Alternative to the existing planning bonus mechanic

[KiwiNoob]

I'm a fan of the planning bonus but not it's current implementation. Having to draw battle plans (BP) that will never get used simply to get a bonus on the off-chance you plan to counterattack is needless busy work and gamey.

My original idea was to simply remove the need for the battle plan and just let all stationary divisions build up their BP bonus (which I still think is a good fallback option and better than having to draw the plan)

My extended idea is to make it a 'offensive preparation' option toggled per army group that can be set on the leader portraits down the bottom that would follow these rules:

• If its unchecked then your divisions will not build up any offensive bonus
• If it is checked then all divisions in that army group that are stationary (even without a BP) will begin to accumulate their offensive bonus.
• To accumulate the offensive bonus divisions require additional equipment (OE, offensive equipment). If a country is missing some of the equipment required by the division then that division will not be able to achieve 100% of it's offensive bonus. Once the offensive bonus is full their equipment need will return to normal or perhaps maintain a slightly higher attrition.
• If a division moves, half it's OE is returned to the stockpile and half the offensive bonus is lost
• If a division strategic re-deploys, all it's OE is returned to the stockpile and all it's offensive bonus is lost
• If a division with offensive bonus is attacked and retreats the OE is lost and a portion of it captured by the countries that forced the retreat. (You could go one step further and make the calculation of the percentage of equipment lost (25 + ((org / max_org) * 75)). This way there would be a difference between a division being forced to retreat because they are broken vs. an early deliberate decision to pull back. In this case any remaining (not lost) OE would be returned to the stockpile and the unit would lose its offensive preparation bonus)

This system would be good because:

• It means that there is a cost/benefit to preparing for offensive actions and it will not simply be the default choice because it's always better in all situations.
• Requiring additional equipment is realistic as a large part of offensive planning was building up the necessary equipment to support it.
• Countries that don't even have enough equipment to supply their divisions normal needs will not be able to benefit from the offensive bonus. It then become a player choice between having more divisions but not having the offensive bonus (potentially better when defending) or having less divisions but having a slight equipment surplus for offensive planning.
• We'll see more captured equipment from successful offensives. And having the 'offensive preparation' option on in areas where an offense is unrealistic will result in more lost equipment.
• It gets rid of the need to draw up battle plans simply to acquire a bonus which is gamey
• People can have a large, more stationary front that is not planning for an offensive (to conserve equipment) but then create separate smaller army groups that are on the same front that are planning for an offense - these would be the breakthrough divisions.
• It would make it harder to acquire an offensive bonus in areas with low supply. If the infrastructure can barely support the existing units it will take a long time to build up the equipment for an offensive.

Edit: Would be good to see the equipment used to build up the planning bonus expended as the bonus is used up. This would mean that the bonus has an oppertunity cost under all circumstances and not only if your divisions are attacked and forced to retreat.

Just a thought. Hope people like it.

 

[BigBobBear]

why would a division take more attrition for having a plan drawn out and ready to execute? that just seems like a silly idea and why would an attacking army get more offensive bonus from attacking a defending army?

as it is the game is only a few weeks from coming out and any ideas to change the plans radically like this will not have the time and shouldnet, if anything they should just make the planing bonus apply only when and during the plan is being executed

 

[KiwiNoob]

why would an attacking army get more offensive bonus from attacking a defending army?

I'm not sure what you mean. The defender makes no difference to any offensive bonus the attacker gets. Any offensive bonus is applied to the attackers soft/hard attack.

 

[BigBobBear]

If a division with offensive bonus is attacked and retreats the OE is lost and a portion of it captured by the countries that forced the retreat

that sounds like the attacking army would gain said bonus, unless i read that wrong

 

[Zankoas]

I really, really, really, like this idea. It is in the flavor if hoi4 choice focus and makes sense, as well as seeming like a fun mechanic, here's hoping paradox use your suggestion!

 

[KiwiNoob]

that sounds like the attacking army would gain said bonus, unless i read that wrong

Gottcha. The OE is the additional 'offensive equipment' the division has stored to support their offense. The attacking country would capture part of the offensive equipment of any retreating divisions (which would go to their stockpile) but they would not gain the offensive bonus that division had.

 

[Marfach]

My original idea was to simply remove the need for the battle plan and just let all stationary divisions build up their BP bonus (which I still think is a good fallback option and better than having to draw the plan)

You could also prevent a unit with an attacking bonus from achieving a full dig-in bonus (maybe only 50%? or 75%), this would add more opportunity cost.
Also, rather than have them require more equipment you could require they be at full equipment and create an equipment attrition to simulate them drilling and training for the upcoming operations, similar to on-map training.

why would a division take more attrition for having a plan drawn out and ready to execute? that just seems like a silly idea and why would an attacking army get more offensive bonus from attacking a defending army?

