Combined Arms Bonus

[Number 7]

If the stats are choosed with care you don't have to give extra bonuses for combined arms.

What happen then you take account for several divisions, maybe you use pure artillery divisions to attack the enemy while you have infantry divisions that can defend the artillery divisions from attacks.

You can not say that Im not protecting the artillery, but I wan't to maximize my firepower thus I only attack with artillery to make the most use of my width.

except that artillery will end up in the actual battle where its doing the attacking, and will get absolutely shredded the moment someone looks at it with a tank or mechanised division. even a pure INF division might destroy it because its essentially a glass cannon division

 

[Zaku]

except that artillery will end up in the actual battle where its doing the attacking, and will get absolutely shredded the moment someone looks at it with a tank or mechanised division. even a pure INF division might destroy it because its essentially a glass cannon division

Well the russians used arty divisions in the war with great effect. Of course they never sent them to the front line, they were positioned carefully behind the meat shield... err I mean the glorious soviet infantrymen.

 

[Number 7]

Well the russians used arty divisions in the war with great effect. Of course they never sent them to the front line, they were positioned carefully behind the meat shield... err I mean the glorious soviet infantrymen.

yeah but thats not how HOI mechanics work. if you make an all arty division and right click it into combat, it will break instantly, even with other divisions there full of INF. because each division is going to be attacked and lose ORG separately, not joining into a single "super division" where the infantry properly shields the arty of a different division

you'll want at least enough INF to properly fill your combat width so your artillery can attack unopposed, but even then theres whole slews of other modifiers like terrain, air superiority and bombing, naval bombardment etc that are all going to be factors. i cant see a universe where (in hearts of iron) all arty divisions would ever work

 

[Denkt]

Art have very low breakthrough value and infantry have much higher defense value, I get my punishment for pure art divisions but they do alot of damage.

 

[Zaku]

yeah but thats not how HOI mechanics work. if you make an all arty division and right click it into combat, it will break instantly, even with other divisions there full of INF. because each division is going to be attacked and lose ORG separately, not joining into a single "super division" where the infantry properly shields the arty of a different division

you'll want at least enough INF to properly fill your combat width so your artillery can attack unopposed, but even then theres whole slews of other modifiers like terrain, air superiority and bombing, naval bombardment etc that are all going to be factors. i cant see a universe where (in hearts of iron) all arty divisions would ever work

Well, we don't really know how the combat works in HOI4.
In EU4 a seperate stack of arty and a stack of infantry will do what you just said: they will merge for a single super unit for the duration of the battle. You don't need them in a single stack.
It's even logical, just think about it. I have 1 pure tank brigade, and 1 infantry brigade with arty in the same province. Why shouldn't they support each other in case of the battle? Why should only the "combined arms" divisions get the bonus?

Don't get me wrong, I want to have combined arms formations, but why should they lose the bonus if they are in seperate units in the same battle? No, I'd rather have proper stat balance, so that building every kind of units should be the most optimal by default, and not some magical "combined arms" bonus that you lose the moment you break the ratio the game forces on you. It worked good in HOI3, but I'd rather have it improved in this next game.

 

[Number 7]

Well, we don't really know how the combat works in HOI4.
In EU4 a seperate stack of arty and a stack of infantry will do what you just said: they will merge for a single super unit for the duration of the battle. You don't need them in a single stack.
It's even logical, just think about it. I have 1 pure tank brigade, and 1 infantry brigade with arty in the same province. Why shouldn't they support each other in case of the battle? Why should only the "combined arms" divisions get the bonus?

Don't get me wrong, I want to have combined arms formations, but why should they lose the bonus if they are in seperate units in the same battle? No, I'd rather have proper stat balance, so that building every kind of units should be the most optimal by default, and not some magical "combined arms" bonus that you lose the moment you break the ratio the game forces on you. It worked good in HOI3, but I'd rather have it improved in this next game.

we do know how hearts of iron 4 combat works, not only is there a DD on it, but we've seen hours upon hours of gameplay from world war wednesday, its very similiar to HOI3 combat with the mehcanics of combat width, commanders picking a tactic etc. This is not going to be europa universalis combat, its going to be hearts of iron combat, don't pretend it has a chance otherwise.

if you build a pure INF division and a pure ARTY division, the pure ARTY one will hit hard... for an hour until its ORG breaks and it retreats and the pure INF one will operate like a 4x /5x INF division in hoi3 would work, it would fight on for a while

what's so shocking about this?

