Combat Improvements Checklist

[Michael Gladius]

Below is a list of ways to improve combat in Hoi4:

1. Division size should determine how many times they can change tactics each day. (Divisional composition should affect tactical decisions | Paradox Interactive Forums (paradoxplaza.com))

Right now, a massive, unwieldy WWI division gets to change their tactics equally as often as a smaller, more nimble division. IRL, smaller nimble divisions are really good at beating the lumbering 28,000-man divisions to the punch. Thus, the number of times per day that tactics can be changed should be determined by the number of battalions, rather than a flat/constant rate.

2. Toggle feature for Reserves (Reserves Toggle Feature | Paradox Interactive Forums (paradoxplaza.com))

When drawing battle plans, there is a toggle feature to choose whether to execute plans cautiously, aggressively, or neither. This is a good feature and would be a good template for a reserves function. Reserves would work by making an army's frontline two provinces deep, whereas having no reserves will leave it at one province deep (the current setup).

3. Separating infantry weapons and types (Crew-served weapons | Paradox Interactive Forums (paradoxplaza.com) )

Right now, separate techs exist for upgrading infantry equipment and crew-served weapons, but the two are not built in separate production lines. This means that all infantry, regardless of nationality, are identical. This is ahistorical, as evidenced by the differences between the Italian Army and German Army, or between the Chinese and Japanese. In both cases, the latter army had a far higher ratio of crew-served weapons than the other, and it made a noticeable difference on the battlefield.

Crew-served weapons should be produced separately, and there should be more than one type of dismounted infantry:

1. Light Infantry. These would have less infantry equipment, few crew-served weapons, and have a reduced penalty for moving in difficult terrain. Cavalry would be their mobile equivalent.
2. Regulars. These would have a higher ratio of crew-served weapons, and higher defense and breakthrough. Mechanized Infantry would be their mobile equivalent.
3. Motorized infantry would remain unchanged.
4. Possibly some sort of militia unit that ties directly into LaR garrisons.

4. Abstracting Ammunition like Organization (A way to better-abstract ammunition? | Paradox Interactive Forums (paradoxplaza.com))

Currently, no unit ever runs out of ammo in battle. Abstracting ammunition to be like organization would allow it to become a variable, without adding any more things to build. The battalion count would determine how much ammo can be carried at full strength, and tactics would affect how quickly it is consumed. Forts would also increase the amount of carried ammo by 10%.

5. Artillery becomes the king of battle (Artillery should reduce ORG like air superiority | Paradox Interactive Forums (paradoxplaza.com))

Right now, artillery is underpowered from a realism standpoint. Rather than buff its stats to become OP, it would be better to give artillery the ability to actively reduce enemy divisions' organization (i.e., blasting troop concentrations and forcing attacks to go in piecemeal). This would pair well with the above abstraction for ammo, as artillery would carry less ammo per battalion and devour it much faster than infantry or tanks.


Thoughts? Comments? Let me know below.

 

[bitmode]

Right now, a massive, unwieldy WWI division gets to change their tactics equally as often as a smaller, more nimble division

Three problems here:

If there is a 50% chance for your general to select the counter tactic, you will statistically counter the enemy 50% of the time no matter how often the choice is made. Selecting tactics more frequently has no intrinsic benefit.

Depending on doctrine research progress, a good chunk of the time there just is no counter available to the enemy tactic limiting the potential impact of superior tactic selection. This has been discussed with regards to recon companies a few times.

Lastly, even assuming the enemy tactic does get countered significantly more often with this change, the resulting effective bonus can necessarily only be a fraction of what the enemy tactic provided (i.e. a fraction of 5-20%). Short of rebuilding the tactics system from scratch, this change will likely not have a major impact on division size.

2. Toggle feature for Reserves

+1, sounds like something I'd expect to see in the Barbarossa DLC.

3. Separating infantry weapons and types

I'm against producing crew-served weapons separately because from the production POV they would be too similar to the existing infantry equipment in terms of scaling and resource costs. Having two sorts of combat equipment in the battalion allows some flexibility in the stats calculation but I think it can still be done with just one.
The different classes of infantry could be accomplished by requiring different amounts of infantry equipment per battalion. I.e. a battalion that by design just requires 50 infantry equipment implies a lack of crew weapons and the stat changes you describe would be associated with the battalion instead of the equipment. I.e. a fully equipped militia-type battalion would have different stats than a 50% equipped regular battalion.

