Command hierarchy

[Challenge]

Dont know what you want to say with this sentence but i already point out that german infanteriedivisions had 17.000 men historically. This are 17inf = 34with if you only use infantry. So over 27w division exist! Proof the numbers if you dont trust me. Dont repeat your incorrect information.

A German Infantry Division had about 17,000 men. But only about 14,000 were in combat. In 1938 - 1940 the infantry division had three regiments of about 3,000 men each. Each regiment was self-sufficient with an Artillery Regiment with 2,900; an Antitank regiment with 550, A signal battalion with 470, and a Recon Battalion with 500. The rest were in Support organizations that were not combat units.

Supply had an Admin section to keep track of everything (20 men), Bakers to make the bread (140), Butchers for obvious reasons (40) and 20 more to run the postal service.

Then there was the Supply Chain for setting up and operation of distribution centers Truck Column (30) Horse column (30) -- and there were two each of those, Fuel distribution (40), a company of trucks to move all this around (250) and 100 more in the maintenance department that fixed everything from the stoves to the machine guns.

Medical: 1 Company of Horse drawn medics (170); Truck transported medic company (180); Hospital staff and crew (80) and the ambulance crews (240) divided into 2 companies.

Last, but not least is the Veterinary Services Company (240) because not only did you have 16,900 men, you also needed to take care of 5,400 horses.

So, 3 Regiments of three Brigades - maybe 4 - with support units. That's historical. And while I am having difficulty finding the reference, I'm pretty sure HoI 4 divisions were set up to represent the actual combat troops not including the kitchen staff.

This link leads to a video by the same source as the one you posted. It just goes into deeper detail.

There is no such thing then an unstoppable division type. Every division can be stopped. If it attack on a bad terrain type it is easier on plains it would be harder. If it get pierced, bombed by CAS, slow down by air superiority etc. it will be stopped. There are many factors that impact much more the 40w.

I agree. Even if you are using min/max sized formations.

And thanks. I've used that source to build formations in other WW II combat games I've played before but lost it when my last computer crashed.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I did say the cap should be 27w, not 40 width. This has grown very tiresome. Just because divisions were larger than 20 width, which I never disputed, does not mean they obtained 40 width. It is not just ahistorical but anti historical, and gamey and exploitative to boot,
Indeed a reddit thread I saw today in reading up on this indicates that 40 w panzer divisions are banned in multiplayer because they are effectively unstoppable.. I presume this is true, but have not taken the time to verify. And if it is not true, it certainly should be.

Listen, I am getting tired as well. You show me "width" in a historical TO&E, and I shut Up. Until then, my point stands: depending on which thing you follow, 40w does represent historical formations.

But you can represent the same formations in 27 or lower width, depending on what's constituting historicity for you.

And things being banned in MP is a Matter of Balance, not historicity. You're mixing both arguments in your post.

 

[halvorni]

Dont know what you want to say with this sentence but i already point out that german infanteriedivisions had 17.000 men historically. This are 17inf = 34with if you only use infantry. So over 27w division exist! Proof the numbers if you dont trust me. Dont repeat your incorrect information.

If you just want to min/max, fine, use whatever division suits you.

But if you want to talk about historical divisions, please read the input you get. You simply cannot just take 17000 soldiers and think that everyone is a front line infantry soldier, and call that 17 battalions. At least half of the manpower in a division would be in some supporting role. To repeat myself and others - 9 combat (i.e. front line) battalions to a division would be the maximum. In addition you'd have artillery, engineers, recon etc.

 

[Eisscrat]

If you just want to min/max, fine, use whatever division suits you.

But if you want to talk about historical divisions, please read the input you get. You simply cannot just take 17000 soldiers and think that everyone is a front line infantry soldier, and call that 17 battalions. At least half of the manpower in a division would be in some supporting role. To repeat myself and others - 9 combat (i.e. front line) battalions to a division would be the maximum. In addition you'd have artillery, engineers, recon etc.

First of all.
Why the men in the Hoi4 divisions should all be combat troops? Why thenon fighting troops should not include in the number?
The are nowhere else found. There are no men needed for supply or something. It is all in the division.
Like the planes that take 40 manpower not only one pilot. Supporttroops are include there.
(Bit it is silly they all die if the plane shot down like i understand it in hoi4)


Beside that your post is not entirely correct.

I watched the video and there are 14000 men in the combat troops.

9000 in the Infanterieregiments. Already more then half of the strength.

Then 2900 in the Artillery regiment that is also a combat unit also they are normaly a bit in the back.
550 in the Antitank which are direct at the front.
470 Signalunit that some back and some also at the frontline to ensure comunication with the front.
600 Recon there are direct on or even IN enemy territory
500 Engineers Also building fortifications on the front, laying and disarming mines or as "Sturmpioniere" were specialised combat units with explosives and flamethrowers.

So this are 14000 men in combat troops and around 82% of the Division are combat troops. Not at least 50%.

So my interpretation of a infanterydivision has 18% too much combat troops but i add them to get the total number right.

I think this is more historical then your "8500 at least 50% combat division"

 

[Feeblezak]

First of all.
Why the men in the Hoi4 divisions should all be combat troops? Why thenon fighting troops should not include in the number?
The are nowhere else found. There are no men needed for supply or something. It is all in the division.
Like the planes that take 40 manpower not only one pilot. Supporttroops are include there.
(Bit it is silly they all die if the plane shot down like i understand it in hoi4)


Beside that your post is not entirely correct.

I watched the video and there are 14000 men in the combat troops.

9000 in the Infanterieregiments. Already more then half of the strength.

