Different country weapons stats!

[max wheatley 1997]

I definitely think they should add and have different Stats on guns. Else theres no point being able to request a different countries license

Same for field guns and vehicles

Like soviet guns were cheaper German guns were more expensive

Your saying that an MP-38 9mm 500–550 RPM is just as good as a PPSH-41 7.62x25mm 900-1000 RPM

Or a K98 bolt action is as good as a ZH-29 semi automatic

Its the main reason this game sucks i think

Small details make a game feel more historical and worth playing
Who else agrees or disagrees

[Shad1902]

implementing this would create a whole new level of whining due to new balance...it will also need to shift the dates around for some countries.

Also, we're not producing guns, but infantry equipment. There's much more here than just guns, but also uniforms, magazines, grenades, backpacks etc... Just as for tanks, the soft factors matter a lot, and the reason why the war-built T-34 was a pile of crap (bad soft factors).

So how do to manage a PPSH-41 with a 71 round mag that takes ages to be reloaded, lowering the DPS, and bad equipment making soldiers less effective ?



Or, maybe just use a mod.

[max wheatley 1997]

Originally posted by Shad1902:

implementing this would create a whole new level of whining due to new balance...it will also need to shift the dates around for some countries.

Also, we're not producing guns, but infantry equipment. There's much more here than just guns, but also uniforms, magazines, grenades, backpacks etc... Just as for tanks, the soft factors matter a lot, and the reason why the war-built T-34 was a pile of crap.

So how do to manage a PPSH-41 with a 71 round mag that takes ages to be reloaded, lowering the DPS, and bad equipment making soldiers less effective ?



Or, maybe just use a mod.

i didn't think about uniforms but i mean when you talk about infantry equipment uniforms shouldn't make a difference, i mean a uniform is not much different from the next in a ww2 stand point cloth shirt and pants. but then why have the ability to buy or use licences and when you say balancing from a history stand point it should be how the guns were or just a little different from each other to make it feel a bit more like theirs a point to having different guns if people wanna use better equipment or if you wanna say play as Italy and use the carcano rifle and be historically accurate then it makes it more fun for the nerds who probably play this more then the average gamer or just have an option

my main point is really that requesting licences is pointless , the only reason i can think of is that you would request a licence is if you was playing as say Pakistan and you wanted say MP-40s early or if you haven't researched them yet and at this point if your ally has, but then you don't have a reason to research any infantry equipment yourself if they are ahead

or if just you want MP-40s in your army because you like a gun with the name but then its pointless if they all do the same thing

[Shad1902]

Originally posted by max wheatley 1997:

Originally posted by Shad1902:

implementing this would create a whole new level of whining due to new balance...it will also need to shift the dates around for some countries.

Also, we're not producing guns, but infantry equipment. There's much more here than just guns, but also uniforms, magazines, grenades, backpacks etc... Just as for tanks, the soft factors matter a lot, and the reason why the war-built T-34 was a pile of crap.

So how do to manage a PPSH-41 with a 71 round mag that takes ages to be reloaded, lowering the DPS, and bad equipment making soldiers less effective ?



Or, maybe just use a mod.

i didn't think about uniforms but i mean when you talk about infantry equipment uniforms shouldn't make a difference, i mean a uniform is not much different from the next in a ww2 stand point cloth shirt and pants. but then why have the ability to buy or use licences and when you say balancing from a history stand point it should be how the guns were or just a little different from each other to make it feel a bit more like theirs a point to having different guns if people wanna use better equipment or if you wanna say play as Italy and use the carcano rifle and be historically accurate then it makes it more fun for the nerds who probably play this more then the average gamer or just have an option

my main point is really that requesting licences is pointless , the only reason i can think of is that you would request a licence is if you was playing as say Pakistan and you wanted say MP-40s early or if you haven't researched them yet and at this point if your ally has, but then you don't have a reason to research any infantry equipment yourself if they are ahead

or if just you want MP-40s in your army because you like a gun with the name but then its pointless if they all do the same thing

I get your point, and I was a bit disappointed when I found out that the name and icon is just decorative, as all infantry equipment behave the same. But as said, it's much more than the gun. Uniforms are also more than just the clothing. you have backpacks, ammo pouches, magazines, knives, boots, utilities etc. As stated in the tank comment, the soft factors matter, sometimes even more than the hard factors (dmg of the gun). So I get why the devs choosed to simplify infantry equipment as being the same for everyone.

