Why different techs for INF, MIL and CAV?

[nestorius]

bintravkin I disagree.

Yes Militia Cav and Infantry did share a lot of tech, though in the case of paratroopers and marines their equipment could be quite different.

This is the case with Fighters also, I dont really see why CAS and INT share techs.

Personally the issue with small nations is probably the main reason for it. They didnt want you to field large militia armies while having lots of specialist units like Marine/Para/Mountain at the same time.

Personally I dont believe any situation would be entirely historical, frankly it bugs me a bit that tanks are divided into 4 categories, something which imo is a little excessive. I dont really think a panther is that much different techwise to a tiger.

I havent tried the mod, so cant really comment though in most cases I like the setup of HOI3 techwise (though I partially agree that it seems strange coming from HOI2 to seperate infantry and armour this way). Then again gameplay is the most important aspect here and if it is a balance issue then it makes sense to me to do it. I am sure Paradox has a good reason for it.

I also dont understand the whole ahistorical issue. If I really wanted to have some pure historical issue there I would research each piece of equipment separately. HOI3's system is abstract just check here

http://www.paradoxian.org/hoi3wiki/Infantry_technology

Certain things just wont make sense, for instance I dont really get why paratroopers get anti tank guns, and why motorised and mechanised troops are affected by infantry anti tank.

HOI3 abstracts the tech and personally I really like the setup. Though HOI2's system also had something going for it.

What would you actually like a tech for infantry, cav, militia a separate one for motorised a separate one for mech with ac together a separate one for para?

That would make more "sense" though imo it would complicate things way too much.

I can of course only guess but imo, cav are separate as to force minors to concentrate on cav separately instead of lets say armour. And militia are separate to give low techs the ability to quickly tech militia without allowing them to also have masses of specialised troops that will use the same techs.

Would seem a little silly to have an army half militia and half mountain or marines.

There is also another reason, as making a tech more difficult would just require you to increase the research time, which would require less techs (ie not 1 tech each 2 years but 1 tech each 4) or it would require you to use more research points per tech further limiting the minors, ie preventing them from lets say researching LARM and INF instead of just INF.

I both prefer more choice in what I research and to have more levels of research, one or both of which would need to suffer if inf, milita and cav techs were merged(that is unless you are saying that inf would cover all three and still cost the same).

 

[cfp]

Certain things just wont make sense, for instance I dont really get why paratroopers get anti tank guns, and why motorised and mechanised troops are affected by infantry anti tank.

But these things do make sense. Paratroops had AT guns (not PAK 40s, of course, but things like Panzerbüchse 41) and trucks and halftracks are quite vulnerable to AT guns.

Why would motorized infantry have a separate tech tree? Overall they're still using the same rifles, grenades, mortars, at guns, infantry guns, etc as the basic infantry. (Mechanized may be plausible for a unique tree, as many of their weapons may be self propelled types.)

 

[unmerged(252844)]

It really punishes nations like the USSR, too. Too little leadership to properly upgrade all the techs. Of course, now that we know Toughness/Defensiveness isn't working, that halved the number of techs to research.

Toughness and defensiveness don't work?

 

[Sirveri]

Toughness and defensiveness don't work?

Correct. The variable as written in the lua is 0.8 and 0.6, however it inserts those as int values into the system which truncates them to zero, and then divides by 100, which basically makes def and toughness worthless. The values should be 80 and 60 (80 percent chance to avoid a hit if you still have defense, 60% if your defense is overran). As it stands now it still hasn't been fixed because they would need to see how it affects game balance.

 

[unmerged(252844)]

Correct. The variable as written in the lua is 0.8 and 0.6, however it inserts those as int values into the system which truncates them to zero, and then divides by 100, which basically makes def and toughness worthless. The values should be 80 and 60 (80 percent chance to avoid a hit if you still have defense, 60% if your defense is overran). As it stands now it still hasn't been fixed because they would need to see how it affects game balance.

Aah, I see. Do you know if this is fixed in any of the mods?

 

[Sirveri]

Aah, I see. Do you know if this is fixed in any of the mods?

I don't play with mods, but it was found about I dunno... 6 weeks ago? I think you can mod it yourself in the defines.lua

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?521991-True-Effects-of-Defensiveness

That goes to a thread in bug reports, so for the lurkers if you're not registered you won't be able to get to it. Basically it explains exactly what the problem was, and how to fix it. It's nine pages long, but it gives you a place to start.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Of course, now that we know Toughness/Defensiveness isn't working, that halved the number of techs to research.

Really?

I havent got HOI3 as Im waiting for the various expansions to finish coming out & a properly balanced & bug-free game to emerge. But now this isnt working either?

So defensiveness/toughness isnt working, I hear the naval aspects are still pretty shocking. Is this game even worth getting yet?

 

[nestorius]

HOI3 is really quite a good game HMS Enterprize, I dont really know why you are putting off getting it. Plus waiting for expansions to finish being made may not be the best course of action if EU3 is any thing to go by with its 4 expansions.

 

[jju_57]

There is one major reason why it is done this way.

It forces you to make CHOICES. Early on you may want militia and calvary but latter on maybe just infantry.

