Technology Tree: Infantry

Here are my thoughts about the infantry tech tree and its effects on the stats of different infantry units. Since we are adopting battalion-level scale, our tech tree should reflect this change. I think the fundamental question here is how detailed we want it to be? Personally I see no need to go to the extensive level of detail used on HoI 1 tech tree, but I'd still prefer a little more detail and subjects to research than the four subcategories found from vanilla HoI3. Additionally I would like to see a system where certain critical inventions are necessary to direct development to new directions, like in this example:

Infantry weapons, levels 1-xx?
*Intermediate cartridge and assault rifle prototype (1943)
(Unlocked by Infantry Weapons level 5, necessary for infantry Weapons 7)
*high velocity, smaller-caliber ammo (1957)
(Unlocked by Infantry Weapons level 11, necessary for infantry Weapons 13)


Hopefully that clarified what I have in mind. Anyhow, here are research subjects for infantry tech tree:

Infantry Service Weapons:Small arms from Great War-era bolt-action rifles to latest composite-material assault rifles. Will update soft attack of all infantry units but initially with varied stats giving initially more soft attack to Mtn, Mech, Mot, Mar, Para than to Inf, Eng, Gar, Cav and Mil due the fact that better weapons were initially more widely used by these types of units. Later levels of this tech will gradually bring the benefits of this tech to equal levels for all infantry types, simulating the growing number of automatic weapons per squad. This tech will also raise supply demand a little bit during the WWII era as troops equipped with automatic weapons consume more ammo.

Machine Guns:Different heavier infantry automatic weapons from Great War-era LMGs through WWII-era machine guns to GPMGs and smaller cartridge-SAWs. Stats-wise similar distribution of bonus between unit types than in Infantry service weapons.

Indirect Fire Support: Battalion-level organic fire support from Great War-era trench mortars to automatic grenade launchers.

Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons: From grenade bundles and Molotov Cocktails to company-level antitank missiles. Should have late-level sub-category techs for shoulder-fired SAMs.

Infantry Gear: Camouflage uniforms, helmets, body armor, personal load carrying equipment and so on...

Specialized Equipment: Divided into sub-categories for paratrooper, marine, night vision, desert, jungle, mountain, arctic and NBC equipment. The way I see it, Mtn should represent generic light infantry unit that can be (with right techs) modified to represent either historical Gebirgsjäger-type mountaineers or alternatively ranger/ Jäger-type specialized light infantry.

Stats-wise I think that all 1918-tech level infantry types should start with defensive rather than offensive stats. By 1939 up-to-date Inf, Mot, Mtn, Para, Mar, Cav and early Mech should start to gain more and more offensive capabilities, with anti-tank equipment gradually improving from 1941 to late 1940s. By that time armored units should once again start to gain new power when compared to infantry units, but in the 1960s the infantry should once again gain substantial Hard Attack and defensive bonuses from widespread use of improved antitank missiles. In a sense this late-level stat change closes the cycle in the constant arms race between tank and anti-tank designs.

Since motorization and mechanization are key parts of all military reforms made by OTL major powers during this time, I recommend that even regular infantry battalions starts to consume low levels of fuel while gaining a little bit of speed as a compensation. We also need to think about potential ways of implementing helicopters during this period. For example: can we create transport helicopter units than could be used to "paradrop" and air transport units from carriers, as the USMC and Warsaw Pact forces historically did from late 1950s and onwards?

Please comment on these early proposals, since I have similar outlines ready for Armour and as well as for land doctrines.

I moved the topic into the right subforum - please, for future topics: Tech-Setup is supposed to mean which country has which technology at fatherland-scenario-start.
Technology-Categories is for the creation of the tech-tree.

I will try to turn your proposal into a scetch to have a little graphic overview of how it will look.
Apart from that, I like the ideas very much.



As you can see, I am thinking of implementing special techs for Military-trucks and Halftracks, as weaponry for Militia/Cavalry and so on will be erased in our version. Addition of these techs would make sense, as Light-Armor-Engines are not used in Halftracks or Motorized divisions, or is it only my wrong impression?

Furthermore, I´d suggest to move first-aid-tech into infantry-branch, now that we have enough space for it left.

More ideas and comments welcome

Black Guardian wrote:I moved the topic into the right subforum - please, for future topics: Tech-Setup is supposed to mean which country has which technology at fatherland-scenario-start.
Technology-Categories is for the creation of the tech-tree.

