Command hierarchy

[Zauberelefant]

Off topic, but is that tank about to throw a track?

Nope, he lost a few duck-bill track Extensions. Used to decrease ground pressure on soft terrain, saw use in boggy terrain in ETO as well. Also used on shermans.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I personally like to cap the number of units a general can handle based on number of batallions (or even better total combat width) instead of number of divisions.
When playing Soviet union I always build 40 width divisions no matter for which purpose, because with 20 width I would quickly run out of generals.

Yeah, that would make sense. It's strange from a logical perspective that you can double the number of men a general can command just by doubling the division size.

I don't typically run out of generals but I do end up using most of them on some nations. I actually make lots of 20 and 40 width divisions when I play the Soviets, the 20 widths are there to be filler to slow the German advance while the 40 widths hold important defensive lines behind rivers.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

They are banned in multiple player, whether paradox's efforts to limit them are effective is another thing. You get the point....

A lot of things are often banned in certain MP games (mainly competitive). This includes techs, unit types, focus branches and even entire countires.
But it doesn't mean they should be removed from the game.
However, devs should take a close look at these things. When something is banned in competitive MP it means that this is poorly balanced and allows exploits.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I think that is actually a point to be discussed within the MP Community. And then it's server related. Period.

I get the impression this 40w debate is pointless in single player - the AI does not use it, so the Player can decide whether or not to use it.
It's not like you must use it because it is available. Hence, any banning discussion is set to fail from the start. Anyone can play the game any goddamn way He/she Likes.

 

[Harin]

I think that is actually a point to be discussed within the MP Community. And then it's server related. Period.

I get the impression this 40w debate is pointless in single player - the AI does not use it, so the Player can decide whether or not to use it.
It's not like you must use it because it is available. Hence, any banning discussion is set to fail from the start. Anyone can play the game any goddamn way He/she Likes.

Well, whether the 40w debate has been pointless or not could be a debate of its own. Please don't!!

Personally, I have thoroughly enjoyed logging in just to read everyone's thoughts on the matter. A lot of good information was brought up and standing from afar, I just do not think anyone was totally right or totally wrong. That is normally a decent sign of good discourse. I know my understanding of in game divisions has improved and I thank everyone who took time to throw two cents in.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

A lot of things are often banned in certain MP games (mainly competitive). This includes techs, unit types, focus branches and even entire countires.
But it doesn't mean they should be removed from the game.
However, devs should take a close look at these things. When something is banned in competitive MP it means that this is poorly balanced and allows exploits.

In this case, it does, or a complete rework of metrics so two 20 width equal 40 width, place limit, etc.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I think that is actually a point to be discussed within the MP Community. And then it's server related. Period.

I get the impression this 40w debate is pointless in single player - the AI does not use it, so the Player can decide whether or not to use it.
It's not like you must use it because it is available. Hence, any banning discussion is set to fail from the start. Anyone can play the game any goddamn way He/she Likes.

It is not. It is in Expert AI, and people are talking about solving the problem by having AI field them also.

 

[blahmaster6k]

A lot of things are often banned in certain MP games (mainly competitive). This includes techs, unit types, focus branches and even entire countires.
But it doesn't mean they should be removed from the game.
However, devs should take a close look at these things. When something is banned in competitive MP it means that this is poorly balanced and allows exploits.

I mostly agree with this. Some of the things that are sometimes banned in competitive MP are banned because they are over-centralizing and force everyone to do the same thing or slow down the game (space marines, no-air Russia), some of the things are banned for balance (Fighter 3's, the Allies just don't have enough Aluminum in the world to win the air war if they are allowed being the main example), and some things that have been banned because of exploits(strategic bombers teleporting, Jaegernotprogramm decision and lend-lease of planes).

Not everything that is poorly balanced leads to exploits.

Exploits in my mind are things that players do that developers did not intend them to be able to do.

For example developers intended players to be able to make 40-width divisions because the division designer allows for it (5x5 battalions).

Developers did not intend for players to be able to take both Dispersed and Concentrated industry by picking a different research, switching the slot to dispersed industry and getting a confirmation pop-up, pressing [W] again to open the research tab while the pop-up is still there, clicking on an empty slot, selecting concentrated industry, then clicking OK on the pop-up switching from a random tech to Dispersed Industry, and voila, you're now researching two mutually exclusive industry techs at the same time and by end-game you'll have 50% more build slots and factory output than everyone else. Once this exploit became public knowledge, it was patched out of the game.

 

[Zauberelefant]

It is not. It is in Expert AI, and people are talking about solving the problem by having AI field them also.

OK, this is mortifying to read.
Expert AI can be set to use "historical" aka 27 width divisions, or be set to use 40w either sparingly or fully.
It remains a player's decision. In Vanilla, there is no way AI could possibly react to 40w, so there's an entirely different ballpark.

