Armor is broken in HOI2

[unmerged(47103)]

Your comment re the highest officer giving skill bonus is erroneous: ALL commanders give their skill bonuses to the units under their DIRECT command provided they have sufficient command to control them (i.e. a Lt. Gen can command 3 divs in their formation and pass on skills).

The added wrinkle is that, for the 'commander' of the battle, they will pass on their skills provided they meet the above requirement AND have sufficient command to cover ALL units in the combat attacking from their province. Of course this is even MORE messy when you've several provinces attacking, because you might have it so that an individual province is covered with respect to attacking divisions and command, but another is not, yet the 'total' battle might seem that it is....

e.g. a FM with 7 divs and MG with 2 attack from 1 province while a LtG with 4 and 2MGs with 1 each attack from another. There is an HQ with a Gen in an adjoining province.
The 'total' battle would show 14 divs attacking and command limit of 30 (the FM gets 2x12 and the LtG 2x3), BUT the MG in the 1st province and the LtG in the 2nd would not add their skills because they are over their individual command limits (note the HQ does NOT double individual formation command limits (1/3/9/12), only command for a battle in total).

Sorry if I'm telling you things you know, but this seems to be a widely misunderstood topic....

 

[jlpktnst]

Well yea, this is probably for the combined arms thread or something totally different. Forgive me if I was off (5 am, headache - I just had to write what I thoght). Now I should write what I think about armour?
I think its defensiveness is too high, as is infantry's toughness. Anyway I think the whole system is flawed, not just the armor. (system as motorised/mechanised/armour). I don't like it at all. Better way would be to just 'attach' motorised transports to certain infantry and let the others have horses (default) or let player research motorised transports for all armies. But this is all dreamin on my side
As some suggested it could be easily solved with some additional events only happening when armour is present, or maybe armoured force with pz.Gen.
And have events DO something, since I get impression ingame that events are just there for the fancy looks (bonus is really cheap).

-- to add to my offtopic ramble about the first ever blitzkrieg - while I said they advanced in the valleys and left hilltops behind - there was also a cover of fog - and somebody named this infantry infiltration assault. But that is not the point here, I was trying to make a point that similar thing happens with tanks on open fields and is not modeled in game at all. I think that tanks shouldn't be treated like fast infantry, maybe more like ships? Maneuvering... since the point of armor is to maneuver (and crush doing that) and of (motorised) inf. to cover the stragglers.

I don't think the needed changes are beyond scope of doability. If they go the simplest path - just make panzers + generals count in equasion of events. Make events stronger when good general and a good mixture of arms is present. This IS easy.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Tinkering with the spatial model doesn't really address the core issue. When I have played games with smaller spatial granularity (say the classic 25Km hex of board games) a combat motorised force could carry out defeat in detail for both offensive and defensive operations. This is a major force multiplier and cannot be effectively simulated in HOI2 as it stands. The solution is either to massively increase the number of provinces (and I mean massively) or build in assumed operational manouevers based on leader skill and doctrine. The effectiveness should vary according to true stacking density and the size of the province. The current combat event system doesn't really cover as there is no allowance for the ability of combat motorised forces to defeat the slower infantry in detail which can give an effective force multiplier of 2 or 3 to one on the spatial scale being used. On of the biggest problems with the combat events is they take no notice of the type of forces involved. As Germany I get the same events with infantry as I do with armour and this really cannot be right.

 

[mbb]

Here is something extra to the debate.

Here is a private conversation I had with mld0806 which I thought might be relevant and may be one of the causes of the armour disparity some players feel that there is:

Originally Posted by mbb
Hi mld0806,

After that rather lengthy debate in the thread 'Armour is Broken' I decided to explore the benefits of mech/td o mech/sp-art. In doing so I dug up a thread by you explaining most of the mechanics of combat. After reading your thread I came to the conclusion that OP of the 'Armour is broken' thread may be correct. But not for the reasons he thinks.

To summarise, you say each round the infantry will randomly select a hard or soft attack based upon the softness of the target unit. This seems ok so far, because infantry should only be able to attack hard targets up to round 4 or 5 (at 41 or 43 models). for most vanilla armour there would be about a 1/5 chance of being soft targeted for longer. The point I am making though, is this: Is the damage received by the armour against that soft attack the full damage or adjusted by proportion e.g. 1/5 damage?

