Will tanks/planes reflect the tanks/planes of the period/county or will they be same?

[Alex_brunius]

Alex that would still make battleship a waste of resources and a strategical bad move, at least for Germany

I still struggle to understand your logic and way of thinking.

I am disagreeing with your claim that Carriers instead of Battleships would have been a good strategic move for Germany. If you want to refute this you will need to argue why Carriers would be strategically useful, not simply agree with me that Battleships was bad strategic move in General.

 

[Mannstien]

I would still say quantity with some quality, Kursk would have gone better had the Germans stuck with the original date and they would have had far more armor sticking with the Panzer IV and Stug on the production lines. If you need something specifically to kill tanks than stick the Panthers gun on a cheaper and already proven tank destroyer chassis. I'm thinking that will be my first strategy in HOI4 to see how it goes, I'm hoping the Research design they have will allow such.

 

[Beagá]

I still struggle to understand your logic and way of thinking.

I am disagreeing with your claim that Carriers instead of Battleships would have been a good strategic move for Germany. If you want to refute this you will need to argue why Carriers would be strategically useful, not simply agree with me that Battleships was bad strategic move in General.

Not carriers for Germany, U-boats. I said carriers as rule for all countries, submarines as a rule for Germany. Wasn´t clear before, but that was the point.

I would still say quantity with some quality, Kursk would have gone better had the Germans stuck with the original date and they would have had far more armor sticking with the Panzer IV and Stug on the production lines. If you need something specifically to kill tanks than stick the Panthers gun on a cheaper and already proven tank destroyer chassis. I'm thinking that will be my first strategy in HOI4 to see how it goes, I'm hoping the Research design they have will allow such.

Designs with no turrets had lots of flaws on the offensive. If you have to turn to fire - well, someone will shoot you on the side. If you had to put tons of armor AND a heavy gun, it becomes essentially a Panther with even MORE flaws. Only cheaper.

 

[Beagá]

Would not win the war at Kursk is not the same as neither choice had a strategic advantage.

Again in case you dont see the link: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Lol. could you please stop sitting on the fence?

When you make a choice, it either has a bad, good or irrelevant outcome. Instead of using ad hominem already, stop sitting there and actually defend a position. Which I can´t tell which it is, by the way. As for me, I alread ygave my opinion: irrelevant choice, wouldn´t change anything strategically and Germany would STILL lose bad.

 

[Alex_brunius]

When you make a choice, it either has a bad, good or irrelevant outcome.

...

irrelevant choice, wouldn´t change anything strategically and Germany would STILL lose bad.

I think the confusion here is because we consider a "good" German strategic choice to be anything that would have helped Germany and put them in a slightly better position.

While you seem to consider that a strategic choice can only be good if it allows Germany to win Kursk and the war. Else it doesn't "matter" anyway.


It is not realistic to assume that any single choice could have won Germany Kursk or the war, they would have needed multiple good strategic choices in different areas all throughout the war, while there enemies would have had to make bad moves.



There are also lots of other strategic moves not only binary yes or no. For example a production simplification / new version 1.5 of the Tiger instead of the Panther could also have been done that allowed them to build vastly more of these without having to field so many different kind of tanks. ( since it's role was quite similar to that of the Panther ).

 

[keynes2.0]

Lol. could you please stop sitting on the fence?

I'm not sitting on the fence, you are just reducing things to two extreme positions, neither of which is correct. You fail to acknowledge the possibility (note I say possibility, I'm not even getting to proof here, just the logical fallacy) that the Panther design flaws made the German strategic situation incrementally worse. You insist that there is no possibility other then that it lost them the war or it didn't hurt them at all. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Lol. could you please stop sitting on the fence?

When you make a choice, it either has a bad, good or irrelevant outcome. Instead of using ad hominem already, stop sitting there and actually defend a position. Which I can´t tell which it is, by the way. As for me, I alread ygave my opinion: irrelevant choice, wouldn´t change anything strategically and Germany would STILL lose bad.

You have been using terrible logic to back up your claims this entire time, and that's what everyone is trying to point out to you, but your ignoring it.

Using your logic:
Paratroopers should have never been invested in by Germany because they got slaughtered in the Battle of Crete.

 

[Mannstien]

Actually it appears the Panther gun 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 was lighter or comparable to the Stug III's 7.5 cm KwK 40 which was based on the PAK 40. As to needing a turret traverse I think adding in TD's to an armored unit in a Calvary role would be more fitting than sending them in as the assault force, using the them to hit the flanks once the enemy armor has been found would negate the loss of traverse. In the end I would still would rather have hit the soviets at Kursk in May with a larger number of Panzer IV's and Stug's instead of allowing them to build up for two more months.

