"But isn't the number of divisions bloated in HOI4 overall?"

[billcorr]

But isn't the number of divisions bloated in HOI4 overall?

The purpose of this post is to serve as a thread to discuss the question "isn't the number of divisions bloated in HoI4 overall?"
Thanks to Dr.Stjartlukt for posing the question.

The idea that there "are too many divisions" and the ability to produce "too many divisions" has been discussed before.

But I'm currently operating under the idea that "every post is a vote".

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Yes, there are too many divisions compared to the historical norm. Minors are the worst offenders, percentage wise.

But reducing the numbers isn't a quick fix. That's just part of it. You'll need changes to the combat system and the AI.

 

[MobiusTwo]

I'm of the opinion that there should be division limits in place, contingent on factors such as your logistics supplies, industrial capacity, war support, and maybe other things as well. The Latin American nations that do nothing but pump out tons of useless divisions should either have their AIs improved or be given crippling national spirits that severely limit their division limits, to reflect the irrelevance of that region during WWII. That would probably improve the game's performance significantly.

 

[Dlin369]

I think a few factors are need to simulate why you can’t actually have massive armies with no costs

- upkeep. I think the devs mentioned once that they tried upkeep but couldn’t make it fun or train the AI to handle it, I hope they try again later
- logistics should require manpower, especially further away from home
- mobilization laws should also impact manpower availability - there shouldn’t be such a jump from war economy to total mobilization, it should be a gradual increase
- postwar demobilization pressures; I know they’ve begun adding some, but a longer event chain for ramping up and down I think would be nice

 

[Harin]

But reducing the numbers isn't a quick fix. That's just part of it. You'll need changes to the combat system and the AI.

This just about sums it up for me.

Discussing division counts can mean different things to different people. Are people interested in keeping things the same, but reduce the number of divisions through a constraint mechanic, or are people more interested in reducing division counts by increasing production and manpower costs. A combination of the two may appeal to some.

In the end though, I think Shaka of Carthage makes a good point that the AI and combat system would need changes to make a reduced division count work.

 

[PARAfel]

Production Cost: Elevated. No more Spam. Simple like Total War mod shows for us.

 

[brainiac1530]

postwar demobilization pressures; I know they’ve begun adding some, but a longer event chain for ramping up and down I think would be nice

I agree with almost everything else in your post, but I wanted to talk about this in particular. Rather than arbitrarily forcing the player to demobilize, there should be some game incentive to do so. There should be some merit to being in a civilian economy (or in any case, less than total mobilization) during peacetime. The game frames the economy idea as a choice, so the game should make it a choice. As it stands right now, the economy law would be better if it were replaced with a slider that gradually went toward full mobilization on its own (This could even give the "mobilization speed" modifier something useful to do!), or a "mobilization percentage score," like how stability and war support are implemented, since being fully mobilized is the obviously most desirable choice and the only reason not to choose it is because you aren't allowed to. A choice with an obvious answer isn't really a choice, much like how a question with an obvious answer isn't a real question. We call those rhetorical questions, since they have the form of a question, but not the function of one.

I think that your other suggestions are highly interrelated. An overhaul of the supply system, depending on how it's implemented, may take care of them all in one fell swoop. I think it's just plain bollocks that they couldn't get the AI to handle upkeep. As it stands right now, it can't even handle the ridiculously simple supply system they implemented instead.* If the alternative wasn't going to work anyway, they may as well have went with an upkeep system, since I think it would have lots of beneficial side effects, such as limiting division spam in an organic way. That is, of course, as long as the upkeep system was based on something properly interactive, like IC. If they had used an arbitrary limit based on some numbers they pulled out of thin air, of course that wouldn't be much better than what we have right now, and it could very well be worse.

* Note: The AI is also quite bad at managing production, and prioritizing the spending of PP, but the systems remain as they are regardless. In general, I would say that, "The AI can't handle, or isn't any good at, that" isn't a very damning argument, as this doesn't seem to have been a dealbreaker in this game's design.

 

[Synicus]

Let's tap into reality...
Knowing that in the current times it is difficult to agree on what is real, lol

Most, if not all countries have a budget.
In America, anything military costs 2-10000 x more than anything civilian.
This is partly due to corruption witch resides in all countries.

Man power is not as big a problem as equipment but I do think individual service limits should somehow factor into manpower.
Say 400k people sign up for the new war with a 4 year contract, or a certain amount of youth are always required to serve, depending on the countries laws.
Vet divisions could suffer greatly from green reserves filling in after the vets get the right to go home or resign for another term.
Perhaps ideologies require there own set of conscription laws rather than everyone having access to the extreme, after 41' all ya need is the PP and war.
Extreme conscription should also impact a countries stability and war support.

In game countries can make military factories cheaper than civil and then get them up to near full production with only a tiny reduction in productivity due to lack of resources. So, how do we make guns and tanks with out steel? A lot of smaller countries have to resort to buying weapons and war equipment from other countries. This type of deal would leave a smaller country with a fixed amount of equipment they can use.

