• 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.
In 1.13, there will be only one brigade per division. I gather that's probably a good decision, at least gamewise as it forces players to make choices and compromises.

Nevertheless, how about allowing 2 or 3 brigades per HQ ? HQ used to control/include several support units. Of course, you might select which types of brigades are permitted, for example 1 AA, 1 POL and 1 ART/SPART/RKT/SPRKT ?
 
In 1.13, there will be only one brigade per division. I gather that's probably a good decision, at least gamewise as it forces players to make choices and compromises.

Nevertheless, how about allowing 2 or 3 brigades per HQ ? HQ used to control/include several support units. Of course, you might select which types of brigades are permitted, for example 1 AA, 1 POL and 1 ART/SPART/RKT/SPRKT ?
I guess it would be good to have the choice to edit the number of allowed brigades in the unit txt files, like they did in DH.
 
Both air and land units will be able to have up to 5 brigades/attachments. The work is already about 2/3 to 3/4 done right now. Each unit type has its own Max Attachs variable in the misc.txt file which allows modders/players to configure how many attachments per division types can have. The combination of the variables in the misc.txt file the individual division types will determine how many attachments a certain unit can have. The best way to explain it for everyone is using some examples.

So the MRF (Multi-Role Fighters) can now up to three attachments (ASM, AAM, & AEW) and CAS can have up to 4 (same as MRF but also Escorts for high altitude air cover). Here is the MRF:
MRF attachments.png


The misc.txt files is configured for MTFs to have up to 3 attachments:
Code:
# _EV_CV_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to fleet carriers
    5
# _EV_CVL_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to escort carriers
    5
# _EV_CC_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to cruiser carriers
    3
# _EV_LPH_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to helicopter carriers (LPH)
    5
# _EV_HAC_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to heavy aviation cruisers
    5
# _EV_BB_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to battleships
    5 
# _EV_BC_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to battlecruisers
    5
# _EV_CA_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to heavy cruisers
    4
# _EV_CL_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to light cruisers
    3
# _EV_DD_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to destroyers
    2
# _EV_SS_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to subs
    2
# _EV_HSS_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to heavy subs
    2
# _EV_SSN_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to nuclear subs
    2
# _EV_SSB_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to ballistic subs
    2 
# _EV_SSBN_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to ballistic nuclear subs
    2 
# _EV_TP_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to troop transports
    2
# _EV_MT_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to merchant transports
    1
# _EV_TACT_BOMB_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to tactical bombers
    2
# _EV_STRAT_BOMB_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to strategic bombers
    2
# _EV_NAVAL_BOMB_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to naval bombers
    2
# _EV_ASW_PLANE_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to ASW planes
    1
# _EV_TRANS_PLANE_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to transport planes
    1
# _EV_GUNSHIP_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to gunship planes
    2
# _EV_CAS_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to CAS
    4
# _EV_INTERCEPTOR_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to interceptors
    3
# _EV_MULT_ROLE_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to multi-role fighters
    3
# _EV_AH_HELIO_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to attack helicopters
    3
# _EV_CHUH_HELIO_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to cargo/utility helicopters
    1
# _EV_OH_HELIO_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to observation helicopters
    1
# _EV_ARMOR_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to armor units
    1
# _EV_LT_ARMOR_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to light armor units
    1
# _EV_MECH_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to mechanized units
    1
# _EV_MOTOR_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to motorized units
    1
# _EV_CAV_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to cavalry
    1
# _EV_INF_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to infantry
    1
# _EV_MOUNTAIN_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to mountain/bergsjaeger
    1
# _EV_GARRISON_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to garrison units
    1
# _EV_MARINE_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to marine division
    1
# _EV_MEB_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to marine expeditionary brigade
    1
# _EV_HQ_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to HQs
    3
# _EV_MILITIA_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to militia
    1
# _EV_AIR_ASSAULT_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to air assault units
    1
# _EV_AIRBORNE_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to paratrooper/airborne units
    1
# _EV_SOF_MAX_ATTACH, Max number of attachments to special operation forces
    0