If the damage inflicted is the former rather than the latter then the combat model may be flawed or bugged. What are your thoughts on this?



Damage is done based on:

a) firing unit type
b) target unit type
c) whether a soft/hard attack is used.

As such, when infantry fires at armor using a Soft Attack rather than a Hard, they do less damage per hit than if they used a Hard Attack (making, on a somewhat related note, AT brigades quite a good investment).

Now, I don't, nor does anyone outside of the programmers to the best of my knowledge, know what the damage-per-hit matrix looks like. To find that out would require extensive modification and testing in a sterile scenario, something I haven't the time to do.

Any takers on trying to test the damage matrix?

 

[Gwalcmai]

A poster named "George S Patton" had a very good idea of making combat initiate after a unit has spent half the time it would normally take to move into the province. I think this is the best solution by far. It would be doable if Paradox really wanted to and would not require radical changes to the AI.

Well... You want to play HOI1, you just need to go out and find a copy. No need for Paradox to recode it.

Of course, there are reasons why Paradox decided the "move then fight" model doesn't really work, but if you really want to play like that, you can.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Well... You want to play HOI1, you just need to go out and find a copy. No need for Paradox to recode it.

Of course, there are reasons why Paradox decided the "move then fight" model doesn't really work, but if you really want to play like that, you can.

Unfortunately the real problem is that neither model works. There seems to be a good argument for move a bit then fight as the original poster suggested. A half way house between HOI1 and HOI2 might address the issues with both systems.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Here is a private conversation I had with mld0806 which I thought might be relevant and may be one of the causes of the armour disparity some players feel that there is:

Originally Posted by mbb
Hi mld0806,

After that rather lengthy debate in the thread 'Armour is Broken' I decided to explore the benefits of mech/td o mech/sp-art. In doing so I dug up a thread by you explaining most of the mechanics of combat. After reading your thread I came to the conclusion that OP of the 'Armour is broken' thread may be correct. But not for the reasons he thinks.

To summarise, you say each round the infantry will randomly select a hard or soft attack based upon the softness of the target unit. This seems ok so far, because infantry should only be able to attack hard targets up to round 4 or 5 (at 41 or 43 models). for most vanilla armour there would be about a 1/5 chance of being soft targeted for longer. The point I am making though, is this: Is the damage received by the armour against that soft attack the full damage or adjusted by proportion e.g. 1/5 damage?

If the damage inflicted is the former rather than the latter then the combat model may be flawed or bugged. What are your thoughts on this?



Damage is done based on:

a) firing unit type
b) target unit type
c) whether a soft/hard attack is used.

As such, when infantry fires at armor using a Soft Attack rather than a Hard, they do less damage per hit than if they used a Hard Attack (making, on a somewhat related note, AT brigades quite a good investment).

Now, I don't, nor does anyone outside of the programmers to the best of my knowledge, know what the damage-per-hit matrix looks like. To find that out would require extensive modification and testing in a sterile scenario, something I haven't the time to do.

Any takers on trying to test the damage matrix?

My understanding, backed up by some informal combat analysis, is as follows

1. Each round each unit with remaining attack strength attempts an attack
a) Select a target at random
b) Select which part you are shooting at (hard or soft) based on its softness percentage.
c) If a have no more fire power of the appropriate type then quit
d) Fire an attack
e) Target defends with either an 80% chance (if toughness/defensiveness left) or a 60% chance of blocking
f) apply damage
2. Repeat for all units and enough combat rounds till all done.

The rules for (f) are unknown but I have been unable to detect any variation based on units type etc. Research is badly hampered by combat events which clearly modify the rule in (f).

The effect of the above is that the average shots taken by a unit are equal to (soft attack x average target softness)+(hard attack x average target hardness) and this can be taken as the effective combat capability of the unit. Note that this gives an effective attack of 7 for 1941 inf versus armour and 8.3 for 1943.

The most popular view seems to be that the formula in (f) is fixed and ignores all variations in unit type.

 

[mbb]

My understanding, backed up by some informal combat analysis, is as follows

1. Each round each unit with remaining attack strength attempts an attack
a) Select a target at random
b) Select which part you are shooting at (hard or soft) based on its softness percentage.
c) If a have no more fire power of the appropriate type then quit
d) Fire an attack
e) Target defends with either an 80% chance (if toughness/defensiveness left) or a 60% chance of blocking
f) apply damage
2. Repeat for all units and enough combat rounds till all done.

