2.04b ORG-gain changes - sufficient?

[Jazumir]

So it´s been a while and now seems like a good time for a verdict, so - question to the audience: Do you think, that the rule, implemented in 2.04b, saying that divisions moving into hostile lands dont regain ORG, is sufficient to balance the offensive against the defensive? If not, what -do you think- should be changed?

Here´s my 2 cents. As an indicator for this, i tend to look at three conflicts:
1. The spanish civil war (SCW)
2. Barbarossa (german attack on the soviet union)
3. China

1&3 are usually AI vs. AI for me (except my current game), but i did #2 two times by myself now (i am big boy, now ). And at least for 2&3 it seems, that the offensive side still carries the day in less than an hour, so to say. The SCW did never last very long for me either. So i think, the rule does not seem to suffice - IMHO units moving into enemy lands need to lose some org and i´d like to see this balanced cautiously (moving up in small increments until it fits) over the next few beta-patches. But i´d really like to hear your opinions and observations on this.

 

[Traks]

Honestly I have moved to 90% MP games now, which take slightly longer for conclusions.
Based on them, and 10% SP games, I'd agree that no org regain *slightly* increases time to win.
But as movement is much less than attack time, change is not big enough. As I understood making it into negative value is more tricky and "no org gain" was quick slap-on to existing problem. I suspect this point will be major selling point for next expansion of HOI3.

 

[Warspite_TW]

If not, what -do you think- should be changed?

Non-linear ORG regain is a much better option IMHO (a unit with very low org regain org faster then a unit with a high value) but I realise that it will be dificult to implement.

 

[Phönix]

Non-linear ORG regain is a much better option IMHO (a unit with very low org regain org faster then a unit with a high value) but I realise that it will be dificult to implement.

you mean like it was in hoi2? (I belive it was like that in hoi2, though cant say for sure, been a long long time...)

But frankly I belive that the org regain is not the key here, but more like harder impact of terrain and wether (i.e panzer should be nearly stoped in muddy wether and the russian winter should really kick down the german moral (org regain) while improving the russian one maybe (as they were happy that the wether gave them the edge).
also supplying troops that far away should become increasingly difficult, making blitzkrieg too far east impossible,
AND no troops deployment in the occupied provinces, that really is very exploitable.

Also, and most importantly, give russia a higher ic and MP, to reflect their huge buildup.
Again, the problem is not that the SU looses so many men in the east in the initial assault, that is historical, but that they were able to rebuild their army AND germany not able to properly supply their troops.

Maybe the winterequipment should be made a 42 tech (not 36) and nearly imposible to research it beofore that (somthing like an event needed to open it up for germany) while russia will have it already researched...
I hate that you can reasearch it in 36... heck many historians believe that if german would have properly been prepered for the winter, that they would have taken moskau in 41... wether true or not, it would have made an impact...

 

[JASGripen]

The 140% officer cap must be taken into account too, along the no org. regain while adv.

 

[unmerged(106255)]

I think:
- any unit on the move should have it's org normalise to 33% or so
- it needs to freeze in the winter for northern and eastern Europe, and perhaps northern China
- cold weather penalties should only apply for the attacker (the whole front should stop so the Russians and Chinese can build up and re-org their battered units)

 

[loki100]

this change came in the midst of my current game, and fortunately the saves are compatible so I carried on. Currently playing USSR and in the stage of driving the fascist beast back from the socialist motherland, my officer ratio (as it usually is if I'm playing the Soviets is just over 100% - I'm using the 39 scenario). Can't really say its making much of an impact. My offensives stop operationally for the same reason as before (start to outrun my supply, the German AI shifts forces in to fend off that axis of advance etc), I guess a few more units may fall to the rear to recover org than before but its not making a noticeable difference.

I'd agree with Jazumir that this needs to be introduced incrementally cause at some stage you'll be back to the HOI2 malus which I always felt worked but for the wrong reasons.

