Why do Euro's always say "malus" instead of "penalty"? I've never heard malus used in English except in legal matters.
(Yes I understand it's Latin and I know what it means)
(Yes I understand it's Latin and I know what it means)
-
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.
Isn't that what the penalty is ? It says a positioning malus i.e. Not every ship will get into the battle.
I may be misunderstanding things mind.
Why should they be weaker?
There's not a a single example from WW1 or 2 I'm aware of which supports the notion of, everything else being equal, smaller fleets having any kid of gross fighting advantage over larger ones, on the contrary more always seem to be better.
Super stacking fleets should not be prevented by applying completely unrealistic penalties.
If someone supports stacking penalty thing plz provide prove that this idea is right. Someone told above that a fleet of 10 BBs can spot fleet of 30 earlier and then have more time to prepare. No comments.
So plz provide a tactical map for 1900-1945 naval battle where big fleet had Real problem because of stacking penalty when fought 3 times smaller fleet.
Huge stacking penalties is a mistake which is made to solve combat modelling mistake. We had 1 mistake and now instead of 0 we will have 2
So plz provide a tactical map for 1900-1945 naval battle where big fleet had Real problem because of stacking penalty when fought 3 times smaller fleet.
Huge stacking penalties is a mistake which is made to solve combat modelling mistake. We had 1 mistake and now instead of 0 we will have 2
30 BBs will crush 10 BBs What stacking penalties? This stacking penalties would mean that 30 BBs would not be able to operate at all. Cant you see?
Please cool down a bit. Noone is saying that 30 vs. 10 won't end with distruction of those 10. It is just you need to model the deminishing marginal effectiveness somehow. 1 fleet of 30 ships just doesn't have the same strength as 3 fleets of 10 ships.
Why it cant be solved in naval combat model? Why should we have that ugly stcking penalties?
With that stacking penalties
30 BBs wont be able to pursuit 10 BBs
every of 30 BBs would have attack = 2 when every of 10 BBs would have attack = 10.
This is completely wrong. Model how ships are advancing each other. Make 10 BBs fleet to avoid engagement with 30 BBs fleet. Why to make a 2nd mistake?
Which is only true in a vacuum, most major WW2 fleet engagements saw other intelligence gathering preceding the actual contact being a much more decisive factor than which fleet actually eyeballed the other one first.
Where do you get your numbers from? Why there couldn't be pursuit (I guess that is what you ment)?
Do you remember how stacking penalties are made now? Why do you think it will be in another way? The more ships you have in a fleet the lower stats you have for them.
It should be solved in a combat model. And 10 BBs must not engage 30 BBs at all by their own will.
It's also a perfectly acceptable English word, just it's not used very often, it shouldn't appear more out of place than the word "bonus"
There's not an answer yet so I too am wondering about the new darker font, it does look much clearer, or is that just for ease of use in the debug mode?
Ive played HOI3 extensively on my family computer but I've yet to buy it myself, looking forward to do that with Semper Fi. A question though, is there any new AI concerning a distribution of US forces to the Pacific, so there isn't a steamrolling of Germany in Europe, and at the same time they make progress in Pacific island-hopping?
AFAIK stacking penalties influence defense and attack modifiers and positioning. Not speed. But I yet didn't study combat mechanics very deeply.
Because some form of stacking penalty for large military forces reflects reality for just about any kind of military engagement? Dogpiling just doesn't work (computer RTS games not withstanding) - on land, at sea or in the air - in real warfare.
Modelling this as a positioning penalty (i.e. a lower chance for each ship to engage in any "turn") seems pretty reasonable, to me. As for 30 BBs slaughtering 10 - yeah, probably, if the ten obligingly line themselves up to be shot at. But they won't - and the positioning benefits of having more flexible, manoeuvreable units reflects that.
If Jutland proved one thing, from the RN perspective, it was that such engagements were a huge, largely ineffectual waste of ships, men, money and time. Neither fleet was destroyed, but the German High Seas Fleet never ventured out again - probably because they came to much the same conclusion.