Although the attachments can be modded, there is a limit. Modders will discover the following text in every unit type:
### Only the top 10 listed brigades will appear in the production tab ###​
Let's look at the hq.txt unit file:
Code:
###   Only the top 10 listed brigades will appear in the production tab   ###

land_unit_type = 1

allowed_brigades =  artillery     
allowed_brigades =  anti_air     
allowed_brigades =  rocket_artillery
allowed_brigades =  heavy_armor 
allowed_brigades =  super_heavy_armor
allowed_brigades =  light_armor_brigade
allowed_brigades =  armored_brigade # Armor Brigade
allowed_brigades =  rail_artillery # Railroad guns
allowed_brigades =  tank_destroyer
allowed_brigades =  engineer
allowed_brigades =  armored_car 
allowed_brigades =  police
allowed_brigades =  sp_artillery 
allowed_brigades =  sp_rct_artillery
allowed_brigades =  anti_tank
allowed_brigades =  assault_gun #  Assault Gun

AoD has maximum number, 10, of brigades/attachments it can offer the player. Above, there are 16 brigades that a HQ unit can have, but the code goes through a prioritization process:
  1. The list of brigades are gone through sequentially first
  2. as it goes through the list, it only selects the brigade types that have been researched
  3. if the selected list is 10 or less, it will list those brigade type to the player for selection
  4. if the selected list is 11 or greater, it will list only the first 10 listed in the hq.txt file
So a player could have artillery, anti air, light armor, armor, tank destroyer, engineer, armored car, SP artillery, police, and anti tank. All total 10 but not the first 10 brigades listed. Why? Because rocket artillery, heavy armor, super heavy armor, rail artillery, were not researched by the player.

It could go a bit different like...a player could have artillery, anti air, light armor, armor, tank destroyer, engineer, armored car, SP artillery, police, and anti tank listed as available brigades to select from but the player wanted to add the assault gun. Well, the assault gun isn't listed as a choice even though the player researched it. Why? because it's the 11th listed brigade and didn't make the 10 limit cut. So when modding, the order of brigades in the unit's .txt files does still matter, even if 11, 12, 13 ,etc in the files.

Hope this helps explain things for everyone.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Thank you Czarina for the very good news !!

If you can attach many "brigades" to a division, it becomes possible to create your own custom divisions. Then, there would be no need to create specific division types in a future AOD version.

Perhaps, a mechanized brigade (half-tracks) is missing. That brigade might be attached to a tank division, a motorized division or a semi motorized cavalry division.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If you can attach many "brigades" to a division, it becomes possible to create your own custom divisions. Then, there would be no need to create specific division types in a future AOD version.
The problem is that these are brigades and not battalions or companies that are part of a division's organic troops and equipment (basically TO&E). The best solution would be to have 2 basic (stripped down) divisions, an armored and an infantry. Then instead of brigades, have the equipment and support units added to those. Then dependent upon the makeup/TO&E of the division determines what it is (mechanized, armor, motorized, air assault, airborne, light infantry, etc.).

As it was when AoD was first released and currently, brigades are too powerful to be use as battalions or companies that are organic to a division. The brigades were meant as separate brigades that the major militaries of the world fielded in small amounts during WW2 and the Cold War. In the US Army during the cold war, only 3 separate brigades in Europe/Germany. They had a MI brigade HQ'ed in Müchen, an Engineer brigade, and an Artillery brigade. All of these separate brigades were assigned to no lower than Army or Group Commands.

Now, AoD gives them out like candy and players compile (including me) Corps where each division has some type of brigade (usually artillery and engineers), which isn't historically correct. IMO, I think the land brigades should only be allowed to be attached to HQ units (to simulate the HQs of armies and groups), be expensive to build (to limit the spamming issue that AoD has of these brigades), and take more time to build. Then we have issue where brigades are used as technology and assets with naval and air units. Heck, I event create (based on recommendations) the ASMs & AAMs for planes, we have torpedoes, mines, ASW, etc. for naval.