Currently, no unit ever runs out of ammo in battle.

The reactions to the suggestion (16 like/agree, 13 disagree) already show this is highly controversial. I see little motivation how individual divisions running out of ammo would meaningfully change the game. In combination with industrial production of ammo it would make some sense, i.e. having to save up ammo from the limited production for an artillery offense or requiring actual industrial backing for the Superior Firepower doctrine.

Rather than buff its stats to become OP, it would be better to give artillery the ability to actively reduce enemy divisions' organization (i.e., blasting troop concentrations and forcing attacks to go in piecemeal).

That one has not a single agree/like. As already mentioned there, the way to reduce enemy org is to just deal damage to them. I don't see much reason why the effect of artillery in particular should be focused more on organization when compared to other weapons.
Something needs to be done about artillery, but not this. If ammunition is introduced in any shape, it will be a huge upset to the balance of artillery even without introducing other new mechanics.

 

[Louella]

Depending on doctrine research progress, a good chunk of the time there just is no counter available to the enemy tactic limiting the potential impact of superior tactic selection. This has been discussed with regards to recon companies a few times.

Hmm, as I recall things, several tactics have counter tactics that are accessed by doctrine, but can also be accessed if the general has sufficient skill advantage. Are there many tactics where there is no soft counter like this, and can only be countered by doctrine ?

I did have a thought about battalions having an initiative and recon penalty on them, which would make large divisions accumulate large penalties to initiative & recon, making recon and signal companies more important.

But what you say about the tactic system is true - it'd probably be better to redo it entirely to incorporate things, rather than try and patch them with existing mechanisms.

 

[bitmode]

tactics have counter tactics that are accessed by doctrine, but can also be accessed if the general has sufficient skill advantage.

Some tactics require both but all the ones locked behind doctrines are unavailable otherwise.

Are there many tactics where there is no soft counter like this, and can only be countered by doctrine ?

I think all doctrine tactics have another one as counter, if at all. See https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Combat_tactics
The non-default phases like bridge, CQC, and withdrawal have next to no counters.

it'd probably be better to redo it entirely to incorporate things, rather than try and patch them with existing mechanisms.

I'm not convinced it is needed at all.

 

[DocDesastro]

I think the OP has a point: INF does not work all the same and although abstraction makes things easier for us in a way, it removes our ability to give things a finishing touch.
I am very convinced that an INF division having a greater amount of crew-based weapons will operate differently. And although these are somewhat packed together and abstracted, they work in different ways and have different results on combat.

Take a heavy MG for instance. A Vickers or MG34 or even MG42. These weapons can be used to pin down enemy troops as they deny the opponent the ability to rush you. These things should add some minor attack boosts but mainly add to defence (and maybe add some very small amount of AA). Contrary, they are not really mobile and vulnerable versus snipers and artillery fire. Divisions having lots of those might get a breakthrough penalty as those assets are quite useless while attacking. Generals leading divisions having a greater than normal chance of picking tactics matching the division composition thus less blitz and assault or close-combat tactics, but instead a higher probability of picking tactics countering said tactics.

Now look at a mortar. These are good for reducing the opponents ORG and also help with an attack as they force people into cover or even can fire smoke canisters. Besides an attack buff a higher amount of those could add to the breakthrough value. And also biase the choice of tactics for a general.

Now consider infantry guns which might help with siege battles or soften up entrenched enemies. But they make your unit more sluggish. Their effect is strongest, when they are not rushed and run over but work best versus a static enemy (maybe reduction of fortification penalty). See my point?

The current problem is that we have limited production capabilities and we might not like the thought of micromanaging more production - but then we also might not complain about how shallow the divisions feel. This very point is the most important factor of the things the OP addressed: some countries had not the ability to uphold many production lines. Much stuff would be bought in foreign countries or under licence instead of manufactured all by themselves. The big players are in their own weight-class in those terms. But minors should play differently.

