Okayyyy...
It's a good way to go through life.
Be happy with this almighty Held.
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.
Okayyyy...
It's a good way to go through life.
Be happy with this almighty Held.
Nice poetry, no substance. I admire how you crammed that many fallacies into a few lines.
I actually went and changed my position from the start of this thread because I had to consider new or previously unconsidered information.
Well, for starters, the AI has great problems reacting effectively to a player using 40 width divisions. The AI also doesn’t itself build 40 width divisions, which means the human player never has to worry about facing such divisions. So I’d label that exploitive. It’s also poor design, when one certain solution to a puzzle (that of designing divisions) seems to be a sure way to prevail in the game.
The one concession I would make is allowing for a very small number of 40 width divisions, like one or two. GD admittedly an exception. Maybe LAH it was not my impression that it was as large as GD but I may be mistaken.
If we are strictly talking about the game and ignoring all historical issues, it is not a fair/good/competitive game design where the player can use a widely considered META of 40w divisions and the AI is literally forbidden, by omission or design, not to use the same META design.
I do not think Paradox did that on purpose, it was probably an unforeseen result of widths, AI decision ability, stats, player ingenuity, and the math behind the land combat system. Still, I believe it has created a META that is available to the player and not the AI. This is probably not a good thing and should be fixed.
I do not think Paradox did that on purpose, it was probably an unforeseen result of widths, AI decision ability, stats, player ingenuity, and the math behind the land combat system. Still, I believe it has created a META that is available to the player and not the AI. This is probably not a good thing and should be fixed.
I gave you half a dozen German divisions and explained why that list could easily contain a third of frontline units.
And I reject your analysis out of hand...as have others. Even accepting your analysis, which I do NOT, six divisions out of how many hundred?
Yeah, gamey cheesy shit to field armies of such anomalies.
Well, these six divisions stand pars pro toto for most of the Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions, the 1st rate infantry divisions, if we include corps and army assets - discounting static and anti-partisan formations, we are talking about a third, in the Blitzkrieg era maybe close to half of German divisions.
I know, insignificant and exploity and whatnot...
Last edited:
NO!Well, these six divisions stand pars pro toto for most of the Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions, the 1st rate infantry divisions, if we include corps and army assets - discounting static and anti-partisan formations, we are talking about a third, in the Blitzkrieg era maybe close to half of German divisions.
I know, insignificant and ecploity and whatnot...
Yes, you already mentioned that, but your argument amounts to a tantrum, nothing more.
An arbitrary hard cap of 27 does not improve the game and has a tenuous hold in actual History.
I therefore say that defeats your points of ahistorical and gamey.
Because, as the AI is incapable of building or countering tanks, using Armour is "gamey" by your definition and should be banned. Same for Submarine warfare and strategic bombing.
Yet I cannot remember you raising these points. Because the Argument does not hold water, it is an arbitrary point by you to somehow support the conclusion you began with: that 27 width is the best upper limit to division size in the game.
And you have to make a few not-so-obvious presumptiums to give it a historical look, like:
ART battalions are in fact regiments, while any other battalion is a battalion
AT is somehow wrapped up in infantry equipment stats
Army and corps level units like heavy tank battalions are likewise abstracted into Base stats and need not be represented in units.
Which renders 50% of the tech tree for land equipment redundant, yet that apparently is not a Problem.
Your failure to satisfyingly address any of those points and your retort to fallacious rethoric support my point that you don't have one.
I still dont undderstand what is the great advantage of 40with divisions.
Why one 40w division is so much better then two 20w divisions with the same battalions?
How much % is the 40w better then the 20w?
Why one 40w division is so much better then two 20w divisions with the same battalions?
How much % is the 40w better then the 20w?
And the merry go round continues. I invoke das ewige Nein from Sartor Resartus.
Well, just as I expected. You simply have no convincing Point and reinforce that with every "no".
Game mechanics let 40w use all the attack vs half its own defence when fighting 20w, and its defence should outstrip 20w attack.
That is, given attack higher than defense is 4x as effective, an inbalance.
Hard to give percentage Here, but it's significant.
That the defence of a 40w outstrip one 20w is clear but with the same battalions there will be 2x20w that attack.
There are so many modifiers in the game that i dont think its has a huge impact. There are buffs from commanders in rank for defence and attack, special abilities like panzer leader, special bonuses for different terrain types, XP of the division, terrain modifiers for different unittypes, Airsupport from bombers, airsupremacy, planningbonuses, doctrinebonuses, entrencement etc...
How much different could made this 20w-40w? Noticed no different in my singleplayer games.
There are so many modifiers in the game that i dont think its has a huge impact. There are buffs from commanders in rank for defence and attack, special abilities like panzer leader, special bonuses for different terrain types, XP of the division, terrain modifiers for different unittypes, Airsupport from bombers, airsupremacy, planningbonuses, doctrinebonuses, entrencement etc...
How much different could made this 20w-40w? Noticed no different in my singleplayer games.
At least the developers intend to address some topics discussed in this thread - from the recent post by podcat:
To me, this is three messages: 1) doctrines will impact division stats more than what they currently do; 2) getting away from cookie cutter solutions will address 7/2 and 14/4 being your go-to designs for infantry divisions; and 3) addressing ahistorical gamey setups could mean eliminating something like using SHSPAA widely in infantry divisions.
To me, this is three messages: 1) doctrines will impact division stats more than what they currently do; 2) getting away from cookie cutter solutions will address 7/2 and 14/4 being your go-to designs for infantry divisions; and 3) addressing ahistorical gamey setups could mean eliminating something like using SHSPAA widely in infantry divisions.
O
Correct, but only if you match 2x20w vs 1x40w. If the 40w side has local parity, that's a different story.
The true difference however is when 40w attack, as the 20w defense does not stack.
If your 40w infantry has 300 SA and 500 defense and the 20w half these values, then 40w attacks will put 300 SA vs 250 defense, with the balance being 4x as effective, while the 2 20w bring 300 SA vs 500 defense, which is quite meh.
The first scenario gives (250x.1+50x.4)= 45 hits, the second (300x.1)=30 hits.
That's 50 % more effective without investing anything. You even save 50% support companies' Equipment.
There's a reason it's considered Meta.
Correct, but only if you match 2x20w vs 1x40w. If the 40w side has local parity, that's a different story.
The true difference however is when 40w attack, as the 20w defense does not stack.
If your 40w infantry has 300 SA and 500 defense and the 20w half these values, then 40w attacks will put 300 SA vs 250 defense, with the balance being 4x as effective, while the 2 20w bring 300 SA vs 500 defense, which is quite meh.
The first scenario gives (250x.1+50x.4)= 45 hits, the second (300x.1)=30 hits.
That's 50 % more effective without investing anything. You even save 50% support companies' Equipment.
There's a reason it's considered Meta.
Like: works only in a game, but shouldn't?
Then I disagree. LSSAH, GD, HG divisions testify, as would soviet mechaniced corps.
It was done and worked in reality.