The best solution is to call these brigades what they are:
  • Battalions & Companies for the attachments to divisions. This would give us what you're, and others (like me), would like see, divisions built by players and divisions more in line how nations divisions are actually constructed (TO&E). So a basic armor or infantry division would be able to attach an Engineer, Artillery, S&T Battalions to a division medical companies, etc.
  • Equipment - these would be the equipment (APS, half-tracks, tanks, trucks, etc.) and other assets (missiles, drop tanks, electronic warfare, ASW, radar, etc).
  • Brigades - Still have attachments that are brigades but cost much more, longer to build, and not as prevalent (spamming) as they are now on the AoD battlefield. Their numbers should be realistic.
All of this would take major changes, more technologies to research, more attachments available, and increase the maximum number of attachments allowed. A lot of work since it would change how AoD works currently. Not saying things like can't be done, but every AI file, all scenario and battle scenario files, and a lot of code would need to be updated.

I would like to see custom divisions myself, but it would have to take an entire release dedicated only to creating this process. It comes down to what players what to see.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If you can attach many "brigades" to a division, it becomes possible to create your own custom divisions. Then, there would be no need to create specific division types in a future AOD version.
That's what i've been hoping for some time. Similar concept to that from HoI 3.

The problem is that these are brigades and not battalions or companies that are part of a division's organic troops and equipment
Actually a brigade it's usually a more combined and a bit bigger unit, than division. A proper name should be "regiment", which is directly below division level. Then go battalions and companies. It might not be totally common structure for every army, but in general.

There are two problems. First is how strength of divisions would be counted, if it depended on composition of so called "brigades" (regiments). Second is how modifiers would be calculated for each type of division. It all had to be redirected to "brigades" and divisions turned into just templates.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's what i've been hoping for some time. Similar concept to that from HoI 3.


Actually a brigade it's usually a more combined and a bit bigger unit, than division. A proper name should be "regiment", which is directly below division level. Then go battalions and companies. It might not be totally common structure for every army, but in general.

There are two problems. First is how strength of divisions would be counted, if it depended on composition of so called "brigades" (regiments). Second is how modifiers would be calculated for each type of division. It all had to be redirected to "brigades" and divisions turned into just templates.

I think your wrong there Bosman. A brigade is normally the level between a division, with 2-3 of them making up a division. Possibly you were thinking of a corp which is the next level up - generally the step between a division and an army. As such in real life a brigade is a component of a division, rather than an addition to it.

Not sure how common regiments are outside the Anglo-sphere as I think continental Europe doesn't have that level or at least they don't have the same importance there?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Possibly you were thinking of a corp which is the next level up - generally the step between a division and an army
No, i was thinking about brigade and i was wrong XD

Still brigade is considered as tactical group, while regiment as tactical unit. This rather suggests, that a regiment is a direct part of division.... and brigade.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
No, i was thinking about brigade and i was wrong XD

Still brigade is considered as tactical group, while regiment as tactical unit. This rather suggests, that a regiment is a direct part of division.... and brigade.
A brigade is usually 1/3 the size of a division in US, UK, pretty much all allied and now NATO organized untis/TO&E. Regiments can be independent maneuverer units and separate brigades can be both independent maneuver brigades or separate MOS (Military Occupation Specially)/job brigades as one sees with 66th MI Brigade HQ'd in Müchen, 18th Engineer Brigade HQ'd in Karlsruhe, 18th Artillery Brigade HQ'd in Augsburg, etc.

Regiments are usually stronger than battalions but a bit less than a [combine arms] brigades. The US use regiments during WW1 & WW2 but drifted away after WW2 only to come back into "style" with the new Army of the 2000s. During WW1 & WW2 regiments were part of a division (with a few independent ones). After WW2, there remain only 3 independent active (meaning not counting ARNG or AR) armor cavalry regiments, the 2nd and 11th ACRs station in Germany and the 3rd ACR at Fort Bliss (El Paso), Texas.

