Why different techs for INF, MIL and CAV?

[jackda]

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.

In this post http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-Released!&p=12238038&viewfull=1#post12238038
Darkenown use the words: "you can use the fixed values in the bug forum that Slan and others have posted".
I know that my English is bad, maybe I shouldn't take the word "fixed" too literally?

 

[jju_57]

In this post http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-Released!&p=12238038&viewfull=1#post12238038
Darkenown use the words: "you can use the fixed values in the bug forum that Slan and others have posted".
I know that my English is bad, maybe I shouldn't take the word "fixed" too literally?

Sorry didn't mean to offend. What I was trying to say is that the numbers Slan have are slighly different from other values. Darkrenown never really verified that they were balanced. If I recall didn't Slan settle on an increase in damage to 4 times or was it 3.8? Point is others used 2.0, 2.5 and even 5.0. And some even changed the miss values to 80/50, 100/50 or 60/40 from the 100/80. I'm just not sure what the right values really are as these impact naval, air and land combat.

The good news is that come FTM it will be reworked anyway.

 

[quetzilla]

Cavarly was made seperate from infantry, just as in HoI2, to act as a gate keeper for motorised units.

Why not have a separate tech act as a gatekeeper to motorised units?

 

[Kaiser Bill]

The basic premise of this post is perfectly true. Really you only desing one rifle and then issue it out to the troops. Its is extremely rare to go on to modify the same rifle for use in the militia and the cavalry, however I don't actually feel that is what these techs represent. Bear in mind that once these techs are researched all future units will be equipped with them and all existing ones will be flagged for upgrading.

Many of the techs in the game exsisted before the war, but not the military application of them. Lets take an example. The decision to add a 3" mortar to the infantry. The 3" mortar design is a small part of this decision. After that happens someone somewhere has to grab the ToE&O and decide how many and where they go. Then someone has to decide how they are supposed to be used. A team of guys do some testing and then write some manuals. Hundreds of people get retrained as trainers in the new equipment and all the existing training manuals about fighting within the organisation are out of date as they do not account for this new equipment. Ideally all those officers need a circular explaining what they aresupposed to do with it. Because unlike the old 2" mortar the 3" mortar is heavier and indended to be a company asset not parcelled out among the platoons... and they need to know that the new bombs for it are heavier and the old storage sacks are unsuitable... the story goes on.

Devising a new piece of military hardware is a tiny step in the massive chain to get the application of said equipment dispersed in the body of knowledge and experience.

 

[Baltasar]

Devising a new piece of military hardware is a tiny step in the massive chain to get the application of said equipment dispersed in the body of knowledge and experience.

Actually.... no. You got to find out what is needed first, then find ways to realize your needed equipment, make compromises, reconsiderations... the distribution will be decided during the trials and what you describe here is the dispersion of said equipment, which is represented by upgrade costs.

 

[jju_57]

Actually.... no. You got to find out what is needed first, then find ways to realize your needed equipment, make compromises, reconsiderations... the distribution will be decided during the trials and what you describe here is the dispersion of said equipment, which is represented by upgrade costs.

LOL tell that to the US army. I.E. Bradley during its development plus many other weapon systems.

 

[King]

Why not have a separate tech act as a gatekeeper to motorised units?

This question verges on the edge of being a bit pointless. I explain why we decided to do thing a particular way. The answer to the question why we did not do things another way is rather obvious. We have already chosen to do it one way, the very nature of that choice disqualifies the other choices.

 

[tommylotto]

This question verges on the edge of being a bit pointless. I explain why we decided to do thing a particular way. The answer to the question why we did not do things another way is rather obvious. We have already chosen to do it one way, the very nature of that choice disqualifies the other choices.

That is sort of a non-answer. We know PI made the decision that it made, the question was why. If the rational for requiring duplicative research for the same technology for cavalry and infantry was to make research into motorization more costly, why couldn't that objective been achieved more logically, like requiring research into techs such as internal combustion engin, automotive manufacturing and troop transportation theory or whatever?

 

[comsubpac]

That is sort of a non-answer. We know PI made the decision that it made, the question was why. If the rational for requiring duplicative research for the same technology for cavalry and infantry was to make research into motorization more costly, why couldn't that objective been achieved more logically, like requiring research into techs such as internal combustion engin, automotive manufacturing and troop transportation theory or whatever?

again, they made the decision and thats all there is to know.

 

[King]

again, they made the decision and thats all there is to know.

This is the basic truth. There were mutliple ways in which the effect could be achieved. We chose one and although people here disagree with the choice it is not like the game is fundamentally broken because of it. The conception is the same as HoI2's and no one suggests that the game is fundamentally broken.