For your request, I know there are mods doing that. I personally wouldn't want a whinable mess around the abstraction of infantry equipment.

[Ahriman]

You actually already technically have this, its the MIOs that do this. If Nations have their own unique MIOs, as some do, and they add those buffs to their guns, then you request the license, you get the buffs, and even get to stack your own on top.

However, as far as uniqueness goes, I genuinely don't think it should go further than what some of the higher quality mods do where they have different nations get Tanks that different exceptions or module slots, such as lower armour, but with the benefit of higher base speed and lower production cost while only limited to Small Weapons in the turret.

Right now however, the reason the license request system is in the game is to serve as a way for people to share tech basically. You license 1940 Medium hull someone rushes so you don't have to research it yourself while you give them the 1940 Small Fighter Hull. That's what it primarily is useful for, and primarily meant for to begin with.

[max wheatley 1997]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

You actually already technically have this, its the MIOs that do this. If Nations have their own unique MIOs, as some do, and they add those buffs to their guns, then you request the license, you get the buffs, and even get to stack your own on top.

However, as far as uniqueness goes, I genuinely don't think it should go further than what some of the higher quality mods do where they have different nations get Tanks that different exceptions or module slots, such as lower armour, but with the benefit of higher base speed and lower production cost while only limited to Small Weapons in the turret.

Right now however, the reason the license request system is in the game is to serve as a way for people to share tech basically. You license 1940 Medium hull someone rushes so you don't have to research it yourself while you give them the 1940 Small Fighter Hull. That's what it primarily is useful for, and primarily meant for to begin with.

but then that still makes the weapons from other counties pointless unless you have the same MIOs

without sounding stupid what are MIOs and hulls are just hulls till you put your own stuff on them like tanks and planes and ships

[pjd110]

Originally posted by max wheatley 1997:

I definitely think they should add and have different Stats on guns. Else theres no point being able to request a different countries license

Same for field guns and vehicles

Like soviet guns were cheaper German guns were more expensive

Your saying that an MP-38 9mm 500–550 RPM is just as good as a PPSH-41 7.62x25mm 900-1000 RPM

Or a K98 bolt action is as good as a ZH-29 semi automatic

Its the main reason this game sucks i think

Small details make a game feel more historical and worth playing
Who else agrees or disagrees

Well If your gonna do that level of detail, then you should have to produce different calibers of ammo. You can't put 9mm in a .45!

[Citizen X]

Originally posted by pjd110:

Well If your gonna do that level of detail, then you should have to produce different calibers of ammo. You can't put 9mm in a .45!

We can only dream. Weapon caliber certainly wasnt just a minor consideration. Could be as simple as +/-5% Soft Attack and +/- Supply. Sigh

An Infantry Research tab with non-linear progression. Players deliberately choose to research .50 Cal and use it for everything; planes, tanks, AA, etc. saving research time for other Tabs, while Germany maximizes Weapons research with many ammunition types; Good or Bad economic efficiency comes from player decisions, instead of the stat modifiers used currently

[CH13F]

a gun as a tool can stop someone as long as you hit that someone regardless of caliber or fire rate.

result of a headshot with 9mm and 50cal is same : target neutralized.
rest re details like severity on body or size of exit wound, which re irrelevant

[Citizen X]

Originally posted by CH13F:

a gun as a tool can stop someone as long as you hit that someone regardless of caliber or fire rate.

result of a headshot with 9mm and 50cal is same : target neutralized.
rest re details like severity on body or size of exit wound, which re irrelevant

By this argument, why research anything beyond the starting gun?

The weight of ammunition is significant in logistics. There is no need for exit wounds or anything, its just about expanding the depth of the game

[CH13F]

Originally posted by Citizen X:

Originally posted by CH13F:

a gun as a tool can stop someone as long as you hit that someone regardless of caliber or fire rate.

result of a headshot with 9mm and 50cal is same : target neutralized.
rest re details like severity on body or size of exit wound, which re irrelevant

By this argument, why research anything beyond the starting gun?

