• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Excellent. Much appreciated Johan.
 
Mountains def should radically lower width, but same applies to jungle and hills, as I see in the province, but maybe normal plains width is around 18?
Development Diary 16 on land combat shows a plains with the combat width of 10 aswell, That's what makes me sad. I too think that mountains should be the most restrictive frontage IMHO.
Hope we can mod it.

The rest of it looks really nice however ^^
 
as an answer to Johan about the specials in the second screenshot i'd say there is one inf unit with a rifle, the other one has a machine gun and they got different helmets, wich could mean that inf sprites can now also show in little differences how advanced they are?
I must say i love the colours used in the terrain mode and how the trees seem to go over borders. the type-fonts in de province names are great too.

stars show wich command level they are i believe

Isn't it great, a HoI terrain finally as beautiful as Vicky.:)
 
I don't particularly see why any terrain type should have less or more frontage. Terrain effects are bonuses to efficiency, speed, etc. That's more than enough.

If anything, frontage should be affected by infrastructure rather than terrain.
 
I don't particularly see why any terrain type should have less or more frontage. Terrain effects are bonuses to efficiency, speed, etc. That's more than enough.

If anything, frontage should be affected by infrastructure rather than terrain.

Technology and Military Doctrine should also have some inpact on combat frontage. Also, urban areas should have a very high frontage.
 
I don't particularly see why any terrain type should have less or more frontage. Terrain effects are bonuses to efficiency, speed, etc. That's more than enough.

If anything, frontage should be affected by infrastructure rather than terrain.
Lets go through this simple example, what will help more front-line divisions attack alongside each other at the same time through a province?

A.) A road through the only mountain pass they are forced to go through.

or

B.) There are no mountains in the way, they can march side by side in a 50km wide line if they want to on the plains.

See my point?

By the way, infrastructure already affects speed and combat efficiency, if anything it should be terrain! (see what I did there?).
 
i c wut u did thar

But seriously...no roads=slower movement, no clear terrain=less soldiers able to fit in a given area effectively.
 
Lets go through this simple example, what will help more front-line divisions attack alongside each other at the same time through a province?

A.) A road through the only mountain pass they are forced to go through.

or

B.) There are no mountains in the way, they can march side by side in a 50km wide line if they want to on the plains.

See my point?

By the way, infrastructure already affects speed and combat efficiency, if anything it should be terrain! (see what I did there?).

You hardly have a point. I'll leave it to others to provide examples of where terrain is hilly or forested or whatever, yet troops were deployed on a wide frontage - there will be a billion. Infrastructure is a much more consistent limit - you can't move fast or far from the supply dumps.

Sadly I can't outargue you on empirical evidence because poor infrastructure and poor terrain, unsurprisingly, often coincide, so we'll have to call it a draw.
 
You know for an american, my geography skills are top notch......it wasnt my schooling, they taught diddly. All my knowledge has come from world war/world domination video games haha.
 
How come that the units fighting in screen No2 looks to be at full strength even thou the japs are loosing?

And why do the jap unit take up 3 width and 3 of the Aus units take up 8? is it training or leadership that modifies that?
 
Nice screenshots, however, now I am confused :wacko:

I thought the battle screen shows divisions, right? But why has the japanese infantry division a width of 3, when in the first sreenshot the brigades have a width of 3? Shouldn't the division have a width of 9 then?
 
How come that the units fighting in screen No2 looks to be at full strength even thou the japs are loosing?

And why do the jap unit take up 3 width and 3 of the Aus units take up 8? is it training or leadership that modifies that?

It is the total width of all three units. I assume that the militia has only a width of 2.
(i.e. inf + inf + mil; 3 + 3 + 2 = 8).

I am more confused by the fact that each unit has only such a low width (see my post above).
 
Nice screenshots, however, now I am confused :wacko:

I thought the battle screen shows divisions, right? But why has the japanese infantry division a width of 3, when in the first sreenshot the brigades have a width of 3? Shouldn't the division have a width of 9 then?
3,000 over the width symbol is the units strenght, which is 3000 per frontline brigade.
Everything we have seen on the division designer shows infantry & militia brigades have a width of 1.


Alexander Seil: I wasn't talking about forests or Hills, those can have the same frontage that plains do Imo, I was talking about very harsh terrain like mountains, rivers crossings and swamps/jungle.