Regarding artillery, in Arsenal Of Democracy there was an order to bombard the enemy with artillery. I think this should be implemented as the way to use these weapons.
-
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.
The 88 Flak, 90mm M1/M2/M3, Cannone da 90/53 all fit in the same category of an extremely versatile and effective weapon. All were capable of a 360 degree traverse, all were very light for the diameter of their shell and velocity. All matched the mid war AT guns but cost more to produce as they had more sophisticated mechanisms. The British also had the QF 3.7 inch AA gun which was similar but not quite as mobile.
The main difference in their usage of the other guns over the 88 seemed to be doctrinal.
It really suggest that there should be a tech for this type of weapon that should be worse than artillery, better than an AT gun when it can first be researched, and match an AA gun but it should not progress with techs, and be slightly more expensive. This gives an extra-ordinarily useful gun that will become obsolete to the more specialized AA and AT by mid to late war but will still be useful due to its versatility.
The main difference in their usage of the other guns over the 88 seemed to be doctrinal.
It really suggest that there should be a tech for this type of weapon that should be worse than artillery, better than an AT gun when it can first be researched, and match an AA gun but it should not progress with techs, and be slightly more expensive. This gives an extra-ordinarily useful gun that will become obsolete to the more specialized AA and AT by mid to late war but will still be useful due to its versatility.
It´s a good option. In the end however, what really matters is that not only due to historical, but also gameplay reasons, 3 infantry with 1 artillery shouldn´t be the only infantry template used. Creating a versatile new brigade like you suggested, buffing AT and AA - either way, something should be changed.
I do, in line infantry divisions when facing an enemy with a large number of CAS and TACs. They significantly reduce your manpower losses due to air attacks.
2 x INF / 2 x ART
2 x INF / 1 x ART / 1 x AA
2 x INF / 1 x ART / 1 x AT
are all perfectly viable alternatives.
Single player doesn´t count. I never use AA simply because my interceptors shoot down bombers. Simple.
Why not? It's also equally valid in MP. Don't be so arrogant.
And what about the times when your interceptors don't shoot them down and you take 3 times the casualties because you have no AA?
I like hte ideas of what's out there. So, if I'm understanding this right:
HA/SA and the defensive stats indicates the quantity of guns/protective vehicles, while Piercing would indicate the quality of those guns, and Armour, again, the quality of the armoured vehicles being involved?
I like it.
HA/SA and the defensive stats indicates the quantity of guns/protective vehicles, while Piercing would indicate the quality of those guns, and Armour, again, the quality of the armoured vehicles being involved?
I like it.
Maybe it is wise to not introduce the ahistorical formations, and then attempt to make them usefull by giving them ahistoric stats?
AT and AA were useless because they are too big and too narrow-purposed, not because they lacked Pen or some other sort of thing
Also, now that TDs have their own distinctiv role would you introduce AGs? After all, they were as numerous as heavy tanks, and the absence of them, but existance of Super heavy tanks looks like a slap in the face. They could have problems of tossing TDs out, but now since that is out of the way, maybe PI can look at it again?
Like:
Germans: StuG3 Ausf. B->Stug3 Ausf.D->StuIG_33B->Sturmpanzer IV Brummbär-> Sturmtiger,
Soviets: SU-76->SU-122->SU-152->ISU-152.
After all, soviets produced about:
SU-76=14k
SU-122=1,150
SU-152=671
ISU-152= 4,635
That is about as many as heavy tanks of all sides involved put together.
Last edited:
It isn´t a matter of being arrogant. If you need AA you failed at using radar and researching doctrines and up-to-date planes, period. Any major apart from France can get air supremacy because of the way the AI uses its wings; they deploy them piece-meal. And if it´s minor vs major, the last priority is AA instead of better ground troops. And no one uses AA in MP, it´s fact. Get your facts straight before being so smug.
Last edited:
Blast! This was supposed to be the first add-on I would take a pass on. It simply seemed to be underwhelming and lacking awesome features. Scratch that, this DD is worth the money!
And no one is using another units than paratroopers and transports in SP "Mr. I know everything, and I don't care about your opinion":>?
AA is a fantastic complement to your INF div, they also help our airforce to win airsupremacy. 
not sure if trolls,..AA is a fantastic complement to your INF div, they also help our airforce to win airsupremacy.
Here's the post by Darkrenown answering someone that asked if combat tactics and/or armor piercing was for naval units also:
I think that combined arms should be something the division gets a bonus for when properly
assembled but it would not get the full value til it reached a certain expierence. I have been
reading heavily lately on German, US, and UK with forces having to learn to propery use CA not
just have the equipment for it. Sometimes they need to learn it twice! LOL!
assembled but it would not get the full value til it reached a certain expierence. I have been
reading heavily lately on German, US, and UK with forces having to learn to propery use CA not
just have the equipment for it. Sometimes they need to learn it twice! LOL!
Yes, that´s exactly what it means, and i suspect it´s entirely wot, ahem, wad, i mean... ;P
I for one welcome the changes to the armor and pericing values. TD was AT were so underused that everyone just spammed Inf and Arty.
Hopefully now we'll see more HA as well.
Hopefully now we'll see more HA as well.
Saying that the sky is blue because angels painted it is an opinion. Doesn´t mean it´s accurate. If you think my opinion is wrong then prove it with facts. Everything I state, I state based on my experience with the game and facts. And I have enough experience to know what useless and what´s not. How can I agree with someone saying AA is good with every major, if when I play I never need it?
But go ahead, put AA brigade with every division in every province in a MP game (because if you don´t put it all around, guess what happens? Planes go to a different place) with a decent oponent, and tell me what happens.
Although not perfect, these changes appear to be a great improvement that will add diversity to the divisional structures we will see in the future. With HA representing the number of guns and Piercing representing their ability to penetrate, this will definitely be a good addition. This is a game modeling strategic warfare. The best out there. I do not expect, or even want, the devs to model every single exception out there. This game spans over 10 years and covers the entire globe!
One last thing though for thought: The game really needs a decent overhaul to the naval combat situation. I realize historically it was very difficult to destroy carriers. In HOI it should be as well. IF the player is using them carefully. However, the way the game is currently set up, a well built carrier force can be used very aggressively, even with abandon. A strong group of land based naval bombers and INTs should be able to shred one of these groups. Who knows, even sink a carrier. :blush: Just a thought.
One last thing though for thought: The game really needs a decent overhaul to the naval combat situation. I realize historically it was very difficult to destroy carriers. In HOI it should be as well. IF the player is using them carefully. However, the way the game is currently set up, a well built carrier force can be used very aggressively, even with abandon. A strong group of land based naval bombers and INTs should be able to shred one of these groups. Who knows, even sink a carrier. :blush: Just a thought.
Last edited:
TDs were used before, and the new addition will not change the situation for AT drastically. You still have way more soft targets than hard, so it is better to have special, mobile anti armour divisions to counteract enemy armour, instead of equiping a large portion of you army with pretty useless (in fighting not armoured forces) brigades.
So, while Expancion does change the Tank dynamics, makes HA more usefull, and all that juzz, it doesn`t change the AT and TD dynamics, AT is still way to large on brigade scale to equip all your army with, and have the decent coverage, and too useless against nonsoft targets.
TDs were usefull, and were used before to counter enemy armour. While SA did an ok job versus armour, having determined strong HA divisions was still pretty usefull, and now, they become almost golden.