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.
My understanding is that there are compounding stat modifiers so that 1 40 width is more than two 20 width divisions. That is a big problem because that makes no sense. That is one reason why I think this stuff is just absolute nonsense. It also creates what seems to be unintended or at least unjustifiable dynamic whereby certain powers who are able to farm experience can create these ridiculous templates. This makes it even harder for smaller nations to keep up.
It really is just so ridiculous and really an abomination no less egregious than that delete my entire army but one division and game experience.
As in, over powers the game AI and performs better in relationship to other, logical structures in the game.
While the first issue is a non issue because the AI is plain inept or can be enhanced by e.g. Expert AI, the second issue is one that is a question of what, rather than if, is gamy.
Lemme elaborate: some designs of divisions will outperform others, that's a given. Some Design(s) will end up top Tier, by virtue of being more economical or powerful.
As the issue with 40w vs 20w is one of width, fundamentally, you can either arbitrarily ban certain widths or give up the 80/40 width system, that allows these exact templates to be "meta".
And I guess a variable combat width would encourage historical-ish Templates better than deciding that man ought not build 40w.
Most of my divisions don't fall into 10/20/40 width. Once I have the parts and MIC to keep up they are usually between 25 - 30 or so.. I base them on Organization
Charts, not how many pencils the HQ section is supposed to have. I limit it to about 4 or five different ones with various tasks. Since they took Garrison Divisions off the map that will be 3 or 4 types now, I guess.
Since divisions only attack one opposing division selected randomly, one of your 40 width can be attacked by up to three 26 wide formations for each attack yours gets. If the three 26 wides have an accumulated attack higher than your defense they get more attacks against you at higher hit chances. You can put 2 - 40 width into an 80 wide battle, I can put 4 - 26 width into the same front. I'll get a combat penalty of 30%, but if my attack is high enough that wouldn't be all that bad; 20 widths are worse for you because in, theory, I could put 5 in combat and only have a 25% penalty. Keep in mind I'm not trying to destroy your division, just wear down it's Org till you have to leave.
Someone did a test showing that the best defensive formation was actually 8 - 10 widths. It was only a couple of days ago on the forum and if I find it I'll quote over so you can see it. Of course, his idea was to see how long a number of divisions of what width could hold out against, I believe, 40 width divisions so you can bring in reinforcements. IIR his description acurately, he keep stopping to put additional attackers in manually as each ran out of Org and withdrew until the defenders line collapsed.
You don't need 40 width to beat the AI unless you just don't want a challenge. In MP, I would think you only need them if everyone else is using them. By your philosophy, I would have expected more 80 width Divisions in your mix. What you build seems more along the line of a Corps-sized formation from an Organizational structure.
I never said I wanted anything banned.
Charts, not how many pencils the HQ section is supposed to have. I limit it to about 4 or five different ones with various tasks. Since they took Garrison Divisions off the map that will be 3 or 4 types now, I guess.
Since divisions only attack one opposing division selected randomly, one of your 40 width can be attacked by up to three 26 wide formations for each attack yours gets. If the three 26 wides have an accumulated attack higher than your defense they get more attacks against you at higher hit chances. You can put 2 - 40 width into an 80 wide battle, I can put 4 - 26 width into the same front. I'll get a combat penalty of 30%, but if my attack is high enough that wouldn't be all that bad; 20 widths are worse for you because in, theory, I could put 5 in combat and only have a 25% penalty. Keep in mind I'm not trying to destroy your division, just wear down it's Org till you have to leave.
Someone did a test showing that the best defensive formation was actually 8 - 10 widths. It was only a couple of days ago on the forum and if I find it I'll quote over so you can see it. Of course, his idea was to see how long a number of divisions of what width could hold out against, I believe, 40 width divisions so you can bring in reinforcements. IIR his description acurately, he keep stopping to put additional attackers in manually as each ran out of Org and withdrew until the defenders line collapsed.
You don't need 40 width to beat the AI unless you just don't want a challenge. In MP, I would think you only need them if everyone else is using them. By your philosophy, I would have expected more 80 width Divisions in your mix. What you build seems more along the line of a Corps-sized formation from an Organizational structure.
I never said I wanted anything banned.