 

[Zaku]

we do know how hearts of iron 4 combat works, not only is there a DD on it, but we've seen hours upon hours of gameplay from world war wednesday, its very similiar to HOI3 combat with the mehcanics of combat width, commanders picking a tactic etc. This is not going to be europa universalis combat, its going to be hearts of iron combat, don't pretend it has a chance otherwise.

Re-read my post, nobody said it's gonna be like EU4. I said that it's logical that two armies support each other in battle, like they do it in EU4. I also said that it WOULD be logical if the same thing happened in HOI4.

I will say again, we don't know how combat works yet. We know the features of the combat but the exact mechanic is unknown. I'm sure we will have a topic in a few months by @Secret Master that solves most of these questions, but until then we can only speculate.

if you build a pure INF division and a pure ARTY division, the pure ARTY one will hit hard... for an hour until its ORG breaks and it retreats and the pure INF one will operate like a 4x /5x INF division in hoi3 would work, it would fight on for a while

Again, I understand this. Even so it WOULD be better if the infantry divsions would protect the arty, and the arty would stay back and rain fire on the enemy.

what's so shocking about this?

Why do you think this shocked anyone?

You are missing the whole point. I'm saying that combined arms should be effective, but not because divisions get a magical bonus at x softness. They should be effective, because they have balanced statistics based on the battalions in the combat with different strenghts and weaknesses.

 

[Secret Master]

They should be effective, because they have balanced statistics based on the battalions in the combat with different strenghts and weaknesses.

Then we're going to need a bunch of different unit stats to make it rational.

Prior to TFH, 4xHARM divisions were viable and useful formations. The firepower and defensive attributes of HARM brigades rendered INF obsolete in some situations. In real life, such a formation wouldn't make any sense at all. TFH added some new statistics (armor and penetration) and adjusted the costs of armor, but even with new statistics, the CA bonus was still a necessity to make divisions rational in historical terms.

I get what you are saying: there's a reason combined arms worked well historically. It had nothing to do with magic bonuses. But if there are only three kinds of attack and defense attributes, you end up with a problem making divisions useful with multiple types of battalions. You end up with a situation where you just optimize one or two attributes using one or two battalions, and ignore the rest.

A CA bonus avoids that problem to some extent.

 

[Zaku]

I get what you are saying: there's a reason combined arms worked well historically. It had nothing to do with magic bonuses. But if there are only three kinds of attack and defense attributes, you end up with a problem making divisions useful with multiple types of battalions. You end up with a situation where you just optimize one or two attributes using one or two battalions, and ignore the rest.

A CA bonus avoids that problem to some extent.

I can live with the CA bonus as it is was not a bad solution, but Podcat said that they will try to balance the stats instead to make historical builds viable. To be honest either way is fine with me, but the latter is is better(if they can get it right). The CA bonus is not perfect at all, because you could build silly units like 3xlarm, 2xac or something like this, and still get the bonus with it which is absolutely nonsense.

Edit: You probably know this better, let me ask for my curiosity. Can you remember which was the most cost effective combined arms battle unit in hoi3 for the blitzkrieg doctrine?

 

[Kikaider]

I can live with the CA bonus as it is was not a bad solution, but Podcat said that they will try to balance the stats instead to make historical builds viable. To be honest either way is fine with me, but the latter is is better(of they can get it right). The CA bonus is not perfect at all, because you could easily build silly units like 3xlarm, 2xac or something like this, and still get the bonus with it which is absolutely nonsense.

I thought you had to have an inf brigade/btn of some type minimum to unlock the bonus, so like 1x MOT 2x LARM and 2x AC for like a 10-20% bonus depending on tech, but 3x LARM and 2x AC wouldn't cut it.

Also, in statistics there is a concept of an interaction term, where two single inputs combine to form a third input (i.e., a Y=A+B+A*B type of equation) pretty much for the same reason the saying "the whole is greater than the some of its parts" exists. It would be more organic than a magic combined arms modifier for having valid mixes simply activating when conditions are met. Though, it would also take thinking about a valid equation that incorporated both softness and 1-softness multiplied together (so as softness goes to 0 or 100 the bonus disappears), and probably the attack values of the soft and hard components separately, but if done right could reflect combined arms better (or even easier) than tweaked stats simply adding together (which I think is the reason the magic modifier came into being in the first place, straight addition of stats is hard to tweak to reflect the concept of combined arms)...

