Not quite 0, as there are machine guns and automatic rifles against low flying planes or satchel devices, mines, bundled handgranades against armoured targets, but they would be very low indeed.
-
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.
Not quite 0, as there are machine guns and automatic rifles against low flying planes or satchel devices, mines, bundled handgranades against armoured targets, but they would be very low indeed.
As long as the number of battalions is large enough (for example 12 battalions per division) you may able to add what you deem it is required.
Is it me or do these debates always pop up. Theres always someone that wants to bring the strategic level of the game to a lower level. And sorry its probably more work than it is worth. All you are doing is A adding more brigades not a bad idea. But when you want to remove the hard and soft attacks ur forcing automatic purchase of aa and at to compensate for that , prestofacto same effect more work.
What I'm saying Is all your doing is adding an extra step. Your not adding to the game. Your making us click add AA and AT. It just makes me buy it instead of it being included. This would be easier if you did events or something like HSR did.
Only bad thing is that the plane would need to fly really slow speed under 600 yard altitude and even then unless you get a direct hit somewhere in around the nose and screw the radiator, oil or something like that it's very minor damage that can be repaired 3\4 of the time. Any jabo making high speed strafe would be almost invulnerable to it and anything flying above 1000+ yards with moderate speed would also have its godmode, not to mention level bombing @ 3k altitude
Satchel charges could work ok presuming you have decent defensive positions and proper area to work with. Grenades basically reguires you to hope the tank commander hatch is unlocked (something that is highly unlikely if there is even remote danger of infantry being nearby; those things can be locked), you drop it in and run and hope you don't get a piece of shrapnel on your back en route. Mines would be also quite useful, but to get a proper minefield in the first place takes some time and only would serve as area denial than anything else, unless the enemy would be dumb enough to keep driving once they drove into few mines along road X.
So in defensive posture hard attack would be somewhat ok, while air attack would be 1 against CAS or fighters, 0 for tact\str\nav (in case if someone wants to mess with them against ground targets) if we're speaking realistically.
Presuming AoD developers were not smoking crack when they wrote the land combat developer diary (and presuming you read it in the first place), since unit defence effiency comes directly from unit's own stats rather than use a global value properly brigaded and somewhat experienced unit is able to hold on its own against horders of militia or several unbrigaded divisions without losing a battle.
Last edited:
Not really it just means that there would be no AT/AA unit on divisionary level, but there would be still some guns in battalions or regiments.
In addition it is worth remembering that ordinary artillery could be used and was used to destroy enemy armoured vehicles.
The issue is that a project needs to be consistent. There are two approaches to the game both of them valid: an high level approach in which in our case units have their own stats in which all is included and a lower level approach in which you compose your divisions in the way you deem it is required.
HoI2 is consistent as well as Doomsday. Armageddon is not. If "attachments" are allowed then the model should be a low level one. This is the reason why HoI3 went on that direction. A mixed model is not consistent and creates problems. The suggestion I made is to be consistent (without copying HoI3) allowing a division to have as many attachments as the player deem it is required. This would add some flavour to the game because each country can follow its preferred approach and should be quite straightforward to implement. On your side as player this approach shouldn't be much burden to you because when you build a division you have the option to do it directly with attachments. Just click on the battalions you like and build it!
Eventually I'd like to see this if possible, where the division is the shell used to hold all the battalions allowing for historical set up's of divisions. I'd expect this is an enormous amount of work, to modify all the combat, movement and interface requirements in the game so it may never happen.
A lot of the same discussion took place under this thread too
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=276121
With my proposal you don't need any change in the GUI, any slot or whatever. The only change required is in the base stats.
Last edited:
Almost all divisions had(and still do) non infantry "units" built into them whether it be four battalions of artillery like the US 1st Infantry division had for most of WW2. They ALSO attachments which varied depending on their intended objective. Most of the time these attachments were battlion sized attachments which depending on the army in question is about 1/3 to 1/5 the size of the brigade attachments that you can attach in HOI2/DD/ARM/AoD. From that, one could surmise the the AA and hard attack and soft attack attributes of the ever improving divisions that you can build in the game are a result of abstracting some of these elements, i.e. not only better weapons but better ability to use the right weapons for the right job. The brigade attachment you can add to a division is like adding 3 to 5 battalions so that is where you get your major boost in attributes(major boost all things considered)
The problem with adding multiple brigades to a division, as stated early on, would be that you are adding anywhere between 6,000 and 15,000 people which would basically make it possible to create double strength divisions.
I do agree with Cardus somewhat about the battalion/brigade attachements as follows:
For now perhaps a fun feature would to add multiple battalion level attachments. Bump all the attachments down in stats and cost making them battalion level so you can add 3 or so attachment to each division. you can still achieve the same effect as a tank destroyer brigade attachment but only if you add 3 tank destroyer battalions. But it would give you the flexibility to fine tune your division, such as to add a tank destroyer, a self propelled artillery and a light tank battalion, giving you some of the effects of all three. In short give you the ability to edit the composition of your brigade attachment.
The problem with adding multiple brigades to a division, as stated early on, would be that you are adding anywhere between 6,000 and 15,000 people which would basically make it possible to create double strength divisions.
I do agree with Cardus somewhat about the battalion/brigade attachements as follows:
For now perhaps a fun feature would to add multiple battalion level attachments. Bump all the attachments down in stats and cost making them battalion level so you can add 3 or so attachment to each division. you can still achieve the same effect as a tank destroyer brigade attachment but only if you add 3 tank destroyer battalions. But it would give you the flexibility to fine tune your division, such as to add a tank destroyer, a self propelled artillery and a light tank battalion, giving you some of the effects of all three. In short give you the ability to edit the composition of your brigade attachment.
Last edited:
In my opiniun the existing system with brigades is fine, we don't need any more micro in the game. We have to remémber that this is a stratetic game not a micromanagement nightmare....
About brigades/battalons the idea of them in real life was/is for the HQ to reinforce and give some of it's divisions extra punch before a certain mission given. Normaly this was based on the type of mission and the type of unit they will face, for exampel if a unit will encounter mec or Pz they need anti tank or Pz, if there are danger from air raids they need anti air units etc.
This battalions/brigades was given to reinforce the didvisions a limit of time during it's mission to help them out to perform better in theirs missions and after they finished the mission the battalions/brigades was sent back to HQ to be relocated to other units and tasks.
The only enoying thing in the game still is that we can't attached brigades in occupied areas, hope they will fix that.
Captain Jack
About brigades/battalons the idea of them in real life was/is for the HQ to reinforce and give some of it's divisions extra punch before a certain mission given. Normaly this was based on the type of mission and the type of unit they will face, for exampel if a unit will encounter mec or Pz they need anti tank or Pz, if there are danger from air raids they need anti air units etc.
This battalions/brigades was given to reinforce the didvisions a limit of time during it's mission to help them out to perform better in theirs missions and after they finished the mission the battalions/brigades was sent back to HQ to be relocated to other units and tasks.
The only enoying thing in the game still is that we can't attached brigades in occupied areas, hope they will fix that.
Captain Jack