I would say that brigade sized units would be the best as the basic part of which everything consists - but the player should be dealing with Corps 99% of all the time, with the brigades being grouped and moved semi-automatically.
-
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.
These are mutually incompatible statements. When talking about unit size with regards to game design, we're talking about what kind of unit the counters will represent. If folks want corps moving around the map, then the unit size should be corps; if folks want brigades moving around, then brigades. However, that doesn't preclude designing templates for corps or divisions or whatever unit size is settled on, by using brigades or companies or even platoons, for that matter.
Maybe there is a simpler way. First, allow specialized brigade types to be constructed such as militia, marines and maybe paratroopers when the correct technology is developed. In reality they would be of little use when going up against normal divisions but would be useful for garrison and amphibious assaults. They would not be allowed to invade and take over a province by themselves though except in 1 circumstance. Each province should have a certain value that is the maximum amount of troops it could hold. Provinces like california would have almost unlimited capacity but provinces like Wake, Midway and other small provinces would have 1 or 2 brigade maximum. In order to take these islands you must build brigade size units because it would just be impossible to take it with a division. that would fix a good chunk of the Pacific land war and still allow more brigade flexibility.
I like the idea of a template for creating divisions but I'm not sure the complexity of it really makes it worth the effort.
I like the idea of a template for creating divisions but I'm not sure the complexity of it really makes it worth the effort.
Math Guy's Unit Mod
This might be of interest here. It's an old post from the classic "Why is Reinforcing so Cheap?" thread (here):
This might be of interest here. It's an old post from the classic "Why is Reinforcing so Cheap?" thread (here):
Originally posted by Math Guy
Armor model 0 -- tank battalion
Armor model 1 -- brigade (2 tank, 1 mot inf, 1 art btn)
Armor model 2 -- short division (1 tank, 1 mot inf, 1 art regt)
Armor model 3 -- full division (2 tank, 1 mot inf, 1 art regt)
Armor model 4 -- full modern division (2 tank, 1 mech inf, 1 art regt)
Mech model 0 -- light tank battalion
Mech model 1 -- brigade (2 lt tank, 1 mot inf, 1 art btn)
Mech model 2 -- short division (1 tank, 1 mot inf, 1 art regt)
Mech model 3 -- full division (1 tank, 2 mot inf, 1 art regt)
Mech model 4 -- full modern division (1 tank, 2 mech inf, 1 art regt)
Motorized model 0 -- motor battalion
Motorized model 1 -- brigade (2 mot inf + 1 art btn)
Motorized model 2 -- short division (2 mot inf, 1 art regt)
Motorized model 3 -- full division (3 mot inf, 1 art regt)
Infantry model 0 -- infantry regiment
Infantry model 1 -- short division (2 regts + art regt)
Infantry model 2 -- full division (3 regts + art regt)
Cavalry model 0 -- cavalry regiment
Cavalry model 1 -- short division (2 regts + art regt)
Cavalry model 2 -- full division (3 regts + art regt)
Militia model 0 -- regiment
Militia model 1 -- short division (2 regts + art btn)
Marines model 0 -- commando battalion
Marines model 1 -- regiment
Marines model 2 -- short division (2 regts + art regt)
Marines model 3 -- full division (3 regts + art regt)
Paratroops model 0 -- glider regiment
Paratroops model 1 -- paratroop regiment
And so on. I altered the "brigade" add-ons to be battalions instead, even changing the labels in text.csv. I also altered text.csv so instead of referring constantly to "divisions," HOI calls them "formations" -- just a grammar thing for me as I plan to have a lot of brigades and regiments kicking around in my games.
So now whatever you need, you should be able to build. A Soviet wartime cavalry division was really one regiment plus a battalion of artillery. The different flavors of German assault-gun brigade can be simulated by taking the tank battalion (armor model 0) and attaching either an artillery battalion -- to simulate assault guns -- or an antitank battalion -- to simulate tank hunters. Think of the tank battalion part as the chassis, then the artillery/antitank addition determines the armament. A German 1941 airborne division had 3 paratroop regiments, an Allied 1944 airborne division had 2 plus one glider regiment. And so on.