Since this comes up most often around a German attack on the USSR, I reckon a better place to look to sort that out is the effect and prevalence of mud. In effect, pretty consistently over the war both sides went onto the strategic defense in October and March due to these problems. So that needs perhaps a really large increase in org loss, esp for the attacker, massive supply delivery penalties. That will mean if the Germans haven't got the Soviets on the ropes by mid/late Oct, then the USSR will get 4-5 weeks to recover. A problem with the weather model is that its sort of ok at picking up the autumn mud but it takes no account of snow melt and thus the basic reason for the march-april mud.

 

[Jazumir]

I think:
- any unit on the move should have it's org normalise to 33% or so

I like the idea of having different ´normalize levels´. Could be used for strategic redeployment as well.
...

So most of you guys think the weather needs to have a stronger impact first and/or be modeled better, before the ORG-regain-issue can belanced, it seems so far.

 

[loki100]

I like the idea of having different ´normalize levels´. Could be used for strategic redeployment as well.
...

So most of you guys think the weather needs to have a stronger impact first and/or be modeled better, before the ORG-regain-issue can belanced, it seems so far.

I think so, if for no more than I don't find the on the ground part of the current weather system realistic (with respect to European Russia) & the main reason this comes up (usually with a call to return to the HOI2 model) is around how hard it is for an AI USSR to recover from a human German barbarossa. In effect you have two tools - use org loss &/or calibrate the weather model. Pref use both but with an eye for unintended effects etc.

 

[blue emu]

I would like to see units gain no ORG while moving into friendly provinces (unless retreating from combat), and actually lose ORG while moving into enemy-occupied provinces. Also, units retreating from combat should draw supply from the province that they are retreating TO, not from the province that they are retreating FROM. That prevents them from going out-of-supply as soon as the attacker takes the province that they were defending.

 

[jju_57]

Here's a big problem that these suggestions won't help. In RL the Germans attacked on Jun 22nd. They had a big delay at the end of August and when they restarted the mud then winter came into play. This we all know.

But in at least my games I start in April or early May. So I'm in Moscow by September at the latest. Winter and mud has no bearing on me.

If you change org regen rates then it hurts the initial thrust. But not to change it hurts the later fights. What really needs to be done is what some mods do. They have events that make winter a REAL impact. Yes I said I am in Moscow but even then the winter just hurts German troops to where I have to really fight to hold it. The second thing is that some mods add new units or IC/MP at certain points.

This would be a good thing. For human vs AI SU have an event that gives the SU tons of new units in a decent defensive position. This cna be based on a trigger where the Germans reach a certain point on the map. Other games used to always have these units present but were frozen in place till an enemy unit came within X miles of it. Something like this would work. These are fresh full strength full org units and forces the human attacker to once again deal with a large army.

 

[Slan]

But in at least my games I start in April or early May. So I'm in Moscow by September at the latest. Winter and mud has no bearing on me.

Maybe we should stop and think about this for a minute. Historically, the Soviet Union could rebuild its massive army, but it needed time to do that. In that, winter, the mud, the constantly changing objectives of the Wehrmacht and Lend-Lease all helped them. Is that really set into stone that if these factors are not present, the Soviet Union would still be able to rebuild after the initial losses? If the German period of success could last for two more months, it probably would have had a great impact on the outcome.

Again, the problem might be that we want the same outcome in different circumstances...

 

[No idea]

i would like to see units gain no org while moving into friendly provinces (unless retreating from combat), and actually lose org while moving into enemy-occupied provinces. Also, units retreating from combat should draw supply from the province that they are retreating to, not from the province that they are retreating from. That prevents them from going out-of-supply as soon as the attacker takes the province that they were defending.

this.

 

[jju_57]

Maybe we should stop and think about this for a minute. Historically, the Soviet Union could rebuild its massive army, but it needed time to do that. In that, winter, the mud, the constantly changing objectives of the Wehrmacht and Lend-Lease all helped them. Is that really set into stone that if these factors are not present, the Soviet Union would still be able to rebuild after the initial losses? If the German period of success could last for two more months, it probably would have had a great impact on the outcome.

Again, the problem might be that we want the same outcome in different circumstances...

Not the same outcome but the same possibility. The SU still had the men and prioduction to build those new divisions. The weather, Germans, and events gave then the time to do so. I would like to see those divisions and extra resources still produced or at least still capable of being there. If the Germans take Moscow in September the factories in the Urals and the troops from the east would still exist. They would still have reinforcements available in November through January. The only difference is that instead of the Germans being outside Moscow they would be in the city.

