I'm just moving the discussion started by Lord Baldric out of the "attack is movement" thread. Should have done it sooner, but anyway.
-
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.
Hmm...
As I didn't read that thread you mentioned, I'm assuming the question is: If rebuilding seriously damaged tank divisions should be similar to how seriously damaged ships are repaired (via the build queue)??
As I didn't read that thread you mentioned, I'm assuming the question is: If rebuilding seriously damaged tank divisions should be similar to how seriously damaged ships are repaired (via the build queue)??
It's more specifically related to what the cost of rebuilding armor should be, in relation to the other types of units.
As far as it goes, I think that it has to be taken into consideration that WWII-era armor broke down at an appalling rate, and that is not represented in any way that I see in-game. I'll have a quote or two up in a few minutes.
As far as it goes, I think that it has to be taken into consideration that WWII-era armor broke down at an appalling rate, and that is not represented in any way that I see in-game. I'll have a quote or two up in a few minutes.
should be higher in cost most definetly but important is does it make sense from a game/historical point for them to be re-built more like ships were in the production screen?
seems odd that you can just send 25 new tanks out and the division is refreshed.
seems odd that you can just send 25 new tanks out and the division is refreshed.
This is where I think the game should go Victoria style. Knowing you have a stockpile of certain Tanks, you would have to use them up to replace lost tanks in battle. And, this way, you could replace lost old tanks with bright shiny new-model tanks.
jacob-Lundgren said:
No! I hate reinforcing anything from the production screen because it is a micromanagement nightmare.
well it dont have to be that screen particularlyIEX Totalview said:
but it seems more realistic to send new infantry out to a unit then new tanks and get an instant refilling. maybe if its in real bad shape then by rebuilding it you can send it to -25 org or something so you cant give it any orders for a few hours. it would of course still defend in a battle but a click and refresh then drive off is a little too useful. need some kind of downtime i say but ehh
jacob-Lundgren said:well it dont have to be that screen particularly
Yeah, I agree.
jacob-Lundgren said:well it dont have to be that screen particularly
Sounds fine to me, all I care is that my armor stays put when I hit "reinforce".
[rant]
Seems like for some guys every thing beyond one click and one supply type for everything ends in a "micromangement" nightmare.
[/rant]
Why exactly is it a micromanagement nightmare to have a handful of different unit equipment: planes, tanks, vehicles and men and as additional resources maybe parts and rare materials? Not very complicated in my eyes and miles from the Vicky model. But I know this case is already closed and we will see if Paradox have a good simple soluition or just a simple solution.
If you want to see what a micromanagement nightmare really is, get yourself a copy of bombing the Reich from Gary Grigsby. This thing can really drive you nuts .
And to be honest: the current air and naval combat and province upgrading (as Soviet) are much more worse and closer to that legendary "micromangement nightmare" than a simple production model would ever be.
On the subject of Panzer Divisions' participation in the Anschluss of Austria, an unopposed multi-divisional move of several hundred miles:
But the implication is certainly that they were significant.
On Barbarossa:
Early in the campaign:
Debating whether to drive towards the Ukraine or Moscow:
All quotes are from Heinz Guderian's 'Panzer Leader'. Sorry that it took me so long to dig these out.
But the implication is certainly that they were significant.
On Barbarossa:
Early in the campaign:
Debating whether to drive towards the Ukraine or Moscow:
All quotes are from Heinz Guderian's 'Panzer Leader'. Sorry that it took me so long to dig these out.
So, what? I believe that this is adequately represented by Panzer divisions losing ORG while they are moving.
SecondReich said:
They lose org, yes, but they still fight at 100 % efficiency until org hits 0. My point was that that WWII-era tanks were disabled by simply driving from place to place. Replacing engines, transmissions, road wheels, tracks, etc. costs a substantial amount. But in game all it costs is a week of sitting still. For that reason, even if the cost of replacing equipment lost in combat for infantry and armor divisions was the same, it still makes sense for armor to cost more to represent the losses that are abstracted out of the game.