I am not quite convinced, whether we do the right thing with the division designer. Unlocking stuff and changing it with land XP is for instance one of the limiting factors why we cannot play our units differently. This resource is too scarce in the early game and later we need it to rush doctrines which would otherwise take forever. And boost our tanks.

Imagine a division designer, where you are free to design your unit. In the end it only adds up manpower and equipment costs (and this is a problem for your country's population base and their production abilities) and the unit composition will affect the unit's stats. I wonder, for instance, why we are limited to only 5 support companies?
In my hypothetical model, a division would mandatorily contain a division HQ, which will require more manpower and equipment, the more regiments and other assets you add, because of the administrative strain you put onto the unit. The HQ could be motorized, on foot or even in armored cars. Then you add up INF regiments to your palate - maybe some max. number locked by technology. Then you add up support units like division artillery, AA and anti-tank and support companies like field hospitals, recon, military police.
The novelty would be that an infantry regiment could be tweaked like a tank. You could add the following things: MG companies (1-5), Mortar companies (1-5), infantry guns (1-5), combat engineer companies (1-5) or whatnot - just like adding points to a tank - for some cheap XP. Adding each point will require equipment to be shipped, alters the regiment's stats (maybe drastically) and influences the tactics picked by the commanding officer. The strain on your forces will be more manpower required and more equipment needed for the unit so different nations are not capable of fielding the same stuff and thus play differently.

Just a proposal to make things more immersive and somewhat more plausible.

P.S.: and the argument "but the AI cannot do this" - well...then hardcode some unit compositions and biase the AI to pick out of those.
P.P.S.: and if you throw in ammo as consumable that also has to be produced and be delivered, a unit having many support assets would be dry much faster and put another strain on your economy. All things to be considered in your overall strategy - and this is what we do here: grand strategy.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Three problems here:

If there is a 50% chance for your general to select the counter tactic, you will statistically counter the enemy 50% of the time no matter how often the choice is made. Selecting tactics more frequently has no intrinsic benefit.

Depending on doctrine research progress, a good chunk of the time there just is no counter available to the enemy tactic limiting the potential impact of superior tactic selection. This has been discussed with regards to recon companies a few times.

Lastly, even assuming the enemy tactic does get countered significantly more often with this change, the resulting effective bonus can necessarily only be a fraction of what the enemy tactic provided (i.e. a fraction of 5-20%). Short of rebuilding the tactics system from scratch, this change will likely not have a major impact on division size.

Think of it this way: every 12 hours, a 40w division with 20-25 battalions (support companies included) gets one tactic change. The smaller opposing division (say 15 battalions/support) gets 3 in that same time frame. So if the latter loses the 50% first gamble, then it has 2 more opportunities to come up with a better counter before the 40w can change its tactics. Each time it changes tactics it gets the fraction bonus you mentioned, and these will add up.

I'm against producing crew-served weapons separately because from the production POV they would be too similar to the existing infantry equipment in terms of scaling and resource costs. Having two sorts of combat equipment in the battalion allows some flexibility in the stats calculation but I think it can still be done with just one.
The different classes of infantry could be accomplished by requiring different amounts of infantry equipment per battalion. I.e. a battalion that by design just requires 50 infantry equipment implies a lack of crew weapons and the stat changes you describe would be associated with the battalion instead of the equipment. I.e. a fully equipped militia-type battalion would have different stats than a 50% equipped regular battalion.

The problem with that counterargument is the distinction between a qualitative difference and a quantitative difference. Adding 100 extra bolt-action rifles isn't comparable to adding 10 machine guns, as a single machine gun can easily spit out more firepower than several rifle squads. Crew-served weapon crews were considered specialists back in WWII, and so they could have a higher production cost and training time for their battalions. To illustrate, basic infantry equipment would have a cost of 0.50, while the simplest crew-served weapons would have a cost of 2.00

The reactions to the suggestion (16 like/agree, 13 disagree) already show this is highly controversial. I see little motivation how individual divisions running out of ammo would meaningfully change the game. In combination with industrial production of ammo it would make some sense, i.e. having to save up ammo from the limited production for an artillery offense or requiring actual industrial backing for the Superior Firepower doctrine.