I thought that I had made a mistake at some point

Black Guardian wrote:I will try to turn your proposal into a scetch to have a little graphic overview of how it will look.
Apart from that, I like the ideas very much.

Good to know, I waited with the Armour and Doctrine parts to see whether others find these proposals practical and most importantly whether you think they can be implemented in the mod or not. I'll post them here later in the evening.

Black Guardian wrote:As you can see, I am thinking of implementing special techs for Military-trucks and Halftracks, as weaponry for Militia/Cavalry and so on will be erased in our version. Addition of these techs would make sense, as Light-Armor-Engines are not used in Halftracks or Motorized divisions, or is it only my wrong impression? Furthermore, I´d suggest to move first-aid-tech into infantry-branch, now that we have enough space for it left.

Generally I support this proposal, keeping the primary equipment of all infantry units on the same tech page makes sense. And yes, at least the wheeled APCs that I know of tend to use truck-type engines.

Infantry stats by year (assuming all techs are researched as hist. date)in vanilla HoI3 per regiment:

basic model	#Defensive Abilities defensiveness = 5.33 toughness = 3.00 #Offensive Abilities soft_attack = 2.00 hard_attack = 0.67
1918	defensiveness = 6.13 (+0.8 ) toughness = 3.60 (+0.6) soft_attack = 2.60 (+0.6) hard_attack = 0.92 (+0.25)
1936	defensiveness = 6.93 toughness = 4.20 soft_attack = 3.20 hard_attack = 1.17
1938	defensiveness = 7.63 toughness = 4.60 soft_attack = 3.80 hard_attack = 1.42
1940	defensiveness = 8.43 toughness = 5.20 soft_attack = 4.40 hard_attack = 1.67
1942	defensiveness = 9.23 toughness = 5.80 soft_attack = 5.00 hard_attack = 1.92
1944	defensiveness = 10.03 toughness = 6.40 soft_attack = 5.60 hard_attack = 2.17
1946	defensiveness = 10.83 toughness = 7.00 soft_attack = 6.20 hard_attack = 2.42
1948	defensiveness = 11.63 toughness = 7.60 soft_attack = 6.80 hard_attack = 2.67
1950	defensiveness = 12.43 toughness = 8.20 soft_attack = 7.40 hard_attack = 2.92

Conclusion of this short analysis: Infantry becomes more and more defensive while soft-attack and toughness lack somewhat behind for them. Softness remains unchanged over the course of the vanilla-game, maybe it should be marginally lowered when the partian motorization of the units comes into play.

Other analysis about Mech. and Mot. are about to follow...

Black Guardian wrote:Infantry stats by year (assuming all techs are researched as hist. date)in vanilla HoI3 per regiment...
Conclusion of this short analysis: Infantry becomes more and more defensive while soft-attack and toughness lack somewhat behind for them. Softness remains unchanged over the course of the vanilla-game, maybe it should be marginally lowered when the partian motorization of the units comes into play.

Other analysis about Mech. and Mot. are about to follow...

Found an interesting statistic about the general development of land combat:
Dispersion on the Battlefield per 100.000 combatants

	Napoleonic	US Civil War	WW1	WW2	Yom Kippur	Europe 1980s
Area	km 20.12	25.75	248	3000	4000	6750
Front	8.05km	8.58km	14km	50km	57km	75km
Depth	2.50km	3.00km	17km	60km	70km	90km
Men per sqkm	4.970	3.883	404	33	25	15

In game-terms this might well have some correlation to the way units use frontage during different times and under different doctrines.

Edit: I put it into a correct table. BG

You mean increased battle-lenght by increased frontage for division? This would also be a good approach to decrease the number of required divisions/brigades needed for sucessful combat operation.

Black Guardian wrote:You mean increased battle-lenght by increased frontage for division? This would also be a good approach to decrease the number of required divisions/brigades needed for sucessful combat operation.

I think that adjusting frontage and unit stats will be the right way to go - varying frontage and the percentage of casualties occurring in combat depending on the game seems to be the most logical and historical way forward. Some more interesting long-term changes in land combat, especially since they give relative values when compared to WW II-era stats:

In 1980 the U.S. Army estimated that modern non-nuclear conventional war had become 400 to 700 percent more lethal and intense as it had been in World War II. The artillery firepower of a maneuver battalion, for example, has doubled since World War II while the "casualty effect" of modern artillery guns has increased 400 percent. Range has increased, on average, by 60 percent, and the "zone of destruction" of battalion artillery by 350 percent. Advances in metallurgy and the use of new chemical explosives has increased the explosive power of basic caliber artillery by many times. A single round from an 8-inch gun has the same explosive power as a World War II 250 pound bomb. Modern artillery is lighter, stronger, and more mobile than ever before. Computerized fire direction centers can range guns on target in only 15 seconds compared to 6 minutes required in World War II. The rates of fire of these guns are three times what they used to be. So durable are the new artillery guns that they can fire 500 rounds over a 4 hour period without incurring damage to the barrel. Range has increased to the point where the M-110 gun can fire a 203 millimeter shell 25 miles. The self-propelled gun has a travel range of 220 miles at a speed of 35 miles per hour. Area saturation artillery, in its infancy in World War II, has become very lethal. A single Soviet artillery battalion firing 18 BM-21 rocket launchers can place 35 tons of explosive rockets on a target 17 miles away in just 30 seconds. The American Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a totally mobile self-contained artillery system that can place 8,000 M-77 explosive rounds on a target the size of six football fields in less than 45 seconds. Air defense guns have developed to where a single M-163 Vulcan cannon can fire 3,000 rounds of explosive 20-millimeter shot per minute with almost 100 percent accuracy within 2 miles of the gun position. Modern antiaircraft guns command 36 times the airspace around their position as they did in World War II.

Tanks have improved in speed, reliability, and firepower. Modern tanks can make 40 miles per hour over a 300 mile range, or three times that of earlier tanks. A tank equipped with modern gunsights and a cannon stabilization system has a probability of scoring a first round hit of 98 percent, 13 times greater than World War II tanks. Modern battletanks, unlike any earlier variety, can also fire while on the move. Their probability of hitting the target while moving is almost 10 times greater than the probability of a World War II tank firing from a stabilized position. New propellants and ammunition design have increased the lethality of the modern tank. Tank gunsights, lasers connected to computers, can locate a target in the dark, smoke, rain, or snow at 2,000 yards.

The armed combat helicopter has produced a revolution in tank and armor killing power available to the combat commander. These weapons can be configured to kill either troops or tanks, and are truly awesome weapons. New sights allow the helicopter to acquire its target from more than 5 miles away. The helicopter has added new mobility and stealth to the battlefield permitting a division commander to strike with troops or antitank weapons 60 miles to his front, four times the range in World War II. The infantry, too, has increased its range, mobility, and firepower with new armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Infantry can also bring to bear shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and antitank missiles with devastating results.

The modern battlefield is a lethal place indeed. To place the increased intensity of the modern non-nuclear conventional battlefield in perspective, one need only remember that, in World War II, heavy combat was defined as 2-4 combat pulses a day. Modern combat divisions are configured to routinely deliver 12-14 combat pulses a day and to fight around the clock by night operations. A modern U.S. or Soviet motorized division can deliver three times as much firepower at 10 times the rate as each could in World War II.

...Though firepower has increased, lethality has decreased. In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died. In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent. At least as many U.S. soldiers have been injured in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the first five years of the Vietnam conflict, from 1961 through 1965. But a far larger proportion of soldiers are surviving their injuries.

Thus, barring incredible tactical stupidity, as lethal as modern weaponry is and as intense as modern non-nuclear conventional wars are, they generally produce less casualties per day of exposure than the weapons and wars of the past. Even in the Gulf War of 1991 which saw a force of almost 400,000 hammered by unlimited conventional airpower for a month and attacked by a large modern mobile armor force with an enormous technological advantage in weaponry, the estimated casualty figure for Iraqi forces equals approximately only 7.1 percent.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/table1.gif

I think in-game terms this would translate to frontage that first decreases through WWII until the approximate time of the appear of nukes, and afterwards starts increasing dramatically as new doctrinal approaches and increasing firepower force the armies to disperse their forces more and more. And while offensive and defensive stats should both increase, combat should become more fast-paced, though paradoxically less lethal due the combination of improved combat medicine, increased frontage (less forces directly fighting on a single spot) and generally faster pace of combat.

Awesome analysis there. Brings up several points that probably don´t belong into Infantry-tech-section. I think I´ll exclude these posts into a new "(Land)Combat" thread.
Anyway - some techs should be relying on industrial techs, like metallurgy, chemistry and so on, especially if we speak about the more advanced military technology. Industrial progress should be important there.