Right now the battle goes as follows. Germans destroy SU army near border. Germans have long march mostly unopposed to Moscow. No SU army ever appears to fight again as it is destroyed piecemeal as each single division is placed with zero org.

So if the SU could get new forces and if those new forces were full strenght and max org then a battle we will have.

Edit: I'm not opposed to the changes about losing org when you advance but a human can game that. The issue is there is no red army to fight anymore. BTW the easy way to game it is to have a nearly useless division that is very fast capture all the provinces ahead of you. This unit loses org. The rest of your real fighting divisions are now advancing into YOUR territory. So a human benefits and the poor German AI gets killed as they do most of the attacking.

And as I said these are all empty provinces as the SU doesn't have an army to fight with anyway.

Edit Number 2: ICE has or had an event that really hurt the Germans BIG time during the winter. Something like 70%+ org hit and tons of attrition. Basically you have next to zero supplies, very limited org and your units fight for crap. If the SU had an army I would have been in deep trouble. Problem was I defeated and destroyed the vast majority of their army so even with this benefit the SU winter did nothing more then stop me from advancing.

 

[No idea]

Maybe we should stop and think about this for a minute. Historically, the Soviet Union could rebuild its massive army, but it needed time to do that. In that, winter, the mud, the constantly changing objectives of the Wehrmacht and Lend-Lease all helped them. Is that really set into stone that if these factors are not present, the Soviet Union would still be able to rebuild after the initial losses? If the German period of success could last for two more months, it probably would have had a great impact on the outcome.

Again, the problem might be that we want the same outcome in different circumstances...

However, you have to recognize that nowadays the SU is STILL defeated by the AI 4 out of 5 times or more, and the SU is still a paper tiger for a player (at least starting early in the game). So, I think it´s clear SOMETHING has to be made to make the game more challenging. Perhaps making severe winter (like the russian ones) more severe for the attacker (aka, bigger attacking penalties) and, at the same time transforming the great patriotic war event into an event which gives a lot of new and well positioned units as well as org ragaining boosts will make it more challenging. The outcome of Barbarossa should not be written in stone, and now most times it is.

 

[Slan]

What percentage of the Soviet Industry was unreachable by the Germans, had they started their invasion in say April? From a quick check, there's a relatively significant industrial sector in Central Asia with about 30 IC (basically the capitals of the Post-Soviet Central Asian states), but about 60% of all Soviet IC is in Western Russia (this is from a HPP map, and I don't remember if it was changed from vanilla or not, so this might not be accurate). Suppose the attack was fast enough to prevent the relocation of the Heavy Industry (which took time, opposed to how it is represented in-game). Would they still be able to rebuild?

@No Idea: I believe that the result of Barbarossa (or any other campaign) should depend on the circumstances. The model should produce realistic results, meaning that if the Soviets have historical IC, and the Germans attack in June with historically sized armies against historically sized defences, and the German objectives are changed repeadetly, then the result should be the same. If enough of the parameters are changed, then the result should also change. Currently, the main points that should be improved on are the Soviet build plan (more, much more IC build-up in the early years!) and the effect of Winter. And I'm not talking about an artificial event/modifier either, the model should be good enough to give you the right results.

 

[Jazumir]

Please remember that this thread´s topic is meant to be game-mechanics, not Barbarossa. So, if there were SU-units magically appearing (which might make sense for a game only covering the european theater), how would that help china? Wanna do the same there?

No, i think, as Slan said it ´the model should be good enough to give you the right results´. A difference may be made between ´attacker´and ´defender´, say for weather effects, but not between ´germans´ and ´russians´ - not if everything else´s the same on both sides. The maximun would be an event or two granting MP or such - and that would already be a work-around kind-of-thing to me.

 

[jju_57]

Yes let units appear in China. Or anywhere for the AI. The problem that the SU faces and doesn't really happen in China is that the initial forces are destroyed. In my games as Japan things move slowly and there are forces defending right up till the very end. But in Barbarossa the initial SU force is wiped out as it was historically.