Staying within the bounds of WW2 and the Cold War periods:
  • regiments were combined arms units
  • most brigades IRL, as AoD uses them, were MOS/task (Engineer, MI, Arty, MP, etc.) specific brigades
  • and just when you thought there was a pattern or rule of thumb, we have independent brigades that were combined arms brigades (with their own, TO&E, engineers, MI, MPs, S&T, etc.). These independent brigades were assigned no lower than Corp level and during combat operations were assign by that Corp, Group, Army commander by his directive to support his combat operations plan.
A couple of things to remember, is that all units are subordinate to another higher unit/command and that all units all tactical. Not sure what is meant as tactical Group or Unit, but an artillery brigade, a MI brigade, and an infantry brigade of a division are all tactical units. If you really want to see how all of these units can be mixed up, look at the US Army VII Corp in Europe during the cold war. Heck they even had 3 Artillery brigades, 3 within 1 Corp. Bottom line, there is no set rule of thumb, only "usuallys."

Now the Soviets were much more set/structured in their division and Corp make ups. The world was, might still be today but not sure, broken up into TVDs (theaters like NATO commands...Afcom, SoCom, etc.). Then within the TVDs were the fronts (or fleets for naval), broken down further into Army, Divisions, regiments, battalions, companies. Every unit reported higher and received orders from higher. A good free manual to read is the US Army's FM 100-2-1 which is declassified and can be found easily with an online search, even downloadable in .pdf. If you want to see how the Soviets fought in WW2 (or The Great Patriotic War) and would have fought if the Cold War went hot, then I highly recommend reading it, or at least browse the field manual.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A brigade is usually 1/3 the size of a division in US, UK, pretty much all allied and now NATO organized untis/TO&E. Regiments can be independent maneuverer units and separate brigades can be both independent maneuver brigades or separate MOS (Military Occupation Specially)/job brigades as one sees with 66th MI Brigade HQ'd in Müchen, 18th Engineer Brigade HQ'd in Karlsruhe, 18th Artillery Brigade HQ'd in Augsburg, etc.

Regiments are usually stronger than battalions but a bit less than a [combine arms] brigades. The US use regiments during WW1 & WW2 but drifted away after WW2 only to come back into "style" with the new Army of the 2000s. During WW1 & WW2 regiments were part of a division (with a few independent ones). After WW2, there remain only 3 independent active (meaning not counting ARNG or AR) armor cavalry regiments, the 2nd and 11th ACRs station in Germany and the 3rd ACR at Fort Bliss (El Paso), Texas.

Staying within the bounds of WW2 and the Cold War periods:
  • regiments were combined arms units
  • most brigades IRL, as AoD uses them, were MOS/task (Engineer, MI, Arty, MP, etc.) specific brigades
  • and just when you thought there was a pattern or rule of thumb, we have independent brigades that were combined arms brigades (with their own, TO&E, engineers, MI, MPs, S&T, etc.). These independent brigades were assigned no lower than Corp level and during combat operations were assign by that Corp, Group, Army commander by his directive to support his combat operations plan.
A couple of things to remember, is that all units are subordinate to another higher unit/command and that all units all tactical. Not sure what is meant as tactical Group or Unit, but an artillery brigade, a MI brigade, and an infantry brigade of a division are all tactical units. If you really want to see how all of these units can be mixed up, look at the US Army VII Corp in Europe during the cold war. Heck they even had 3 Artillery brigades, 3 within 1 Corp. Bottom line, there is no set rule of thumb, only "usuallys."

Now the Soviets were much more set/structured in their division and Corp make ups. The world was, might still be today but not sure, broken up into TVDs (theaters like NATO commands...Afcom, SoCom, etc.). Then within the TVDs were the fronts (or fleets for naval), broken down further into Army, Divisions, regiments, battalions, companies. Every unit reported higher and received orders from higher. A good free manual to read is the US Army's FM 100-2-1 which is declassified and can be found easily with an online search, even downloadable in .pdf. If you want to see how the Soviets fought in WW2 (or The Great Patriotic War) and would have fought if the Cold War went hot, then I highly recommend reading it, or at least browse the field manual.
There is a conventional point...where the combined optimum of realism and playability is reached!
From this point...any plus for realism is a minus for playability and vice versa...any plus for playability is a minus for realism!