Divisions that run out of ammo would take heavier casualties and lose ORG faster. History is full of battles which were decided by one side running out of ammo and being forced to retire from an otherwise strong position.

Running out of ammo would lead to more province-level seesawing, as units are forced to retire in the face of a relentless attack, and logistics/resupply will be crucial for sustaining an offensive beyond a few provinces. It'll also rein in snowballing, as moving divisions will recover/resupply more slowly than static ones, and players will be unable to just order an offensive and then sit back and watch. The Germans based all of their operations in the Russian Front on the availability of ammo (6 months' worth, minimum). When fighting the Chinese Civil War, it is currently easy to get bogged down in the mountains because the warlords and Communists never run out of ammo or ORG (as if they have American logistics!), when IRL they lacked the ability to sustain a battle beyond 3-6 days.

Ammo will also benefit forts, which will increase ammo storage for divisions (something entrenchment cannot do), and will make the Maginot Line all that more difficult to breach.

Every opponent of ammo is arguing that they don't want more stuff to build/micromanage. So designing it like ORG, which has a set base value/consumption rate/automatic recovery rate dodges this bullet.

That one has not a single agree/like. As already mentioned there, the way to reduce enemy org is to just deal damage to them. I don't see much reason why the effect of artillery in particular should be focused more on organization when compared to other weapons.
Something needs to be done about artillery, but not this. If ammunition is introduced in any shape, it will be a huge upset to the balance of artillery even without introducing other new mechanics.

Artillery is not just a bigger version of a direct-fire rifle; its indirect-fire capabilities can do the same sort of anti-ORG actions as air superiority. Adding this new ability without ammo would make it OP, but the addition of ammo would limit how long this can last before the unit loses its ability to break up concentrated attacks.

 

[bitmode]

then it has 2 more opportunities to come up with a better counter before the 40w can change its tactics

It also has 2 more opportunities to come up with a worse tactic. That's unless you change the system to not re-roll tactics if a counter has already been selected.
Either way the effect is predicated on too much: the enemy needs to have a counterable tactic, I need to have the counter unlocked, the other pre-requisites need to be fulfilled, the counter needs to be randomly selected. The effect is further diminished if it only happens in one of the subsequent rolls and if the enemy had a weak tactic to begin with. That's just not good enough to change the width-meta.

Crew-served weapon crews were considered specialists back in WWII, and so they could have a higher production cost and training time for their battalions. To illustrate, basic infantry equipment would have a cost of 0.50, while the simplest crew-served weapons would have a cost of 2.00

Training time is a battalion attribute anyway, not equipment. Sure, the militia infantry would have less training time than the regular infantry, less supply requirement and so on.

If one piece of crew-served weapons would cost 2.00 production, it could be represented by 4 pieces of infantry equipment. If crew-served weapons are always used in conjunction with infantry equipment and use the same resources in production, there would need to be stronger strategical differences between the equipment types (not just between the battalions) to justify a split.

Artillery is not just a bigger version of a direct-fire rifle; its indirect-fire capabilities can do the same sort of anti-ORG actions as air superiority.

Air superiority does not have an effect on org.

 

[DocDesastro]

If one piece of crew-served weapons would cost 2.00 production, it could be represented by 4 pieces of infantry equipment.

I strongly disagree. This is not the same as having the need of opening another production line. While this certainliy does not make a difference in playing majors, playing minors this could have a severe impact on into which basket to put your few and precious eggs IC-wise spoken. Having it being paid by generic infantry equipment it will lead to factions being played in the same manner and this was a severe point in the OP's trail of thoughts. I would welcome having production lines for mortars, MGs and infantry guns as their lower output would make me design different templates to work with and design stuff for certain situations instead of having a generic multi-purpose 40-width blob for all factions. The game should be rewarding in terms of own creativity. In that case, abstraction strongly hampers this. Basic infantry equipment should not be a 'cover all' for military stuff used in an infantry regiment.

