will you mass produced crappy shermans or have limted numbers of tiger tanks

[Beagá]

The problem with this was that using heavy AA in an AT role is one of those things that can only really come about by accident. If you, knowing what you know, were allowed to decide which gun to use, of course you'd plump for a heavy model. People in the late 1930's didn't have this advantage and instead just decided that smaller calibres were quite sufficient for the tasks they envisaged their armoured vehicles performing.

Case in point: Britain had a quick-firing 3.7 Inch (i.e., 94 millimetre) anti-aircraft gun. As an anti-tank gun it might have been outstanding, though it was a lot heavier and harder to manoevre than the German 88 millimetre gun. If the player is simply allowed to say "I'll have the 94 mm gun please" at an early stage of course they'd do it every time. Instead, whilst it should be possible to equip units with such a heavy gun, it should be expensive to develop and difficult to manufacture.

Indeed but it´s a matter of balancing the game, instead of removing the possibility. HOI 3 was full of silly units values. Tank destroyers being so good on the attack one of the prime examples.

I fail to see why the brits can´t have dual purpose AT guns. Just make it expensive and clumsy on the attack, and it´s done. Remember the only situation UK was on the defensive was in North África and France. What are you going to do with all those heavy guns later?

Also, 88 was the basis for the first really good anti-tank gun placed on a tank. Why the brits should have access to a better armed heavy tank if they invested in a good AT gun, as well? The first decent brit AT gun was the 17 pounder, which arrived maaaaany years later than the 88.

 

[jasonf]

The question I have, if you don`t mind(Podcat), is that, Germans, theoretically should have Panzer 4(A and B variants) available to be build from 1937, and up to 1945.
If I skip Pz3 completely and just build Pz4s from 1937, wouldn`t that mean that I will have insane "gearing bonus" or whatever the advantage of having more or less continuous building of the same model since I will be producing the tank for years before the war starts?
Or how will the game mechanics handle that? Will it be profitable to just skip Pz3?

Not if you want to have a lot of tanks ready for taking poland and france. We also consider the Pz4 to be later than '37 tech so you will be researching ahead of time for the penalties that entail. I can't say much more yet without having to type up a whole dev diary, sorry

Actually, the early Pz IV's were infantry tanks and not main battle tanks used in the Panzer Divisions. It wasn't until the Pz IV F2 replaced the Pz III J in 1942 that the Pz IV's became main tanks (and the Pz III N then took on the infantry tank role.)

If HOI4 has infantry tanks as a unit, you could theoretically produce both the Pz III and IV simultaneously in different factories, but like podcat said, that probably would take a DD to explain the mechanics of it.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

On the downside, the smaller caliber meant a smaller filling of High Explosive (over all a tank spent much more time fighting soft targets than hard) compared to the 88 or similar Allied guns, it was unreliable mostly due to poor final drives, and the side armour was so thin it did not stop AT rifles. The Panther was great at shooting enemy tanks in front of it, but over all it wasn't a very useful tank.

I wonder if these sorts of differences will be represented in game, and whether the player will have an option for what trade-offs to make. Will you have to take a 'Panther-like' approach to Germany's 'Panther-era' medium tank?

 

[Easy1]

Not if you want to have a lot of tanks ready for taking poland and france. We also consider the Pz4 to be later than '37 tech so you will be researching ahead of time for the penalties that entail. I can't say much more yet without having to type up a whole dev diary, sorry



if I remember correctly it was something like 2-3 shermans for the cost of a tiger. Tigers were very costly though. Both Tiger II and panther were cheaper to make. My memory says something like $46k for a sherman compared to $120k for a tiger. (edit: got numbers mixed up with T-34s)

 

[misterbean]

This is going slightly off-topic, but I was just thinking the other day. In HOI 3, Spitfires are no match, 1 on 1, against a BF-109. In real life they were. '88s are not even close to being the can opener they were RL. US Marines, in-game, are nowhere near as awesome as people say they were/are. And I made the connection to EU IV, where some nations are destined to have the best infantry the world has ever seen, provided they survive long enough, or the best traders in history, or the best navigators, or...

So I figured, maybe there was a chance to diversify things a bit, without having to come up with superfluous units all over the place. All the experts I have ever heard on the subject, say that the Mustang was the very best fighter plane in WW II. So give the US a NI about it. Give the Soviets NI about MP recovery or something like it.