The planning bonus afaik is supposed to emulate the way in which divisions would perform specific training before large offensives to prepare them for the enviroments and conditions they would be exposed to. Eg if a division is going to be fighting in Marshes (central Belarus) they will need to learn how to maintain their weapons in the environment, keep equipment clean and how to safely and effectively traverse marshland, and that is before they do any drills on firefights in marshes.

 

[AOW]

How about leaving it as it is except that the attacking units do not get the bonus until the plan is activated? It's the simplest solution imho. It eliminates the gamey plans that are designed just to get a bonus for a plan that will never be implemented and keeps the good parts of the planning bonus intact.

 

[KiwiNoob]

How about leaving it as it is except that the attacking units do not get the bonus until the plan is activated? It's the simplest solution imho. It eliminates the gamey plans that are designed just to get a bonus for a plan that will never be implemented and keeps the good parts of the planning bonus intact.

1. This means you must use battle plans and turn over at least partial control of your units to the AI. For Major nations this might work fine because of the sheer number of divisions. People who play regional/minor powers tend to micro their troops a lot more and doing this would hamper them
2. It's not granular enough. I may find myself in the situation where I want to start pushing only a small part of my front but with this approach I have to start pushing all or none.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Also, rather than have them require more equipment you could require they be at full equipment and create an equipment attrition to simulate them drilling and training for the upcoming operations, similar to on-map training.

I actually favor the idea of a unit 'stockpiling' the equipment over attrition for the reason that it will result in more captured equipment during successful offensives which I find realistic and immersive.

 

[AOW]

1. This means you must use battle plans and turn over at least partial control of your units to the AI. For Major nations this might work fine because of the sheer number of divisions. People who play regional/minor powers tend to micro their troops a lot more and doing this would hamper them
2. It's not granular enough. I may find myself in the situation where I want to start pushing only a small part of my front but with this approach I have to start pushing all or none.

1. For smaller nations it should be easier to micro while a plan is being run by the AI. Not sure why that is a concern.

2. I am pretty sure you can assign as many divisions to an attack plan as you want. If you only want to push on a small section of the front with say 6-8 divisions you can. You could have as many plans as you have generals (I think), but of course that could get rather messy.

 

[KiwiNoob]

2. I am pretty sure you can assign as many divisions to an attack plan as you want. If you only want to push on a small section of the front with say 6-8 divisions you can. You could have as many plans as you have generals (I think), but of course that could get rather messy.

And I think the planning bonus is lost if you switch generals around or units between army groups (though I may be wrong on that) so you couldn't break off a portion of the front on-the-fly

 

[KiwiNoob]

Would also be good if the offensive equipment is used up as the planning bonus is used up. This would mean there is an opportunity cost of the bonus at all times and not only if your divisions are forced to retreat.

 

[ASPGolan]

How about leaving it as it is except that the attacking units do not get the bonus until the plan is activated? It's the simplest solution imho. It eliminates the gamey plans that are designed just to get a bonus for a plan that will never be implemented and keeps the good parts of the planning bonus intact.

This would have solved whatever other digressions we had on different threads on this topic. The simple requirement of having enacted that plan would remove any other benefits the defender was trying to stack this way, making the bonus apply only for offensive operations. People want the ability to stack these effects, however.

The real benefit comes when the player has such plans as a smaller nation and then goes on and micro the defensive operations. Any counter-attack ordered by the player get that planning bonus. In the Poland WWW, the player benefits from the entrenchment bonus with the initial wave of attacks on the western border, then retreats and tries some manoeuvres when the german lines offer breaches. For these ops, the player would require the planning bonus to counter the invading AI planning bonus. The weird thing to me is that for the attacking player that enacted their plan, the bonus is already decaying, while the defender's planning bonus is still growing as it wasn't enacted. Here is the real issue. The defending player would want means to counter the enemy advance, but I think these should be in the form of: a) dig in your troops again after each retreat; b) make new offensive plans to push back the enemy and get the updated bonus on the counter attacks.

One other way to "fix" the impression people are getting from this feature would be to make the planning feature work in a generic way and not look necessarily as an offensive op. If the player wouldn't have drawn the arrow towards random regions he doesn't care about, nobody would have noticed anything, I assume.