 

[Michael Gladius]

It also has 2 more opportunities to come up with a worse tactic. That's unless you change the system to not re-roll tactics if a counter has already been selected.
Either way the effect is predicated on too much: the enemy needs to have a counterable tactic, I need to have the counter unlocked, the other pre-requisites need to be fulfilled, the counter needs to be randomly selected. The effect is further diminished if it only happens in one of the subsequent rolls and if the enemy had a weak tactic to begin with. That's just not good enough to change the width-meta.

I'd certainly hope the AI wouldn't change tactics if there's a successful counter to an opponent's tactics! If it isn't already the case, then that's a needed AI improvement.

Picking tactics wouldn't just counter enemy tactics; if one side is somehow incapable of doing this, then they can at least do damage control by picking new tactics that minimize their losses.

Thirdly, if the unit does make a bad call, then that's... surprisingly realistic, given how many battles in history went awry because of bad luck. Having three chances to fix the problem to the enemy's one is a great way to abstract an inherent characteristic of small, nimble forces fighting 28,000-man WWI divisions.

Training time is a battalion attribute anyway, not equipment. Sure, the militia infantry would have less training time than the regular infantry, less supply requirement and so on.

If one piece of crew-served weapons would cost 2.00 production, it could be represented by 4 pieces of infantry equipment. If crew-served weapons are always used in conjunction with infantry equipment and use the same resources in production, there would need to be stronger strategical differences between the equipment types (not just between the battalions) to justify a split.

Yet a machine gun is not equal to 4 rifles in terms of qualitative effects. Or even 100, which would require their production cost in this argument to be equal to 50 (more than a tank). Increasing the number of machine guns is not a linear, but logarithmic, change in battlefield effectiveness. The Chinese had masses of men with modern bolt-action rifles, but the Japanese were able to win while outnumbered because they had sufficient mortars and machine guns. Six men with a belt-fed medium machine gun can spit out far more lead (for suppression et al) than a battalion comprised purely of riflemen.

The point of mentioning training time/specialization is to point out that crew-served weapons couldn't just be picked up by random dudes and used effectively. If an army is desperate for new divisions, then light infantry with fewer crew-served weapons would be faster to train and deploy, but struggle on the defense. The Chinese and Soviets all used this when they were desperate. As it currently stands, they can produce the equivalent of panzergrenadiers or stormtroopers with no difficulty whatsoever because all infantry battalions/TOE are exactly the same.

Ultimately, the problem with merely treating crew-served weapons as equal to individual arms in combat is a realism problem. Not all infantry is equal, and crew-served weapons are more than decisive enough to be strategically relevant.

Air superiority does not have an effect on org.

Hoi4 wiki says otherwise: (Land battle - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki (paradoxwikis.com) - under "Combat Factors")

"Enemy air superiority: penalty for defender defense or attacker breakthrough. penalty = enemy air superiority * (1 + enemy doctrine modifiers + terrain modifier + concealment advisor) * -0.35 + 0.7 * AA / (AA + 112) (the latter part is "enemy air superiority reduction")."

 

[bitmode]

Having it being paid by generic infantry equipment it will lead to factions being played in the same manner and this was a severe point in the OP's trail of thoughts. I would welcome having production lines for mortars, MGs and infantry guns as their lower output would make me design different templates to work with and design stuff for certain situations instead of having a generic multi-purpose 40-width blob for all factions. The game should be rewarding in terms of own creativity. In that case, abstraction strongly hampers this. Basic infantry equipment should not be a 'cover all' for military stuff used in an infantry regiment.

I don't understand where you draw the connection between the production line and your template design. Granted, as a minor you may be limited in certain ways. Maybe you have very little industry per manpower or the other way around. Maybe you have few resources at your disposal. Or maybe little of everything but a very particular combat situation in mind.

But in all of those cases, what counts is how much does a battalion in your division cost in terms resources and production. E.g. an infantry battalion as it is now costs ~50 IC, times two or three steel. Maybe your country needs something cheaper? Or something stronger on offense? It does not matter at all how much an individual item of infantry equipment costs. This is also why equipment stats reflect what a full battalion gets, not the individual item being produced. Infantry equipment individually costing 0.5 and crew-served weapons costing 2 has no meaning for your division design process or your strategic choices.