 

[Poh]

...

Okay i'll tell you why you are wrong. Not because of the argument in itself but because you answer doesnt have anything to do with the statement being made.

So would Germany had won at Kursk or the Western Front if it had built ONLY Panzer and StuG?

The statement you answer essential says: Panther and Tiger has flaws that impact their strategic use.
Your answer fits a discussing thats about if the production of Panzers/StuGs instead of Panthers/Tiger would provide a strategic advantage to the german wareffort.

The major difference is that the first statement does not try to compare with alternative scenarios. Its only a reflection on what happend in the war and how the tanks produced might have had some drawbacks and in which "level". Also it is only about the Panther and Tiger strategic use not how they impacted the overall strategy of the german wareffort. It has for all intends and purposes nothing to do with one another, but if it had why compare with Panzers/stuG and not a potential 30T Panther tank?

Because if it made no difference, then again - the Panther had flaws, but the advantages nullified them. Thus meaning the flaws weren´t big enough to be called, well, strategic, now, do they? It´s predictable a heavier tank will use more fuel and have more mechanical problems, that doesn´t mean building one is stupid per se... Specially when the alternative, well, ALSO used tons of fuel. And could be destroyed more easily.

Again you only look at the wareffort or essential if a change could effect the outcome of the war. Does this mean that every decision after Germany declared war on the US can be ignore because the end result would have been the same? No Ofcourse not.
Also to be a strategic flaw is not a matter of how big a flaw is but about where the impact lies in the command structure. And just because something has a flaw strategic doesnt mean it has the same flaw tactical it depends on the circumstances.

Example of strategic flaw: building battleships instead of carriers/U-boat in Germany´s case.

Others have commented on this so i'll refrain from doing so.

 

[tommylotto]

Please Stop. As a person who makes a living arguing, writing, and arguing in writing, you guys are making my head hurt. Just stop. Let's talk about how nations should not get different base-line tanks, but with research and combat experience each nation will have different tanks... You, know, the topic of this thread.

 

[D Inqu]

1- Podcat said the tanks had strategical flaws
2- I doubt it as they did have qualities (armor, gun) and the diferences between the cheaper older models wouldn´t be big enough to make building them in big numbers strategically relevant. It´s about the SUM of parts overall isn´t it? Your tank uses more fuel? Well, it´s not like Panzers don´t use fuel, and what if the OTHER qualities compensate that? Would the sum of parts still indicate that it´s better to build more of the cheaper model? If someone can prove that, ok, excellent. But I´m still waiting for that post.

"oh but Panthers had bad mechanic, etc etc" which new weapon didn´t have problems? Does that mean you should never move forward and instead let enemies get the edge? Mass production of old weapons was proven many times during the war to be rubbish (again, Zero and BF 109). Why with tanks would be different? Considering Germany was so squeezed, instead of criticizing the tank, it should be praised for even accomplishing to build a new tank in such numbers in the first place...

You still don't get it?

By having one (not 3, just 1) type of tank in a single niche you achieve several strategic advantages:
1. More ability to mass produce as factories use the same parts and same methods.
2. A synergy effect allwing to further increase numbers by concentrating technological resources on just one design to make more of them and make them better.
3. Simplified repair on the front all spare parts are widely available and any repair workshop has people trained in repairing this type.


These are strategic advantages, that allowed the Americans and Soviets to produce lots of tanks, keep lots of tanks operational and make up for any nominal disadvantages. For all the german sob stories about not having enough tanks, the German strategic choice of going for so many different designs is the key factor.

The Germans in their quest for a "superior" tank, created something that had huge strategic flaws, and the minimal "advantages" did no remotely compensate for them. Is a gun capable of hitting a target 2000m away much of an advantage, if the typical engagement range (and actual hits) is 700m? Is it that much of an advantage to have strong front plate, if your turret and hull side can be pierced by virtually any gun?

The US had the M26, the Soviets had the T-44. Both vastly superior to M4 and T-34 respectively. And both were in only limited production until the end of the war, because the americans and soviets realised the complications that would arise from trying to rush a new tank in production during the war. Had they tried it, these tanks would have probably been as crap as the Panther in 1943.

 

[Poh]

Please Stop. As a person who makes a living arguing, writing, and arguing in writing, you guys are making my head hurt. Just stop. Let's talk about how nations should not get different base-line tanks, but with research and combat experience each nation will have different tanks... You, know, the topic of this thread.

