Techs for minors

[Exel]

Been a while since I've checked these forums, and it seems another patch is on the way. Relating to that, I'd like to know if there are any plans to make minor nations benefit from tech advances of the majors?

I'd still propose that the minors would get techs one level below their "host nation". So that if Germany develops IW level 2, it's minor allies will get IW level 1.

This would make the minor nations' units far more useful even late in the game and it also has historical backing. On the Axis side Finland and Romania make great examples of tech transfers from Germany to its allies while the Commonwealth in general make for an equal case on the Allied side.

[Bromley]

I've always liked something like this. It's been pointed out to me that, at least in the Axis camp, there was little tech sharing. But then IRL the Soviets tried to defend their front line rather than forming up further back.

One tech level behind and the (consequential) low production tech of minors will make upgrades relatively expensive compared to German units. As you still need garrison units, you may well opt to not upgrade the minors anyway. But it gives you a choice and a better chance if the tide turns in the East.

Of course, Empire/Commonwealth forces should be the same tech level. It also seems a little unfair that your researchers (via Intel) benefit more from an enemy being further advanced in a field than a friend.

[ February 03, 2007, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

[Colin I]

I agree, tech sharing was certainly possible even if it didn't always happen. Also, not allowing it creates some strange game balance issues - the Russians certainly picked on undequipped Axis minors but it goes too far - lots of "saving minors for later" when the majors already have a huge edge.

[hellraiser]

tech sharing should be possible but with increased costs associated - say you can upgrade a finnish corps but it would cost more than upgrading a regular german corps (costs for transporting, implementing, technical support, etc).

[jon_j_rambo]

How about giving the Finns extra movement in the winter?

[Exel]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

tech sharing should be possible but with increased costs associated - say you can upgrade a finnish corps but it would cost more than upgrading a regular german corps (costs for transporting, implementing, technical support, etc).

Like Bromley said, it already would cost them more as they lag behind in production tech also.

[Colin I]

Rambo - I suggest a minimal move of one area should be possible unless completely out of supply. Currently, and its really bad with the Finns and others - units get stuck when they should be slowed.

For specialist games (e.g. the Winter War variant that was posted a while back) you can imagine tech types to suit conditions. These simulate very well advantages certain national groups had. Winter Tech negates winter effects (Soviet Winter, general movement and combat penalties, maybe even air grounding and spotting), jungle tech similarly helps Japanese (and later in war Allied) forces. Its a great way to simulate the early success of the Japanese given their really quite limited assets. But this is too fine detail for SC2.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Bromley:

It's been pointed out to me that, at least in the Axis camp, there was little tech sharing.

I don't know where such ideas come from, really. Both Germany and Italy actively supported their minor allies with equipment.

Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria all operated PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw 35(t)/38(t) and StuGs in significant numbers. Finland too operated StuGs. Hungary even received some Tigers and Panthers. All of the above countries flew Messerschmitt Bf109s in their air forces, and most of them had other German (and Italian) aircraft in their ranks as well. Romania also had strong domestic aircraft production, notably with its indigenous I.A.R. 80 fighter and 81 dive-bomber. Germany wasn't picky about sharing small-arms either. Finland received large shipments of pzfausts and pzschreks at a time when Germany was in grave need of them itself (1944).

So as far as history is concerned, it's not even a debate. The question now is only of game design and whether or not Hubert chooses to implement it.

[jon_j_rambo]

Yeah, the whole Finland thing is a little sketchy.

[Bromley]

Exel. When I looked at it last, I found an extract from a book:

. . .Nazi Germany's inability to effectively wage coalition warfare with its allies - Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland.

. . . Hitler and his generals, however, were reluctant to fully incorporate their allies into their wartime command structure or strategy. Dinardo shows that this reluctance was a legacy from the First World War, when, for the most part, Imperial Germany refused to take its allies seriously.

DiNardo discusses Hitler's own attitudes toward his allies (he prefered bilater over multilateral arrangements) and then examines the performances of the Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland in North Africa, the Balkans, and Russia. Some, such as the Italians in North Africa, performed much better than is generally recognized in the west. Most were hampered by a shortage of modern equipment, especially tanks, fighter aircraft, and bombers. All, however, collapsed relatively early in the war. Indeed, according to DiNardo: "The twin German disasters of Stalingrad and North Africa effectively destroyed the Axis as a military alliance."

The ability to wage effective coalition warfare differed among the various services of the Wehrmacht. The German Navy was probably the most successful . . . Next came the Luftwaffe, although it failed miserably in the sharing of technology, particulary aircraft and aircraft engines, with its allies. Finally, came the army, which, DiNardo notes, cleary took the prize when it came to failure in coalition warfare. The major exception to this was Rommel's conduct of coalition warfare in North Africa.

The German War Ministry too was of little help with its extortive practices, which ensured that the Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Finnsh armies remained hopelessly outclassed in terms of weapons and equipment against their Soviet opponent.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=001997

[ChrisND]

Screw what they did in WW2. Some modders want the option to take the game out of WW2 and explore elsewhere.

There's nothing wrong with giving more power to the scenario designer to use or not use as he sees fit.

[Exel]

For the coalition warfare part that's probably true, Bromley, since Hitler did indeed favor bilateral agreements with each of the allies separately. Finland for example was very little if at all engaged with the other Axis partners except for Germany. But coordinating war efforts is different from sharing technology and equipment. The part about Luftwaffe not sharing aircraft or aircraft engines is outright plain wrong. Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland all operated significant numbers of German aircraft, in many cases the newest models available.

Germany also contributed its allies with direct aid in supplies, equipment and even troops. It certainly intervened for Italy's poor success several times (Balkans, Africa). In 1944 when Finland faced the Soviet grand offensive, Hitler sent an air force detachment to help the Finns, along with the German troops already present in the country since 1941, as well as the weapons shipments I mentioned earlier.

If you'll take a look at www.wwiivehicles.com listings of armored vehicles in all of the Axis countries, you'll note that Germany supplied all of its allies with hundreds of tanks and assault guns of various types, not to mention other equipment.

Germany may not have coordinated its efforts well with its allies, but it certainly did help them with equipment and troops.

[Bromley]

Fair enough. Although some of those tank transfers were pretty obsolete, that could be a reflection of a German lack of production. So if the Germans had had the production capabilities of the Allies (i.e. loads of MMP spare for upgrading), then they would have. In a What-If game they should be given that opportunity, if they so choose.

Match point Exel .

[Exel]

Any considerations of implementing this or something along these lines, Hubert?