Then 2900 in the Artillery regiment that is also a combat unit also they are normaly a bit in the back.
550 in the Antitank which are direct at the front.
470 Signalunit that some back and some also at the frontline to ensure comunication with the front.
600 Recon there are direct on or even IN enemy territory
500 Engineers Also building fortifications on the front, laying and disarming mines or as "Sturmpioniere" were specialised combat units with explosives and flamethrowers.

So this are 14000 men in combat troops and around 82% of the Division are combat troops. Not at least 50%.

So my interpretation of a infanterydivision has 18% too much combat troops but i add them to get the total number right.

I think this is more historical then your "8500 at least 50% combat division"

Not everyone in an infantry regiment is a soldier with a rifle. Nor is everyone in the artillery regiment operating the guns.

 

[Denkt]

Here is the infantry division when I based it on how much Manpower each part of the division used while trying to keep it viable in gameplay terms.

Spoiler: Infantry division

 

[Zauberelefant]

At the heart of this discussion lies this:
You either get manpower right, or equipment or organization, if you stretch it, you could maybe (!) Get two right, but never all three at once.

Denkt's example shows this:
Manpower is pretty close, but 6 arty battalions, with 218 guns?!?
Even counting infantry guns, this is too many.

The proposed 27w divisions lack manpower used, and still have too many guns.
21 width gets the guns right and the organization, at around half the actual manpower used.

There can be no right answer.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Listen, I am getting tired as well. You show me "width" in a historical TO&E, and I shut Up. Until then, my point stands: depending on which thing you follow, 40w does represent historical formations.

But you can represent the same formations in 27 or lower width, depending on what's constituting historicity for you.

And things being banned in MP is a Matter of Balance, not historicity. You're mixing both arguments in your post.

You continue to fail to understand. I am not mixing both arguments. I am EMBRACING both arguments. I am against 40 width divisions for BOTH game balance and historicity/plausibility.

 

[Eisscrat]

You are free to have this opinion.

@Challenge
In structual level ; )
Correct in manpower terms : )

 

[Challenge]

And you are free to build historically incorrect division level formations.

 

[Crixus]

I really hope paradox is watching, since this was obviously a subject of debate and that they take notes for future change

 

[Zauberelefant]

You continue to fail to understand. I am not mixing both arguments. I am EMBRACING both arguments. I am against 40 width divisions for BOTH game balance and historicity/plausibility.

Well, I demonstrated that there is a case for 40w as well as 2X width for reasons of historicity.

And MP bans stuff for Balance, not historicity.
It is disingenious to claim that your motive and MP bans' reasons are the same, when in fact, they are not.

You are as always entitled to a different opinion. I do not claim that 40w is the only historic division size, but can be, at least for line infantry. Armour, special forces and such are a different matter.

But your Claim that only 27w would be historical and 40 w must be banned because it is inherently ahistorical, that's just made up.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Well, I demonstrated that there is a case for 40w as well as 2X width for reasons of historicity.

And MP bans stuff for Balance, not historicity.
It is disingenious to claim that your motive and MP bans' reasons are the same, when in fact, they are not.

You are as always entitled to a different opinion. I do not claim that 40w is the only historic division size, but can be, at least for line infantry. Armour, special forces and such are a different matter.

But your Claim that only 27w would be historical and 40 w must be banned because it is inherently ahistorical, that's just made up.

No it is not, others have countered. Military history visualized did not display 40 width divisions in his presentations.

 

[Feeblezak]

Here is the infantry division when I based it on how much Manpower each part of the division used while trying to keep it viable in gameplay terms.

Spoiler: Infantry division

View attachment 567661

Is that supposed to be a realistic division? Because it certainly is not.

 

[Denkt]

Is that supposed to be a realistic division? Because it certainly is not.

I based it upon how much Manpower each battalion use, which give I think it was 9 infantry battalions and 6 artillery battalions and maybe 1 anti tank battalion. The main issue is that you can't have all the support companies the division had. I also added some units to get to 40 width as I said it also need to be useful in terms of gameplay.

As I said Before, in reality the most important part of an infantry division is its artillery, not the infantry which have more like a support role but in HOI4 you can build "pure" infantry divisions which would be prettty much useless in reality except for maybe some extreme cases with bad terrain or so.

A major reason why the Soviet Winter offensive did so much damage to the german divisions was due to them being forced to abandon alot of Heavy Equipment which is the true Power of an division.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Is that supposed to be a realistic division? Because it certainly is not.

This guy gets it. I salute you!

 

[Denkt]

This guy gets it. I salute you!

Try to make a realistic division when the game don't even represent the Heavy weapons in an infantry battalion given the fantasy low cost of infantry battalions. In reality infantry division was not cheap and spamable like how it is in the game.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Try to make a realistic division when the game don't even represent the Heavy weapons in an infantry battalion given the fantasy low cost of infantry battalions. In reality infantry division was not cheap and spamable like how it is in the game.

To use the fact that certain things are abstracted or do not relate one to one to their hstorical counterparts should NOT be used as a vehicle to support or justify such gamey exploits.

 

[Denkt]

To use the fact that certain things are abstracted or do not relate one to one to their hstorical counterparts should be used as a vehicle to support or justify such gamey exploits.

The fantasy low cost of infantry battalion is a pretty huge deal since it lead to unrealistic infantry spam to a level that never happened in ww2 even with using understrength divisions.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Except 40 width divisions have no basis in history or fact. Maybe GD but that is the only unit I can think of.

They could represent a division reinforced with multiple regiment and battlion sized units attached to it.

Hoi4 uses divisions only, IRL military structure was more flexible.