But here is where the game mechanics change things. Upon DOW the SU mobilizes. This has been improved but it still sometimes happens. What does this mean? The initial forces are weak in strength and org. They get pushed back as one German division can defeat 10 soviet. The mobilization takes a month and absorbs almost all the MP of the SU. So we now have a SU army fully mobilized with next to zero org and trapped in hugh pockets. Great use of MP there only to see it destoyed.

So the AI SU builds lots more units that takes 2-3 months to appear. By that time I'm in Moscow so the units appear and are placed on the front. But they have ZERO org due to being deployed. See the issue? The SU AI never has a chance to establish a secured defensive line with units that have org and MP. This is the critical flaw. So I'm suggesting that the units appear automatically by event. Why not? You can subtract some IC or do whatever but instead of appearing 2-3 divisions at a time with zero org you have 30-40 divisions with full org.

As for winter it needs to be an event. First off not all winters are the smae and why should Japan fighting in winter be hit as hard as the Germans in say '41? The Finnish did pretty well. Remember one of the reasons that the Germans got hit hard was because they did not have winter clothes and were out in the elements. I saw a documentary that showed infrared heat sources ont he German uniforms worn in '41 and '42 vs. what the Soviets were wearing. The difference was dramatic. By '43 their clothes were much better but it was too late. So this isn't based on weather persee but instead based on how ill prepared they were. Not to mention those fresh Soviet divisions that appeared out of nowhere.

 

[unmerged(106255)]

Strength in defense should be organic to the combat model, and not dependent on events and gifts to the AI. Perhaps newly placed divisions should start with something like 20% org - enough to defend itself with weather penalties , but also subject to the combat delay to negate movement exploits.

Also, IMO the reserve system should be done away with. Nothing but balance problems from the time the game was released. I modded it out of my game and the AI can mount a decent defense at the outset.

The way IC laws are handled could also be changed. For example, the axis beligerents could be capped at "war economy" until they lose a certain amount of national provinces, at which point they would get "total economic mobilisation". The US and Russia could get "total economic mobilisation" as soon as they go to war. This way the axis powers have along time to build up their forces at a middle IC setting. The allied powers are restrained by peacetime production penalties at the beginning of the game, and make a big comeback later on.

 

[Cybvep]

I think that weather (and terrain, but it's not so bad ATM) impact should be better modelled. Somebody mentioned an attack on the SU in Spring - it's rather unrealistic, because of the mud seasons which happen twice a year in the region. Combined with poor infrastructure, the situation can be as desperate as in this picture:

Back in HOI2 muddy terrain was a real obstacle in Spring and Autumn, but in HOI3 it's hardly noticeable. Moreover, neither winter in Russia nor summer in Africa are very troublesome.

The weather system is rather wacky. In my current game (see my AAR in the signature) I could attack the Soviet Union in March (i.e. the front became active again) and there was no mud at all - just sunny weather and temperatures well above the zero. It is badly balanced and unrealistic, while weather penalties are not potent enough.

So this isn't based on weather persee but instead based on how ill prepared they were.

That's only partially true. They were not properly prepared because they expected and planned for a quick, easy and decisive campaign. It's hard to say what would happen should they attack later.

It depends on specific weather conditions, too. If in a given region the temperature rarely goes below 0, then soldiers without proper equipment will fight less effectively, but they won't freeze to death. However, if it's sth like -15 or -20, then it's an entirely different matter. IRL the weather conditions are also much more complex and dynamic than in HOI3. In Africa 30 ºC in itself won't kill you, but when the temperature drops to zero during the night, then the relative difference between the day and the night can be very dangerous. With 40 ºC (or more) during the day and 0 ºC (or less) during the night the conditions can be very harsh. Not only your troops need much more water than in temperate conditions, but they get exhausted very fast and are subject to rapid temperature changes during the course of the campaign. On the other hand, mobile troops have been found effective in desert campaign. Mobility is the key in that case.

In tropical terrain things are even more complicated. High temperatures, heavy rainfall, diseases, spoiled food, frequent natural obstacles, enemy traps... The effective number of regular soldiers that can operate effectively in jungle conditions is rather low. That's why frontage should be lowered in such terrain (and in the mountains, too).