All true and showing 40w isn't an uncounterable size. I have read the thread you mention and fully agree. The AI cannot deal with tanks either, yet Armour somehow isn't gamy...
I do not get how my philosophy would allow for 80 width templates (also Impossible, as 25x3 is the maximum size).
Because I was consistently arguing for organizational, instead of numerical, accuracy first and foremost.
And none of my proposals was anything close to Corps sized. A reinforced division is still considerably smaller than a corps.
I do not get how my philosophy would allow for 80 width templates (also Impossible, as 25x3 is the maximum size).
Because I was consistently arguing for organizational, instead of numerical, accuracy first and foremost.
And none of my proposals was anything close to Corps sized. A reinforced division is still considerably smaller than a corps.
I think you are arguing more numerical: Number of guns, number of men, etc. I have been showing divisional organization structure. But that's not the issue at which I am looking.
I'm wondering how an army full of 40 width divisions work against a player who builds a solid 20 wide force and can reinforce and support a line with potentially better attack ratios over the time of a battle. If the 40 width divisions in the test required multiple replacements in the front to push the 8 - 10 width divisions out, I would think the Org attrition would be a defeating factor.
In the test he didn't say anything about reinforcing the 10 widths.
Most of the time the strategic goal is to break the attack through Org depletion not HP, yes?
I'm wondering how an army full of 40 width divisions work against a player who builds a solid 20 wide force and can reinforce and support a line with potentially better attack ratios over the time of a battle. If the 40 width divisions in the test required multiple replacements in the front to push the 8 - 10 width divisions out, I would think the Org attrition would be a defeating factor.
In the test he didn't say anything about reinforcing the 10 widths.
Most of the time the strategic goal is to break the attack through Org depletion not HP, yes?
Wrong on the numerical part, that was an additional factor I considered. But organization took priority over gun count. Except when vital equipment would be "abstracted" by not bothering.
I think that consensus is 40w is gamy? How would they possibly lose vs (quite unhistoric) 20w If that were true?
I think that the current number of divisions that an excessive and unreal general can carry should be at most able to carry half divisions, that is, a general should have a maximum of 12 divisions under his command, it would be mandatory for people to use more generals.
If the game set army counts to 12 division max, it would help reduce the "gamy" exploit of a good army commander commanding troops spread over the globe. It could also make it easier for the developers to simulate the leadership advantages/disadvantages some nations had during the war. For example, Russia had so few command capable generals, they could not produce enough corps headquarters for much of the war. This resulted in span of control issues for Army commanders as division commanders became their direct reports. Relatively speaking, Germany, on the other hand, had a wealth of staff officers and capable generals to produce almost any headquarter units it required.
@Zauberelefant Can we drop this, please? We will never agree; so let it go. Talk about the Game Effects, which is what I asked about.
How do you use them? Do you go up against other MP players that use a different width? What kind of win/lose for the battles where different width divisions are engaged? How many 40 width divisions have you engaged against smaller formations to root them out? What were the division number ratios?
I want to know how they play. How do they stack up against the cost of building them against the cost any other width division?
@Harin I think changing the number divisions a General controls would not really do much to make the game better. There is a thread about including an officer corps as in HoI 3. Never having played 3, I don't know how that would work out.
How do you use them? Do you go up against other MP players that use a different width? What kind of win/lose for the battles where different width divisions are engaged? How many 40 width divisions have you engaged against smaller formations to root them out? What were the division number ratios?
I want to know how they play. How do they stack up against the cost of building them against the cost any other width division?
@Harin I think changing the number divisions a General controls would not really do much to make the game better. There is a thread about including an officer corps as in HoI 3. Never having played 3, I don't know how that would work out.
Last edited:
but it would be much more plausible the current command system that is totally unrealistic and implausible since in reality a general barely had 12 divisions under his control under his command, surely limitation would somehow change the way to play and as Hari says would increase the importance These tactics since some will have nations will have more difficulties or advantages to produce and have several efficient generals to cover the entire front of more secure something is currently quite easy to do with just a couple of generals something that is not realistic
Okay. I see your point. I rarely put a full 24 divisions in anyway.
