Lack of generic technology can really hurt some nations

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Warrant Officer
Posts: 26
Joined: May 22 2015
Human: Yes

Lack of generic technology can really hurt some nations

#1 Post by Undecided » Aug 10 2017

There really needs to be worldwide versions of certain technologies. How come small nations can become global leaders in tech levels, yet can't even research most types of equipment? Why can they research projects like "nuclear weapons test" and "tactical nuclear weapons" if they don't unlock nuclear weapons? (Where did they get the weapon for performing the nuclear test?) Why can I research anti-matter and AI, yet lack the ability to develop even a simple (c. 1950s) quality guided anti-tank missile?

While every region has its own special regional group tech pool, many of those regions are lacking a full range of weapons. Some examples of technology that there is no generic version of:
  • Aircraft
    • UAVs are solely limited to modern superpowers.
    • Intercontental scout UAVs: I think limited only to Russia (they gets the "Zond 2" with a 12000km range).
    • Combat/Armed UAVs: I believe only EU nations and the US get them.
    • Helicopters
    • Airborne Lasers
    • Sci-Fi Fighters (e.g., phaser fighters)
  • Nuclear vessels
    • Nuclear capital ships: (I think only Russia get one, the Kirov). Also the same for nuclear escorts (e.g., the electromagnetic cannon DDGs)
    • Nuclear carriers: Both regular and ion shielded carriers. Only superpowers get them.
    • Nuclear submarines: ditto the above
  • Missiles. So many missiles. There's only one cruise missile and one anti-ship missile to cover the hundred years of technology from 1940-2040
    • AGMs: Absolutely no short range anti-tank/anti-infantry guided missiles. None whatsoever.
    • Nuclear Missiles: Absolutely none. No ICBMs, not even freefall dumb bombs.
    • Cruise Missiles: There appears to only be a single type of cruise missile in one hundred years. There's not even any upgraded versions like Mark 2, Mark 3, etc, to take advantage of tech advances.
    • Thermobaric Missile: Same as above.
    • Non-Nuclear Ballistic Missiles: SRBMs, MRBMs, etc. I think only communist nations get them.
  • Land Units:
    • Long-range anti-air missiles: There are no generic ones. This leaves many nations with absolutely no defense against high air targets (on top of the massive range disadvantage, as mid-range SAMs only get 1/3rd the range of long-range ones).
    • Amphibious Hovercraft: I think only Russia and US get them. Maybe one or two other nations.
While some of these aren't absolutely critical for game balance (UAVs are just nice for very low fuel use and avoiding personnel losses, and hovercraft play only a minor role), some others are more serious (non-nuclear SRBMs and MRBMs give you artillery that can hit at 1000km ranges, and lack of long-range anti-air leaves you completely vulnerable to high-air attack planes, and having nukes should speak for itself). Whenever I want to play a minor nation and raise them too greatness, I feel compelled to "cheat" by editing the nation to have access to other tech regions, or else I'll be completely cut off from certain types of units -- even if my nation's research is a decades ahead of any other on the planet earth!

P.S.: A minor bug, the Russian Carrier CVN-1144 Chabarovsk appears to be a nuclear carrier (1000 fuel, 1 million km range) that requires no uranium to build... and since it only requires "Naval Vessels '94," I'm guessing it's a bug rather than being fusion-powered.

Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 852
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Lack of generic technology can really hurt some nations

#2 Post by Kristijonas » Aug 16 2017

Yeah I did bring this up before. In reality small countries (like Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea, Sweden) are seriously highly technologically advanced. In the game, just because they have fewer research facilities, eventually they can't even keep up with the timeline of technology. This leads to technological hegemony of USA and Russia, and other bigger countries to an extent (Those who have most research facilities) which is not really historical nor realistic. Russia is arguably technologically less advanced than my mentioned small countries.
What I proposed was making old technologies much easier to research when ~5-15 years pass after their initial date of "release". So small countries would at least not lag behind too much from the era.
Secondly I'd like more factors to influence research other than funding+facility number.

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”