Furthermore, I see a problem when increasing frontage without any compensating bonus: Having increased frontage while the enemy has less frontage without any compensation means, that your enemy can in fact deliver more firepower on your troops as he can bring more divisions into battle. This will increase pressure on your divisions/brigades and increase their losses.
This means, as soon as frontage increases, we must at least increase defensiveness of the unit; even better is to increase all the other stats as well OR to implement frontage-reduction into Infantry-tech otherwise than doctrines, as it is an effect of increased firepower to disperse troops!
However to approach this, there must be a compensation that enables lesser troops to withstand more enemy troops than before, thus increasing their overall combat effectiveness and THUS making research of dispersion worthwile for the player!

Furthermore, as you already stated, improvements in Combat Medicine will increase the trickleback-modifier likewise, leading to less deaths.

The faster pace of combat can hardly be modelled differently than increasing the unit stats, as 1 combat round in HoI is (and has always been) 1 hour.

Black Guardian wrote:Awesome analysis there. Brings up several points that probably don´t belong into Infantry-tech-section. I think I´ll exclude these posts into a new "(Land)Combat" thread.
Anyway - some techs should be relying on industrial techs, like metallurgy, chemistry and so on, especially if we speak about the more advanced military technology. Industrial progress should be important there.

True, as soon as I have time to deal with air doctrines and techs we should start focusing on combat system since IMO its one of the most important aspects of this mod.

Black Guardian wrote:Furthermore, I see a problem when increasing frontage without any compensating bonus: Having increased frontage while the enemy has less frontage without any compensation means, that your enemy can in fact deliver more firepower on your troops as he can bring more divisions into battle. This will increase pressure on your divisions/brigades and increase their losses.
This means, as soon as frontage increases, we must at least increase defensiveness of the unit; even better is to increase all the other stats as well OR to implement frontage-reduction into Infantry-tech otherwise than doctrines, as it is an effect of increased firepower to disperse troops!

However to approach this, there must be a compensation that enables lesser troops to withstand more enemy troops than before, thus increasing their overall combat effectiveness and THUS making research of dispersion worthwile for the player!

This is true, I think we should link doctrines and infantry techs together to simulate the way changing doctrine led to development of new kind of equipment - thus making troops dispersed more widely to have stats that enable them to perform with their new frontage. A classic example of clash between these two approaches would be OTL Korean War - Chinese massed frontage vs. US doctrine of increased firepower and dispersion. Is land combat stacking penalty hardcoded, BTW?

Black Guardian wrote:The faster pace of combat can hardly be modelled differently than increasing the unit stats, as 1 combat round in HoI is (and has always been) 1 hour.

In addition to rising stats, I think increasing organization and decreasing night fighting penalties will simulate this increased pace quite well.

Some thoughts on Infantry-technology: I just looked a little bit into wikipedia and came to the conclusion that an offset of 2 years is not very realistic, even taking into consideration different kinds of modifications and not only newly developed weapons - at least if we take into consideration that these did not quickly become standart-weaponry!

The most commonly used weapon in the Wehrmacht was the Kar98k, was developed 1935 and produced from then on as standart infantry service weapon.

Furthermore, we have another very well known WW2-weapon for Germany - the MP40 - which was produced and in service from 1939-1945. All the other MP-variations (MP38, MP41 etc.) were either prototypes or not produced in such big quantities.

The next step in weapon-development during World War 2 is 1943, when the StG44 (designed 1942, produced since October 1943) became somewhat of a standart-service weapon, though not enough models where produced until the end of the war.

We could also take the Gewehr 43 into account here, it was also designed and produced from 1943 on.


All in all, for the German military, we have the obvious dates of 1935/36 (whatever is preferred) 1939/40 and 1942/43
The next step for Germany (well, it was demilitarized for a while in real life, so this might not count that much) is the development of the Gewehr G3 in 1950.


However, one could argue that an improved Version of the StG44 could have been due sometime around the development of the Ak47, which was dated around 1944-1946 (but reached active service only in 1949)


For American weaponry, we have the M1 Garand in service from 1936 on, the Thompson SMG from 1938 on (though this one was already designed in the 1.WW and surely doesn´t count as newly developed weapon, as well as BAR) the M1 Carbine from 1940 and the very ugly Grease gun (M3 SMG) designed in 1942.

So, to draw a quick conclusion out of this brief investigation:

I think 4 years of time covers the period (and especially the CW-period) much more accurately, with the dates/models:
1935-1939-1943-1947-1951 etc.

Furthermore, Service Weapons should also include Grenades of course, to have a good justification for CW-developments, where rifles were not designed every 4 years

Black Guardian wrote:Some thoughts on Infantry-technology: I just looked a little bit into wikipedia and came to the conclusion that an offset of 2 years is not very realistic, even taking into consideration different kinds of modifications and not only newly developed weapons - at least if we take into consideration that these did not quickly become standart-weaponry!