Ai is producing units with less equipment or manpower than needed.
I've never seen an unarmed army before, aside from civil riots.

Trade is too automated and careless of who they trade with. sanctions and embargoes are non existent.
President Trump touts that trade deals require political power...

How much daily PP should the leader of Yemen get?
Should the people of a neutral country get mad when there leader acts like North Korea?
When military type factories exceed civil, there should be civil unrest.

I understand things need to run smooth with little micro management for multi player.
Balance should not include all countries, Tibet for instance has the ability to research and produce weapons 3 before Japan might. the new weapons are handed out the the smaller army faster than a large one due to amounts needed vs production.

Those who vote, should get to vote on new laws in some countries. No mr. president, we don't want free trade.
In all I support a more realistic division of power over balance. Why is the camel unit obsolete years before it's available?

why do hundreds of prewar planes make such an impact on endgame war score?
Old equipment is also an issue that needs to be sold or recycled.

 

[billcorr]

But reducing the numbers isn't a quick fix. That's just part of it. You'll need changes to the combat system and the AI.

Touche.

As Shaka of C. points out, when decreasing the amount of divisions, other game mechanics will need to be adjusted:

1. Maximum number of paradrops
2. Number of divisions that can amphibiously invade
3. CIC, MIC, NIC output
4. __________what else would need to be adjusted?*

*

Production Cost: Elevated. No more Spam. Simple like Total War mod shows for us.

That makes sense. (either increase production cost or decrease factory output or both. Total War mod might be a good template)

 

[Happy Trigger]

I think a few factors are need to simulate why you can’t actually have massive armies with no costs

- upkeep. I think the devs mentioned once that they tried upkeep but couldn’t make it fun or train the AI to handle it, I hope they try again later

I don't think that the garrison system is funny, and an upkeep don't need to be either. I like the garrison system because it increases realism to the game. An upkeep system could be automated, like: 5 civis (or even more fractioned, like the garrison system is) to every x number of divisions + attrition from the region your troops are, something like that. That would limite the number maximum of divisions and incentivize the use of small divisons in certains places of the world, like Asian and Africa (it is still to easy to deploy 40 width in these regions).

 

[Bronterre]

Part of the issue is that every unit is a division due to how game mechanics work in game. Now it's true you can effectively produce a unit that would be equivalent to a battalion all the way up to say a corps using the division designer, but you and the ai probably won't (and in the ai's case shouldn t unless you want to hamstring it).

so that combined with the ai pumping garbage divisions till they manpower drain (which I agree can be an issue) seem to be the main causes

 

[Ksyr]

4. __________what else would need to be adjusted?*

How the AI assigns units to the front. Too few units will have the AI constantly moving divisions to reinforce other parts of the front and other fronts. And when a division moves then another division will move to take its place. This causes a chain reaction where all divisions will be constantly moving around instead of fighting or entrenching. More units is better for the AI. You can observe this by watching SOV as the Germans declare war.

Also fixing it may not be so easy because everytime you 'fix' the AI you 'break' something else.

 

[Finardin]

Rather than arbitrarily forcing the player to demobilize, there should be some game incentive to do so. There should be some merit to being in a civilian economy (or in any case, less than total mobilization) during peacetime.

Yes, civilian economy should be better during peacetime (at least for democratic countries but probably better for all nations). Maybe you could implement some sort of economic benifits maybe. Maybe add money in the game?

 

[brainiac1530]

Yeah, without adding a new game mechanic, I'm not sure what exactly could be done currently. I've experimented with giving civilian economy added political power gain, weekly stability, and (better) bonuses to building infrastructure and civilian factories. The reasoning behind that was to make it "feel right" to be in at the beginning of the game when you usually have that law, by giving bonuses that are particularly helpful at that time. I don't quite think that would incentivize a player to switch back to civilian economy later in the game, though. I'm not sure what you can do to incentivize a player to turn his swords into plowshares (err, tanks into tractors?) in a wargame, though, from a purely conceptual standpoint. And in this game, the pacing is such that you really only have time to do one build up and have one big scrum. Anybody here intimately familiar with the Road to 56, or Millennium Dawn mods? It seems like they would have had to come up with something.

 

[Áurum]

The purpose of this post is to serve as a thread to discuss the question "isn't the number of divisions bloated in HoI4 overall?"
Thanks to Dr.Stjartlukt for posing the question.

The idea that there "are too many divisions" and the ability to produce "too many divisions" has been discussed before.

But I'm currently operating under the idea that "every post is a vote".

Kaiserreich already implements division limits based on industrial capacity and economy and mobilization laws, and it seems to work quite well. Wars are still the same, they didn't have to change combat mechanics as some are suggesting here. It's not a very severe cap, most of the times you won't reach it, but it prevents the AI from spamming divisions for nothing.

 

[Simon_9732495]

I'm not sure what you can do to incentivize a player to turn his swords into plowshares (err, tanks into tractors?) in a wargame, though, from a purely conceptual standpoint.