Players have been always endlessly arguing over this matter!

I think the introduction of more brigade types, plus -and most importantly- the ability to attach more than one brigade to a division is exactly what we need!
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Cheers everyone,

Based on my readings on WW2, Armies were organized as follows, notwithstanding the many exceptions.
  • XXXXXX Theater HQ ; for Germany, that would be OKW (High Command of the Wehrmacht), OKH (High Command of the Ground forces) (...)
  • XXXX Front HQ (Soviet), Army Groups HQ (German, British...) (...)
  • XXXX Armies
  • XXX Corps - about 50.000 men
  • XX Divisions - about 15.000 men
  • X Brigades or III Regiments - about 4.000 men ; a brigade could be a slightly larger, for example 5.000 men
  • II Battalions - 1.000 to 1.500 men
  • I Companies - 400 to 500 men ; companies are not represented at this scale

- - - - - - - - - - - -

For most major countries (US, UK, Germany...), here is the most common structure :
  • 1 Army = 3 Corps
  • 1 Corps = 3 Divisions
  • 1 Division = 3 combat Brigades or Regiments (infantry, mot infantry, mech infantry, armor...) + supporting units
    • artillery (short range) : generally 1 regiment
    • anti-tank : generally 1 battalion
    • engineers : generally 1 battalion
    • construction engineers : generally 1 battalion
    • antiaircraft : generally 1 battalion
    • sometimes 1 additional battalion (machinegun, mortar...)
    • division headquarters, medical, police, signals...
  • 1 Brigade or Regiment = 3 combat battalions
There were relatively few independant combat Brigades/Regiments (not under Divisions' command).

Italy and minor countries relied on the "binary" system, that is 2 combat Regiments (+ supporting units) per Division (instead of 3). Armies were generally composed of 4 or 5 divisions. 1 Italian/minor country Army was roughly equal in size to 1 US/UK/German Corps.
Note : binary Divisions may be transported by sea or air more easily. They are more suitable for theaters far away from the home country (Africa...).


Soviet Infantry Divisions ("Rifle Divisions") were also smaller than their western counterparts, about the same size as an Italian/minor country division. Soviet Armies were composed of 4 to 7 divisions.
Soviet tank and mechanized units were organized in Corps. As those Corps included about 4 combat brigades (for example 3 Tank Brigades and 1 Mot Infantry Brigade), they were similar to large Divisions (20.000 men instead of 15.000).

- - - - - - - - - - - -

In addition to the above, there were additional support Regiments and Battalions under Corps and Army HQs.
Those additional resources were temporary assigned to Divisions based the situation on the battlefield.

Exception : many German divisions were assigned additional battalions on a permanent basis. It was a substantial advantage as German commanders closer to the battlefields had more flexibility to form combat groups suited to their needs. Whereas Allied commanders had to call their higher HQ to ask.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

AOD's model might be structured along the following lines.

A division's "main body" would be composed of 2 to 4 combat regiments/brigades (in game terms, that's the same). The available types of combat Reg/Brig would be :
  • Infantry
  • Mountain Infantry
  • Marine Infantry
  • Parachute Infantry
  • Motorized Infantry
  • Mechanized Infantry
  • Light Armor
  • Medium Armor
  • Heavy Armor ? (if it existed in the Red Army, I don't remember)
Countries using the binary system (Italy and minors) would be limited to 2 combat Reg Divisions. They would have to research the relevant doctrine in order to field larger Divisions. Adding the 4th combat Reg would also come with preconditions.