I agree with you about the timescale... but if it's going to be any realistic naval battles you can have the first 4-5 hour in positioning each side at a distance than the commander of each fleet should take decision to engage or disengage. If the AI commander decide to disengage than there should be a possibility to surprise other side or there will not be any shooting.
If both side decide to engage the shooting start and the human player shouldn't be able to pull out it's fleet before say 8 hour from the battle start, that give you at leas 3-4 hours of fight.
Captain Jack
The diary implies its a new system.
So it seems that the only penalty now is positioning. Sounds reasonable to me.
While the word "malus" may be grammatically correct, it still isn't exactly "acceptable." Something has to be widely well known and use to be considered "acceptable."
You're guilty of the ought/is fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy: just because one Latin phrase is common in English then all of them should be.
I think there should be some stacking penalties especially early war when communications and doctrines weren't very good. 20 BBs simply could not operate as efficiently as 10 BBs... although giving the 20 BBs lower combat effectiveness than the 10 BBs is not right either.
Really it should be that positioning determines more of the battle. That is where screens come in... if you have a large fleet of capitols with not many screens they would get poor positioning and likely not many of those capitols are able to participate in the battle. The larger the fleet there is a penalty to positioning regardless of screening ratio.
Large fleets have much more firepower true, but also not able to bring all that firepower to bear, especially as a smaller fleet is more aware of the presence of a larger fleet and can choose to engage or not- thus having more initiative effectively.
Although just because 10 ship fleet has 20% positioning bonus over a 30 ship fleet doesn't mean 10 ships fight at 100% while 30 ships fight at 50%. It would be more that due to positioning malus only 15 ships of the 30 ship fleet enter the battle and if hull sized is used fight at 88% effectiveness. Which would mean 10 ships fighting the effectiveness of 13.2 which would still give the larger fleet almost 30% advantage even after positioning is figured though if the 15 ships entering the battle had less favorable positioning it might be not the best 15 ships of the fleet. If 10 CL and 4 CA 1 BB vs 5 modern CL and BB the smaller fleet still has advantage.
In most battles from historical example large fleets are divided into task forces for specific functions. In the wide space of an ocean if enemy is engaged only a certain part of the task forces would be able to arrive in time to affect the battle.
The hardest part to me would be how to choose which ships participate in the battle. For attackers it should be determined by speed or sea attack while defenders its random(defenders are the fleet with less positioning= initiative even if they were the ones entered the sea zone to oppose the enemy fleet). Also if overall speed of a fleet and a naval stance affected positioning that would probably be the final part needed to at least re-create something historically plausible and fun. A cautious stance would mean positioning bonus but a smaller fleet withdraws. So even if your fleet is in an advantage position because it is smaller it withdraws. Aggressive stance is slight positioning malus but the ships will always pursue and if the screen ratio, fleet speed, commander, and doctrines are enough to provide higher positioning can engage even a smaller enemy fleet with stance cautious. So smaller, well screened fleets with best commanders would be ideal in seeking to win naval supremacy but there are still some advantages to larger fleets especially if like UK there is a large amount of older BB etc where winning each battle isn't as important as making the enemy fleets flee.
This way you never really know for sure the outcomes and there is no perfect fleet composition. It depends on the enemy fleet and commanders your fleet meets. 30 ship fleet is powerful but between poor positioning, some stacking penalties(reduced by doctrines/techs), and likely some older ships = overall slower average fleet speed kind of useless if every fleet it meets can run away or gets such a positioning bonus only 15 or less of your 30 ships ever fights in a single battle. For crossing the Pacific to do a sea invasion though 30 ships might still be fine because to stop you the smaller enemy fleets have to engage and even if only 15 of your ships enter battle... your large fleet might be able to fight 3-4 battles without being worried about turning around to heal.
Really it should be that positioning determines more of the battle. That is where screens come in... if you have a large fleet of capitols with not many screens they would get poor positioning and likely not many of those capitols are able to participate in the battle. The larger the fleet there is a penalty to positioning regardless of screening ratio.
