Development Diary #7 - 26th of November 2008

[Mork]

Couldn't the cost be balanced out with artillery consuming more supplies than a standard infantry? Thus making it a material battle. And if I think I know what I am talking about, most people cannot trade good A to another country for good B. You would have to purchase good B from the country with cash.

Meaning a nation with oil problems would have to manage their resources much closer and limit the amount of extraneous supply consuming 'brigades' they are using.

Or some other analogy to make arty more balanced. Since you need shells to fire the damn things!

Well, yes. IC/supply/oil cost would balance it out for those countries that have to fight on huge front lines (Germany and the USSR comes to mind).
So, in the end, it helps those countries that have little manpower but a lot of IC/resources (Germany, and they still have to seriously balance the oil consumption, though this shouldn't be a problem for infantry-artillery as they only use supplies) and countries that have a small front and enough IC/resources (all of the allies pretty much but especially the US).

One thing, we don't know the cost yet, and artillery could have a serious leadership cost, which would again hamper it's use a lot. Also, more divisions = less leadership to use for other things like research, so having a small width could be a curse in disguise.
It really depends on how well it's all balanced.

[Exterous]

This division creation system has me ridiculously excited for the game - if only it weren't so far away

[dublish]

Nope, as they don't increase the width, you'd still end up with more strength/assaultdirection, just dispersed between more divisions.

4 Strength 6000 divisions with a width of 1 beats 1 strength 12000 division with a width of 4. That's double the strength, and probably many times the attack rating, with the same width.

Of course, if the cost is balanced, the problem will only emerge in places where two IC heavy forces meet with a small front. the French border of in northern Africa comes to mind. That does depend on the actual map, of course.
And it's only for attack.

I wouldn't be surprised that a force more expensive in terms of manpower, IC, time, and leadership would beat a cheaper one. Why wouldn't 4 INF brigades and 12 Arty battalions be expected to defeat 4 INF brigades? I'd be more interested in a fight between your four divisions and a MP-equivalent infantry force, i.e. two of the 12k divisions you described. My two divisions don't suffer as much of a space ratio penalty since they cover twice as much of the front as your four (or, if the province's frontage is just a measly 4, I have reserves to throw in once my original force is beaten). As you say, it depends on how things are balanced.

I now have a lot of questions regarding the use of support units in battle. In HoI2, the attachments didn't provide any additional strength, so once the main unit was destroyed/defeated, the attachment wouldn't fight either. Will HoI3 be the same? That is, if the INF component of the 1INF/3Arty division you describe above is sufficiently beaten to stop fighting, will it take the Arty with it? Or will the Arty keep fighting without a frontline unit between it and the enemy? Will we even be able to build divisions with more support elements than maneuver elements?

[Mork]

Good questions. I guess time (or Johan/King) will tell.

[dec152000]

Hi,

One thing I'd very much like to see would be the ability to apply less that a full "brigade" of the components. Historicaly there were a lot of significant battalion level components in divisions. Common examples would be tank and AT battalions that were found in many standard TO&E.

mm

[blwizard]

Oh my god, the interface is sooo neat and clean! I'm impressed!

[Battlecry]

Hi,

One thing I'd very much like to see would be the ability to apply less that a full "brigade" of the components. Historicaly there were a lot of significant battalion level components in divisions. Common examples would be tank and AT battalions that were found in many standard TO&E.

mm

It certainly seems as if 11 of the listed brigade types are battalions in terms of size (1,000 men). So we'll see if they're described as such ingame (notice we haven't actually seen the word "brigade" applied to anything - so it may be that the battalion-sized components are/will be called battalions). Although a dev (King, I believe) stated that "brigades will be the building blocks of divisions" this doesn't mean they'll be the only blocks, just the main ones.

[mbb]

Why should an AA brigade have a movement of 0? AA brigades for divisions had inherent trucks/horses for movement. Of course, static AA didn't have those trucks or horses, they didn't need to move around like divisional AA would
I guess PI's solution isn't that bad after all

Too bad, since they both use the same equipment. Germany wouldn't have kept all those Flak batteries sitting in Germany if there weren't any Allied bombers to shoot at...

I was likening a single AA brigaded division to the HOI II GAR unit.

But - I am guessing here - one reason why luftwaffe units were deployed to garrison France is precisely because they brought with them AA in their formations.

But it would also imply that any ground unit that had an AA capability should really actively engage air units whether or not they are being directly attacked the the air units. Hmm...that didn't happen in HOI II and it is starting to get complicated.