Leaderships should be scarce. So keep them seperate. And if you don't like the way they represent the techs then make the calavary techs something like, "Training how to carry a MG on a horse" which improves SA, "Don't put the artillery shells near the feedbag" for better defensive stats, "How not to scare the horse when firing the panzefaust" for better HA, etc.

 

[cfp]

Correct. The variable as written in the lua is 0.8 and 0.6, however it inserts those as int values into the system which truncates them to zero, and then divides by 100, which basically makes def and toughness worthless. The values should be 80 and 60 (80 percent chance to avoid a hit if you still have defense, 60% if your defense is overran). As it stands now it still hasn't been fixed because they would need to see how it affects game balance.

Really?

I havent got HOI3 as Im waiting for the various expansions to finish coming out & a properly balanced & bug-free game to emerge. But now this isnt working either?

So defensiveness/toughness isnt working, I hear the naval aspects are still pretty shocking. Is this game even worth getting yet?

See the first post I quoted. He explains the mechanics. From what I understand, Toughness/Defensiveness has never worked correctly.

There is one major reason why it is done this way.

It forces you to make CHOICES. Early on you may want militia and calvary but latter on maybe just infantry.

Leaderships should be scarce. So keep them seperate. And if you don't like the way they represent the techs then make the calavary techs something like, "Training how to carry a MG on a horse" which improves SA, "Don't put the artillery shells near the feedbag" for better defensive stats, "How not to scare the horse when firing the panzefaust" for better HA, etc.

WW2 cavalry didn't ride horses into battle. The mounts would be no where around while firing your panzerfaust. 'Mounted infantry' is a better term. They're just like motorized infantry, only with horses instead of horsepower. IIRC the Soviets had slightly older, more traditional cavalry, but it's not like they were carrying lances.

Not sure what this has to do with choices. A nation shouldn't have to research the K98k twice just so they could give the rifle to a militiaman and an infantry soldier.

 

[jju_57]

From what I understand, Toughness/Defensiveness has never worked correctly.

This is very true but the game was balanced with this flaw. being balanced was one reason why it took 18 months to even discover the bug. So just changing the number to include misses means the units are no longer balanced.

Not sure what this has to do with choices. A nation shouldn't have to research the K98k twice just so they could give the rifle to a militiaman and an infantry soldier.

Think of it this way. You aren't researching the rifle or AT weapon but instead researching how to use it and training your troops in the proper techniques with the weapon.

While they didn't fight on horses they still had to carry the weapons on the horse. They still had to feed and tend to the horses and tie them up. And when rettreating they had to learn how to retreat since they didint' want to just leave the horses there.

You basically have two option here. Either totally remove the calvary units or have techs just for them. I offer the German bicycle and motorcycle units as an example. HOI3 choose to remove them from the game.

 

[Danmark Rising]

AAR entitled battleships for Bhutan, or Nukes for Nepal...

Those were two of the best AAR's ever.

 

[Sirveri]

Those were two of the best AAR's ever.

My favorite was when Nepal nukes Moscow... followed by like ten American nukes.

 

[jackda]

Aah, I see. Do you know if this is fixed in any of the mods?

It's fixed both in August Storm and HPP (Slan has fixed it, thanks again to him!).
It's also the case for the CAV and MIL techs.

 

[fabius]

It really punishes nations like the USSR, too. Too little leadership to properly upgrade all the techs. Of course, now that we know Toughness/Defensiveness isn't working, that halved the number of techs to research.

Woah, what do you mean toughness and defensiveness are not working?

edited. Sorry- I read the first page and missed the explanations on this one. Pretty shocking realy that we're researching this stuf for nothing.

 

[nessin]

I was always under the impression that it was actually a balance fix for big countries, not small. The idea that you could pump out militia as a cheap substitute for rear-area/guard duties (or other stuff like expeditionary forces) that were fully upgraded with infantry techs would be a pretty big exploit for some nations.

 

[tommylotto]

We have separate land theories for infantry, special forces, militia, mobile infantry, etc. That is where they learn to fight. The equipment techs are just that, equipment. There should be a hand me down rule where militia lags a tech or two behind the infantry depending on the ratio between the two. As long as the number of militia units does not exceed the number of infantry, the lag is just one tech level. If there is more militia than infantry the lag should be two tech levels. The militia should never be allowed to have better tech than infantry. The land theory techs is where the player makes his choice of emphasis of forces.

 

[jju_57]

It's fixed both in August Storm and HPP (Slan has fixed it, thanks again to him!).

I don't think you can actually say it's fixed. They have adjusted some parameters int he various files but balance may be an issue. No one can really fix this unless they have access to the source code which only PI does. The adjustment used here was to increase the miss rate and then increase damage on hits to try and compensate. But additional tests called into question the accuracy of this and the numbers varied from 2 time to 5 times.

 

[comsubpac]

i don't understand this discussion completely. when you say it is not right to have different techs why not reduce the tech tree further.
three techs: weapons, industry, stuff.
you could cover all things with those.

 

[King]

Cavarly was made seperate from infantry, just as in HoI2, to act as a gate keeper for motorised units. It was there to make motorising your army extra effort rather, so that countries like China (for example) harder to field large motorised armies without effort. Militia was sperated from infantry for balance reasons. We felt that spamming out militia units should give you pretty poor units unless you have focused on giving yourself good troops.