Large fleets have much more firepower true, but also not able to bring all that firepower to bear, especially as a smaller fleet is more aware of the presence of a larger fleet and can choose to engage or not- thus having more initiative effectively.
Although just because 10 ship fleet has 20% positioning bonus over a 30 ship fleet doesn't mean 10 ships fight at 100% while 30 ships fight at 50%. It would be more that due to positioning malus only 15 ships of the 30 ship fleet enter the battle and if hull sized is used fight at 88% effectiveness. Which would mean 10 ships fighting the effectiveness of 13.2 which would still give the larger fleet almost 30% advantage even after positioning is figured though if the 15 ships entering the battle had less favorable positioning it might be not the best 15 ships of the fleet. If 10 CL and 4 CA 1 BB vs 5 modern CL and BB the smaller fleet still has advantage.
In most battles from historical example large fleets are divided into task forces for specific functions. In the wide space of an ocean if enemy is engaged only a certain part of the task forces would be able to arrive in time to affect the battle.
The hardest part to me would be how to choose which ships participate in the battle. For attackers it should be determined by speed or sea attack while defenders its random(defenders are the fleet with less positioning= initiative even if they were the ones entered the sea zone to oppose the enemy fleet). Also if overall speed of a fleet and a naval stance affected positioning that would probably be the final part needed to at least re-create something historically plausible and fun. A cautious stance would mean positioning bonus but a smaller fleet withdraws. So even if your fleet is in an advantage position because it is smaller it withdraws. Aggressive stance is slight positioning malus but the ships will always pursue and if the screen ratio, fleet speed, commander, and doctrines are enough to provide higher positioning can engage even a smaller enemy fleet with stance cautious. So smaller, well screened fleets with best commanders would be ideal in seeking to win naval supremacy but there are still some advantages to larger fleets especially if like UK there is a large amount of older BB etc where winning each battle isn't as important as making the enemy fleets flee.
This way you never really know for sure the outcomes and there is no perfect fleet composition. It depends on the enemy fleet and commanders your fleet meets. 30 ship fleet is powerful but between poor positioning, some stacking penalties(reduced by doctrines/techs), and likely some older ships = overall slower average fleet speed kind of useless if every fleet it meets can run away or gets such a positioning bonus only 15 or less of your 30 ships ever fights in a single battle. For crossing the Pacific to do a sea invasion though 30 ships might still be fine because to stop you the smaller enemy fleets have to engage and even if only 15 of your ships enter battle... your large fleet might be able to fight 3-4 battles without being worried about turning around to heal.
Last edited:
Indeed - what Doomdark actually said was "Fleets now get a positioning malus for every point of hull size above a certain limit, mitigated by commander skill."
Hi VetMax,
First of all, let me compliment you on working so hard to engage in an English forum. Assuming you are Russian (Moscow), your English is much better than my Russian.
Second, I agree with you IN PRINCIPLE. The problem is, there is no way to do it without a massive rebuild of the entire combat model, which is simply unrealistic (for HOI3 - HOI4 maybe?). It's not going to happen. This is a game, not a lifestyle. Your ideal is spot on, but it's also outside the scope of the game.
Third, having waded through this same discussion in HoI1 and HOI2, I consider the stacking compromise to be the least of all evils. You asked for an example from WW2. Well, Halsey's huge fleet at Leyte Gulf was very nearly hammered because of the enormous difficulty of coordinating it. They fell for a tactical Japanese ruse and nearly paid a heavy price. The more units you are trying to coordinate, the poorer their individual performance will be. The Battle of Leyte Gulf is the only WW2 example of a "30 BB" fleet I can think of. In the game, people make naval stacks that never happened in real life because of the difficulty of coordinating/fueling/maintaining them. Those difficulties can't be modeled at this scale of game, so we settle for the reduction in efficiency stacking compromise.
Hope this helps.