I know the devs can't talk about it, yet, because it is early days. I just wanted to explain why I posted that earlier post.

 

[Centurion1973]

The problem with this was that using heavy AA in an AT role is one of those things that can only really come about by accident. If you, knowing what you know, were allowed to decide which gun to use, of course you'd plump for a heavy model. People in the late 1930's didn't have this advantage and instead just decided that smaller calibres were quite sufficient for the tasks they envisaged their armoured vehicles performing.

Case in point: Britain had a quick-firing 3.7 Inch (i.e., 94 millimetre) anti-aircraft gun. As an anti-tank gun it might have been outstanding, though it was a lot heavier and harder to manoevre than the German 88 millimetre gun. If the player is simply allowed to say "I'll have the 94 mm gun please" at an early stage of course they'd do it every time. Instead, whilst it should be possible to equip units with such a heavy gun, it should be expensive to develop and difficult to manufacture.

Germans learned how good are dual purpose 88s against tanks, bunkers etc. already during Spanish civil war, but they didnt apply those lessons untill much later.

 

[jju_57]

The 800 pound gorilla that everyone is ignoring is offense vs. defense. During WW2 some tanks were great on defense but were terrible on offense and of course the other way around. So heavy vs. medium can and should be viewed on if you are the attacker or defender.

On defense Jadg series were very strong. Heck AT guns were very useful. But on offense speed, manoverability and swarming is more important. Yes Rommel effectively used the 88's on offense but that was by tricking the Brits to counter attack and then were led into killboxes in the desert.

So for an attacking force the T-34, Sherman tanks were much better then a Tiger. But on defense a single Tiger could wipe out a company of the attacking tanks given the right circumstances.

 

[Mjarr]

Germans learned how good are dual purpose 88s against tanks, bunkers etc. already during Spanish civil war, but they didnt apply those lessons untill much later.

Early 88mm FlaK AP projectiles were also quite meh compared to Tiger's AP projectiles which were later also produced for FlaKs. Perhaps bit pointless tidbit given it was still more than enough against the targets it faced, but its performance was (very roughly) on par with 75mm KwK L\48 than what the Tiger roared.

The 800 pound gorilla that everyone is ignoring is offense vs. defense. During WW2 some tanks were great on defense but were terrible on offense and of course the other way around. So heavy vs. medium can and should be viewed on if you are the attacker or defender.

On defense Jadg series were very strong. Heck AT guns were very useful. But on offense speed, manoverability and swarming is more important. Yes Rommel effectively used the 88's on offense but that was by tricking the Brits to counter attack and then were led into killboxes in the desert.

So for an attacking force the T-34, Sherman tanks were much better then a Tiger. But on defense a single Tiger could wipe out a company of the attacking tanks given the right circumstances.

Not to mention basic concepts of getting hit first are the same regardless of the steel beast in question. Tank vs tank combat roughly is won by the side whom gets the first penetration. Doesn't matter is it Tiger, Panther, Pz4, Pz3, T-34, Sherman, Pershing, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger or [insert anything here], if it punched through you were kind of screwed unless you were extraordinarily lucky it didn't incapacitate any crew members or damage anything important - or brew up from HE burster or anything - and especially since by mid-to-late war AP projectiles and AT technology had reached the point the first penetration was decisive enough to give a reason to bail out on average compared to the solid AP shots used early in the war.

Of course even then since there is no guarantee did it penetrate or did it do any damage, since crews would keep shooting until it's ablaze or they can see the crew bailing out if such circumstances happened especially out in the open and getting distance etc right, one can expect it takes maybe 5 to 10 seconds on average before another hit, and another, and another. Swiss cheese for everyone.

 

[jju_57]

Actually my hope is that it actually ends up matterring. Let's face it in HOI3 our 100% pure militia divisions with zero tanks ended up doing world conquests. So here's hoping that speed, penetration, armor actually mean something and will be necessary to actually win.

Of course if this really happens say good-bye to Romania ruling the world stuff.

 

[Secret Master]

Case in point: Britain had a quick-firing 3.7 Inch (i.e., 94 millimetre) anti-aircraft gun. As an anti-tank gun it might have been outstanding, though it was a lot heavier and harder to manoevre than the German 88 millimetre gun. If the player is simply allowed to say "I'll have the 94 mm gun please" at an early stage of course they'd do it every time. Instead, whilst it should be possible to equip units with such a heavy gun, it should be expensive to develop and difficult to manufacture.