The rules for (f) are unknown but I have been unable to detect any variation based on units type etc. Research is badly hampered by combat events which clearly modify the rule in (f).

The effect of the above is that the average shots taken by a unit are equal to (soft attack x average target softness)+(hard attack x average target hardness) and this can be taken as the effective combat capability of the unit. Note that this gives an effective attack of 7 for 1941 inf versus armour and 8.3 for 1943.

The most popular view seems to be that the formula in (f) is fixed and ignores all variations in unit type.

Well, I think if anything needs looking at it is indeed the way damage is applied in step (f). If you note from my discussion with mld0806, he said that all attacks do some kind of damage, to a greater or lesser degree, regardless of the actual portion (hard/soft) of the unit targeted. I had not appreciated this before - I had assumed only a hard attack against armour would hurt it. I think many players have made this assumption.

I can see some problems here which may cause the OP to say 'Armour is broken'. It could be that too much damage is being applied to hard units when attacked by soft units (damage applied does not seem to be releated to unit stats). Or there could be a program error somewhere in the guts of the damage calculation. Or variable damage was not implemented at all and a simple uniform damage is applied (I doubt this but it would be nice if this could be ruled out officially).

Just speculation, because the damage matrix is unknown, but I think how the damage is being applied is the real issue in this debate.

 

[binTravkin]

Heah, time for some from the Paradox step in and reveal at least some details?

 

[jlpktnst]

Anyway doesn't bad weather/night actually help infantry infiltration assault technique? And it makes impossible for mobile defence to kick in. I mean yea, in current model you cannot do as much damage when you don't see the enemy, but you can also cover up the extent of the attack when they don't see you. If they have bad organisation/morale this is devastating enough to destroy them. Events could be connected to this too... :wacko:

 

[grumbold]

And the entirety of the divisions sit in the CENTER of the province and don't start fighting until they hit the center or the adjacent province........

You must be being facetious here. Naturally elements of the force will be able to manoeuver to counterattack very quickly, but if the divisions are holding a front line to the east, they are not in a position to counterattack at full strength north, south or west at a moments notice, let alone all of them!

Any attack order should not start at 100% effectiveness unless the order was issued long enough in advance for the troops to have had tme to prepare and manoeuver before it begins. This applies far more when you are asked to counterattack in an unexpected direction.

 

[unmerged(46396)]

...but I think how the damage is being applied is the real issue in this debate.

Tanks taking too much damage from Infantry is NOT "THE" real issue, it's only half of the issue.

The other just as significant half of the issue is the fact that at the front line, in a virtual sense, Infantry has effectively the same mobility as Armor in when and where it can attack. This makes it very easy to disrupt Armor attacks because whenever they make a move, they can just be attacked from a completely different but adjacent province and be forced to get bogged down in another fight they would realistically be able to avoid which deminishes the value of their speed.

...After reading your thread I came to the conclusion that OP of the 'Armour is broken' thread may be correct. But not for the reasons he thinks.

I've been following this entire thread and look how long it has taken for mld0806 to get it through his head there is an issue and even then, he just can't accept someone else was right.

...may be correct.

...But not for the reasons he thinks.

Also notice that he made both of these statements in a PRIVATE conversation.... god forbid he should actually acknowledge someone else has a point publicly on the forums.

One of those "has to be the smartest guy in the room" types....

 

[mld0806]

Tanks taking too much damage from Infantry is NOT "THE" real issue, it's only half of the issue.

The other just as significant half of the issue is the fact that at the front line, in a virtual sense, Infantry has effectively the same mobility as Armor in when and where it can attack. This makes it very easy to disrupt Armor attacks because whenever they make a move, they can just be attacked from a completely different but adjacent province and be forced to get bogged down in another fight they would realistically be able to avoid which deminishes the value of their speed.



I've been following this entire thread and look how long it has taken for mld0806 to get it through his head there is an issue and even then, he just can't accept someone else was right.





One of those "has to be the smartest guy in the room" types....

Alright, don't quote something I didn't write, first off.