The creative process in my opinion happens when you design and use the division template. And here I agreed with @Michael Gladius that there should be different infantry battalions available to have more agency/creativity. The production lines are just a reality check to see whether your country actually has the needed resources and industry to fill your designs.

I'd certainly hope the AI wouldn't change tactics if there's a successful counter to an opponent's tactics! If it isn't already the case, then that's a needed AI improvement.

Picking tactics wouldn't just counter enemy tactics; if one side is somehow incapable of doing this, then they can at least do damage control by picking new tactics that minimize their losses.

I think your original suggestion should have focused a bit more on this description of how you envision the tactics to be reworked. Because that is the real meat of the suggestion whereas the effect on division sizing is just one of the results this major rework would produce. You mention AI but in the current tactic system there is no AI whatsoever.

Yet a machine gun is not equal to 4 rifles in terms of qualitative effects. Or even 100, which would require their production cost in this argument to be equal to 50 (more than a tank).

As mentioned above, I'm not arguing the properties of individual pieces of equipment, especially in the real world. Of course a real world machine gun or a mortar does not have the same effect as a bundle of rifles. Translating these real-life items into hoi4 game objects though turns them into production streams and inventory lines. A MIC produces a stream of crew-served weapons costing X each and infantry battalions of certain types would require a count of Y. X and Y are almost arbitrary because only their product really counts. There is some progression over the course of the tech tree, but the production cost of a battalion stays relatively constant and your goal is to introduce a selection of battalions with significantly different costs.

The point of mentioning training time/specialization is to point out that crew-served weapons couldn't just be picked up by random dudes and used effectively. If an army is desperate for new divisions, then light infantry with fewer crew-served weapons would be faster to train and deploy, but struggle on the defense.

Yes, but this is no different than how special forces are currently treated. If an army is desperate for new divisions, they should not train mountaineers. Such attributes of units do not generally have to be represented in their equipment.

Ultimately, the problem with merely treating crew-served weapons as equal to individual arms in combat is a realism problem. Not all infantry is equal, and crew-served weapons are more than decisive enough to be strategically relevant.

Not all infantry is equal -- I already agreed. There should be a wider choice of infantry battalion quality. The real-life basis for their distinction would be the varying presence of crew-served weapons -- I agree. Our only disagreement is whether in game terms a new equipment type is best to realize this design goal.

We currently have (at least) eight battalions and companies whose combat stats are based solely on infantry equipment stats: engineers, recon, infantry, bicycle infantry, mountaineers, paras, marines, cavalry. In real life they had very different amounts of crew-served weapons but it all gets abstracted into varying amounts of infantry equipment.
In-game, could their stats and costs be restated in terms of two types of equipment with changed modifiers to arrive at the right values again? Yes. But just as it was not useful to introduce a second type of equipment for any of those units, I think it is likewise not useful when creating a light infantry, militia battalion, or any similar unit for that matter.

Mechanically, the stats of a (fully-equipped) battalion are always the sum of its equipment types multiplied by battalion modifiers. So with two equipment types, where one is kind of mandatory (infantry equipment), exactly two battalions can be represented cleanly without any modifiers. Either including the optional equipment or not. The only place where this is currently used in a way that stats actually stack is mechanized infantry. Even then the half-tracks bring in other stats like fuel consumption and rubber.

Black ICE takes the opposite approach and combines equipment types almost everywhere for the purpose of immersion. But still the resulting stats need to be crafted with modifiers to end up where they are actually supposed to be: https://gitlab.com/BlackIce-HOI4/bl...5426dfa7a6176a4/common/units/infantry.txt#L52.

Having two equipment types that deal with the same stats in the same types of battalions just does not bring anything new to the table in terms of strategy in my opinion, only more inventory management.

Hoi4 wiki says otherwise: (Land battle - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki (paradoxwikis.com) - under "Combat Factors")

"Enemy air superiority: penalty for defender defense or attacker breakthrough. penalty = enemy air superiority * (1 + enemy doctrine modifiers + terrain modifier + concealment advisor) * -0.35 + 0.7 * AA / (AA + 112) (the latter part is "enemy air superiority reduction")."