Ideally, there should be trade offs for using bigger than standard guns on certain chassis. This might be too detailed for HOI4, but I was thinking that bigger guns on smaller chassis would reduce toughness and defensiveness values and slow the tank down. You wouldn't be able to cheat the system by giving Pazner 35ts main guns on par with the 88 without reducing their ability to perform light tank roles (speed) or just breaking down all the time (toughness and defensiveness).

You could get a cheap tank with decent hitting power, but you wouldn't expect it to perform all roles well.

Indeed but it´s a matter of balancing the game, instead of removing the possibility. HOI 3 was full of silly units values. Tank destroyers being so good on the attack one of the prime examples.

If you see tank destroyer brigades in HOI3 as support version of armored brigades (which are combat brigades), then they make a bit more sense. They're just armored brigades that are subordinate to the infantry. But I see your point that there are some oddities in the system.

I fail to see why the brits can´t have dual purpose AT guns. Just make it expensive and clumsy on the attack, and it´s done. Remember the only situation UK was on the defensive was in North África and France. What are you going to do with all those heavy guns later?

Also, 88 was the basis for the first really good anti-tank gun placed on a tank. Why the brits should have access to a better armed heavy tank if they invested in a good AT gun, as well? The first decent brit AT gun was the 17 pounder, which arrived maaaaany years later than the 88.

Which goes back to my point that putting larger guns on smaller chassis should be possible. Those 17 pounders you mention ended up being used on British Shermans to create the Firefly. Around 2000 if wikipedia is to be believed (I wasn't aware that the Brits made that many conversions, so I'm skeptical).

 

[MartinSWE]

Since I will play the USSR the choice will be mass production of the best general purpose tank of the entire war: The T-34.

Also on the point that Stalin was reluctant to share info with the Allies the same can be said about the British where Churchill for ideological reasons wanted to keep the Soviets in the dark as much as possible. The Americans only wanted to be done with the war and so happily shared info with their allies if they thought it could bring the war to an end quicker.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

I think Germany should have built only 2 types of tanks.

1.PZ IV "standard"

PZ IV production should have been standardised very early to be effective, in 1938, and it will became much cheaper to built if chosed to became only standard tank without any need for PZ III (early on there could have been version of this tank with high velocity 50 mm gun(historical PZ III) in anti tank role and short barel 75 mm (historical PZ IV) version as infantry support ,since historical early war German doctrine required both).
Such PZ (III/IV) could have been produced in larger numbers and this will adress German disadvantage in industrial potential compared to industrial potential of its combined enemies.
Such tank will be cheaper and faster built than PZ III + PZ IV combined in real history.


2.Tiger.

Expensive, to few of them ?

Now imagine German panzer forces from scenario I described in 1.( large numbers of standard PZ IV tanks available to Germany) . The best of battle hardened and battle proved PZ IV tank crews will get mighty Tigers, making Tiger even stronger weapon system , and also preserving those valuable tank crews in resilient Tigers.

This will adress another German disadvantage compared to its enemies- smaller manpower base. In fact this "best crews preservation" is strong argument for Tiger in many historical analysis giving Tiger much higher cost-effective value than numbers in reichsmarks. Plus aditional psichological impact of Tigers for both German and enemy morale.


As I posted one page before, this perfect marriage didn't happened because of German inability to deliver one standard mass produced medium class tank in right time which Pz IV could have been.

Just to mention that such PZ IV didnt have to end its evolution in types we know from ww2.

For instance this could have been built on PZ IV production lines after 1942 with cheap modifications:

Panzer IV projekt W 1466

 

[jju_57]

That Panzer IV W 1466 sure looks like a Panther.

 

[Bullfrog]

Would it be overkill to have an equipment (especially tanks) attrition mechanic, indicating breakdowns or abandonment? Rough terrain or supply issues could enhance this?

I think if a tank unit is rolling through mountains or fights with lack of oil it should be shown that the vehicles are being lost by means other than combat.

Perhaps a 'prime mover' tech could reduce this attrition.

 

[Mjarr]

Would it be overkill to have an equipment (especially tanks) attrition mechanic, indicating breakdowns or abandonment? Rough terrain or supply issues could enhance this?

I think if a tank unit is rolling through mountains or fights with lack of oil it should be shown that the vehicles are being lost by means other than combat.