This is kind of entertaining as a planning activity, at least to me. Shall I build a motorized battalion, attach an engineer battalion, and have a motorized engineer regiment? What about light armored flak versus heavy armored flak? Plus the upgrade paths here are more or less the historical ones -- if the AI chooses to convert its light tank battalion to a light tank brigade, then to a mech division, that is what happened in most cases.
I haven't exhaustively checked but I'm sure this will cover most OOBs of most nations, down to the regiment & brigade level. Probably it'll turn out I need three- regiment militia divisions, and even some four-regiment "square" infantry divisions (I know Japan had some), but basically there weren't that many ways to organize troops. Then for each nation, I can introduce an "upgrade = { }" command that will tweak org, firepower, antiair, supply, or whatever is needed on a national basis.
Bottom line: the only thing I can't tweak in the .inc files is manpower, therefore the model system has to be focused on changes in manpower in preference to any other theme.
This obviously kills the whole complicated structure of 38 different tank models, but I was never keen anyway on the subtle distinction between a panzer division using advanced light tanks mounting 30mm guns, versus one using mediums and 40mm guns. In my opinion, these are very small differences. The major difference is between heavier and lighter vehicle chassis, which I think is well represented by the armor versus mech upgrade paths.
Using this scheme, China can have tanks -- but they'll get mech model 0, a battalion of light tanks, and they'd better be damned careful because it'll vaporize very easily. And the same for Japan, incidentally. Don't forget if you want you can give them armored cars too -- use the motorized battalion, maybe tweak it in the .inc file. That's the level they could afford, and good luck to them. No more panzer corps on the Yangtze!
About tech -- right now in HOI the unit definitions tend to make up maybe 10-25 % of unit value, and tech adds the other 75-90 %. I would prefer if unit definitions defined 60 % of unit value, and then you could add some tech improvements as the war developed. The standard German infantry division didn't become twice as powerful between 1939 and 1945 -- in many respects it didn't change at all, e.g. it was largely horsedrawn, the artillery was essentially the same 105mm howitzer used in 1918 plus some 150mm guns. The big differences in performance from division to division were less in tech and more in size and composition -- two regiments or three, attached engineers or not.
The one place where I intend to increase the number of available models is in the naval side. Because you can't upgrade from one naval model to another, there's no danger of the AI taking light cruisers and making them seaplane tenders by accident, just because model 13, seaplane tender, appears after model 12, light AA cruiser. So there might as well be all the weird diversity that existed in real life. And if gun ratings can range from 1 to 100+ -- actually, 0.1 to 100+ -- there's no reason not to put in all those subtle technical points that we find in coffee table books entitled "Interwar Cruiser Design for WW II Addicts".
And THEN if the Comprehensive Math Guy mod becomes popular, someone will make sprites for all this, different sprites for infantry battalions and light AA cruisers. But that's a level of obsession not even I am able to keep up with . . .I'd settle for some counters with the right NATO symbols for different size units.
.
sorry - but I don't see the complexity / micro problem:
1. if you build a division you have up to six free slots for battalions,
2. you drag and drop the battalions you like in this slots - and then you save this division as a template !
3. there could be some pre-defined standard divions for the AI and the micro-hating players !
4. MP, IC cost, build time and division stats will be defined by the used battalions.
5. upgrading units would be on a battalion level
6. and you should be able to bring battalions back from divisions to a pool
7. this way you can build a one battalion divions for defending purposes and super heavy six battalion divisions.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
and btw I would really like to have the option to fight more complex sea and land battles in HOI 2:
just to mention one of many points: weapon range (e.g. CV and ART) should be represented in a battle !
and sorry that I don't understand the micro-hating players at this point - cause everybody could choose if he wants to fight battles the simple/classic HOI/RISK way or a more complex/tactical "Panzer General"-like way...