Lord Baldric said:
Just to make sure I'm clear about these points:
-- Paradox didn't ask me before they chose 0.5 and 1.5, but I'm OK with those numbers
-- I looked at equipment costs in detail before raising the issue. In fact, I looked at this issue starting more than ten years ago, when I began work on some puzzling paradoxes in Trevor Dupuy's HERO system. I looked at actual vehicle and field piece costs in 1940 dollars and reichsmarks. I also reviewed, among other things, the relationship between equipment weight and cost, expected service life (barrel wear), actual statistics for lost artillery, Dupuy's research into relative loss rates, and a host of other topics. I even studied tactical games like Advanced Squad Leader and operational games that keep track of individual tanks, like The Operational Art of War, to see how well they agreed with Dupuy's findings and whether they would correctly model the higher-tank-loss, lower-artillery-loss findings. (And if not, why not.)
Your assuming that I didn't do my homework and saying that I didn't is annoying me all over again.
Lord Baldric said:
Yes, but this isn't necessarily relevant for a bunch of reasons. As I said about medical costs, there are all kinds of "soft" costs not represented in HOI. An IC is not simply a dollar amount -- a number of people have tried on these forums to reconcile national budgets in terms of ICs with historical figures, and there's no easy formula for doing that. Like an iceberg, about 90 % of national economic activity in HOI is "underwater," not simulated. The costs for building accommodations in England for millions of US troops, for example, or building increased rail capacity in Persia for Lend-Lease shipments via the Persian Gulf to the USSR. Or the Alaska Highway. Or airbases on the West African coast for the Takoradi air ferry route. Or the costs of race riots among factory workers in the Midwest, or the Japanese internment camps.
In dollar terms many of these things far exceeded the $2 billion or so that was spent on tanks by the US during the war -- about 1 % of the $250 billion war effort in total. So if you had a game in which the economy ran on dollars, you would have an impossible dilemma. Either you would have to come up with compelling reasons why the player MUST build the Alaska Highway and intern the Japanese and do all these other rather dull infrastructure tasks, or you would allow the player to spend his budget any way he wished, and he would build ten times as many tanks and simply ignore these other items. The US would have 300 armored divisions and players would wonder how Roosevelt could have been so stupid not to do the same.
Instead, ICs represent scarce industrial resources like fabricated steel or skilled labor. They simulate the "bottlenecks" that ultimately determined how fast new units could be produced. Totalling up dollar amounts paid to a volunteer army doesn't tell us what the relative cost of replacing destroyed vehicles or lost riflemen would be in terms of factory and training camp capacity. On the other hand, the number of manhours required to build a tank, and the total weight of steel involved, can be compared to the labor and materials to make small arms, or artillery. In fact, the dollar costs are a pretty good indication of overall material and labor costs -- but only in relative terms, comparing one weapon to another.
Look here for vehicle costs in 1940s terms. I would post some other statistical sourcebooks you could look at, such as Brute Force by John Ellis, but I'm not keen to spend a lot of time helping you review all the data you accuse me of not bothering with.
I had a thought, (prolly others had also) a while ago, that it should be more like ships in port. As long as they are not fighting then depending on the infrastructure/distance between a CORE, (homeland) province then it should take a certain amount of time.
I.e
If in home province spd of restrength should X*1. Where is an artibary time (i.e. 30days).
Otherwise, spd of restrenght should X* (1 / (# of provs to nr. home prov * (total infra/34))
OR some equivalent.
I.e
If in home province spd of restrength should X*1. Where is an artibary time (i.e. 30days).
Otherwise, spd of restrenght should X* (1 / (# of provs to nr. home prov * (total infra/34))
OR some equivalent.
Zwiback said:
[rant]
If something increases the number of clicks, and does add meaningfully to the game, it is not needed.
Take naval reinforcement in HOI. I have 15 ships in port, all slightly damaged. I want to repair. What does that involve? This is as of early versions of HOI, since I never played much past 1.03.
Below are the clicks:
1 - send each ship to the repair queue
2 - click on budget window
3 - adjust production slider to cover repair costs
4 - exit window
Then when my ships are done:
5 - click on budget window
6 - adjust production slider to removerepair costs
7 - exit window
8 - Click on unit deployment
9 - 38 Select each of the 15 ships and redeploy them to the correct port
So 38 clicks for repairing my ships, as opposed to 1. Yeah, I'm gonna prefer the 1.
[/rant]
The SuperAI Bundle HA values are so high because 1) the initial values are higher, and 2) units get +3 HA for each AT tech instead of +1. With that combo it's not hard to get up there pretty quick.
