Miltech Averaging after Federation Needs Some Fixing

[Hydra]

I understand the logic here. High tech military nation merges with Nation that has meh military tech, the end result is the latter doesn't instantly jump to high tech - that takes time. However, I think there is a big problem on the other end of things, because it feels like the high tech nation in this relationship has the memory of a goldfish and has forgotten how to run a military effectively, and now has to heavily invest just to get back to where it was before.

My proposed solution is you have min Miltech and max Miltech. Min represents the absolute lowest your military can sink - let's use Russia in Ukraine right now as an example, it's pretty bad but it is unlikely they'll somehow go back to driving T-34's, so there is a bottom - and then max represents the absolute height of your current military capabilities - to use Russia again, that would be stuff like T-14 Armata and hypersonics (which in real life they just cannot field in significant numbers, but technologically they're capable of it). This max is maintained regardless of federations. So if the US federates with Mexico or South Korea federates with North Korea, nobody suddenly "forgets". But they do go backwards, shifting towards the already implemented averaged miltech score (which in the case of North and South Korea, can get pretty low). This new averaged score is the new Miltech minimum, and with investment it will relatively quickly shift towards the maximum. This is to represent investment in things like production lines, rearmament, and training; rather than trying to develop entirely new military technology. This could take a year or more to accomplish, but it happens much faster than going beyond the Max Miltech. Once you do reach max miltech, then your military investment speed slows down back to what we're all used to, for the obvious reason that now everything you're doing is new to the country.

As it stands right now, everyone feels like they have the memories of goldfish when it comes to military technology and they slide backwards and stay backwards for no good reason. The above solution brings the mechanics closer in line with reality, and you could even use these mechanics to represent rot in the military by having certain scenarios (like the one Russia experienced throughout the 90's) lead to a nation sliding backwards towards their miltech minimum. You could also have mechanics like lend lease or some such where a high miltech nation (like the US) helps allied nations increase their miltech score using the patron nation's miltech score as the client's temporary miltech max.

I think federations like EU and Eurasian Union shouldn't be overly burdened by the mechanics of federation in ways that would not be in line with reality. Just because some minor nation in the EU has a bad military doesn't mean France suddenly forgets how to use Airland Battle. It's an entirely different issue at play and that needs its own mechanic.

[Gedsaro]

Perhapes regions should have a miltech level.
If you have a higher miltech and take a region, your countries m8ltech stays the same, and the regions slowly drifts up towards the countries, maybe ups faster with ip into military as well.

Could work the other way to, if tou are the low tech one.

[Ixal]

This mechanic needs to be scrapped completely and replaced by maybe having to spend some points on rebuilding armies.

It makes no sense that you lose military tech when merging with a country but not when conquering it.
Forming Greater USA peacefully is currently a very bad idea.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by Ixal:

This mechanic needs to be scrapped completely and replaced by maybe having to spend some points on rebuilding armies.

It makes no sense that you lose military tech when merging with a country but not when conquering it.
Forming Greater USA peacefully is currently a very bad idea.

I think it makes some sense, it just is half-assed.

[Endovior]

Yeah, the current miltech formula averages miltech over number of regions only, which seems somewhat inaccurate, and can be outright ruinous in some circumstances.

There's a mod, Unification Pop Based Miltech Calculation, which uses a more sensible formula, weighting off of population and number of armies and navies. This means an isolated backwater will have negligible effects on miltech after merger, but a nation with existing expeditionary forces will have a very considerable impact. This discourages you from peacefully integrating the militaries of minor powers, encourages you to disband unwanted obsolete forces first, and charges you appropriately if you really want to quickly add extra armies to your deathball. You'll still lose a lot if you try to unify a small advanced nation with a large and primitive one, but that sort of makes sense?

[BanDHMO]

Originally posted by Hydra:

I understand the logic here. High tech military nation merges with Nation that has meh military tech, the end result is the latter doesn't instantly jump to high tech - that takes time.

TBH, I never understood the logic of averaging at all. The latter doesn't instantly jump: "why the hell not?!!!"

Suppose the US and Mexico merged into one country. US has a state of the art military, while Mexico's is more modest in capabilities. Does it mean the US Navy is now less capable than it was pre-merge, that its submarines suddenly got louder and easier to detect, fifth-generation planes somehow less able to perform their missions? Of course not. Whatever capabilities existed are still there, and the new forces simply get integrated where it makes sense. The less advanced military's assets supplement the stronger one, get trained up and outfitted with the latest and greatest, and whatever assets are not worth integrating just get disbanded.

Now, if you wanted to actually keep the *entire* Mexican military, then it's a different story, and the current system works fine for comparable size countries that both have similar sized armies.

So, my ideal system for this would be a choice: disband all the joined country's armies and keep your current tech level, disband all your armies and take the joined country's tech level, or keep both armies and average the tech weighted by the number of armies on each side.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by BanDHMO:

Originally posted by Hydra:

I understand the logic here. High tech military nation merges with Nation that has meh military tech, the end result is the latter doesn't instantly jump to high tech - that takes time.

TBH, I never understood the logic of averaging at all. The latter doesn't instantly jump: "why the hell not?!!!"