I just realized that I failed to express myself properly when we initially discussed about this matter, even though I were firmly aware of this situation back then. From the previous posts regarding the general outlines of this tech area:

Later levels of this tech will gradually bring the benefits of this tech to equal levels for all infantry types, simulating the growing number of automatic weapons per squad.

- thus the way I see it increasing infantry firepower in WWII-era was mostly due the slowly increasing percentage of more modern automatic weapons in frontline units. Despite this development most common infantrymen indeed still through the WII with similar bolt-action rifles their fathers had used in Great War.

Black Guardian wrote:I think 4 years of time covers the period (and especially the CW-period) much more accurately, with the dates/models:
1935-1939-1943-1947-1951 etc. Furthermore, Service Weapons should also include Grenades of course, to have a good justification for CW-developments, where rifles were not designed every 4 years

I agree, it sounds good and reasonable.

Karelian wrote:
Infantry Service Weapons:Small arms from Great War-era bolt-action rifles to latest composite-material assault rifles. Will update soft attack of all infantry units but initially with varied stats giving initially more soft attack to Mtn, Mech, Mot, Mar, Para than to Inf, Eng, Gar, Cav and Mil due the fact that better weapons were initially more widely used by these types of units. Later levels of this tech will gradually bring the benefits of this tech to equal levels for all infantry types, simulating the growing number of automatic weapons per squad. This tech will also raise supply demand a little bit during the WWII era as troops equipped with automatic weapons consume more ammo.

Machine Guns:Different heavier infantry automatic weapons from Great War-era LMGs through WWII-era machine guns to GPMGs and smaller cartridge-SAWs. Stats-wise similar distribution of bonus between unit types than in Infantry service weapons.

Lets focus on those first for the further discussion of the Infantry-part.
The new research-problem brings the problem that we probably cannot change the distribution of stats within one tech-line, as this line has a pre-set linear slope - with every level of increase, the unit-stats increase by this same slope.

It has to be tested wether the limit = { } command works within technologies as well, but then again, I do not set high hopes, as other event-commands don´t work with tech either (which is a big weakness for this field, imo)

So, we probably need another technology that is unlocked by the advance of the other 2 techs and increases the stats for the less prioritized infantry & co later on. Something like "Infantry Squad Restructuring" which will give minor benefits to the more advanced troops and higher benefits for the less prioritized troops (the inverse increase of the Small-arms & MG-techs, with substential time-difference in between)

Apart from that, the already mentioned Cartridge-Ammo and High Velocity-Ammo will give a one-time boost for all units - this is probably a point where we don´t have to be too distinctive regarding units, especially if we don´t want another redundant tech.

So, the following historical-year-proposals:

1935-1939-1943-1947-1951-1955-1959... for Small Arms
1934-1938-1942-1946-1950-1954-1958... for MG (to keep the 4 year-cadence here as well)

1937-1941-1945-1949-1953-1957-1961... for Infantry Squad Restructuring

Apart from that, I suggest higher difficulty for infantry-weapons and a higher research-bonus from combat experience (otherwise Assault Rifles would never have been developed; maybe even as a requirement for a certain level of small arms technology?)

So far for this part of the branch?

Black Guardian wrote:

Lets focus on those first for the further discussion of the Infantry-part.
The new research-problem brings the problem that we probably cannot change the distribution of stats within one tech-line, as this line has a pre-set linear slope - with every level of increase, the unit-stats increase by this same slope.

It has to be tested wether the limit = { } command works within technologies as well, but then again, I do not set high hopes, as other event-commands don´t work with tech either (which is a big weakness for this field, imo)

Hopefully a weakness that could be addressed in the future patches. But as always, we make do what we have.

Black Guardian wrote:So, we probably need another technology that is unlocked by the advance of the other 2 techs and increases the stats for the less prioritized infantry & co later on. Something like "Infantry Squad Restructuring" which will give minor benefits to the more advanced troops and higher benefits for the less prioritized troops (the inverse increase of the Small-arms & MG-techs, with substential time-difference in between)

I like the idea of "trinity" of techs, but for naming purposes this might be a logical place to include tactical research since equipment and tactics tented to evolve in tandem.
Perhaps something like this?

