Great idea. worth looking at. combined with increased terrain penalties for arm units should solve Arm superpower issue.no need to change IC cost.
-
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.
Great idea. worth looking at. combined with increased terrain penalties for arm units should solve Arm superpower issue.no need to change IC cost.
I love this. I would not post my ramblings if I did not miss this earlier
my point of view
Here's from a book (countdown to victory Barry turner p308-309) I am reading.
The tank has been hit and the crew is bailing out
[I didn't need any more telling to make me realize what had happened - we had been hit by hard shot. I dived under the gun and was pulled up sharply by my headset lead ... I rose out of the hatchway]
They entered the house next to their position and found an infantry platoon taking cover their.
[ For a few minutes there was been a great deal of noise - the hammering of brens, the crack of rifles and the barking of the mortar in the back garden. We sat tight on the floor, leaving it to the infantry and hoping for the best. McCarthy made himself useful filling Bren Magazines]
As you see after being shot these guys were not a fighting force any more.
Any way an infantry divisions have auxiliary armaments (mortar, art, MG42 ...) that a tank division doesn't have, even the soldier arms differs.
I think the best way to simulate this in the game is the following:
-As the division takes hit the softness increases and the hardness diminishes.
-The offensive/defensive power of the division is relative to its strength.50% strength = 50% firepower.
- the more the division is hard the more it takes in IC days to repair it.
Here's from a book (countdown to victory Barry turner p308-309) I am reading.
The tank has been hit and the crew is bailing out
[I didn't need any more telling to make me realize what had happened - we had been hit by hard shot. I dived under the gun and was pulled up sharply by my headset lead ... I rose out of the hatchway]
They entered the house next to their position and found an infantry platoon taking cover their.
[ For a few minutes there was been a great deal of noise - the hammering of brens, the crack of rifles and the barking of the mortar in the back garden. We sat tight on the floor, leaving it to the infantry and hoping for the best. McCarthy made himself useful filling Bren Magazines]
As you see after being shot these guys were not a fighting force any more.
Any way an infantry divisions have auxiliary armaments (mortar, art, MG42 ...) that a tank division doesn't have, even the soldier arms differs.
I think the best way to simulate this in the game is the following:
-As the division takes hit the softness increases and the hardness diminishes.
-The offensive/defensive power of the division is relative to its strength.50% strength = 50% firepower.
- the more the division is hard the more it takes in IC days to repair it.
Agree on this.
What exactly is this "hard" "soft" dichotomy supposed to represent? Is the way combat works in this engine essentially the same as HOI? meaning, can I just read the HOI Wicky to understand the underlying maths?
No, it´s one of those parts that have been reworked considerably. A look at the dev diaries might help http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=439164
Good to know that you are working to fix this. Any ETA?
Or are there any - easy - ways to mod this myself?
IMO the way armor should work is thus...
Against 'normal' units with low HA in more favorable terrain (plains mostly but also desert) = curbstomp with armor taking mostly org losses...
Against highly upgraded infantry (Maybe give '43 and above a boost in HA) = Some str and org losses...
Against dedicated AT brigades = more str than org... you're going to want your armor mixed with regular or motorized inf to soak up the damage as the happy days are gone...
Terrain and weather should play a massive factor... An equivalent tech mountain division in the mountains with AT should be able to hold off a division of armor. Heck in general mountains, jungles and marshes should be murderous for armor...
Reinforcement of armored divisions should be very expensive but not take a lot of time to simulate the fact that if you have tanks in reserve replacing one is easier than having to muster another 1000 soldiers and put them on a train. Maybe make armored units cheaper to build initially to compensate?
I think this will put armor back in balance with the role it played in ww2, namely as a spearhead unit that was followed up with infantry (Germany) or a good solid bulwark unit used in conjunction with infantry (Allies)... As it is now armor is an ultimate attacker and defender in any situation all by itself limited only by fuel and supplies...
Against 'normal' units with low HA in more favorable terrain (plains mostly but also desert) = curbstomp with armor taking mostly org losses...
Against highly upgraded infantry (Maybe give '43 and above a boost in HA) = Some str and org losses...
Against dedicated AT brigades = more str than org... you're going to want your armor mixed with regular or motorized inf to soak up the damage as the happy days are gone...
Terrain and weather should play a massive factor... An equivalent tech mountain division in the mountains with AT should be able to hold off a division of armor. Heck in general mountains, jungles and marshes should be murderous for armor...
Reinforcement of armored divisions should be very expensive but not take a lot of time to simulate the fact that if you have tanks in reserve replacing one is easier than having to muster another 1000 soldiers and put them on a train. Maybe make armored units cheaper to build initially to compensate?
I think this will put armor back in balance with the role it played in ww2, namely as a spearhead unit that was followed up with infantry (Germany) or a good solid bulwark unit used in conjunction with infantry (Allies)... As it is now armor is an ultimate attacker and defender in any situation all by itself limited only by fuel and supplies...