However, our command chain is: Army Group/Army/Division. Reality would be Army Group/Army/Corps/Division, wouldn't it? We're missing the formation that would be made up of two to five Divisions (US). Frankly, I would prefer this structure since our battle plans would make considerably more sense to me. As it is I often divide up the divisions in an Army to give more control over my operations anyway.
So do we need to advocate an additional level of command, or do we accept that the Corps is melded in and just skip that level of command as the Soviets did when they lacked the experienced officers to fill it after Stalin's purge?
However, our command chain is: Army Group/Army/Division. Reality would be Army Group/Army/Corps/Division, wouldn't it? We're missing the formation that would be made up of two to five Divisions (US). Frankly, I would prefer this structure since our battle plans would make considerably more sense to me. As it is I often divide up the divisions in an Army to give more control over my operations anyway.
So do we need to advocate an additional level of command, or do we accept that the Corps is melded in and just skip that level of command as the Soviets did when they lacked the experienced officers to fill it after Stalin's purge?
Hell, you are basing your Argument on "40w are gamy" and then genuinely ask how well they are doing vs non 40w?
That's unexpected. They are fine. Though I don't play competitive MP, that Community and my games vs AI result in wins.
Funny how when i point out your strawman we cannot reach Agreement...
Even so, armies were 12 divisions in size and army groups were made up of several armies. So his proposal would be quite historical.
If the main problem is that 40 width is too gamey, the best solution would be coding the AI to use them as well. If Both sides use them, then none has an advantage.
Except that with some limited exceptions. 40 width is NOT historical. Of course, the reason people do this is because of compounding numbers so that a 40 width has a compounded effectiveness more than 4 x 10 or 2 x 20, which also does not make sense.
I do not want to play a game where nations field armies all the size of GD when this was the anamoly, the exception.
There's a whole list of things that need changing.
-More factories, docks and other facilities should decrease available recruit-able population. When you increase your conscription law, you should lose factories or see a severe cutback in output (the latter is represented but it's so minor for amount of manpower you get it's not a deterrent at all).
-Organization of a template should come mostly from support units, particularly things a like signal, recon, logistics and hospitals which aid in unit cohesion, morale and co-ordination.
-Adding combat units to template should have a tipping point where you lose organization. This a fact every sizable nation faced after WWI when they abandoned the square division just for that reason. It was too unyielding to command efficiently. The counter to 40 width is that trying to have such a huge force would create chaos trying to command and relay orders. Only through massive use of support units and advance military doctrine could possibly gain some....some, of that organization back. There is absolutely no conceivable argument that a 40 width division should have more organization then a 20 width, or we'd still be using square divisions today.
-Need corp level command, and the Theater command should be assigned to the theater window, not directly to the army. Generals started command at Division level, then Corps, then Army, then Army Group. A corp being 3-5 divisions typically. And Army usually only composed of one Infantry corp. But it also had an Armor Corps and a Air Corp (well technically an Air Wing or Air Group. The entire air "force" was a corps of the entire Army at that time usually). This idea of a general commanding 24 divisions is stupid. I don't think the enitre 5th Army Group even had 24 divisions in it and it was the largest with 5 Armies.
3-5 at every level is good. 3-5 Groups per theater. 3-5 Armies per Group. 3-5 Armies per Army Group. 3-5 Corps of any specific unit type to an Army. 3-5 Divisions to a Corps.
Strangely Paradox code still considers what we are calling Armies to be Corps. That would make Army Groups actually Armies.
-The problem with above is that While most of Europe falls into this, nations like China and to a lesser extent, USSR did not, for varying reason. For different reason they were much smaller at the lower echelons, but much bigger at the middle echelons.
-Much of the issue of matching # of people with the # of equipment can be partially and largely resolved with smaller, more accurate numbers in a artillery battalion. The problem again is, this varied wildly even among European nations. Another problem is they all used tiered weapons. You don't even have HQ represented. Thats a lot of people there. The heaviest artillery were Corp and even Army level assets. A division used both medium (Division asset) and light artillery (Regiment asset), along with even smaller infantry guns (Battalion?) and anti-tank guns and later bazookas. From there on down you had 80mm Mortars, then 60 mm mortars, then grenade launchers and mines. HMG's at one level, LMG's at lower level. The game makes it out to be one proceeds the other. They all existed together at different levels. Most of this equipment isn't even accounted for so the people allocated become simply riflemen when in actuality they were not rifleman. In game currently anything smaller then a anti tank gun is represented through tech that gives a bonuses, but doesn't effect troop count. That line of research adds things like mortars, and some advance rifle techs add bazookas and machine guns...but in the form of bonuses, not the increased manpower requirement nor even the actual equipment.
