yall's estimation do? Since the ships I mentioned before were the epitome of their BB development in WWII they must surely be what in Game terms would be "Advanced BB's"
So what ships would be the improved ones? King George V, Richelieu, South Dakota, Littorio classes? Certainly the Bismarcks fall into this category as well. It was not the best ship ever built but it was far more than a basic battleship.

 

[unmerged(9385)]

Originally posted by Panzer39
However If it does not qualify as an 'improved BB", what designs in yall's estimation do? Since the ships I mentioned before were the epitome of their BB development in WWII they must surely be what in Game terms would be "Advanced BB's"
So what ships would be the improved ones? King George V, Richelieu, South Dakota, Littorio classes? Certainly the Bismarcks fall into this category as well. It was not the best ship ever built but it was far more than a basic battleship.

Just a personal opinion but I would count improved BB's as those with post-WW 1 design lessons and I do include Bismarck in that batch. I assume there is a range of qualities/types/levels beyond basic, improved, advanced and nuclear as there is with tanks .(20+ levels?)

Bismarck is a better vessel than the 1941 versions of the QE's or even the Colorados and certainly any version of the R's. It should not however be in the same class/type with the Richelieus, South Dakotas and maybe even the KG V's on the basis of her bad AA and mediocre protection (hard to sink, easy to render toothless). If HOI only has those 4 levels, Bismarck belongs in improved but if we assume a range of features and levels, maybe Germany needs one or two more items researched to get to a Bismarck level.

I would assume no actual WW2 design got to advanced in RL as even Montana, the H-40's and the Lion were really just upgraded improved models. No nation except maybe the Soviets attempted to design a late war BB incorporating all the technical advances.

 

[unmerged(9385)]

I stand corrected. According to the HOI faq on OOB scripting from Maximillian I, Bismarck is a Basic BB 350mm = model 2.

Pre-war dreadnoughts are model 0, Strasbourg and Scharnhorst are model 1, Bismarck and the other treaty designed BB's are model 2. At least that is how I read it.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by Scotsman
[B

Bismarck is a better vessel than the 1941 versions of the QE's or even the Colorados and certainly any version of the R's. It should not however be in the same class/type with the Richelieus, South Dakotas and maybe even the KG V's on the basis of her bad AA and mediocre protection (hard to sink, easy to render toothless). If HOI only has those 4 levels, Bismarck belongs in improved but if we assume a range of features and levels, maybe Germany needs one or two more items researched to get to a Bismarck level.

[/B]

It is unfair to look down on the Bismarck class quality because of it's lack of AA guns. Remember the ship went down in 1941 before the Airplane proved the be the BB killer of the war. Most ships added AA guns as the war went on and it became apparent the carrier was king. The Tirpitz recieved periodical AA upgrades as well. By the end of WWII the Missouri class, most likely the best BB of the war, became nothing more than a glorified AA battery defense for the fleet carriers and fired all most all of its main battery shells in land bombardments. However, in the end it really does not matter because the only person using my planed modifications will most likely be me

 

[Vulture]

To answer initial question. Each country has a name file for specific units. For BB's, the German file says: Bismarck, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst... So if you build a BB you BB will get that name... Same for other ships

 

[State Machine]

But you can rename them in-game.