...so nobody should have a problem with this improvement !
.
sorry - but I don't see the complexity / micro problem:
1. if you build a division you have up to six free slots for battalions,
2. you drag and drop the battalions you like in this slots - and then you save this division as a template !
3. there could be some pre-defined standard divions for the AI and the micro-hating players !
4. MP, IC cost, build time and division stats will be defined by the used battalions.
5. upgrading units would be on a battalion level
6. and you should be able to bring battalions back from divisions to a pool
7. this way you can build a one battalion divions for defending purposes and super heavy six battalion divisions.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
and btw I would really like to have the option to fight more complex sea and land battles in HOI 2:
just to mention one of many points: weapon range (e.g. CV and ART) should be represented in a battle !
and sorry that I don't understand the micro-hating players at this point - cause everybody could choose if he wants to fight battles the simple/classic HOI/RISK way or a more complex/tactical "Panzer General"-like way...
...so nobody should have a problem with this improvement !
.
First of, let's get the terminology right. If you talk about 5 or six units that form one division, then, militarily speaking, those units are brigades, not batallions.
Secondly, why keep hammering on tactical battles? HoI is a strategic level game, where you have the role of the supreme commander. The actual battles are directed by your subordinates, aka the random generator.
Thirdly, have you considered the mess you create by differentiating between players opting for strategic and others for tactical battle when they are multi playing in the same game. Not to mention the problems with creating even a halfway decent AI for handling those tactical battles, either for AI run nations, or players that opt for strategic level gameplay. Or the difference in gamespeed setting that this would require.
Why not simply play existing games that already have realtime tactical level combat, like the Close Combat series, and let HoI remain the odd man out, being a realtime, strategic wargame.
I, for one, like HoI in it's current form precisely because it has strategic level gameplay. It makes the game different from all other wargames out there, because of it's level of abstration and sheer scale. Let's concentrate the efforts on improving that, instead of trying to mimic other existing games.
Jan Peter
Secondly, why keep hammering on tactical battles? HoI is a strategic level game, where you have the role of the supreme commander. The actual battles are directed by your subordinates, aka the random generator.
Thirdly, have you considered the mess you create by differentiating between players opting for strategic and others for tactical battle when they are multi playing in the same game. Not to mention the problems with creating even a halfway decent AI for handling those tactical battles, either for AI run nations, or players that opt for strategic level gameplay. Or the difference in gamespeed setting that this would require.
Why not simply play existing games that already have realtime tactical level combat, like the Close Combat series, and let HoI remain the odd man out, being a realtime, strategic wargame.
I, for one, like HoI in it's current form precisely because it has strategic level gameplay. It makes the game different from all other wargames out there, because of it's level of abstration and sheer scale. Let's concentrate the efforts on improving that, instead of trying to mimic other existing games.
Jan Peter
IMHO..
I very much like the idea of creating your own divisions. Either producing things in bridage sizes, which can later be combined, or in saved templates would be wonderful and i dont think that ahistorical. there have been independent brigades and such.
futhermore, having the provinces contain smaller units, be they hexes or what, would allow for provinces to be fought over, not huge swaths of territory changing hands all at once, cities can be located in particular hexes, and given combat modifiers, there would be a real front LINE, not front provinces, infrastructure could actually be represented as roads and RRs, and be cut, no longer would 120 divisions be stacked in a provinces, theyd be divided out into the hexes, quiet front sectors could be held be brigades or understrength divisions, etc (not every part might be a good idea, just saying there are a lot of wonderful things that could be done with provinces made up of smaller territorial units).
i think that conjunctively, these would be huge improvements. im all for it. it doesnt add any more management hardly at all, and in fact is a little more realistic.