Second, my contention has been with the OP's "5 armor should defeat 24 infantry divisions". Gimme a freakin' break? Could it happen? Certainly, if the infantry force were commanded by a drooling eggplant. Otherwise, granularity of movement or whatever, it won't happen.

I've stayed out of the whole "granularity of movement" thing, but I'll weigh in now. Adjacent provinces counterattacking? Not an issue with granularity of movement, and issue with STRATEGY. Huh, wha? Yes, moron, strategy! If forces adjacent to the breakthrough aren't tied down, they can respond to the break through. Who said this? His Holiness Guderian, I believe. Second line instantly counterattacking? Uh, don't you think once the first line is engaged, someone's gonna say to the second line, "Hey, guys, they're a-commin'!" Second line counterattack being prepared to move? Realistic. Adjacent provinces unengaged responding to the attack? Realistic.

Besides which, anything related to "movement-is-attack" isn't an issue with armor, it's an issue with the engine. Does movement is attack make some of the mechanics of combat be unrealistic? Sure, I'll give you that. Infantry divisions can't teleport. Are the basic strategic elements of "armor needs infantry support to gain any sort of permanent success, take territory [which is what defeating an enemy in a province is!], hold that territory, and continue with the advances into the enemy rear" fairly well simulated? Yup, it is. Attack adjacent provinces with Infantry and tie them down, you don't get counterattacked in the flank. WOW, novel idea. Keep infantry support up with your tanks and don't outrun it and you don't get overwhelmed by a quarter of a million men.

The thing I disagree with is the whole "armor is broken because it isn't uber and can't wipe everything out because tanks are cool and shouldn't need infantry support!" It's NOT uber, it CAN'T wipe everything out, and it DOES need infantry support.

The issue has devolved into one of scale. Panzer Leader, combat events, etc are what are used to model IN PROVINCE happenings. It's not totally realistic and doesn't cover every eventuality of manuver warfare on the province level. Sure. On the STRATEGIC level, which is what we deal with here, armor works fine, it's people who expect it to run amok without the infantry support it needed on the STRATEGIC level that bitch, bitch, bitch. So, building 10000000 tanks doesn't automatically win the war. Big deal, get over it. Historically, the rest of the ground forces existed for a reason.

Also, on the private conversation. HE messaged me. I didn't make any mistake in my posts in this thread. I haven't mentioned this whole granularity of movement thing, and frankly it only discusses the under-engine things and NOT the strategic need for infantry support for successful continued armor operations.

To sum up my entire arguments in this thread so that you can understand them without attacking ME first:

Armor works just fine, people are screwed up in how they use it. IT NEEDS INFANTRY SUPPORT. Do you outrun your infantry support? Damn skippy, and it happened historically.

Anything modeled in province is an ENGINE issue, not an issue with armor. If you attack with a combined Infantry/Armor force, you will see success and won't get "instantly" counterattacked in the flank. Durrrr...isn't that what they did historically?

5 Armored divisions CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT defeat a quarter of a million men all by it's lonesome. That's assinine, and I don't care how you put it, you won't change my mind on that. Could aliens have told the Egyptians how to build the pyramids? They COULD have, sure. I'll call you nuts if you actually believe it, though.

 

[mld0806]

You must be being facetious here. Naturally elements of the force will be able to manoeuver to counterattack very quickly, but if the divisions are holding a front line to the east, they are not in a position to counterattack at full strength north, south or west at a moments notice, let alone all of them!

Any attack order should not start at 100% effectiveness unless the order was issued long enough in advance for the troops to have had tme to prepare and manoeuver before it begins. This applies far more when you are asked to counterattack in an unexpected direction.

I was being facetious. Movement-is-attack is better than Movement-then-attack. Are there flaws in the current engine that are a bit unrealistic? Sure. Do they break the game? I don't think so. But those are engine issues, not armor issues.

 

[unmerged(28147)]

I was being facetious. Movement-is-attack is better than Movement-then-attack. Are there flaws in the current engine that are a bit unrealistic? Sure. Do they break the game? I don't think so. But those are engine issues, not armor issues.

I just have one thing to say for those that dislike the movement is attack feature. Many people seem to think the units attacking are star trek teleported to the center of a province to start attacking, it's not like that. It's representative of the enemy having their forces deployed along the province border and throughout the province, thus when you order an attack they start by attacking the units at the border and then sweep further into the province. Then when more forces show up they take up positions to block your forces moving in and combat begins again.