I don't see "organization" anywhere in this quote. Air superiority reduces the enemy defense/breakthrough but artillery's soft attacks do the same because in the end defense/breakthrough get consumed by attacks. And in contrast to air superiority, artillery does not just open up the potential to deal more damage - it actually does deal damage.

 

[DocDesastro]

I don't understand where you draw the connection between the production line and your template design.

Imagine playing a European minor like Greece or Bulgaria as many do now that the new DLC is online. You only get about 5 MIL as a start and nearly no CIV. From this, you must cover everything: Basic equipment, support equipment, fighter planes, artillery and then sink the last factory into basic gear to help cover the deficit of 9.000 units. If you use your model, having just basic equipment cover all, you could get division again that is similar to others. In my model you could tweak the number of MGs, Mortars etc. in the unit template and because of that you will need other production lines - which, as a minor you usually do not have. Or you are able to just produce in much smaller quantities. So while it might be possible to field 5 MG companies in every German regiment/battalion (whatever you want to call them) as you have the production capabilities, this is not true for let us say China or Hungary, who will get enough equipment together to field 1 MG company per regiment or even less than that using two different regiment types to fill up the division. The doctrines could as well have some more influence on the extra equipment. I could totally see superior firepower and grand battle plan favor MGs - the first one offensively, the latter defensively, so your doctrine you chose would have a deeper impact on your design choices.

The current real perceived limit you have is manpower since almost every nation can afford to build basic equipment and artillery guns - and this is enough for our multi-purpose infantry, which is available to everyone and makes gameplay similar in that regard. If you were able to tweak an infantry regiment and use those to fill up the division designer, then your war logistics become meaningful and also your choices should reflect tactics your generals pick.

 

[bitmode]

Imagine playing a European minor like Greece or Bulgaria as many do now that the new DLC is online. You only get about 5 MIL as a start and nearly no CIV. From this, you must cover everything: Basic equipment, support equipment, fighter planes, artillery and then sink the last factory into basic gear to help cover the deficit of 9.000 units. If you use your model, having just basic equipment cover all, you could get division again that is similar to others. In my model you could tweak the number of MGs, Mortars etc. in the unit template and because of that you will need other production lines - which, as a minor you usually do not have. Or you are able to just produce in much smaller quantities. So while it might be possible to field 5 MG companies in every German regiment/battalion (whatever you want to call them) as you have the production capabilities, this is not true for let us say China or Hungary, who will get enough equipment together to field 1 MG company per regiment or even less than that using two different regiment types to fill up the division.

I disagree. The way the game is currently balanced, Greece has 10 times less population and 10 times less MIC than Germany. So in my opinion them building a similar kind of infantry template as Germany follows naturally and there is little to be done about that by changing equipment. They'll just have ten times fewer divisions. Same thing for Hungary. And before I'd downgrade my infantry, I'd rather drop the support equipment or the fighter production. A country with 5 MIC does not need to cover everything. If you want to see substantially different divisions between Germany and European minors, you'll have to reduce the latter's industry but that change seems to be very unpopular.

China is very different from Hungary or Greece. Here the ratio between population and military output is an order of magnitude larger than Germany's. China starts with 11 MIC. They would not have a problem creating an additional production line for crew-served weapons. It should just be more effective for them to produce more cheap, light infantry instead of few heavy infantry divisions. This only comes down to the cost of equipment per battalion.

The doctrines could as well have some more influence on the extra equipment. I could totally see superior firepower and grand battle plan favor MGs - the first one offensively, the latter defensively, so your doctrine you chose would have a deeper impact on your design choices.

Interesting in principle but doctrines work on the battalion and division level, not as equipment bonuses. So these doctrine changes could be implemented just as well when all infantry battalions use just one kind of equipment. I could also see some neat interactions with Mass Mobilization and Desperate Defense giving different bonuses for light or heavy infantry.

The current real perceived limit you have is manpower since almost every nation can afford to build basic equipment and artillery guns - and this is enough for our multi-purpose infantry, which is available to everyone and makes gameplay similar in that regard.

I agree but as mentioned, the solution to that is the unpopular rebalancing of industry. When you sort the 82 starting countries by the ratio of population to industry, Germany ends up on place 53. There is only a few countries like China (British Raj and Dutch East Indies for example) who really have significantly different priorities between equipment and manpower.