Of course, US/UK/Germany (...) would also be allowed to form Divisions with only 2 combat Brig/Reg.
Note : German Mountain, Motorized and Mechanized Divisions were indeed binary. In late 1944, Germany formed independent Panzer Brigades which had the size of a binary division (about 10.000 men).

In early war, it would be mandatory to include 2 armored Brig/Reg in each Armored Division. After the appropriate land doctrine, Germany would be able to form Panzer Divisions with only 1 Panzer Regiment (a better choice). After another doctrine, it would become possible to include Mech(PzG) Brig/Reg in Armored(Pz) Divisions.

Upon the Divisions' main body composed of 2 to 4 combat Brig/Reg, players would then attach Battalions/Reg/Brig to their Divisons based on their wishes. For example, due to being more advanced in land doctrines German units would be allowed to attach 2 (early war) to 3 (late war) Battalions to each Division. The US and the UK would be limited to 1 (early war) to 2 (late war) Battalions per Division. Countries lagging in the arms' race would be limited to 0 (early war) to 1 (late war).

- - - - - - - - - - - -

My knowledge of post-war orders of battle is limited. However, we should be cautious when looking as unit sizes.
In most cases, unit formats change after mobilization of reservists. For example, a brigade may be the nucleus of a division. A division may split to form two divisions.


Have a nice week. -)
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In the current game, AOD brigades are sometimes Brigades/Regiments, sometimes Battalions.
Apparently, armored units are Battalions. Others are mostly Brigades or Regiments.
 
Last edited:
Look folks, I think we're all getting hung up on the name Brigade. It was a bunch of folks at Paradox, which probably didn't have any or experienced military "consultants", that use the Brigade nomenclature. There is no easy way to simulate the lower manpower in Soviet units compared to UK or US. Neither with Chinese and Italy or Germany, etc. We can go on and on.

To achieve the ability for players to make customized divisions is not out of reach of AoD, it just a lot of work....I mean really a lot of work for the release team. We do not have any Paradox support nor their resources. IMO we have 3 paths we can take:
  1. A very time consuming and difficult path of allowing players to customized everything in a division, specialized trained units (mountain, airborne, air assault, etc.), mechanized, armor, supply, engineers, MI, police, artillery, number of men in each unit type, etc. I just can't seeing this one done with the resources we have. And personally, to be honest, I wouldn't want to code any of it.
  2. A time consuming, and with release team resources, a new set of technology screens and trees (basically what 1.13 did). So instead of screens arranged around unit types and doctrines that all countries/players can research, the screens are; (1) based on military doctrines (Soviet/Warsaw Pact, US, UK/Commonwealth, Chinese/Maoist, Indian, etc.), and then (2) based on units and tech trees. When a country/player selects a doctrine tree to follow, they will have the ability to research technologies of that doctrine. This includes unit types that are doctrinal and TO&E specific, meaning an MRD (Motor Rifle Division) has different manpower, equipment, brigades, support battalions & companies, etc. than a US Army Infantry Division (Mot) and a UK/commonwealth would even be different. Example: When a player would go to develop an inf div, the Soviet player would be able to create that division at a lower cost and manpower than say the US. But, the MRD wouldn't have the same strength or combat effectiveness as a US inf division would have.
  3. Leave it as is and just continue to build upon the 1.13 and create more attachments that reflect battalions, brigades, regiments, specific equipment (e.g. AAM ASM for aircraft, mines torpedoes sonar for naval) that allows the player to do some customization.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Option 1 looks like Hearts or Iron 3, pleasant but unplayable (as I already indicated).

Option 2 involves revising the basic structure of technology trees, with no obvious benefit. Creating perequisites across technology trees is not necessary. The current doctrines for Germany (Kampfgruppe 41, FireBrigade 43…) already simulate the German advantages I described. If any changes were needed, you could work on the current doctrines. If you feel those doctrines are good enough (arguably so), you may allow the same number of “brigade” attachments for all countries.

Both options (1 and 2) would require a lot of work. IMO, that would make no sense. Therefore, my vote goes to option 3 with a few more refinements (see below) which might be looked at by the design team.