I'm sure Balesir will do a great job, but in the meantime it's VERY easy to do yourself, if you want.
Use notepad to open up ...\db\units\modifiers.csv and edit to your heart's content. It's pretty straightforward.
Well, we're just going to have to disagree, then. ^_^ I still think it's a needless, and rather unrealistic, complication. At least militia units actually carry rifles.
Last edited:
How about MOT and MEC divisions then?
Those are actually made up off mostly real rifle infantry.
Would you be fine with them increasing in softness and losing speed at lower strength (if we make the distinction that vehicles are knocked out first)?
semi off-topic, but are the stacking penalties just as hard for ships and planes? So I so use stacks of 2 interceptors instead of stacks of 4?
Panzer divisions had more than enough infantry weapons to mount an effective resistance. I couldn't find the small arms list but 9300 guys had 220 machine guns, 50 mortars and 10 infantry guns. That's about 1/2 to 1/3 of the firepower of a normal infantry division in non vehicle based weaponry. That's just what I could find online. I'm hoping that one of the many more knowledgeable people can find a list of how many small arms were issued to a panzer division. Even if it's only 1/3 to 1/2 of a standard infantry division, that's still 4000 - 6000 guys.
Thanks Blecky. It sounds like they have been generally successful in what they sought to achieve with this system, i.e.,
So generally, I think the system is one of the better one's I've encountered and I think that the square of N function described as limiting combat power is in that regard an effective one.
However, I too have noticed that armor are rather powerful in the game. My understanding is that armor are rather powerful in real life too, but they are and have been built to properly economized scales for a number of reasons: there is a diminishing return from concentrating them too much (even in a "plains-plains" province boundary there will only be so many avenues through which armor can efficiently and effectively pass), they are far more costly to build than non-armor and they are also far more costly in maintenance/upkeep, i.e., logistics.
I still don't understand this "soft" "hard" distinction, and would not presume that what I have to say is going to be worthwhile, but perhaps might serve as food for thought:
1) what about increasing armor-specific reinforcement cost (not necessarily speed of reinforcement) by 25% (I think others have already suggested something like this). Make it more costly to reinforce armor.
2) what about applying a armor/stack-specific supply use modifier on armor units, i.e., make it more costly in terms of logistics even to deploy lots of armor in one province. A workable algorithm might be something like:
armor supply use = [({[sqrt(n) of armor in a stack] -1} x 0.3) + 1] %
This works out for a 0.3 modifier to be:
arm in stack 0.3 Modifier
1 100.0%
2 112.4%
3 122.0%
4 130.0%
5 137.1%
6 143.5%
7 149.4%
8 154.9%
9 160.0%
10 164.9%
15 186.2%
20 204.2%
25 220.0%
Change the (0.3) to achieve desired effect. I don't know how many actual armored divisions were simultaneously deployed in any given equivalent of a game province so I don't know how large the effect should be.
3) for the "stacking penalty" on combat power what about applying a squart root of (n-1) function to armor but the squart root of n function to "non-armor" (not sure about mech etc.)
Taken togehter it seems like those sorts of modifications could pretty seriously nerf of armor, but given what guys are seeing it might be worth trying if it is easily implementable. Perhaps suggestion # 2 would be enough and suggestion # 3 would be overkill.
The other thing is that it seems to me that armor recovers from an offensive rather quickly, and does not suffer either the basic casualties (reduced STR?) or the basic wear-and-tear (reduced ORG?) that it would have in actual history. Not sure how easily the code could be adjusted to account for that.
So generally, I think the system is one of the better one's I've encountered and I think that the square of N function described as limiting combat power is in that regard an effective one.
However, I too have noticed that armor are rather powerful in the game. My understanding is that armor are rather powerful in real life too, but they are and have been built to properly economized scales for a number of reasons: there is a diminishing return from concentrating them too much (even in a "plains-plains" province boundary there will only be so many avenues through which armor can efficiently and effectively pass), they are far more costly to build than non-armor and they are also far more costly in maintenance/upkeep, i.e., logistics.
I still don't understand this "soft" "hard" distinction, and would not presume that what I have to say is going to be worthwhile, but perhaps might serve as food for thought:
1) what about increasing armor-specific reinforcement cost (not necessarily speed of reinforcement) by 25% (I think others have already suggested something like this). Make it more costly to reinforce armor.
2) what about applying a armor/stack-specific supply use modifier on armor units, i.e., make it more costly in terms of logistics even to deploy lots of armor in one province. A workable algorithm might be something like:
armor supply use = [({[sqrt(n) of armor in a stack] -1} x 0.3) + 1] %
This works out for a 0.3 modifier to be:
arm in stack 0.3 Modifier
1 100.0%
2 112.4%
3 122.0%
4 130.0%
5 137.1%
6 143.5%
7 149.4%
8 154.9%
9 160.0%
10 164.9%
15 186.2%
20 204.2%
25 220.0%
Change the (0.3) to achieve desired effect. I don't know how many actual armored divisions were simultaneously deployed in any given equivalent of a game province so I don't know how large the effect should be.