 

[Baltasar]

I'm not suggesting the game is broken because of this, it just feels awkward, for the reasons given, even considering that the techs and their levels are abstractions. For me, this abstraction doesn't represent reality and HoI does or intends to simulate the reality around WWII, at least to some degree. While I can see your point in keeping countries like China from spamming regular infantry, it also means that when playing a country like eg Germany, it'd be worth considering to avoid militas and garrisons completely as they will use four scarce leadership points which in effect will provide the player / country with at best second rate units anyway. One could rather skip this branch and instead continue to spam regular units, although this didn't happen historically.

As for the cav -> mot -> mech chain, for me it would be more reasonable to connect the unlocking of these units with appropriate land doctrines, ie rapid advance, mechanization etc. I really think this would make the tech tree feel more intuitive... well, at least for me it would.

I don't have any idea how much redesign hours something like this would consume but if you don't see a way of introducing this change in HoI3, it'd be great if you could put it on a 'suggestions' list for an eventual sequel. Thanks.

 

[Krocsyldiphic]

I agree with Kaiser Bill. I actually always imagined the different techs to work like this. And there are plenty of examples in real life. For example in a big office building, one branch has already been upgraded to the new data base system. While the other branch still uses file cards. And even though the technology is obviously available, it's not handed around. Because the people need the training and the infrastructure has to be upgraded for them to receive this training and other things just seem more important at the moment (and in HoI3 it's your choice what is more important. You can train all three branches at once if you like). Or in medicine: A new treatment is available. But the treatment is only given in few facilities, most MDs did not yet decide to buy the new equipment needed because the pharmaceutical company behind it decided to first field-test it at few places and did not yet invest in the infrastructure needed to put the idea forward at medical congresses in the country.

It's not a reality that a technology is available everywhere at the same time once it has been developed. If you want to do that, you have to put your best minds in a room and let them work out how to do that. You can do that in HoI3. You can also do it differently and only upgrade the infrastructure required to train the use if there weapons, maintenance of the equipment etc. for one of your branches.

 

[jju_57]

There are so many other things that I think need fixing. Like the Uk defending against sea invasions. Please PI can you do anything to help the UK defend against the tactic of invading an unprotected province and then using those troops to capture a port. The problem is the sea invasion of a few transports are not seen or intercepted. Heck due to fog of war the AI doesn't even know the invasion is going on till too late.

 

[comsubpac]

There are so many other things that I think need fixing. Like the Uk defending against sea invasions. Please PI can you do anything to help the UK defend against the tactic of invading an unprotected province and then using those troops to capture a port. The problem is the sea invasion of a few transports are not seen or intercepted. Heck due to fog of war the AI doesn't even know the invasion is going on till too late.

do you think repeating the same offtopic post again and again will change anything...?

 

[jju_57]

I sure hope it does. Not sure what threads PI reads so if I blast it all over they actually might end up reading it.

 

[comsubpac]

I sure hope it does. Not sure what threads PI reads so if I blast it all over they actually might end up reading it.

if you keep doing it you might end somewhere else...
btw, it is really annoying!

 

[Baltasar]

I agree with Kaiser Bill. I actually always imagined the different techs to work like this. And there are plenty of examples in real life.

Problem being that in the real world, you very rarely have units of the same quality, say different front line infantry units, who are equipped so differently that they field different rifles, support guns etc. Military is not the civil world, it does have some parallels, but it is in essence completely different.
What happens is different militas or other irregulars or third rate units are being equipped sometimes with a multitude of weapons, but that is an exception to the rule and certainly does not apply to other branches of life. If units in WWII had not upgraded, eg were fielding an older version of a weapon, it was due to production circumstances, not to techonolgical issues.

 

[jju_57]

if you keep doing it you might end somewhere else...
btw, it is really annoying!

You mad bro? Sorry to offend you. Can I get you a coffee (decaf maybe).

 

[Traks]

If units in WWII had not upgraded, eg were fielding an older version of a weapon, it was due to production circumstances, not to techonolgical issues.

They were running it till it broke down or became completely obsolete. Then remaining few tanks were sent back for modifications, usually working as commander/recoinnasaince tanks, sometimes becoming TDs.
It is one of my pet peeves with existing upgrade system, in 3 months all units have the latest armour available.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

This is the basic truth. There were mutliple ways in which the effect could be achieved. We chose one and although people here disagree with the choice it is not like the game is fundamentally broken because of it. The conception is the same as HoI2's and no one suggests that the game is fundamentally broken.

It doesn't have to 'fundamentally broken' for improvements to be made upon though. There are some serious issues with this design choice that while it's not "broken", it's certainly not a very convincing choice.

The notion that once you go with either Inf or Mil, the other option is crossed out forever in competative scene is pretty awkward to say the least. This encourages some extremely ahistorical build, like playing as SOV one of the most efficient land army you can field is pure militia army to save on leadership.

Right now mixing up both Inf and Mil costs way too much leadership. Countries with concerns about spamming all unit types all lack the leadership to research all relevent doctrines anyway, so that's where the limiting factor should've come from.