Perhaps a 'prime mover' tech could reduce this attrition.

As long as they could model it appropriately, I wouldn't mind having seeing notable parts of divisions being essentially out of action as far as strength goes because of mechanical breakdowns and how frequent they are when it comes to any real marches etc, regardless of terrain.

 

[Cybvep]

Don't know why that would be overkill. Actually, if materiel and manpower are separated, it will finally be possible to have realistic vehicle attrition (soldiers shouldn't die in this case).

 

[jju_57]

And lets bring in ball bearings. Force a choice between ball bearings and road wheels. And what about radios in tanks. The French had better tanks but no radios so they couldn't communicate with each other.

 

[misterbean]

And lets bring in ball bearings. Force a choice between ball bearings and road wheels. And what about radios in tanks. The French had better tanks but no radios so they couldn't communicate with each other.

You just mentioned one of the prime reasons for France's collapse in 1940.

Tanks without radios.
Army Commanders without direct telephone link to their superiors. Or to their subordinates.

While on the other side, Germany had all that down pat early on.

 

[FOARP]

Which goes back to my point that putting larger guns on smaller chassis should be possible. Those 17 pounders you mention ended up being used on British Shermans to create the Firefly. Around 2000 if wikipedia is to be believed (I wasn't aware that the Brits made that many conversions, so I'm skeptical).

This guy claims to have consulted the P.R.O. in the UK and seen a total conversion number of 2139 recorded in British documentation, though it's not clear whether this also included US-converted Fireflies. Seems this number may be supported by the evidence.

Since I will play the USSR the choice will be mass production of the best general purpose tank of the entire war: The T-34.

Yeah, why equip your troops with "Ronsons" when you can field a monster like the T-34?

Also on the point that Stalin was reluctant to share info with the Allies the same can be said about the British where Churchill for ideological reasons wanted to keep the Soviets in the dark as much as possible. The Americans only wanted to be done with the war and so happily shared info with their allies if they thought it could bring the war to an end quicker.

I'm missing the technologies that the British failed to share with the Soviets but which the Americans were willing to share. The USSR only managed to get a long-range bomber design by reverse-engineering B-29s that accidentally landed in Soviet territory, only managed to get anti-tank rocket technology by capturing it off the Germans, got nuclear technologies through spying, and didn't need our artillery or tank technologies.

I think Germany should have built only 2 types of tanks.

1.PZ IV "standard"

PZ IV production should have been standardised very early to be effective, in 1938, and it will became much cheaper to built if chosed to became only standard tank without any need for PZ III (early on there could have been version of this tank with high velocity 50 mm gun(historical PZ III) in anti tank role and short barel 75 mm (historical PZ IV) version as infantry support ,since historical early war German doctrine required both).
Such PZ (III/IV) could have been produced in larger numbers and this will adress German disadvantage in industrial potential compared to industrial potential of its combined enemies.
Such tank will be cheaper and faster built than PZ III + PZ IV combined in real history.

This kind of strategy (essentially tech-rushing later techs) only works in a game where you know war won't start until '39. I really, really hope the game punishes you for this - try to tech rush later techs and you run the risk of an earlier war for which you are not properly equipped. The entire reason the Germans had Panzer Is, Panzer IIs, and Panzer IIIs in their arsenal is because they need tanks ASAP and couldn't just wait for better tanks, since they didn't know when war was going to break out.

Additionally, with a '36 start, the player will be playing with a Germany that has already started rearmament, where a production line for Panzer Is is already churning them out, where the Panzer II has just entered production, where the Panzer III is just ready for testing, and where the Panzer IV might be ready for production in small numbers before the end of the year. They will not yet have the combat experience needed to unlock much better designs of the Panzer IV (maybe they get it from experience in Spain? or maybe not until WW2 break outs?).

Simply mass-producing the Panzer IV and cancelling all other models certainly wouldn't be the no-brainer you seem to think it would be, instead war would be something that could start earlier than 1939, in which case you're going to need all the tanks you can get your hands on.

 

[Centurion1973]

Simply mass-producing the Panzer IV and cancelling all other models certainly wouldn't be the no-brainer you seem to think it would be, instead war would be something that could start earlier than 1939, in which case you're going to need all the tanks you can get your hands on.

It would make sense to cancel production of I and II as soon as III and IV become available, because both were almost useless against hard targets (other tanks, bunkers etc.) and I was actually worse than some armored cars.