3) for the "stacking penalty" on combat power what about applying a squart root of (n-1) function to armor but the squart root of n function to "non-armor" (not sure about mech etc.)
Taken togehter it seems like those sorts of modifications could pretty seriously nerf of armor, but given what guys are seeing it might be worth trying if it is easily implementable. Perhaps suggestion # 2 would be enough and suggestion # 3 would be overkill.
The other thing is that it seems to me that armor recovers from an offensive rather quickly, and does not suffer either the basic casualties (reduced STR?) or the basic wear-and-tear (reduced ORG?) that it would have in actual history. Not sure how easily the code could be adjusted to account for that.
I don't think this is needed. Brigaded Armor will already as it is put roughly 10 times as much strain on your TC as infantry will (when moving). And around 3-5 times as much when stationary.
I seriously doubt anyone will be able to survive with an all armour army due to TC and supply issues.
Perhaps armour could be coded to lose more org when on the move to account for wear and tear. So that offensives won't go on for ever even if little resistance is encountered.
Last edited:
I think this and making high hardness units more vulnerable to strength losses would do a lot towards making them behave historically.
Sounds reasonable to me. That way it would make sense to actually SR armoured forces instaed of letting them rumble across your streets. Up ´til now it takes about three weeks for an ARM division to travel from mid-France to Denmark by street, losing almost no org compared to three weeks by SR, losing 50% org in that process. You only gain a little less fuel and supply consumption when SR right now but have to wait quite long for your ARM divisions to regain their full org.
I could see this being a very good idea. It would make people want to use strat redepoy more which is more historical and also make using them like a firebrigade somewhat costly even if they don't see combat.
The one problem is the AI. It will probably just drive it's tanks until they die.
I've already answered that question (Post #42), but I'll do it again...
Yes, it would make quite a lot of sense to apply the suggested system to MOT and MEC divisions. If they take AT fire and lose their vehicles, they become straight INF divisions. But then, so does a CAV division if they lose their horses/motorcycles. Should we keep track of how many horses are killed, and turn them into INF divisions as they lose mounts?
I think the key word that needs to be remembered here is "ABSTRACTION".
Yes, there are a lot of good ideas that would make things more realistic (although I don't think the softening ARM thing is one of them. More on that in a second), but they aren't necessary ideas. A complex system of MOT slowly turning into INF if it's hit with a lot of AT isn't necessary, and I don't think it would really add anything to the game.
As for ARM, it seems necessary because ARM is overly effective. That really is almost entirely because ARM is good in all terrains at the moment. Real tanks are good in deserts and plains, but suck in forests, mountains, marshes, mud, cities, etc.. Not in AoD, though! Presently, they're better or only very slightly worse than INF in every terrain. Fix that for a start, and I don't think some fancy system of softening ARM will be any more necessary than keeping track of CAV horse casualties.
Okay, great. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe foreign force composition doesn't mirror US composition, and panzer divisions had a huge chunk of fully-equipped infantry included. I still can't see the suggested system being necessary.
Let's step back and look at the original concept: Tanks who take lots of damage from AT should lose tanks and not men, and so should get softer.
So, where does AT fire come from? Tank destroyer and AT gun brigades? So for every brigade of AT fire, the ARM division is also getting nailed by the entire infantry division to which the brigade is attached. Don't you think that INF division might be doing some damage to the soft, infantry parts of the ARM unit?
What about ARM vs ARM? Well then I have to assume that all those infantrymen that you keep mentioning are shooting at all the infantrymen in the other ARM division, and the same thing happens.
The only real important matter here is that you can't effectively reduce an ARM's unit fighting strength without AT. That makes perfect sense, since killing all the infantryman in an ARM division isn't doing much to the real fighting force of the division; the tanks.
As we have said many times. The damage done to men will not be anywhere near how many tanks are knocked out as a percentage.
Take USA for example. They build 100 000 tanks during the war. With 200 tanks per division they should have been able to field 500 tank divisions!
If we are generous and say half of US tanks were lend lease, then are still stuck at 250 divisions.
The real number is closer to 25 tank divisions. So we can conclude that the average US tank is replaced around 10 times throughout the conflict.
The same ratio for Infantry if about 1 million was assigned to a division at the US army peak (100divs) and they took half a million casualties would be 0.5
Thus a rough and quick estimates gives at hand that tanks were 20 times as likely to be knocked out as you average Joe in a division. And tank casualties from an average battle would also be 20times as high.
A Tank division that just lost 20% of its tanks probably didn't lose more then 1% of its men.
These numbers will probably wary some depending on what army you study but Id be very surprised if you can find a major army where tank casualties (by percentage) were less then 5 times as high as manpower casualties.
If strength only represented amount of tanks then this would be a good Idea. But as the abstraction works now strength also represent manpower. So a tank division would lose men just by moving around.
This needs to be compensated if its to be implemented fairly or a manpower poor nation with lots of tanks would not be happy to put them in motion by fear off mass death ^^