Suppose the US and Mexico merged into one country. US has a state of the art military, while Mexico's is more modest in capabilities. Does it mean the US Navy is now less capable than it was pre-merge, that its submarines suddenly got louder and easier to detect, fifth-generation planes somehow less able to perform their missions? Of course not. Whatever capabilities existed are still there, and the new forces simply get integrated where it makes sense. The less advanced military's assets supplement the stronger one, get trained up and outfitted with the latest and greatest, and whatever assets are not worth integrating just get disbanded.

Now, if you wanted to actually keep the *entire* Mexican military, then it's a different story, and the current system works fine for comparable size countries that both have similar sized armies.

So, my ideal system for this would be a choice: disband all the joined country's armies and keep your current tech level, disband all your armies and take the joined country's tech level, or keep both armies and average the tech weighted by the number of armies on each side.

I think there are some complexities here - and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're proposing - but I do think the miltech score has some advantages, namely in establishing what the overall military technology of a country is.
Like let's go with your system. No average miltech score, everything is based on armies. The US wants to build a new army, what should its military tech be? Can you build lower tech armies for cheap and high tech armies are more expensive or take more time? I don't think that's an entirely good system. But I do see what you're talking about.

[BanDHMO]

Originally posted by Hydra:

I think there are some complexities here - and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're proposing - but I do think the miltech score has some advantages, namely in establishing what the overall military technology of a country is.
Like let's go with your system. No average miltech score, everything is based on armies. The US wants to build a new army, what should its military tech be? Can you build lower tech armies for cheap and high tech armies are more expensive or take more time? I don't think that's an entirely good system. But I do see what you're talking about.

Oh, I'm not proposing doing away with miltech score as such, just talking about what happens to it when you merge another country. Any armies you build(edit: or have) use your miltech score. Sure, you could argue there are some units that are less capable and maybe you'd want a lot of them fast in a mobilization-type situation, but I don't think we need to go there. One army represents the proper combination of forces for your doctrine/equipment. It's a good enough abstraction and there's no need to complicate it further.

[Mistfox]

If you think it through, do we not have historical examples of different levels of miltech armies fighting in an alliance? For example in WWII there was the Ostlegions or the French equipment taken into German service during WWII?

Maybe a list of "what happened then" might help us get a more nuanced view of what happens when 2 militaries try to integrate.

For the French equipment case, most of the examples were relegated to rear guard garrison troops and rarely ever used for front line service, so sticking with the attacker's miltech would make sense.

Anyone have any idea how it was like when East Germany and West Germany reunited?

[BanDHMO]

Exactly. Plenty of cases like that throughout history. Most recently, Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns, for example. You saw Eastern European allies who maybe didn't have the most up-to-date equipment performing excellent in many roles where it wasn't required, while calling on Western allies with deeper pockets and fancier toys when needed for air support, medevac, intelligence, etc.

It's not quite as good as if all the forces were equipped to the latest and greatest standards, which is why I think it's fair to lose the armies of the lower miltech country. The benefit from their existing equipment helps augment armies of the higher miltech country and keep their capabilities roughly even, while they donate some of their old capability to bring up territorial defence forces (not tracked as "armies" in the game) to the higher level. It's a simplification, sure, but I think it's good enough, and definitely better than dropping overall miltech.

I am certain that if American aerospace engineers joined forces with colleagues in Mexico they would not suddenly forget how to build F-35s, like the game would have you believe. :)

EDIT:

Anyone have any idea how it was like when East Germany and West Germany reunited?

From what I know, they integrated the units into existing military structure, retrofitted upgrades to bring what equipment could be brought to NATO standards, mothballed and scrapped other, and reduced the overall military size.

e.g. Soviet-style tanks and jets stayed in service for a while, but got new eyes/brains/etc that made them comparable to Western-made kit. Jets got the ability to carry Western missiles, etc.

I don't think this is the best example, though, because the two sides gear wasn't THAT far apart technologically at the time. If you had a battalion of T72/86 with all the maintenance and logistics facilities, you wouldn't mind having those on the front lines same as you would Leopard 2s. Same with inherited MiGs - perfectly capable platforms you can use.

I think, hypothetically, if you saw the Koreas unify, you'll see a lot of the North's 50's-vintage kit just getting scrapped.

EDIT-EDIT:
Looks like I was recalling wrong, at least on the planes. I was thinking further Eastern Europe that kept Soviet gear for a while longer. Germany ditched most of their Soviet planes straight away:
most of the equipment was not compatible with the West German NATO equipment and therefore taken out of service and sold or given to new members of NATO in Eastern Europe, such as Poland and the Baltic states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Air_Force#Reunification

[Mistfox]

Originally posted by BanDHMO:

I am certain that if American aerospace engineers joined forces with colleagues in Mexico they would not suddenly forget how to build F-35s, like the game would have you believe. :)

"Wait, why did that F-35 suddenly explode??!!"
"Well, you see, Pedro, he drop wrench into plane."
"That won't cause the plane to explode!"
"Si, then he lit his lighter and stuck his head into fuel tank to look for it."



This joke is in homage to all the idiots that play around with old black powder rifles and use a lighter at the end of the strike pan to check for jams whenever there is a misfire.