I very much like the idea of creating your own divisions. Either producing things in bridage sizes, which can later be combined, or in saved templates would be wonderful and i dont think that ahistorical. there have been independent brigades and such.
futhermore, having the provinces contain smaller units, be they hexes or what, would allow for provinces to be fought over, not huge swaths of territory changing hands all at once, cities can be located in particular hexes, and given combat modifiers, there would be a real front LINE, not front provinces, infrastructure could actually be represented as roads and RRs, and be cut, no longer would 120 divisions be stacked in a provinces, theyd be divided out into the hexes, quiet front sectors could be held be brigades or understrength divisions, etc (not every part might be a good idea, just saying there are a lot of wonderful things that could be done with provinces made up of smaller territorial units).
i think that conjunctively, these would be huge improvements. im all for it. it doesnt add any more management hardly at all, and in fact is a little more realistic.
SilverDragon,
The difference between brigades and battalions is quite a large one, since the average division has at least 9 combat battalions and 3-5 (or more) support battalions
I do have to agree with others, it's not so much the technical aspects of having tactical combat in a proposed HoI2, though there are significant challenges there as well, it's that HoI is a strategic game and tactical combat has no place, really. The MOO series is a bit different, since tactical naval combat and tactical ground combat are totally different animals and the comparison doesn't really work.
I do like your idea of an interface for designing divisions. Lots of strategic games have this function (usually space opera naval games), and I think it would work well. The returning battalions/brigades/whatever to a common pool would also allow for historical re-orgs like what the Germans did in '44 by reducing their divs to 2 regts and combining the leftovers to create instant divs giving same overall numbers but greater operational flexibility.
Of course, if a pool of brigades/bttns will be created, then the question of production would have to be settled. No matter if brigades are beind used or bttns, would we then have the option of producing and using those units? I can see using brigades, which would be extremely weak, but, hey, when outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 when up against a division, sucks to be a brigade, but not bttns. Battalions are way too small a unit for a game like this.
Opinions anyone?
The difference between brigades and battalions is quite a large one, since the average division has at least 9 combat battalions and 3-5 (or more) support battalions
I do have to agree with others, it's not so much the technical aspects of having tactical combat in a proposed HoI2, though there are significant challenges there as well, it's that HoI is a strategic game and tactical combat has no place, really. The MOO series is a bit different, since tactical naval combat and tactical ground combat are totally different animals and the comparison doesn't really work.
I do like your idea of an interface for designing divisions. Lots of strategic games have this function (usually space opera naval games), and I think it would work well. The returning battalions/brigades/whatever to a common pool would also allow for historical re-orgs like what the Germans did in '44 by reducing their divs to 2 regts and combining the leftovers to create instant divs giving same overall numbers but greater operational flexibility.
Of course, if a pool of brigades/bttns will be created, then the question of production would have to be settled. No matter if brigades are beind used or bttns, would we then have the option of producing and using those units? I can see using brigades, which would be extremely weak, but, hey, when outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 when up against a division, sucks to be a brigade, but not bttns. Battalions are way too small a unit for a game like this.
Opinions anyone?
.
ok to give this discussion a small boost:
for me is the land and naval combat one of the most disappointing features in HOI:
it's just to simple and indirect to manage for a game about WWII
to solve this, I have suggested a "Panzer General"-like combat mode (that's also a very strategic, but more complex one) for HOI2 !
cause everyone seems to have an own opinion on this issue:
how should the combat mode look like in HOI 2 ? - and therefore: what would be the best unit size ?
a) like HOI
b) like "Panzer General"
c) other suggestions
.
ok to give this discussion a small boost:
for me is the land and naval combat one of the most disappointing features in HOI:
it's just to simple and indirect to manage for a game about WWII
to solve this, I have suggested a "Panzer General"-like combat mode (that's also a very strategic, but more complex one) for HOI2 !
cause everyone seems to have an own opinion on this issue:
how should the combat mode look like in HOI 2 ? - and therefore: what would be the best unit size ?
a) like HOI
b) like "Panzer General"
c) other suggestions
.
I prefer the traditional odds comparision, myself, and would like to see that as the method of combat for land units, but where the results allowed for step-losses so it wasn't an all or nothing engagement.
As for unit size, I'd like to see divisions, but without the leaders and the command limit rules but with stacking limitations. Failing that, corps work well, too.
Originally posted by PBI
SilverDragon,
The difference between brigades and battalions is quite a large one, since the average division has at least 9 combat battalions and 3-5 (or more) support battalions
This one I agree with. AFAIK regiment is the basic building block of both divisions and brigades. A division is NOT a formation consisting of many brigades. In fact, in the Finnish army, brigade is the standard peace-time operational/training formation, and divisions were only formed (hopefully for the last time) when the continuation war started just after barbarossa. (Divisions were formed in the Winter War also, of course). A brigade was (and is) an independent formation like division, but lighter, maybe having 2 or 3 regiments while a division might have 4. Point here being that an attached divisional artillery regiment sounds ok, but a divisional artillery brigade IMO is absurd. (Ingame, just change the brigade to regiment and all is well as far as I am concerned)
Actually, as far as that goes, it depends on the army in question. Commonwealth militaries build divisions around brigades, with a brigade typically being a regiment with attendant support battalions.
The situation is further muddied by the fact that even the term 'regiment' is not standardized among militaries. Again, taking the Commonwealth (going with what I know, no other reason), armour, signals, and in some cases artillery units, are organized along old cavalry lines, which means that an armour "regiment" is actually a battalion-sized unit, for example.
A great deal of the debates on exactly what HoI divisions and attached brigades consist of continues because we have sparse designer's notes. I suspect that the attached brigades represent a combination of two things, the first being the ability to build overstrength units (as happened historically), and the second being to weight the overstrength unit towards a given equipment load. For example, an HoI infantry division with attached artillery brigade most likely represents a four-brigade division with either (slightly) quantitatively or qualitatively more/better artillery.
It's not the most elegant way of doing it, and certainly not how I would have chosen to implement it, but, as with all things in gaming, an abstraction had to be drawn somewhere
A random set of ideas:
This would make HoI turn based...?unfortunately?
The grand scale is presented by provinces, just like now. Provinces are then represented by a hex map(a real shitload of research and work to do, but in the end it would be a perfect game). The hexe's would be...maybe 10x10km? and they would have diffrent values, such as population, resources etc. in them. The troops would then be moved in the province map, and the battles would be fought on the hex map.
So if Player A orders attack from Province 1 and 2 to province 3, the battle would be fought on provinces 1, 2, 3. Of course all these provinces have to be adjactent.
Economy...well all the production, population, resources etc. are summed up from all the hexes you own, and then you simply use this stuff to build equipment/consumer goods/supplies. Yes equipment, the one idiotic thing about HoI is, that there is no equipment. There are just divisions. So once you've built equipment you take men from your population and give them this equipment and train them to use it. That is how you form divisions. Of course if you take too much population into your army, your economy will suffer.
Unit size's should be divisions(infantry, tank etc.), brigades(tank) and regiments(artillery) . And maybe even battalions&companions(special troops).
andandandand
:wacko:
This would make HoI turn based...?unfortunately?
The grand scale is presented by provinces, just like now. Provinces are then represented by a hex map(a real shitload of research and work to do, but in the end it would be a perfect game). The hexe's would be...maybe 10x10km? and they would have diffrent values, such as population, resources etc. in them. The troops would then be moved in the province map, and the battles would be fought on the hex map.
So if Player A orders attack from Province 1 and 2 to province 3, the battle would be fought on provinces 1, 2, 3. Of course all these provinces have to be adjactent.
Economy...well all the production, population, resources etc. are summed up from all the hexes you own, and then you simply use this stuff to build equipment/consumer goods/supplies. Yes equipment, the one idiotic thing about HoI is, that there is no equipment. There are just divisions. So once you've built equipment you take men from your population and give them this equipment and train them to use it. That is how you form divisions. Of course if you take too much population into your army, your economy will suffer.
Unit size's should be divisions(infantry, tank etc.), brigades(tank) and regiments(artillery) . And maybe even battalions&companions(special troops).
andandandand
:wacko:
Divisions are preferable to me, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies take away all possibility of strategic cohesion.
Always when constructing wargames, or any game for that matter use Occams razor (ok a bit modifed but anyway) keep it simple. Not beer and pretzel simple, but simple nontheless. Using brigades, regiments, battalions and companies or kampfgruppen increases complexity to the point of unplayability.
The point of customizing divisions with templates is an interesting one, unfortunatly this will most likely lead to the "ultimate" division with an "ultimate" configuration.
Why do we all like to play Paradox games? They arent really complex, hard to master, yes. But complex?
So IMHO keep the divisions, with brigade attachments, just add some like tank brigades for anything but an armoured divisions and a heavy tank brigade for armoured divisions.
For the Navies, well more is better here, more shiptypes would be nice, but would the AI cope with it? "Oh no, the British AI is broken, it just keeps on building Dido Class Cruisers"
I´d like two changes,
1) Shipyards, only at shipyards are one able to build anything above transports, ships take space at the shipyards, so you´re only able to build as many ships as you have room in the shipyards. Want to build Battleships? Fine just dont complain that you cant build any subs there instead.
2) Two different kind of strength, hull and superstructure. Hull is what keeps the ship floating (duh) and if you loose hull strength on a ship speed and range is also reduced (to a point), so if you say has 65% strength left on hull, range and speed is also reduced to 65%, the only thing that can damage hull is torpedoes (or lucky hits). Superstructure is what keeps the ship banging and fighting, reduce the strenght of the superstructre and the attack (and maybe also defence) is reuduced accordingly, most everything can hurt the superstructure except torpedoes (duh).
Always when constructing wargames, or any game for that matter use Occams razor (ok a bit modifed but anyway) keep it simple. Not beer and pretzel simple, but simple nontheless. Using brigades, regiments, battalions and companies or kampfgruppen increases complexity to the point of unplayability.
The point of customizing divisions with templates is an interesting one, unfortunatly this will most likely lead to the "ultimate" division with an "ultimate" configuration.
Why do we all like to play Paradox games? They arent really complex, hard to master, yes. But complex?
So IMHO keep the divisions, with brigade attachments, just add some like tank brigades for anything but an armoured divisions and a heavy tank brigade for armoured divisions.
For the Navies, well more is better here, more shiptypes would be nice, but would the AI cope with it? "Oh no, the British AI is broken, it just keeps on building Dido Class Cruisers"
I´d like two changes,
1) Shipyards, only at shipyards are one able to build anything above transports, ships take space at the shipyards, so you´re only able to build as many ships as you have room in the shipyards. Want to build Battleships? Fine just dont complain that you cant build any subs there instead.
2) Two different kind of strength, hull and superstructure. Hull is what keeps the ship floating (duh) and if you loose hull strength on a ship speed and range is also reduced (to a point), so if you say has 65% strength left on hull, range and speed is also reduced to 65%, the only thing that can damage hull is torpedoes (or lucky hits). Superstructure is what keeps the ship banging and fighting, reduce the strenght of the superstructre and the attack (and maybe also defence) is reuduced accordingly, most everything can hurt the superstructure except torpedoes (duh).
The primary building block should be the battalion, rather than the brigade. The brigade is too vague a formation. I like the idea of a blank division with 10 battalion slots. You could then plug in whatever combat battalions you wanted: armor, infantry, artillery, cavalry, engineer, whatever. The support formations would be included in the blank template (HQ & HQ company, ordinance, medical, signals, etc). There should be default templates based on national army standards for those who don't want to mess with the organization of the divisions.
Brigade is only vague in those armies where a brigade is more an administrative formation
If we go with battalions, I'd like to have 12 slots - Canada formed it's brigades based on the 4-battalion standard, with 3 brigades per division, if I remember my history right, and that was a Commonwealth standard (again IIRC). Doesn't really matter if brigades or battalions are used to build divisions, though using battalions certainly would add an extra bit of flavour, which is a good thing.
I think the smallist unit should be the division,also instead of a units strength being set at 100 i think that actual troop numbers should be used in the 8,000-10,000 range for militia,
10,000-15,000 for infantry, and for armoured divsions
150-300 tanks and between 10,000-15,000 troops.
I believe you should be able to set a division up to your own standards by assigning equipment and troop strength drawn through your factory production and national manpower.
10,000-15,000 for infantry, and for armoured divsions
150-300 tanks and between 10,000-15,000 troops.
I believe you should be able to set a division up to your own standards by assigning equipment and troop strength drawn through your factory production and national manpower.
Micro vs Package
Can I throw in a curve?
It would be kind of cool to have a little role-playing, in that any military structure is going to be formed by a "school of thought" - I can't think of names, as I'm not that historically tuned, but the actual break-down of which units go where is a function of the social environment in which those military personalities were functioning.
Who was the main Soviet general who was so gung-ho on the armoured Blitz style of warfare? I noticed in the AI game, he's alive and kicking in '42 when the Sovie's attack in January! Every game I play, there is a 2/3 - 1/3 split inf - armour on my eastern front when I play the Axis. I could of sworn Stalin retired that general earlier...
It would be nice to have some options, but I think the player should have to make some clear choices early, then build those. This should also affect research, for its all predetermined by the philosophy in play. The only time I see this now is the offence/defense split in the early war infantry buys.
It would be cool to build all batallions and then plug them into all the different formations.
... ...
ever play Europa? Gotta love those OB's, but that would be BORING to have to build all those formations. Especially learning all the different combos, and supplies, and relative strengths and weaknesses...
Remember, the Wermarch troops degraded in value with every level of infrastructure that Hitler got directly involved with...
If you think that would be fun, you should be playing an online role-playing game, where you could don the robes of those officers in their headquarters, shuffling 1000's of men around in planes and trains. That would be cool too, but the game would take 12 years to play...
I'm always game for more information and real history. It would be cool to understand a bit more about how modern warfare evolved. A lot changed in those few years, and in many ways we now carry the economic burden of those experiences. Huge mechanized divisions today that could swamp whole cavalry armies from the '30's. Kind of scary, in a sence.
Can I throw in a curve?
It would be kind of cool to have a little role-playing, in that any military structure is going to be formed by a "school of thought" - I can't think of names, as I'm not that historically tuned, but the actual break-down of which units go where is a function of the social environment in which those military personalities were functioning.
Who was the main Soviet general who was so gung-ho on the armoured Blitz style of warfare? I noticed in the AI game, he's alive and kicking in '42 when the Sovie's attack in January! Every game I play, there is a 2/3 - 1/3 split inf - armour on my eastern front when I play the Axis. I could of sworn Stalin retired that general earlier...
It would be nice to have some options, but I think the player should have to make some clear choices early, then build those. This should also affect research, for its all predetermined by the philosophy in play. The only time I see this now is the offence/defense split in the early war infantry buys.
It would be cool to build all batallions and then plug them into all the different formations.
...
...ever play Europa? Gotta love those OB's, but that would be BORING to have to build all those formations. Especially learning all the different combos, and supplies, and relative strengths and weaknesses...
Remember, the Wermarch troops degraded in value with every level of infrastructure that Hitler got directly involved with...
If you think that would be fun, you should be playing an online role-playing game, where you could don the robes of those officers in their headquarters, shuffling 1000's of men around in planes and trains. That would be cool too, but the game would take 12 years to play...
I'm always game for more information and real history. It would be cool to understand a bit more about how modern warfare evolved. A lot changed in those few years, and in many ways we now carry the economic burden of those experiences. Huge mechanized divisions today that could swamp whole cavalry armies from the '30's. Kind of scary, in a sence.