 

[Michael Gladius]

I think your original suggestion should have focused a bit more on this description of how you envision the tactics to be reworked. Because that is the real meat of the suggestion whereas the effect on division sizing is just one of the results this major rework would produce. You mention AI but in the current tactic system there is no AI whatsoever.

Fair enough.

As mentioned above, I'm not arguing the properties of individual pieces of equipment, especially in the real world. Of course a real world machine gun or a mortar does not have the same effect as a bundle of rifles. Translating these real-life items into hoi4 game objects though turns them into production streams and inventory lines. A MIC produces a stream of crew-served weapons costing X each and infantry battalions of certain types would require a count of Y. X and Y are almost arbitrary because only their product really counts. There is some progression over the course of the tech tree, but the production cost of a battalion stays relatively constant and your goal is to introduce a selection of battalions with significantly different costs.

The realism would be better if the two were segregated. This way, a light infantry battalion could have X amount of individual arms and Y amount of crew-served, compared to a Regulars battalion possessing Z amount of individual arms and W amount of crew-served. The tech tree progression already exists, it's just a matter of adding the new production item so that the battalions have different production costs.

Yes, but this is no different than how special forces are currently treated. If an army is desperate for new divisions, they should not train mountaineers. Such attributes of units do not generally have to be represented in their equipment.


Not all infantry is equal -- I already agreed. There should be a wider choice of infantry battalion quality. The real-life basis for their distinction would be the varying presence of crew-served weapons -- I agree. Our only disagreement is whether in game terms a new equipment type is best to realize this design goal.

We currently have (at least) eight battalions and companies whose combat stats are based solely on infantry equipment stats: engineers, recon, infantry, bicycle infantry, mountaineers, paras, marines, cavalry. In real life they had very different amounts of crew-served weapons but it all gets abstracted into varying amounts of infantry equipment.
In-game, could their stats and costs be restated in terms of two types of equipment with changed modifiers to arrive at the right values again? Yes. But just as it was not useful to introduce a second type of equipment for any of those units, I think it is likewise not useful when creating a light infantry, militia battalion, or any similar unit for that matter.

Mechanically, the stats of a (fully-equipped) battalion are always the sum of its equipment types multiplied by battalion modifiers. So with two equipment types, where one is kind of mandatory (infantry equipment), exactly two battalions can be represented cleanly without any modifiers. Either including the optional equipment or not. The only place where this is currently used in a way that stats actually stack is mechanized infantry. Even then the half-tracks bring in other stats like fuel consumption and rubber.

Black ICE takes the opposite approach and combines equipment types almost everywhere for the purpose of immersion. But still the resulting stats need to be crafted with modifiers to end up where they are actually supposed to be: https://gitlab.com/BlackIce-HOI4/bl...5426dfa7a6176a4/common/units/infantry.txt#L52.

Having two equipment types that deal with the same stats in the same types of battalions just does not bring anything new to the table in terms of strategy in my opinion, only more inventory management.

Again, it is not a difference of degree, but of kind. Abstracting things works better when they differ by degree.

Plus, in several other posts, it has been proposed that doctrines should affect battalion composition, which I personally support. So for "Desperate Defense," light infantry could gain more crew-served weapons, while "Mass Mobilization" could reduce them. And so on.

I don't see "organization" anywhere in this quote. Air superiority reduces the enemy defense/breakthrough but artillery's soft attacks do the same because in the end defense/breakthrough get consumed by attacks. And in contrast to air superiority, artillery does not just open up the potential to deal more damage - it actually does deal damage.

And I am arguing that it should both do damage and open up the potential for more damage. Artillery is the king of battle, and units which have less of it IRL are at a massive disadvantage. The French at Sedan in 1940, for instance, lacked both AT & AA guns, but their artillery almost stopped the main German panzer spearhead through the Ardennes. It was the actions of a single rifle squad that saved the day for the Germans. Yet in-game, artillery is not king, and massed infantry waves like those used in 1914 are viable, and don't suffer 350,000 casualties in a month.