 

[McNaughton]

In the end, things may need tweaking. Maybe some armour/mech/mot units need to have something improved over infantry, combined bonus' may need to be improved, but, I don't think that the system is broken.

To state that something may not work fully as intented (or at least how some people feel it should), does not mean that it is broken. Broken contends that nothing works, that it completely fails in its process. The fact is, while results may not be exact, they are not far from working well.

 

[mld0806]

I just have one thing to say for those that dislike the movement is attack feature. Many people seem to think the units attacking are star trek teleported to the center of a province to start attacking, it's not like that. It's representative of the enemy having their forces deployed along the province border and throughout the province, thus when you order an attack they start by attacking the units at the border and then sweep further into the province. Then when more forces show up they take up positions to block your forces moving in and combat begins again.

Let me add a little something to this.

An engagement between forces in a province doesn't represent just COMBAT, but the overall positioning and manuver of the forces into and throughout the province until such time as one force has enough of an advantage that the enemy abandons the province.

As such, while infantry can't all move to ATTACK, physically, the armored divisions, they could, as divisions, manuver within the province to take territory. Armor on the defensive would have to respond to all this, and infantry on the offensive would move around the armor where they could, engaging.

Organization damage isn't just disruption of forces per se, but the strategic and tactical "location" of forces. As a division is defeated in BATTLE (not COMBAT), it's organization drops to represent the units becoming disunified, moving about, and giving up "ideal terrain". On the attack it could represent momentum of movement, attacker force cohesion, etc.

BATTLE isn't COMBAT and not all of taking a province is COMBAT. Organization can be seen to represent some of those "intangibles" of preferential terrain and manuver advantages.

Looking at it as "granularity" is looking at the COMBAT side of things. Yes, an entire division cannot engage in combat simultaneously all at once. Divisions and formations CAN manuver to gain terrain while not necessarily making contact with the enemy, and can thereby affect the "organization" of units many miles away as they have to move to respond to the advances and give up preferential terrain.

 

[Arilou]

Another point:

You can't stack an infinite amount of units, after a certain point it thus becomes more effective to use fewer, more powerful, units than simply building a horde of lesser quality ones. I've noticed this especially when doing amphibious assaults/canal crossovers/fortress busts, it doesen't really matter how many low quality units you have, you'll need that extra invulnerability that an armoured unit or specialist force gives you.

 

[jlpktnst]

An engagement between forces in a province doesn't represent just COMBAT, but the overall positioning and manuver of the forces into and throughout the province until such time as one force has enough of an advantage that the enemy abandons the province.

And this is where it miserably fails in my opinion.

Armor broken or combat engine model for armor - isn't that one thing? I was merely suggesting that armor cannot be treated as regular infantry. I have an idea of different combat model, but it is all a fantasy.

Another point:

You can't stack an infinite amount of units, after a certain point it thus becomes more effective to use fewer, more powerful, units than simply building a horde of lesser quality ones. I've noticed this especially when doing amphibious assaults/canal crossovers/fortress busts, it doesen't really matter how many low quality units you have, you'll need that extra invulnerability that an armoured unit or specialist force gives you.

That is definetely true, but effect of overstacking should be extended from mere combat penalities to org/str loss at least.

--
On strategic level armor is useful as it should be. But the point was I think that armor's main focus is NOT the strategic level of usefullness. On strategic level motorised infantry is probably as good if not better than armor, then why have armor at all? It does not help in tactical combat (no combat events trigered by armor), on large scale encirclements and similar mot/mech can be used with similar result.

 

[unmerged(48134)]

On strategic level armor is useful as it should be. But the point was I think that armor's main focus is NOT the strategic level of usefullness. On strategic level motorised infantry is probably as good if not better than armor, then why have armor at all? It does not help in tactical combat (no combat events trigered by armor), on large scale encirclements and similar mot/mech can be used with similar result


You seem to be saying that you think armor is underpowered vis a vis your expectations or understanding of WW2. Does armor "hit hard?" That is the question here, essentially. My opinion is that it does if used in the right mix and you do not think of it as Desert Storm. Think of it more as cavalry, the troopers of which cannot be picked off by rifle fire.