Totally willing to be crazy, just thought it might be an interesting way to look at it! I could try to come up with an actual equation should anyone care later tonight (I should be working right now)

 

[Zaku]

I thought you had to have an inf brigade/btn of some type minimum to unlock the bonus, so like 1x MOT 2x LARM and 2x AC for like a 10-20% bonus depending on tech, but 3x LARM and 2x AC wouldn't cut it.

You may be right, I think that was added in TFH. Even so, it still is not perfect because 4xHarm(or even Sharm), and 1Xmil is not a combined arms unit(and in HOI3 it was, even in TFH.)
You get 15% for the inf+arm(with the doctrine), and an other 10-15% for the panzer leader.

 

[Zaku]

But if there are only three kinds of attack and defense attributes, you end up with a problem making divisions useful with multiple types of battalions.

Forgot to reply to this in my previous post.
There are more stats that influence combat directly or indirectly:
soft and hard attack
toughness and defesive
recon
morale, and org.
supply use/fuel use <-- we saw in the last www how important this is.
armor/piercing
combat width in specific cases.(on a shorter frontline)
EDIT: reinforce chance


Also there is the new mechanic of individual tanks and combat equipment. Will you be able to build only the most expensive and most OP tank, or will you have to beef them up adding infantry, and other support elements? What will be most effective if we consider the build cost?
There are far more variables to balance this then what was available in Hoi3.

 

[Secret Master]

Edit: You probably know this better, let me ask for my curiosity. Can you remember which was the most cost effective combined arms battle unit in hoi3 for the blitzkrieg doctrine?

I would need some more criteria.

Do you mean "the most CA bonus possible for the least IC?"

Or do you mean "Highest stats possible for the least IC?"

Because the answer to those two questions may be different.

 

[tommylotto]

Before TFH, the combined arms bonus was based on softness and was a very bad system. It resulted in ridiculously gamey division builds being very effective. In TFH, the brigades were divided into types -- infantry, armor, indirect fire, direct fire, and other. (Mods expanded this by adding other groups like recon and mobile infantry). Your CA bonus depended on you putting brigades of different types together and required an infantry brigade as a base (no, militia could not serve as a base). It was fabulous, as it incentivized historically accurate builds and exemplified the true adage that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[Zaku]

I would need some more criteria.

Do you mean "the most CA bonus possible for the least IC?"

Or do you mean "Highest stats possible for the least IC?"

Because the answer to those two questions may be different.

Either is fine, I was just asking because I wondered if it was historically accurate.

 

[phantomrider]

Why should there be a bonus? A divisions stats is based on the sum of its battalions.

Warfare has never been as simple as simply adding up stats and comparing them to the enemy's stats and then reliably predicting the outcome. The concepts are synergy (the combination is more than additive in its effect) and antagonistic (the combination is worse than the sum of the parts). Units that can combine the right combinations of armor, artillery and infantry (with air support, AAA, AT, engineers when needed) tend to do much better than units who have the "wrong" or "no" combination (infantry, armor and artillery fight separately). In addition, force modifiers (good communication between arms {forward air controllers, forward artillery spotters with good radios} or within the arm (radios in all the tanks as opposed to just in the leader tank) also act as force multipliers. A lot of this is also dependent on "doctrine" which tells units how they are supposed to fight as well. (in a coordinated fashion).

The combined arms bonus in HOI3 was a decent way to simulate this "synergism" (and also get more "realistic" combat results). If HOIIV doesn't put something like this into effect it will penalize players who put together "realistic" divisions which might cost a little more or have a slightly lower per centage of its manpower in "combat arms" and reward "weirdness" such as 5 brigades of heavy tanks or artillery (and no infantry) that would not have survived in WWII.

 

[Denkt]

How do you get punished for realistic divisions?

 

[Secret Master]

Either is fine, I was just asking because I wondered if it was historically accurate.

Well, when looking at IC costs versus maximum combined arms bonus, the following division wins assuming you don't have bizarre practicals: LARM/INF/ENG/AA/RART

This division has a width of two and has a CA bonus of +30% (before leaders are factored in) assuming you spend the time and effort to get combined arms warfare on the superior firepower tree. It also requires superior firepower.

The problem, of course, is that INF is cheaper than MOT, and AA is cheaper than anything self-propelled or AT guns. RART is cheaper than ART or anything self-properlled. So this division is slow and improperly optimized for most forms of combat. It crawls at 4 kph, negating most of the usefulness of LARM.