  • Starting in 1943, Tank divisions included Mech components. 1940 Mech might be a perequisite to 1943 Tank. And 1942 Mech might be a perequisite to 1945 Tank.
  • A new brigade type might be created : mech.
  • When revising the orders of battle for each scenario (1936, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1944…), how should we proceed with smaller divisions ? For example, if data indicates that Italy had 50 Infantry Divisions, you can’t deploy them at full strength without giving an edge to the Italian player in the war against the British foe.... To deal with that issue, you might choose to ignore 1/3 of the historical divisions to restore the balance, but you would lose historical flavor. I would suggest deploying binary Divisions at 70% of normal strength (70% of regular manpower). And allow all countries to build new divisions either at 100% or 70% strength.
 
Last edited:
Starting in 1943, Tank divisions included Mech components. 1940 Mech might be a perequisite to 1943 Tank. And 1942 Mech might be a perequisite to 1945 Tank.
Here are the revisions that are already done:
  • Mechanized Infantry Divisions:
    • 1941 Infantry (Mech):
      • requires 1937 Armored Car
    • and one of the following:
      • 1938 Infantry (Mot)
      • 1937 Cavalry
    • 1943 Infantry (Mech) requires only the 1941 Infantry (Mech)
    • 1945 Infantry (Mech):
      • requires:
        • 1943 Infantry (Mech)
        • 1943 Medium Tank
        • 1943 Armored Car
    • 1948-1964 Infantry (Mech) require only the previous Infantry (Mech) model/year
  • Armored Divisions:
    • 1936 Medium tank requires only the 1931 Light Tank
    • 1938, 1941, & 1943 Medium Tanks require only the previous Medium Tank model/year
    • 1945 MBT (Main Battle Tank) requires:
      • 1943 Medium Tank
      • 1943 Infantry (Mech)
      • 1943 Armored Car
    • 1947-1964 MBTs require only the previous MBT model/year
A new brigade type might be created : mech.
We have added the Light Armored and Armored (medium & MBTs) brigades for attachments to land divisions. So we could do 7 models (1941-1964) of a Infantry (Mech) brigade for attachments to land divisions easily enough, if enough players want it.

To deal with that issue, you might choose to ignore 1/3 of the historical divisions to restore the balance, but you would lose historical flavor. I would suggest deploying binary Divisions at 70% of normal strength (70% of regular manpower). And allow all countries to build new divisions either at 100% or 70% strength.
I believe that with all the different unit modifiers, bonuses, multipliers, etc. currently in AoD and updated AI files can do all of this without having to "...ignore 1/3 of the historical divisions to restore the balance..."
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Granted that I have not been diving in to this discussion too deeply so far, but, given the limitations of the game shell itself, isn't some of this already built-in to the game? Meaning, a Pz 5 for the USA = a Pz 5 for Germany, but the techs researched can (somewhat) make up for the fact that a Sherman Firefly was still inferior to a Panther, right? Also, perhaps the new research tracks will have an impact, not only on this, but also on which brigades are more effective with various countries' units. I. E., the USA should definitely have lots of artillery, The USSR could "spam" infantry or Inf/HA, whereas Germany might be better off with more mobile formations and brigades...? Seeing the USA build Mechs/HA, when IIRC they had no real heavy armor is to say the least a curious development. Not saying it is definitely "bad," as it can present problems to an invading Axis or Comintern army, but if the USA is able to implement a historical path, HA seems inferior to other brigade choices, even in 1.12.

In a "WTF" game, I'm playing DH now in the basic unmodified setting, which seems similar to HOI II-DD/Arm, but harder. My German CTF's are decimating British units in Carribean ports with port strikes -- the same smaller units that send my unescorted troop transports quickly to the bottom. Both are great to see, as they are missing from unmodified AOD!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In a "WTF" game, I'm playing DH now in the basic unmodified setting, which seems similar to HOI II-DD/Arm, but harder. My German CTF's are decimating British units in Carribean ports with port strikes -- the same smaller units that send my unescorted troop transports quickly to the bottom. Both are great to see, as they are missing from unmodified AOD!