Now, as far as Tanks being overpowered if the HA values are too low go, all I want is for the different unit types to reflect their different strengths and roles. I don't feel I should lose half my strength with a Tank stack against an equal number of plain rifle divisions in open terrain. If that's what's going to happen, I'll lose 100% of my tanks before even getting to the Dneiper. On the other hand, I would expect plain infantry to dominate behind fortifications, in forests, cities, etc. If armored units don't have a significant advantage over infantry under the most favorable conditions, then I'm only buying them for role-playing reasons. Another issue with infantry HA values is that they are the same on both attack and defense, when their AT guns are much easier to use while they are defending, especially if fortified.
What I think should be done, since you only assign value to equipment, and that Tank units suffer disproportionately because of this, is to penalize non-Armored units in the same way at every opportunity. Thus, start them at a certain base HA value, and roll everything else into AT brigades. Presumablely throughout the game they are getting more and heavier guns. Make them pay for them at every turn, and force them to upgrade at a cost. It's only fair. As far as I'm concerned you can do the same thing with their SA bonuses related to artillery. Another idea would be to have different infantry models like you have different tank models (1939 Inf, 1940 Inf...). Then the player can choose what sort of infantry they want and pay accordingly. If they want 15,000 guys with AK-47s and nothing else, they can build militia divisions.
I'll make a deal with you. I'll drop the hostile tone in exchange, no I'll just drop it straight away, and hope that in turn you drop your patronizing tone. I don't need to be beat over the head by your decade of analysis, and I don't need to be "granted points" on my arguments. I apologize for any disrespect I have directed at you, but I'm not going to accept arguments made on the basis of some kind of papal authority. Just because you've reached certain conclusions based on a certain set of data doesn't mean there aren't different ways of handling the data or even different sets of data use. Not to mention what is the best way to turn such conclusions into a game which is fun and balanced.
Now, as far as Tanks being overpowered if the HA values are too low go, all I want is for the different unit types to reflect their different strengths and roles. I don't feel I should lose half my strength with a Tank stack against an equal number of plain rifle divisions in open terrain. If that's what's going to happen, I'll lose 100% of my tanks before even getting to the Dneiper. On the other hand, I would expect plain infantry to dominate behind fortifications, in forests, cities, etc. If armored units don't have a significant advantage over infantry under the most favorable conditions, then I'm only buying them for role-playing reasons. Another issue with infantry HA values is that they are the same on both attack and defense, when their AT guns are much easier to use while they are defending, especially if fortified.
What I think should be done, since you only assign value to equipment, and that Tank units suffer disproportionately because of this, is to penalize non-Armored units in the same way at every opportunity. Thus, start them at a certain base HA value, and roll everything else into AT brigades. Presumablely throughout the game they are getting more and heavier guns. Make them pay for them at every turn, and force them to upgrade at a cost. It's only fair. As far as I'm concerned you can do the same thing with their SA bonuses related to artillery. Another idea would be to have different infantry models like you have different tank models (1939 Inf, 1940 Inf...). Then the player can choose what sort of infantry they want and pay accordingly. If they want 15,000 guys with AK-47s and nothing else, they can build militia divisions.
I'll make a deal with you. I'll drop the hostile tone in exchange, no I'll just drop it straight away, and hope that in turn you drop your patronizing tone. I don't need to be beat over the head by your decade of analysis, and I don't need to be "granted points" on my arguments. I apologize for any disrespect I have directed at you, but I'm not going to accept arguments made on the basis of some kind of papal authority. Just because you've reached certain conclusions based on a certain set of data doesn't mean there aren't different ways of handling the data or even different sets of data use. Not to mention what is the best way to turn such conclusions into a game which is fun and balanced.
A simple economic system wouldnt require much clicking, but it would add much more deep and realism to the gameplay. Maybe we could scrap the provinces and different unit types too- after all they are not really meaningful too.
IEX Totalview said:
Respectfully, how can you possibly provide meaningful input to these discussions when you "never played much past 1.03?" I mean, 1.06 is an entirely different animal.
What's more, all you have to do is return your ships to port (one click) and they will begin repairing themselves in HOI. Leave them there awhile, and voila, they're repaired.
I am on the side of those who want to increase the detail at the "expense" of micromanagement. IMHO, the micro you're describing is fun. Quite fun.