Code:


Service Weapons * Machineguns        Indirect Fire Support * Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons              Infantry Gear and Specialized equipment
      Small unit tactics                          Battalion reorganization


So, the following historical-year-proposals:

Black Guardian wrote:1935-1939-1943-1947-1951-1955-1959... for Small Arms
1934-1938-1942-1946-1950-1954-1958... for MG (to keep the 4 year-cadence here as well)

1937-1941-1945-1949-1953-1957-1961... for Infantry Squad Restructuring

Will do - although we can easily increase the historical year difference for equipment much, much more. Practically every country involved to WWII essentially fought it through with basically the same main types of weapons, whereas development of tactics and the organization (how many LMG:s and SMG:s per squad, how many MMG:s per battalion and so on) was much quicker. The Commonwealth countries are a prime example of this. Their primary LMG, Bren, was taken to service in 1938 and the first project to replace it with Taden came only in 1951. Vickers MMGs were used through the war up to 1968, while Rifle, No. 4 Mk I was essentially the same Great War-vintage Lee-Enfield as well. Same goes with Germany - essentially they had one bolt-action rifle, one SMG, one assault rifle and two GPMG:s as their main domestic weapons. We should adapt the timing of our techs accordingly.

Karelian wrote:

I like the idea of "trinity" of techs, but for naming purposes this might be a logical place to include tactical research since equipment and tactics tented to evolve in tandem.
Perhaps something like this?

Service Weapons * Machineguns Indirect Fire Support * Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons Infantry Gear and Specialized equipment
Small unit tactics Battalion reorganization


So, the following historical-year-proposals:

Black Guardian wrote:1935-1939-1943-1947-1951-1955-1959... for Small Arms
1934-1938-1942-1946-1950-1954-1958... for MG (to keep the 4 year-cadence here as well)

1937-1941-1945-1949-1953-1957-1961... for Infantry Squad Restructuring

Will do - although we can easily increase the historical year difference for equipment much, much more. Practically every country involved to WWII essentially fought it through with basically the same main types of weapons, whereas development of tactics and the organization (how many LMG:s and SMG:s per squad, how many MMG:s per battalion and so on) was much quicker. The Commonwealth countries are a prime example of this. Their primary LMG, Bren, was taken to service in 1938 and the first project to replace it with Taden came only in 1951. Vickers MMGs were used through the war up to 1968, while Rifle, No. 4 Mk I was essentially the same Great War-vintage Lee-Enfield as well. Same goes with Germany - essentially they had one bolt-action rifle, one SMG, one assault rifle and two GPMG:s as their main domestic weapons. We should adapt the timing of our techs accordingly.

Well, thats a good extension of the original idea - tactical evolution is an important part that played a major role in the way the war was fought - I mean, with better communication and experience a WW2-style warfare could probably have been possible in WW1 as well. But it took the General staff this bitter lesson to learn how they have to organize things...

So, I can easily accept your proposal of focussing the entire Infantry-techtree more on the tactical-unit-composition perspective than on real technological advance in weaponry, which was much slower.

Nevertheless, I think we can stick with the 4 years, at least for Small Arms, as those made the quickest development within the war and as I pointed out, fit with the reality quite well - then we´ll have to think about what will happen in the Cold War timeframe, when Small Arms development slowed down significantly...

For MGs we can probably increase the historical year offset, as you said. Not only British Weapon tend to prove this tendency, also the famous German MG42 was almost a perfected weapon - even the modern MG of the Bundeswehr uses a model based on this design (well, they lowered the shot-cadence, but this feature is easily removable in case of war), as well as many other armies in the world. It had some modifications during the last 70 years but the basic mechanism has remained the same.
So, we can easily increase MG-historical dates to 10 years or even 15, point out that these are the real technological developments, while giving the Tactical and organizational techs a much lower offset, like the 2 or 3 years many Hoi3 techs have.

The other good feature from this is the fact that my earlier research regarding battalion-level organization reforms won´t be wasted

Here we go, the plan for revised infantry tech tree. It´s bit crowded-looking but still within acceptable limits in my opinion.

The outlines mostly follow the early ideas we had, I only added another two techs for Great War-era medium machine guns (Maxim and the like) and GPMGs.

Comments and questions, go ahead.

Karelian, do you want me to add those techs in game?

I started putting in game, I will rearrange it a bit.

EDIT: Almost finished, only need to add x and y position numbers

Thaegen wrote:Karelian, do you want me to add those techs in game?

I started putting in game, I will rearrange it a bit.

EDIT: Almost finished, only need to add x and y position numbers

Now that is fast indeed
Do keep it up please, once we have the reworked layout we can focus on the content of these techs.