I would personally vote against this proposal, as I hate to see this in DH and would hate to see it here. Naval (and air) combat in DH is like the unfunnest thing ever, land combat is OK, but also not great compared to AOD.

Naval bombers are the equivalent of atomic bombs in DH, especially around the 1940's tech & beyond. With the AI cheats on range, fleets will also get shredded in port unless they're really big/really far away. I have had the AI shred entire fleets with BBs and all in Arkhangelsk, launching from the UK. Port strikes are way overpowered in DH.

I know the DH devs probably thought the vanilla HOI2-DD/Arm naval combat was too tame (giant battle with 100 naval units and only 2 destroyers get sunk?) outside of obvious gimmie's like unescorted transports, but they turned it up way too much. Now every single naval battle is a fight to the death and entire fleets are getting wiped out in months, that take years to build, and to add insult to injury, often by NAV that take 3 months to build. Please not here. I like it better when there are some minor losses (or big ones if things are really one sided) and everyone mostly takes damage that takes months to repair but lives to fight another day.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Naval bombers are the equivalent of atomic bombs in DH, especially around the 1940's tech & beyond. With the AI cheats on range, fleets will also get shredded in port unless they're really big/really far away. I have had the AI shred entire fleets with BBs and all in Arkhangelsk, launching from the UK. Port strikes are way overpowered in DH.
While I would agree that NAVs and for that matter TACs and CASs bombing ships in ports are overpowered, I was discussing CTF base strikes. In DH, these outcomes are more realistic. AODs base strikes now are the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack sinking 2 destroyers.
Now every single naval battle is a fight to the death and entire fleets are getting wiped out in months, that take years to build…

Isn’t this sort of what happened to Germany with the Norway invasion?


I like it better when there are some minor losses (or big ones if things are really one sided) and everyone mostly takes damage that takes months to repair but lives to fight another day.


Both AOD & DH “stick” you in a Navsl battle for, what, 4 hours before you can retreat?!? In DH, the instant you order retreat, the damage stops. More realistic is to be able to retreat after 1 hour of game time, but be subject to damage while doing so - screens and slower ships especially.
 
While I would agree that NAVs and for that matter TACs and CASs bombing ships in ports are overpowered, I was discussing CTF base strikes. In DH, these outcomes are more realistic. AODs base strikes now are the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack sinking 2 destroyers.


Isn’t this sort of what happened to Germany with the Norway invasion?


I like it better when there are some minor losses (or big ones if things are really one sided) and everyone mostly takes damage that takes months to repair but lives to fight another day.


Both AOD & DH “stick” you in a Navsl battle for, what, 4 hours before you can retreat?!? In DH, the instant you order retreat, the damage stops. More realistic is to be able to retreat after 1 hour of game time, but be subject to damage while doing so - screens and slower ships especially.
They are part of the same problem though, that port strike missions can sink an entire fleet at anchor in DH, and to add insult to injury, from absurdly long distances away when it's the AI doing it, so you can't even hide the fleet out of range for most countries to save it.

I can't tell you how many times I've military controlled Italy, saw it build a new destroyer, place it in a port and the Brit AI will sink it 3 seconds later, no matter where they put it, because every Italian port will be in range from the UK. What's the point of that? That's not counting the CV port strikes, where the US will send a carrier fleet from New York to wipe out a tiny Italian fleet of a few CL's and destroyers that somehow survived in Taranto. It's a shame I didn't notice before they started bombing, because I could've wiped out half the USN with my German naval bombers right there.

The real question is, do you want every single engagement to be a Pearl Harbor/Leyte Gulf or not? I don't think it should, because it entirely negates the naval side of the game and even ignores that historically those were the exceptions rather than the rule.

The optimal play becomes to build stacks of naval bombers, never build any ships besides submarines and transports, use them to nuke any ships within range and ignore the naval side as much as possible altogether.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions: