DEBATE: Unit Sizes for HOI 2

[unmerged(15561)]

Should the defauly unit size for a Grand Strategic War Sim be Division, Corps, Army, Brigade or Regiment?

Army Group = x Armies
Army = x Corps
Corps = x Divisions
Division = x Brigades
Brigade = x Regiments (Is this right?) If so lets continue....

Ive been playing a few other wargames: Uncommon Valor, Eastern Front, Panzer General3 recently and got to wondering....

Default Templates
Are divisions with attached brigades the way to go for HOI2 or should these be changed. My conclusion was that Divisions should be the main unit type. But Id like to see the following also:

- Divisions should configurable according to a template. So when I build my division I should be able to choose, what the make of that division is: For instance, an ARMORED DIVISION could have the following templates:

Hvy Tank Division = 3 Tank Brigades,
Lt Tank Division = 1 Tank Brigade + 2 MOT Brigade,
Norm. Tank Division = 2 Tank Brigades + 1 MOT Brigade

These basic templates could be overstacked with additional brigades such as ARTy, ENG, AA and AT and cost more. But the overall cost in time and resources should be higher the more you add. This would really I feel allow the player to configured their army according to their preferred strategy.

- Stats for each division would be an accumulation of stats and abilities for each brigade.


Custom Templates
The same could be said for creating all other divisions, based on a set of basic templates which are hardcoded wihtin the game, but... there could also be a feature to configure templates.

For Instance:

MAR TANK Division = 2 MARINE BRIGADES + 1 LT TANK BRIGADE.
OR a airborne unit with TANK and AT capabilties =
ASSAULT PARA DIVISION = 1 TANKETTE BRIGADES + 2 PARA BRIGADES + 1 AT Brigade


Rules
Id like to see that each brigade be treated individually within the unit so that if the MAR TANK DIVISION goes up against a Lt. ARMOR DIVISION, then the two opposing tank divisions go up against each other and so the two INF divisions against their opposites.

However, for player purposes this these units should be treated as one division for move and attack purposes.

Id also like to see more types of each bridgade, INF should have desert, mtn, winter, heavy, light and standard types.

Glider INF brigades should also exist.

Id also like to see ARM brigades buildable for each tank type as we have here, but to allow the player to have mixed brigades in a division.

Combat should be resovled entirely for the division in combat and not be dependent on each bridage being destroyed but on average casualties on all brigades in a division.

NOT JUST DIVISIONS
Id also like to see individual brigades be built for defensive purposes or island liberations. These should not be defined any more deeper and use divisional types already defined ingame.



Ok. Theres my idea. Anyone have any comments arguments? Should HoI 2 stick with divisions or have brigades or have a hybrid as I have stated above?

Cheers
2Coats

 

[unmerged(21814)]

Platoons like in Western Front and Eastern Front! BTW, have you played Divided Ground and Rising Sun?

Just kidding

Your ideas sound interesting.

 

[unmerged(15332)]

I like the idea of it beeing possible to attach/detach several brigades to a division. I.e as (at least) germany did, attaching anti-tank, anti-air brigades etc to regular division and thus "super-stack" them.
For mech/panzer I think the game is short of a way to mimic:

- Frontline repair technology. I.e without this the strength loss of a panzer division should be very severe over time. Could be implemented as a "brigade" or a technology. Maybe this is the ENG attachment. But if so, then it should be possible to develop and enhance the level of ENG support.
Note: This strength loss has quite little to do with strength beeing MP loss since MP loss for panzerdivisions(brigades) was very low compared to infantery division MP losses.

- Endurance difference for different kind of mech/panzer units. A heavy panzer unit should have much less endurance than a light panzer unit

But it always a question of whether the net gain will be bigger than the increase in complexity/needs to micromanage. Also it´s a question of whether a game can be sold to the "broad masses" if it´s too "realistic".

Sharky

 

[snoopdogg]

I think the smallest unit should stay as the division. Only the paranoid dictator types talked about brigades n' stuff when discussing strategy.

I like the default template and custom template ideas except I'm not so sure about being able to add anything to your paratroopers. How would you drop behind enemy lines with all that stuff?

combat rules: Having each brigade of like type go against each seems to lessen the need for hard/soft attack for infantry/armored brigades respectively.

I wouldn't mind the idea of having seperately constructed brigades and then simply being able to add them to any unit you want at any point. I don't think they should fight as seperate units though.

 

[unmerged(15561)]

Originally posted by snoopdogg
...

combat rules: Having each brigade of like type go against each seems to lessen the need for hard/soft attack for infantry/armored brigades respectively.

...

Unless your 3 INF Brigade Division goes up against a 2 ARM and 1 INF Division! Then 2 INF Brigades will have to go up against a brigade division.

Which makes me also think that if you are rushed for time, a 2 brigade division could be rushed out, unstrengthed!

 

[unmerged(8351)]

In addition to all these new rules (which sound good by the way) Their also needs to be some sort of more realistic supply/logistical rules other than the huge stacks get a effeicny penalty...I do not even think it should be possible to have more than say 20 divisions in some of the smallerseuropean provinces (maybe even less but I do not no enough historical deatils about this so I'll just throw a number out there)

 

[unmerged(18047)]

I see your point 2Coats, but I must disagree with you.

1. The main point about unit size really does not matter, the ablity to optimize that unit to fit your needs does.

2. Country's with a very small military force will not really benefit from being able to customize one's units. With the current map from HOI anything smaller than army size would be IMHO insane. You would need poviences the size of countys not states.

3. The idea of mico-management sounds good up to a point, but the main ideal behind HOI is conflict and warfare. Not accounting and bookeeping. I would much rather have a long game because of the war phase not the calculation phase side of it.

These are just my opinions and bear no hostlity toward you.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by snoopdogg
I think the smallest unit should stay as the division. Only the paranoid dictator types talked about brigades n' stuff when discussing strategy.

A valid point, but it does nothing to improve the ability to model the Pacific theatre of operations where islands were held by a company, battallion or regiment rather than a division. Trying to create a realistic Japanese order of battle for the 1941 to 1945 period while maintaining garrisons in the islands leads to an inflated number of divisions.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

I really like the idea (especially cause I suggested something similar a few month ago )


For HOI 2 I would really like to see a strategic part (like HOI) and a more tactical part (something like Panzer General):

The player should have the choice how to play, the "I hate micro"-players should be able to use the strategic way (HOI battles and Division templates) - the "I love micro"-players should get the chance to design their favorite divisions and fight their battles more the "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"-way


Means:

1. a strategic world map (like in HOI or better like Vicky) where you move divisions and corps

2. and a more tactical HEX map where you fight your battles (containing one or a few provinces)

3. As player you should have the option to choose if you want to fight your battles strategically (like HOI) or tactical (like Panzer General)

4. Battles on HEX maps should contain and be influenced by towns, roads, railways, stations, rivers, airports, forts... and so on

5. On this tactical level divisions should break up on a regiment or at least brigade level

6. each regiment should fight with it's own stats: especially speed, weapon range, reconaissance, stealth, urban fighting abilities and so on

7. ART should have a long-range attack (5-12 HEX) - tanks a medium (based on gun and tech 1-3 HEX) - INF can only attack with one HEX range...

8. if you have a look at dynasty/peoples general - recon units (cause of the heavy losses after surprise attacks) - heavy INF (for taking towns and forts) - light INF (cause paradrop and sneak ability) are much more important then in HOI

9. Building forts and AA should give the defending player an amount of bunkers and defense installations

10. you can call for air-support from all air-units in range

11. there should be HQ and supply regiments that can be lost

12. You will win a battle in taking some Victory points, or HQ

13. all naval units should act on ship size with own stats...

and so on...


So I would prefer to customize divisions templates on a regiment level - but who acts like a division or a corps on the strategic world map !

...and I would like to choose the way I fight my battles !


any suggestions on this ?

.

 

[unmerged(21814)]

Originally posted by Steel
A valid point, but it does nothing to improve the ability to model the Pacific theatre of operations where islands were held by a company, battallion or regiment rather than a division. Trying to create a realistic Japanese order of battle for the 1941 to 1945 period while maintaining garrisons in the islands leads to an inflated number of divisions.

Perhaps that problem could be solved by consolidating some islands. Where the hell are Palmyra and Baker? I mean I've never heard of them and I can name all the world capitals off the top of my head And do we really need both of them in the game? Then, is Johnston really necessary? Or Casiguran in the Philippines? Do the Aleutians need to be subdivided into four provinces, especially considering that there's no Alaska, so Japan can not really island hop its way to North America via the Aleutians? Japan could probably also spare some islands. And anyway somehow the map should be crystal clear when infantry can just walk from one Pacific Island to another. What is that supposed to represent anyway? I mean, Japan has no ships of any kind I left, I totally control the Pacific (as US, although I've just heard Bhutan can do that as well ), I have destroyers doing tours of duty (until org starts dropping) off each and every island held by the Japs (although that's really unnecessary since according to save file Japan has 0 transports and so can not even run convoys) and yet somehow they just walk from one archipelago to another. Do they, like, walk on water? Well, I guess I should be glad they are not attaching explosives to my destroyers while walking by

 

[unmerged(14249)]

The use of divisions for building and corps for maneuvre/combat seems fine. But there's nothing to stop the current system from adding certain specialist units which operated independently historically:

* SNLF - Japanese marine brigades (special naval landing force)

* Heavy tank battalions - like Germany's 504th with Tiger tanks

* Artillery - like the German heavy siege guns built for the Maginot line but used against Sevastopol

* Special forces - Long range desert group, rangers, commandos, seals, the glider troops that took out Eben Emael, etc.

These would just be another unit type which became available to build when you had the appropriate tech. They would have stats, costs and special effects appropriate to their size and historical effect.

Andrew

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Andrew_CLT
Perhaps that problem could be solved by consolidating some islands. Where the hell are Palmyra and Baker? I mean I've never heard of them and I can name all the world capitals off the top of my head And do we really need both of them in the game? Then, is Johnston really necessary? Or Casiguran in the Philippines? Do the Aleutians need to be subdivided into four provinces, especially considering that there's no Alaska, so Japan can not really island hop its way to North America via the Aleutians? Japan could probably also spare some islands. And anyway somehow the map should be crystal clear when infantry can just walk from one Pacific Island to another. What is that supposed to represent anyway? I mean, Japan has no ships of any kind I left, I totally control the Pacific (as US, although I've just heard Bhutan can do that as well ), I have destroyers doing tours of duty (until org starts dropping) off each and every island held by the Japs (although that's really unnecessary since according to save file Japan has 0 transports and so can not even run convoys) and yet somehow they just walk from one archipelago to another. Do they, like, walk on water? Well, I guess I should be glad they are not attaching explosives to my destroyers while walking by

Having the islands on the map is IMHO of the same significance as including the Maginot Line or tank divisions, ie critical to representing the time period. Strategy on both the operational and grand strategic level was based on control of those islands.


The island walking has been discussed to death previously, in my personal opinion it's an acceptable representation of tactical movement using landing craft, it reduces micro-management and aids the AI in carrying out the island campaign. The main issue is that enemy fleets do not block that type of movement, hopefully this can be adjusted in v1.06. The effect of coastal forts on this type of invasion is also a concern of course.

 

[unmerged(21814)]

Originally posted by Steel
Having the islands on the map is IMHO of the same significance as including the Maginot Line or tank divisions, ie critical to representing the time period. Strategy on both the operational and grand strategic level was based on control of those islands.

Yes, all things being equal, I prefer to have all the islands (although still there's no compelling reason why the Aleutians should consist of exactly four provinces and not three of five ), especially for realism. But on the other hand it's not realistic to keep even one division on tiny Midway (or to invade it with one). And the problem is that each and every island province has to be defended by at least one division (lest an entrprising Italy grabs it as described by somebody here), and for both Japan and US it all adds up to quite a lot, and then all those division gobble up supplies which tie up a lot of transports.

I don't know, perhaps it could be possible to produce divisions at 30% strength and reduced cost? I think that could also make sense in peacetime since a lot of peacetime units including newly activated ones were in fact understaffed.

Well, just a thought. I know it might be hard to implement, but perhaps island provinces should have limits on both defending and invading forces since there's really no way you could land 10 divisions on a small atoll

 

[jpd]

I like the idea of drilling down one level below drivision, for the purpose of producing and defining the composition of your devision, providing standard templates for those that don't like the added micromanagement (the AI will probably fall into this category ). In fact, I had proposed this several months ago already

However, for the purpose of providing orders (and other unit handling), the division should remain the basic unit type. Maybe just add an extra command to detach a brigade from a division, which should send it directly into the build/upgrade/reassign queue.

To model the different uses of units, one could allow for a different amount of brigades which form a division. So, small divisions for para's or island guard duty, larger divisions for frontline operations.

For reference, a game like Victory! The battle for Europe, which is played on a European/north africa/middle east map, consists of over 1900 provinces and almost 400 individual sea zones, still has the division as the most elemental unit, both for active duty and production purposes. However, in the list of predefined divisions, provisions have been made for smaller-than-standard sized divisions for para's, guard duty and special ops, which are also cheaper to produce.

Jan Peter

 

[Fawr]

Alternatives

Generally I dislike the idea of adding much extra complexity to the game system. I like the level of detail and adding too much micro-management would spoil the game.

However the defenders in small islands could be handled better. I suggest 2 different options for handling this:

1. Have brigade sized units (which don't require supply) build automatically with every fort. When the fort is attacked the units suddenly appear and they disapear after the battle is over.
2. Allow the building of stationary garrison brigades anywhere.
   [/list=1]
   
   I prefer option 1. This would fit nicely into the current game, would allow you to just make naval forts in the islands you want protected. The units could just be 1/3 strength & organisation infantry (or milita) units (but maybe with special technologies that improve their capability).
   
   I would not make these units need to have supplies traced to them to avoid that type of micromanagement. You could just deduct the points from the central pool, or assume that the cost is quite small.
   
   The whole point of the milita units is that they slow down an invader (if you have forts) and make sure that invasions are carefully planed operations. It could be assumed that these unit's supply is not even enough to fill one convoy unit (Similar to the island hopping without ships abstraction).

 

[unmerged(14096)]

Personally I prefer generic templates, where we could plug in the assets of a division. What I would suggest is that you be allowed to purchase empty shells of divisions. These shells should change over time. If you look at most of the major armies the composition of their divisions changed, and we should be able to reflect that. At any rate, the idea would be that you could then attach your purchased brigades to the divisional shell.

The shell should have some minimal offensive/defensive capabilities, and as you add brigades these would change. You should be able to add varying numbers of brigades. So maybe you make some one brigade units for garrison duty, and some four brigade units as assult troops.

In addition, you should be able to purchase battalions, to operate similar to the brigades currently. If I purchase a engineer battalion, and attach it to a brigade it will have extra abilities.

Personally for me, what I am looking for is flexability. I'd like to be able to attach and detach divisional assets as the need arises.

 

[kionas76]

hpoe is the last to die.

The idea of creating divisions from different brigades/regiments is 100% correct and should imply is the air forces as well.I am sure that it would correct several gameplay issues that have been reported in the fora.Perhaps the main problem for that is how to do it whithout changing to much the game machine.I am not a programmer but it seems difficult.I have only one more thing to ad.In order to express the promotion of low-rank officers because of their performance i would like to say that Mj Generals can be removed from the initial senario.In that case every division in the field will have a default commander capable of getting experience points and if he has fought well he might be promoted in Lt General and places in the leaders pool for bigger command.Even more depending on what type of division he commanded and whether he played defensive or offensive the traits would be given to him.For example a leader form tanks would be a panzer leader.By the way leaders traits need a lot of work.
! last thing,the Japanese marines(SNLF) were not special units like the American marines.Mostly naval infantry with lower standards of training compared to the army's infantry and usually gathered before the operation and as such they didnt have permanent formations.They were created because of the need to guard the lots of islands,a task that the army didnt want to have.Perhaps the only really elite and special units of the Navy were the naval paratroopers

 

[unmerged(14096)]

Re: hpoe is the last to die.

Originally posted by The ancient mar
should imply is the air forces as well.

I don't see this as a large problem with the airforce as I do with the ground troops. Could you elaborate?

 

[GLENN]

Division level unit. Anything else would be too much micromanagement for RTS game.

IF want lower level, play a tactical game not stategic.

Try the Eastern Front, it was reissued by Grisby.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I like the ideas of being able to choose the number and type of brigades in a division. It might also be a good idea to limit a division to 2-4 brigades, otherwise we'd have to get into calculating how much transport each division needs, and that's getting too complex. Also, Regiments and Brigades are (mostly) interchangeable. Regiments, generally, tend to range in size from 2,400 - 3,600 (2-3 battalions) and Brigades 4,000 - 5,000 (basically a Regiment with supporting combined arms), so in a game like HoI/HoI2, the names are there for flavour.

I also like the idea of generating a division's stats based on the sub-units that make up the division. This will help to avoid the current generic units that are the same (except for tech) no matter the country involved.

I am against having sub-units fight sub-units, otherwise there's no point in having divisions.

Last, and most important, is the question of command. As things currently stand, the real units in HoI are corps and armies. If we really want to have a division-based game, we need to do away with the way leaders are currently handled. Certainly allow divisions to be grouped into stacks, otherwise having to move hundreds of individual units would be too much.