My head hurts too Actually the interesting thing is how the upgrades will work and how many there will be. Like when upgrading the PzIV will it be like HoI3 where theres upgrades for the different areas like armor, gun, engine etc. or will it be a overall upgrade. And not matter which of the two it is will it only have 1 upgrade or will there be more.
Im most for 1-2 major overhauls (where you just upgrade everything in one upgrade) pr. tech. Since theres 5 different equipment on each of armor techs this would still be a hell of alot of different combinations of types, tech year and if they are upgraded or not. Making it a overhaul instead of different area upgrades will make it more difficult player to gain an advantages over the AI aswell as reducing the amount of min-maxing while still providing the important choice of how to use your xp most efficiently in the current situation.

 

[Darkrenown]

XP-upgrades are small upgrades to individual parts, like the HoI3 techs were. Of course, you can always get several at once if you have enough XP, indeed it'll probably be wiser in most cases to wait until you can afford several upgrades before switching to produce a new variant.

 

[keynes2.0]

Would it be possible for '41 tanks to be better then '43 tanks if the '41 tanks are heavily upgraded and the '43 tanks are new?

 

[tommylotto]

Would it be possible for '41 tanks to be better then '43 tanks if the '41 tanks are heavily upgraded and the '43 tanks are new?

I think it would be very interesting if this were the case. The more advanced tank chassis or air frame might have more long term potential, but you might actually suffer a temporary step back by switching from a proven model to an untested one. However, it sounds like the wisest way to go will be to wait to accumulate XP to buy upgrades for your new model before you switch to that model. So, your new model will be XP improved even before it is introduced. Not sure if that is the way to go. Too easy to game. So the question becomes.... should all the combat XP acquired with a Pz IV be bankable to purchase Panther upgrades or should only the XP acquired with a Panther be applicable for Panther upgrades.

 

[Mannstien]

I think it would be very interesting if this were the case. The more advanced tank chassis or air frame might have more long term potential, but you might actually suffer a temporary step back by switching from a proven model to an untested one. However, it sounds like the wisest way to go will be to wait to accumulate XP to buy upgrades for your new model before you switch to that model. So, your new model will be XP improved even before it is introduced. Not sure if that is the way to go. Too easy to game. So the question becomes.... should all the combat XP acquired with a Pz IV be bankable to purchase Panther upgrades or should only the XP acquired with a Panther be applicable for Panther upgrades.

Something also interesting is what if your armored brigade has a mix of Panzer IV and III's how does the XP get split or does it.

 

[keynes2.0]

It would be a bit unfortunate if players tried to "level up" their new designs by assigning them to the quietest instead of the heaviest sectors. Although I guess you could sorta argue the US did that with the M-26, keeping it in reserve while they worked the kinks out.

I dont think that it will be possible to split brigades into different tank types. Divisional equipment will be assigned at the brigade level is how it looks in the dev diary.

 

[Dalwin]

Something also interesting is what if your armored brigade has a mix of Panzer IV and III's how does the XP get split or does it.

That is a good question. I was thinking that all combat experience would just go into one big pile, but that might not be the case. The reason I was thinking it was one large pool is that, isn't it this same type of experience that is used to alter division templates? One can logically argue that only fighting with armored units should give the experience to improve your armored units, but this may well be something that gets simplified. One could also argue that fighting agaisnt armored units would give some practical insight as well.

It would be a bit unfortunate if players tried to "level up" their new designs by assigning them to the quietest instead of the heaviest sectors. Although I guess you could sorta argue the US did that with the M-26, keeping it in reserve while they worked the kinks out.

I dont think that it will be possible to split brigades into different tank types. Divisional equipment will be assigned at the brigade level is how it looks in the dev diary.

When you say brigade I presume you mean battalion. Brigades definitely can be split between different tank types. Even the screen shot in the DD example was doing this with two battalions of medium tanks and two of lights in the same brigade.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

When you say brigade I presume you mean battalion. Brigades definitely can be split between different tank types. Even the screen shot in the DD example was doing this with two battalions of medium tanks and two of lights in the same brigade.

Not Panzer III and Panzer IV though, as they are both "Medium" tanks

You can break it down to Light, Medium, Heavy tanks, but otherwise when you don't have enough Panzer IV tanks, Panzer III would be used to fill the medium.

I am really interested in seeing their XP pools, I would at least assume you have 3 pools, Land, Air, Navy pools, but would like to see it more advanced then that.

 

[keynes2.0]

Ah I was misremembering it as division>regiment>brigade.