I guess having standard and reinforced templates would keep this at an acceptable level.
Exact representation of individual units is terrifying.
Command hierarchy
- Thread starter Crixus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I guess having standard and reinforced templates would keep this at an acceptable level.
Exact representation of individual units is terrifying.
It would be even more enlightening would you Care to substantiate these sentiments and react with more than "NO" to counterarguments...
Maybe we should talk about what an exploit is... what mechanic does a 40w template exploit exactly? And how is it gamey, as in "works only in the game", when I quite impressively showed that it worked quite well in reality?
And why do you consider historical TO&E "ahistorical"?
I really struggle to get what you think, because either I do not make sense or you have a hard time changing your mind.
But they did attach independent battalions to divisions in such a manner. Sometimes for a significant amount of time.
So if you used this https://taw.github.io/hoi4/ calculating tool, what would the historical german divisions and corps be like?
My divisions are usually around 26-27w when I try to make historical templates. That is, regarding which sub-units to include. Manpower strength is less than it would be historically, usually around 12-13 000, but I maintain that is due to a flaw in HoI4, not properly taking into account all kinds of headquarters and rear-echelon units.
Thus, an army corps with three divisions would be around 80w, sufficient for one province border.
Thus, an army corps with three divisions would be around 80w, sufficient for one province border.
Sounds sensible and seems to be the consensus amongst many.
However, I make the mentioned objections:
- 27w is 9/3 infantry. That leaves out: 1 ART, 1-2 AT in case of a 1940 German infantry division, probably with the Addition of attached Luftwaffe Flak battalion. So it could be up to 33 width.
- No Corps assets. Would be, for instance, attached engineers (INF), heavy artillery (ART), tank hunters/destroyers (AT/light or medium TD), Independent (heavy) armour, so an additional ~7-10 width.
- Army assets are a bit wider distributed, but would be concentrated in most cases and account for further ~7-10 width in certain areas.
My proposed units hence would be 2x33 + 7-14, slightly short of 80 with two reinforced divisions. Thus, a corps of 4 divisions could attack two provinces or a 3 division corps one province from two points for 120 frontage.
Actually, most countries. Three regiments (or brigades, like the British used) each with three infantry battalions. Two artillery battalions (HoI4, that is, with 72 guns, equalling SIX real-life artillery battalions), one A/A battalion and one AT battalion. The two latter would vary between countries, and could be support units instead.
But the manpower of a division reach from 13000 (US) to 21000 (Jap).
This should be represented somewhere.
There's it. Apparently battalions are not equal...
By the same Token, an infantry battalion isn't an infantry battalion, because 100 infantry equipment is a company...
Not to criticize you for your proposed design (it's a wonky Design choice by devs) but the "27w" proponents argued with organization as prime criterium for historical templates, but that flies to the wind if said criterium would make 27w void, apparently.
Then, despite you counting gun tubes, the 36 AT guns in German infantry brigades are suddenly "abstracted". This is not consistent.
Not that I would call you out for that, for what it's worth I cannot get a historical Layout with correct equipment out of this moronic system either, but I cannot gez behind that proposal either.
Exactly, but representing division train with combat troops doesn't work well, either.
Hopefully, Land war redesign will cover this base along with supply, officers, battalion design etc.
@Zauberelefant , I agree with most of what you say. Let's hope land war redesign comes up with some nice and realistic features.
Not all manpower equates to fighting units.. as explained before by others.
You missed the point.
There is a 60% different in men in the division. If we assume there are all the same ration of combat and not combat units there is a huge different in "fighting power".
You can not set up one 27w divisiontemplate to represent the divisions of all major countries in a historical correct way.
You also know that. Thats is why you dont present your 27w templates for the major powers after i asked several times.
No I don't do that because you and your ilk continue to misrepresent my position AND because it is not worth my time. I NEVER stated 27 width is a perfect, man for man, gun for gun replica of all divisions across nations. Rather, my position is simply that 40 width are, with some very limited exceptions, ahistorical, AND that they are de jure exploitative and gamey. Get it straight.
Here are three quotes were you stated that there should be a cap at 27/w Divisions.
So 27/w is for you the absolute maximum size for a division.
So 27/w or less is accurate for you. Every above is not only ahistorical but also anti historical.
So if you set the cap there it has to represent the biggest division on the world accurate.
Wrong. I explicitly stated GD is one formation I know of that is probably represented by 40 width. Probably even bigger as it was reorganized in a corp. Exceptions though are not the basis of a rule, they prove the rule. A few years ago it was 74 degrees on Christmas Eve here in New York. It does not follow, inter alia, that Christmas times reaches 70 degree temperature in that part of the world as a rule or principle.
As you well know, people are not making one or two elite 40 width divisions, but fielding whole armies of them.
"You and your ilk" - notch it down a bit, will you?
This is not about you vs your enemies, it's about your point being vague, inconsistent, arguably unhistorical and you insisting it was.
The Argument that 40w would be unhistoric or gamey is just your Statement that was not substantiated or successfully defended. I demonstrated that 40w is a reasonable size for at least a sizeable portion of a historic army if you take in Attachments into account.
That 40w is gamey was never explained.
If you actually took your time to explain what you think, this discussion would be a lot more constructive.
But you can also think along friend-enemy categories.
Like Hemingway? He once wrote that you do not need to go through a bowl of scabs to know they are a bowl of scabs. I have set forth my reasons, made reference to Military History Visualized who backs up my position, and told you repeatedly that this is not worth my time, and, even in this time of pandemic with ample free time, I do not owe it to you or anyone else to explain how a bowl of scabs is a bowl of scabs, particularly when you and others repeatedly strawman my position.
I do not care what you or anyone else writes or has to say. 40 width divisions, wtih some very limited exceptions, are ahistorical and exploitative. This is is as evident and convincing to me and others as Hemingway's bowl of scabs, so please stop. I do not care what you or others say, I have read it before and dismiss it out of hand, as have others. Feel free to disagree with me or be unconvinced, I do not care. Know that my response, from now till eternity, will be NO!