-More factories, docks and other facilities should decrease available recruit-able population. When you increase your conscription law, you should lose factories or see a severe cutback in output (the latter is represented but it's so minor for amount of manpower you get it's not a deterrent at all).
-Organization of a template should come mostly from support units, particularly things a like signal, recon, logistics and hospitals which aid in unit cohesion, morale and co-ordination.
-Adding combat units to template should have a tipping point where you lose organization. This a fact every sizable nation faced after WWI when they abandoned the square division just for that reason. It was too unyielding to command efficiently. The counter to 40 width is that trying to have such a huge force would create chaos trying to command and relay orders. Only through massive use of support units and advance military doctrine could possibly gain some....some, of that organization back. There is absolutely no conceivable argument that a 40 width division should have more organization then a 20 width, or we'd still be using square divisions today.
-Need corp level command, and the Theater command should be assigned to the theater window, not directly to the army. Generals started command at Division level, then Corps, then Army, then Army Group. A corp being 3-5 divisions typically. And Army usually only composed of one Infantry corp. But it also had an Armor Corps and a Air Corp (well technically an Air Wing or Air Group. The entire air "force" was a corps of the entire Army at that time usually). This idea of a general commanding 24 divisions is stupid. I don't think the enitre 5th Army Group even had 24 divisions in it and it was the largest with 5 Armies.
3-5 at every level is good. 3-5 Groups per theater. 3-5 Armies per Group. 3-5 Armies per Army Group. 3-5 Corps of any specific unit type to an Army. 3-5 Divisions to a Corps.
Strangely Paradox code still considers what we are calling Armies to be Corps. That would make Army Groups actually Armies.
-The problem with above is that While most of Europe falls into this, nations like China and to a lesser extent, USSR did not, for varying reason. For different reason they were much smaller at the lower echelons, but much bigger at the middle echelons.
-Much of the issue of matching # of people with the # of equipment can be partially and largely resolved with smaller, more accurate numbers in a artillery battalion. The problem again is, this varied wildly even among European nations. Another problem is they all used tiered weapons. You don't even have HQ represented. Thats a lot of people there. The heaviest artillery were Corp and even Army level assets. A division used both medium (Division asset) and light artillery (Regiment asset), along with even smaller infantry guns (Battalion?) and anti-tank guns and later bazookas. From there on down you had 80mm Mortars, then 60 mm mortars, then grenade launchers and mines. HMG's at one level, LMG's at lower level. The game makes it out to be one proceeds the other. They all existed together at different levels. Most of this equipment isn't even accounted for so the people allocated become simply riflemen when in actuality they were not rifleman. In game currently anything smaller then a anti tank gun is represented through tech that gives a bonuses, but doesn't effect troop count. That line of research adds things like mortars, and some advance rifle techs add bazookas and machine guns...but in the form of bonuses, not the increased manpower requirement nor even the actual equipment.
Last edited:
Because if you use them, I would expect there to be a distinct advantage over any other size division. I would expect your 40 width to always beat the AI, no challenge there. But you can offer no insights of how the design actually works compared to others, just that it beats the AI all the time.
I'd say it's a lot of wasted resources since a 20 width can do that as well. At least the AI can occasionally win a battle against them. I prefer that challenge to just painting the map my color as fast as I can.
On a different note, this is what PDX devs consider historical for their game:
https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Historical_divisions
I know you disagree. I don't give a flying flip.
I'd say it's a lot of wasted resources since a 20 width can do that as well. At least the AI can occasionally win a battle against them. I prefer that challenge to just painting the map my color as fast as I can.
On a different note, this is what PDX devs consider historical for their game:
https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Historical_divisions
I know you disagree. I don't give a flying flip.
Multiple Examples for historical templates that result in 40 width or close to it were provided in this thred.
Besides most players already deviates from history by building such divisions. And if they do, AI should counter this. HoI is about non-historical but plausible paths anyway.