OTH, your last point is good. If AA does still work like HOI II, then it would be nice to be able to tear down the provincial AA batteries or reassign them to new provinces. But then to make sense AA would have to put a load on the economy just like any other unit in play.

[Richardson]

Either islands will have the same frontage as all other provinces (likely) and the system of max efficiency with 3 attacking divisions will still be in play, or the frontage will be based on the size of the island (and/or its beach quality).

I would like to see islands consisting of minimum of 2 provinces. That way you could establish a beachead and then keep on fighting with the rest of the enemies.
Also divisions cornered to a shore province should automatically retreat to TP's if there are some in the province. Maybe with severe strength loss?

[Beakmiester]

Cheaters, the lot of them.

Simple fix to this problem. Paradox only need to put a restriction on the number of support brigades per division.

i.e. each support brigade must have an associated front line brigade

one infantry brigade - one supporting artillery brigade
one armoured brigade - one supporting SPA brigade

[Velko]

May I just say that I love this?

[hildoceras]

I'm not so sure - I think its 270 for that particular combo as the Armoured Car brigades take much longer (270 days infact). If the division were just infantry brigades then I think it would be 95 days.

yeah

I hope we'll be still able to build separately brigades and core division, that'll cut in the production delay

[peo]

I certainly hope there will be a function that makes such a composition worthless due to lack of proper infantry support

Ok, exchange two of the armoured divisions for mech inf. Then the problem becomes will mech inf be available from the start? Or will it work like in the earlier iterations.

Sure you can build new division with the new stuff but then you loose experience (if that still has an influence on divisions etc)

[unorthodoxt]

Simple fix to this problem. Paradox only need to put a restriction on the number of support brigades per division.

i.e. each support brigade must have an associated front line brigade

one infantry brigade - one supporting artillery brigade
one armoured brigade - one supporting SPA brigade

Why do that? I mean at points in the war the USSR had an absolutly massive amount of artillery on their frontage. Dwarfing the Germans and pretty much dooming any action (offensive or defensive) to be nothing but one hell of a bad day.

And Johan also said they would be doing nothing to protect us from our own stupidity. Super Heavy and Cavalry divisions w/MPs to clean up the poop and carry the extra gas here we come!!!!

[praxiteles]

For easy referencing

Summarized from previous posts:

1. Strength
2. Unknown yet, probably something to do with new command system)
3. Frontage
4. Soft attack
5. Hard attack
6. Air attack
7. Defensiveness (on defense)
8. Toughness (on attack)
9. Air defence
10. Speed
11. Leadership (a cost, taking away from the leadership pool? Just a guess)
12. Supply consumption
13. Oil consumption
14. Ic cost
15. Manpower
16. Building time

can 11 be suppression?

[unorthodoxt]

It could be, but I think leadership is more likely, mainly because it is a new feature.

I do wonder how they are going to model revolt risk.

I also thought the RR in HoI2 was far too low in places. And far to easy to handle with GAR+MP and roving CAV that you just happen to start with.

[hansnery]

I think number 2 is organization, Victoria use the same symbol for it.

[mlepkows]

I'm curious how the final unit attributes are computed. Now it looks like straight add-up with bonus 1 in some places. Also, "little" brigades (ACs) seem not to contribute to final width. I seriously hope that it's not final, because since when (example) 3 brigades have more Air Defense than 2? As Defence stats defined ability to resist, that's kind of weird. That would also mean there's no bonus for certain combinations, just straight sum - just like in the old system.

Maciek

[Modestus]

Right just trying to gather the information so far and to display it graphically .

What I now see is a system like below where the number of and the type of Brigade determines the Combat width of a division.

This then determines the amount of divisions that can deploy in the front line which is determined by and I am not sure but I assume the terrain.

[IMG] [/IMG]


[IMG] [/IMG]



The strange thing even though the Armor division can not deploy to the front line in the second example it cannot act as a reserve either?

[Registered]

I'm curious how the final unit attributes are computed. Now it looks like straight add-up with bonus 1 in some places. Also, "little" brigades (ACs) seem not to contribute to final width. I seriously hope that it's not final, because since when (example) 3 brigades have more Air Defense than 2? As Defence stats defined ability to resist, that's kind of weird. That would also mean there's no bonus for certain combinations, just straight sum - just like in the old system.

Maciek

Support Brigades, like artillery, add no combat width to a division, while primary brigades, like infantry, increase the combat width.

So i think we can say it will be in the final. It makes sense too, an artillery brigade would have fewer people in it then an infantry brigade.