In vanilla, therefore, 40w are certainly more "exploitative" than in Expert AI, but the issue only stands if AI cannot build 40w of its own and does not compensate for that.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

OK, this is mortifying to read.
Expert AI can be set to use "historical" aka 27 width divisions, or be set to use 40w either sparingly or fully.
It remains a player's decision. In Vanilla, there is no way AI could possibly react to 40w, so there's an entirely different ballpark.

In vanilla, therefore, 40w are certainly more "exploitative" than in Expert AI, but the issue only stands if AI cannot build 40w of its own and does not compensate for that.

Stop strawmanning. I do not have a problem with 27w. I have a problem with 40 w, and you seem to be moving the goal posts by talk of using 40w sparingly. We know that is not what happens.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I mostly agree with this. Some of the things that are sometimes banned in competitive MP are banned because they are over-centralizing and force everyone to do the same thing or slow down the game (space marines, no-air Russia), some of the things are banned for balance (Fighter 3's, the Allies just don't have enough Aluminum in the world to win the air war if they are allowed being the main example), and some things that have been banned because of exploits(strategic bombers teleporting, Jaegernotprogramm decision and lend-lease of planes).

Not everything that is poorly balanced leads to exploits.

Exploits in my mind are things that players do that developers did not intend them to be able to do.

For example developers intended players to be able to make 40-width divisions because the division designer allows for it (5x5 battalions).

Developers did not intend for players to be able to take both Dispersed and Concentrated industry by picking a different research, switching the slot to dispersed industry and getting a confirmation pop-up, pressing [W] again to open the research tab while the pop-up is still there, clicking on an empty slot, selecting concentrated industry, then clicking OK on the pop-up switching from a random tech to Dispersed Industry, and voila, you're now researching two mutually exclusive industry techs at the same time and by end-game you'll have 50% more build slots and factory output than everyone else. Once this exploit became public knowledge, it was patched out of the game.

I do not believe that paradox intended a combat metric where 40 width is qualitatively superior to two 20 width divisions. So, NO!

 

[Gefallener_Held]

So in looking for discussions concerning ideal urban assault templates, I revisited this thread. On page five I found this excellent post, setting forth much of what it is wrong with 40 width meta. Many in that post agree 40 width meta is a big problem, althoguh seemingly less want them banned. I would compromise my righteous stance on this if it were likely that the combat metrics and support battalion functions and supply dynamics were changed, but that is doubtful. Anyway, excellent rebutall in this post and a lot of issues raised in this thread.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-fix-for-the-40-width-meta.1158136/page-5

Coming back to the width conversation, very large formations are impractical and a hindrance to combat effectiveness, particularly in more remote, low supply regions. The Russians learned this the hard way, and in the post-Winter War reforms of 1940-41, Russian infantry division size dropped from 19k men (some divisions in the Winter War had well over 20k men, IIRC even up to 23k) to about 14.5k, and then to about 11k right after the start of Operation Barbarossa. Similarly the huge unwieldy tank formations they still had in the summer of 1941, were discovered to be far too large to be effective, and were subsequently considerably downsized. Another lesson the Russians learned the hard way.

These things are not represented in HoI4. Part of the blame goes to the fact the supply system is extremely simplified.

IRL 14/4s with full supports would've been close to 30k men when you factor in vital formations not represented in the game. Such a huge division would've been ineffective. And yes, I'm aware some countries (IIRC USA) organised much of the logistical part on a corps level. That doesn't change the argument.

What's worse is that you can easily stack multiple of these gigantic divisions in areas where realistically you could feasibly only put a brigade or even just a regiment, and still be completely fine. This is one area HoI3's supply system modelled considerably better.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, but I think the sweet spot for division size from a min-max perspective should be what most militaries IRL found most effective: around 14-17k men. That's real-life manpower, so it includes formations not represented in HoI4. HoI4 figures would be lower.

Ideally they'd rework supply and combat a bit as well, so that smaller formations can be viable in certain, lower infrastructure areas. I don't see things like the Battle of Suomussalmi happening within current mechanics.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Stop strawmanning. I do not have a problem with 27w. I have a problem with 40 w, and you seem to be moving the goal posts by talk of using 40w sparingly. We know that is now what happens.

This is simply not what I wrote. You obviously never played with expert AI, judging from your writing.
And you would be well advised to stop calling Out any fallacious Arguments. You simply cannot discern what you disagree with from a fallacy and your own posts are miserable examples of fallacy ridden rants.

40w is either ahistorical, that's a Personal preference, Up to individual Players/MP groups. Like this is a Matter of taste. Arguments have been brought forward, you choose to ignore them and Go "NO!" like the mature person you are.
No issue. It's not like I have any chance in hell to have to play with you.