The weight of ammunition is significant in logistics. There is no need for exit wounds or anything, its just about expanding the depth of the game

i just said it because op compared guns, specifically by caliber and rate of fire. and if im not mistaken he tried to differ effectiveness of a gun by damage which is result of those two characteristics , which s product of video games. such things re unnecessary unless its a simulator, in this case hoi4 isnt. it cant be anyway because its management game, not a fps.

but if we really want the guns to affect other things beyond division stats, (this s also why we research guns), then MIOs already doing that , they give bonuses or take away some in return of production costs. makes them cheaper or more expensive in a sense. or tuned/modified is a better word i guess.

but anyway, this all offtopic, op's main question s licenses and if licenses are pointless?

not really. there re situations you can use licenses.

-dont have enough exp to create a design. + template, its expensive and time consuming business to gather all that. takes ages depending country you play

-dont have time to farm all those researches, especially if you only got 2-3 research slots for a long time. and again time consuming.

by acquiring a license you can fasttrack all of these. only thing you need mils and exp for div template and you good to go.

[Citizen X]

Originally posted by CH13F:

i just said it because op compared guns, specifically by caliber and rate of fire. and if im not mistaken he tried to differ effectiveness of a gun by damage which is result of those two characteristics , which s product of video games. such things re unnecessary unless its a simulator, in this case hoi4 isnt. it cant be anyway because its management game, not a fps.

We can both agree this should be a management game. My interpretation of that is different than yours, as it would be.

The United States developed the .50cal M2 Browning. They produced this in huge numbers and used it to fit aircraft, tanks, Ships for AA, etc. Choosing to standardize the .50cal, IS a management decision in my opinion.

One single research (.50cal), one production line.

Why do you need to research HMG for your plane? "HMG" is the .50cal. Extra research for no reason

Design a plane with 8 x .50cal. Pull from your stockpile. Meanwhile, German chose to research 7.62, 13mm, and 20mm and put all 3 of them on a single plane. The planes are stronger, but it cost real time in research and production efficiency

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by Citizen X:

Originally posted by CH13F:

i just said it because op compared guns, specifically by caliber and rate of fire. and if im not mistaken he tried to differ effectiveness of a gun by damage which is result of those two characteristics , which s product of video games. such things re unnecessary unless its a simulator, in this case hoi4 isnt. it cant be anyway because its management game, not a fps.

We can both agree this should be a management game. My interpretation of that is different than yours, as it would be.

The United States developed the .50cal M2 Browning. They produced this in huge numbers and used it to fit aircraft, tanks, Ships for AA, etc. Choosing to standardize the .50cal, IS a management decision in my opinion.

One single research (.50cal), one production line.

Why do you need to research HMG for your plane? "HMG" is the .50cal. Extra research for no reason

Design a plane with 8 x .50cal. Pull from your stockpile. Meanwhile, German chose to research 7.62, 13mm, and 20mm and put all 3 of them on a single plane. The planes are stronger, but it cost real time in research and production efficiency

The problem with this interpretation is that the aviation variant of the browning .50 cal, the 12.7mm AN/M2, was developed into a technologically different weapon and had an entirely separate production train from the infantry variant. Same goes for the naval AA variants and the tank variants.

You can't just take a .50 cal M2 Browning designed for the 1st Infantry Division and cram it into the wing of a P-51, or bolt it into a gun tub on the USS Enterprise. It doesn't work like that.

[Bored Peon]

Well Belgium/Congo have the best infantry equipment and trucks in the game. Yet in the hands of any other country they all have the same generic stats.

If you think about the simple fact AI does not use MIO benefits just dumbs the game down even further to make it easier to beat the AI.

[pjd110]

This is too much minute detail. I like to get my economy set up to run smoothly and all, but once the combat starts I want as few management things to deal with as possible, not more. Don't bother me while I'm playing with my army men!

[Shad1902]

Originally posted by pjd110:

This is too much minute detail. I like to get my economy set up to run smoothly and all, but once the combat starts I want as few management things to deal with as possible, not more. Don't bother me while I'm playing with my army men!

Agree...

this is the reason we have "infantry equipment" and not every detailed gun and bullet.

OP is thinking too much in "gaming statistics", or hard factors...but those are irrelevant from a macro perspective.

it doesn't matter if you use the german doctrine of the MG-42 being the main weapon of the platoon, or the US doctrine of semi-auto guns with fewer MG's as support. What matters is how effective the whole batallion is, and that's where infantry equipment is good enough as a metric.