I think you are right and this can't be solved. In Hoi4 you are not going to demobilize. Why should you. If the war is over you quit the game.

But I think there could be an upper limit for "stuff" that is reached with a exponential saturation curve.
If you already have 100 Divisions it should get harder to field the next 100.
Now the first 100 are the hardest and then it gets easier.

Some Brainstorming:
Introduce a new variable that represents "fielded stuff". E.g. (manpower in field + IC in field). If that varible gets too high in proportion to your economic capacity (=MILs+CIVs+Docks+maybe Refinerys) then reduce the supply coming from your capital. (That would effect supply everywhere, because it alwasy comes from your capital.)
(Or introduce an extra "upkeep attrition" (like the training attrition) that effects all units if you have too much "stuff fielded" in proportion to your economic capacity)

 

[permanently_afk]

The purpose of this post is to serve as a thread to discuss the question "isn't the number of divisions bloated in HoI4 overall?"
Thanks to Dr.Stjartlukt for posing the question.

The idea that there "are too many divisions" and the ability to produce "too many divisions" has been discussed before.

But I'm currently operating under the idea that "every post is a vote".

Your question is the wrong one. HoI4 uses tokens called "divisions" moving over fields called "states". As the scale is considerably larger than in games using similar systems (say Gary Grigsby's War in the East which "just" simulates parts of the eastern front and the whole war, leaving out the civilian side), I would consider the token-and-field system a suboptimal abstraction if I desired your level of "historical precision". If you wish to retain it, there are two ways to go:
#1 Remove the states, station the tokens in provinces (next step up in abstraction. I can hear complaining already).
#2 Have the tokens represent smaller units (this will not improve the performance problem, and probably worsen it)
And thats before having to design a system which works for island hopping in the pacific, the close fighting in the Netherlands and the "roomy" action on the eastern front.
Of course, you could decide to toss the token-and-field system entirely, but it has been traditional to the HoI series (and I already can hear louder complaining).
As long as you retain it, the scale of the game kind of forces you to have a division in every state of the frontline since the system does not model zone of control directly or indirectly due to how combat works (e.g. a division can't block an enemy moving to an adjacent state with its fast elements while the main body moves, which would allow the defender to use their defence instead of breakthrough).

Yes, there are too many divisions compared to the historical norm. Minors are the worst offenders, percentage wise.

But reducing the numbers isn't a quick fix. That's just part of it. You'll need changes to the combat system and the AI.

You'd need to redesign the entire land-warfare system. Which would knock on to industry management and every other system in game. HoI5, maybe?
Other than that, limiting non-fighting minors is probably a good idea.

 

[ThaHoward]

Perhaps have an actual mobilization system, Germany had x number of divisions as standing army before they invaded Poland. A few days later they mobilized their full army count.

Supply (land) and convoy system (sea) should take manpower. The Dutch focus Vaarplicht is manpower that was supposed to be used on convoys, not the Army and Navy.

Forced demob after a war, look to France and UK at the start of the war, none wants another grueling war.

Reduce manpower overall, make artillery battalions etc consume more manpower. Currently they have guns equal to a regiment, manpower to a battery. Either reduce guns or increase manpower.

Radar and static AA should also require manpower. Afterall they were manned by soldiers with logistical networks of their own. Perhaps airbases and naval bases too, however the former can be said to be manned by the extra manpower to airwings.

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

Supply (land) and convoy system (sea) should take manpower. The Dutch focus Vaarplicht is manpower that was supposed to be used on convoys, not the Army and Navy.

Radar and static AA should also require manpower. Afterall they were manned by soldiers with logistical networks of their own. Perhaps airbases and naval bases too, however the former can be said to be manned by the extra manpower to airwings.

If buildings, (atleast some as radar and static AA) could, be dismantled and and rebuilt somewhere else it could also add to the goal for the game of increasing the defensive gameplay. It would also be interresting if a similar feature EU4 as being able to mothball Forts and Static-AA.

 

[Vlad123]

I think a few factors are need to simulate why you can’t actually have massive armies with no costs

- upkeep. I think the devs mentioned once that they tried upkeep but couldn’t make it fun or train the AI to handle it, I hope they try again later
- logistics should require manpower, especially further away from home
- mobilization laws should also impact manpower availability - there shouldn’t be such a jump from war economy to total mobilization, it should be a gradual increase
- postwar demobilization pressures; I know they’ve begun adding some, but a longer event chain for ramping up and down I think would be nice

SORRY!? Can you repeat!? Let's talk about the Paradox! He has experience in this type of games for YEARS! YEARS! And they say THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO SET UP A MAINTENANCE SYSTEM WHEN ALL THEIR OTHER GAMES HAVE IT !? But do they take us for fools or something !? Sorry, but this statement made me trigger a lot! That is "we do not know how to set the AI" AND WE PLAYERS MUST KNOW !? THE GAME DEVELOPER ARE YOU! But does it just seem like an excuse to me for not doing anything yet?