It's softness is atrocious at 78% or so (depending on techs).

I would not recommend this division for a whole list of reasons.

If you were willing to spend some real IC, ARM/MOT/ENG/SP-RART/SPAAT might be more viable, but it's not really specialized enough. ENG and SPAAT are situational brigades, while rocket artillery takes research commitment at early starts.

Highest stats for least IC is a different question.

MIL usually has the highest IC/soft attack ratio of all brigade types, period. Obviously, its poor penetration, slow speed, and low ORG make it unsuitable for certain combat tasks. It also does not benefit from the CA bonus at all. So, MIL based divisions can economize IC while retaining decent soft attack. They can also be reduced to 0.5 width via doctrines, helping them maximize firepower even if you add no ART to them. However, they also have really bad toughness, meaning they get chewed up when on the attack.

AT generates has the highest IC/hard attack ratio of all brigade types, period. It's not even close with any other kind of unit.

Most softness for IC are AC brigades, hands down. They only go down to 45, but its a very cheap way to lower softness compared to even LARM.

Most toughness for IC are also AC brigades. They are also damn fast, which is why I love using them in LARM divisions and cheaper armored divisions that need low softness.

MP generate a ton of suppression for their cost, with GAR coming in second place.

AT cheaply gives penetration.

The catch is that certain brigade types cannot double up on certain stats. A division only uses the highest penetration and armor values among all brigades, so you benefit from spreading certain brigades around instead of concentrating them. But on the other hand, SA and HA can be increased through brigades. So, the question always ends up being "Do I get more of X by adding another of brigade type Y, or do I get more by adding more CA bonus?" You have to do the math.

The answers are never simple when you factor in unit mission requirements and terrain penalties.

 

[Midden]

How do you get punished for realistic divisions?

When the Dev's put a post out saying that Marines with an added ARM battalion will be crap at Amphibious assault.

 

[Zaku]

Well, when looking at IC costs versus maximum combined arms bonus, the following division wins assuming you don't have bizarre practicals: LARM/INF/ENG/AA/RART

This division has a width of two and has a CA bonus of +30% (before leaders are factored in) assuming you spend the time and effort to get combined arms warfare on the superior firepower tree. It also requires superior firepower.

The problem, of course, is that INF is cheaper than MOT, and AA is cheaper than anything self-propelled or AT guns. RART is cheaper than ART or anything self-properlled. So this division is slow and improperly optimized for most forms of combat. It crawls at 4 kph, negating most of the usefulness of LARM.

It's softness is atrocious at 78% or so (depending on techs).

I would not recommend this division for a whole list of reasons.

If you were willing to spend some real IC, ARM/MOT/ENG/SP-RART/SPAAT might be more viable, but it's not really specialized enough. ENG and SPAAT are situational brigades, while rocket artillery takes research commitment at early starts.

Highest stats for least IC is a different question.

MIL usually has the highest IC/soft attack ratio of all brigade types, period. Obviously, its poor penetration, slow speed, and low ORG make it unsuitable for certain combat tasks. It also does not benefit from the CA bonus at all. So, MIL based divisions can economize IC while retaining decent soft attack. They can also be reduced to 0.5 width via doctrines, helping them maximize firepower even if you add no ART to them. However, they also have really bad toughness, meaning they get chewed up when on the attack.

AT generates has the highest IC/hard attack ratio of all brigade types, period. It's not even close with any other kind of unit.

Most softness for IC are AC brigades, hands down. They only go down to 45, but its a very cheap way to lower softness compared to even LARM.

Most toughness for IC are also AC brigades. They are also damn fast, which is why I love using them in LARM divisions and cheaper armored divisions that need low softness.

MP generate a ton of suppression for their cost, with GAR coming in second place.

AT cheaply gives penetration.

The catch is that certain brigade types cannot double up on certain stats. A division only uses the highest penetration and armor values among all brigades, so you benefit from spreading certain brigades around instead of concentrating them. But on the other hand, SA and HA can be increased through brigades. So, the question always ends up being "Do I get more of X by adding another of brigade type Y, or do I get more by adding more CA bonus?" You have to do the math.

The answers are never simple when you factor in unit mission requirements and terrain penalties.

Thank you for taking the time to write this.

One of your example shows the weakness of the HOI3 system. Why does a completely nonsense unit like LARM/INF/AA/RART get +30%(40-45 with proper commanders) magical combat efficiency?