Balance is an issue that boils down to: can your enemy pull the same trick?
Expert AI allows for exactly that: "historical" Templates, effective Templates with a few 40w or as much 40w as possible.
These are AI strategy settings, and you as a Player have the choice to use 40w or not. In Vanilla SP and Expert AI's first setting, this allows to ban 40w by you simply not using them.

So, what's your point?

 

[Gefallener_Held]

This is simply not what I wrote. You obviously never played with expert AI, judging from your writing.
And you would be well advised to stop calling Out any fallacious Arguments. You simply cannot discern what you disagree with from a fallacy and your own posts are miserable examples of fallacy ridden rants.

40w is either ahistorical, that's a Personal preference, Up to individual Players/MP groups. Like this is a Matter of taste. Arguments have been brought forward, you choose to ignore them and Go "NO!" like the mature person you are.
No issue. It's not like I have any chance in hell to have to play with you.

Balance is an issue that boils down to: can your enemy pull the same trick?
Expert AI allows for exactly that: "historical" Templates, effective Templates with a few 40w or as much 40w as possible.
These are AI strategy settings, and you as a Player have the choice to use 40w or not. In Vanilla SP and Expert AI's first setting, this allows to ban 40w by you simply not using them.

So, what's your point?

No I use Expert Ai exclusively and have nothing to prove to you. There are posts in this very threat saying the remedy is to simply have AI use 40 width also, no qualifiers about sparing or anything like that. So clip n clap.

 

[Zauberelefant]

No I use Expert Ai exclusively and have nothing to prove to you. There are posts in this very threat saying the remedy is to simply have AI use 40 width also, no qualifiers about sparing or anything like that. So clip n clap.

You understand fairly well that I referred to the AI strategy settings in Expert AI.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

You understand fairly well that I referred to the AI strategy settings in Expert AI.

Interesting that you continue to hound me and pester, not having addressed anything in the post I quoted or the long thread discussing the MANY problems with 40 width. Go clip and clap at someone else.

 

[davidc929]

31 would be the lower estimate, and you still don't account for half the AT in the division.
27 is not historical. It's short by 25% of its divisional artillery and 50% of its AT.

I cannot make it much clearer than that. Your proposed hard cap of 27 is wishful thinking without grounding in history.

The fact that 40 width only works as historical when certain additional rules are set does in no way diminish this simpe truth.
When we look at a british division, with 3x3 INF, an additional MG btn (INF, +2 width), and 2 RA regiments (48 guns, that's the same number as the germans had, so 4 btns) plus AT btn comes out at 33w.

If you then consider that corps and army assets need to be added to the templates, it's easily conceivable that such a reinforced division reaches the high 30s or even the forbidden number of 40.

Except when you maintain that historical is just a code for 27 width.

British artillery units were much larger than other countries. A division had three field artillery regiments each if 24 guns. The anti tank regiment had 48 guns and the anti-aircraft regiment has 54 light guns. So it would need quite a few battalions to match the numbers.

 

[Zauberelefant]

British artillery units were much larger than other countries. A division had three field artillery regiments each if 24 guns. The anti tank regiment had 48 guns and the anti-aircraft regiment has 54 light guns. So it would need quite a few battalions to match the numbers.

Absolutely, however, the 25 pdr gun is a bit smaller than the 105 mm and larger that anyone else used.
So, having 3 x 8 gun batteries in three regiments (british terms) I think equal 3 hoi4 battalions - but I can easily agree to giving "ze tommies" 4 battalions - with the doctrinal Advantages of british royal artillery being encompassed in the GBP doctrine bonuses for entrenchment and planning.
The AT assets are similar to their German counterparts, the brits had the better guns at all points in the war, so I would accept 2 AT and of course one full AA batallion the germans don't have as organic units.

I'd say: 10 INF, to account for the machine gun battalion of the division, 4 ART, 2 AT, 1 AA, along with the usual support.
Gives us 35 width, 15000 fighting men.
14 of those divisions would make a BEF of 210000, with first armoured division added.

That's quite close to operation Dynamo's tally of rescued men (even if that number then included rear Echelon services)

 

[Zauberelefant]

Interesting that you continue to hound me and pester, not having addressed anything in the post I quoted or the long thread discussing the MANY problems with 40 width. Go clip and clap at someone else.

Again, this is incorrect and you continue to lie in the face of facts. Your Statement about Expert AI and 40w is plain wrong.
Being called out on nonsensical statements is only hounding If you choose to perceive the world along these lines.
Besides the fact that you approached me when I wasn't replying to you about issues in MP and SP, which makes me wonder why you need to lie about these things?

And don't you start telling me about not adressing points - I say, and will always say, "NO!"

 

[Challenge]

'd say: 10 INF, to account for the machine gun battalion of the division, 4 ART, 2 AT, 1 AA, along with the usual support.
Gives us 35 width, 15000 fighting men.
14 of those divisions would make a BEF of 210000, with first armoured division added.

So you do count guns, men and the pencils in the HQ and not just Org Charts.