DEBATE: Unit Sizes for HOI 2

[unmerged(20271)]

Hi,

I just read everything being written and here is my opinion :

I think that the division should stay as the smaller unit. There should be just the possibility to add 2 (instead of 1) specialized brigades. Because at the end of the day when you build an infantry division you have mainly infantry, some artillery... You can then specialize your unit depending on where and who they are supposed to fight. This means more micromanagement but not too much. It's certainly the best equilibrium.

On the other hand I think that we should have the possibility to build small divisions or "brigades" with 30-50 strength maximum for garrison duties.

But at the end of the day the problem is the structure and the decisions taken at the begining of the game :
a division can be reinforced to 100 very easily !!
the supplies only come from the capital which makes everything so complicated
the cost for supplies is the same whether your division is fighting or not!!

Personnaly I don't understand the fact to have such an important tech tree and such a bad way of handling units and navies. One of the main problem of this game is this mix between micromanagement for technology and ministers/leaders and on the other side a risk game of WWII.

To go even futher I think we are quite lucky to have so many divisions in the game because of the size of the provinces, it's not very logical.
An hex grid or more provinces means divisions, actual HoI should almost be a corps based game.

Bye. Speed.

 

[Castun]

I don't think there should be a limit to how many brigades you could power up a division with. IRL what's to really stop you from doing it?

Maybe as a game balance issue they could, to prevent people from attaching like 10 artillery brigades and making units nearly unstoppable.

Maybe attaching more than 1 brigade would lessen the overall bonus of each brigade, and the more you attach, the more of a penalty you have, so attaching more still gives you a small bonus, but not the whole bonus.

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Mad Matt has a good idea - I think Math Guy had a similar suggestion. While I love the idea of fully customized divisions, it really would be incredibly difficult to implement (anybody want to build an OOB for the planet down to battalion level?). Creating more subsets for each division type should be easier, as well as allowing for the addition or subtraction of brigades from divisions from the upgrade screen.

To get back on topic, the division should remain as the primary maneuver element. Corps are too big and the idea of 700 units as Russia if it goes to regiment/brigade size hurts my head.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by Castun
I don't think there should be a limit to how many brigades you could power up a division with. IRL what's to really stop you from doing it?

Maybe as a game balance issue they could, to prevent people from attaching like 10 artillery brigades and making units nearly unstoppable.

Maybe attaching more than 1 brigade would lessen the overall bonus of each brigade, and the more you attach, the more of a penalty you have, so attaching more still gives you a small bonus, but not the whole bonus.

In the real world, there's only so many people one person can command. That's part of it. The other is that the current military structure evolved for a reason. It didn't just materialize out of thin air. Essentially, the way large formations are organized has evolved over the past 4,000 years of experimentation. 3-4 subunits seems to be the optimum balance between size and flexibility. Too many more and overall efficiency drops drastically, as all those troops tend to get in each others' way. Less then 3 units and the force is really unable to stand up to enough punishment or to pack enough of an offensive punch.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by bkdull
Mad Matt has a good idea - I think Math Guy had a similar suggestion. While I love the idea of fully customized divisions, it really would be incredibly difficult to implement (anybody want to build an OOB for the planet down to battalion level?). Creating more subsets for each division type should be easier, as well as allowing for the addition or subtraction of brigades from divisions from the upgrade screen.

How easy of difficult a template system would be would depend on implementation. I think what most of the folks wanting a template system are advocating is not designing every division nor implementing an OOB down to battalion level. We just want to be able to design our own division templates. Now, if a player wants to design 100 different types of divs, then fine. I can't see why anyone would want to, though

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.

ok - I will try to explain my understanding of the division template idea:


1. a design division screen.

2. a number of free slots for some kind of smaller sized units.

3. basing on your techs you have a choice of unit types you can add.

4. best way from my point of view this would be "pure units" like units with just adv. med tanks 80mm, or only light INF and so on...

5. beside these fighting units you should add supporting units, like supply or HQ.

6. depending on tech, using HQ units (or better HQ units) can give you additional slots for your division.

7. not using the number of required supply units, will give mali to movement-rate, and offensive abilities

8. the stats of the single units will define the division stats and special unit features will be also available for the division.

9. as long as you move on a strategic world map you will only manage divisions or corps

10. For battles on a strategic map (HOI/Risc) divisions will fight with there division stats and features

11. if there will be the option of regional maps (HEX, just for combat, with the size of a few provinces) you should be allowed to manage your single units.

12. in all cases units can get destroyed and to get back full division STR you have to invest the build time/IC of the destroyed unit

13. on the design division screen you should be able to give units to a pool, and regroup divisions if necessary.

14. you will always upgrade units and not divisions.

15. HOI2 should give enough preset division-templates (for the AI and the micro-hating player)


any comments / suggestions / other ideas ?


.

 

[unmerged(18797)]

Very good idea.

 

[unmerged(11819)]

mostly yes!
maybe not the supply things? but maybe..hmm..could be a good idea?
and i would imagine the map still based on provinces, divided into hexes..ive made multiple other posts based on that so i wont go into it again.
i think the ability to have both together would add so much to gameplay!!! so many reasons..

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by SilverDragon 72
.

ok - I will try to explain my understanding of the division template idea:


1. a design division screen.

2. a number of free slots for some kind of smaller sized units.

3. basing on your techs you have a choice of unit types you can add.

4. best way from my point of view this would be "pure units" like units with just adv. med tanks 80mm, or only light INF and so on...

5. beside these fighting units you should add supporting units, like supply or HQ.

6. depending on tech, using HQ units (or better HQ units) can give you additional slots for your division.

7. not using the number of required supply units, will give mali to movement-rate, and offensive abilities

8. the stats of the single units will define the division stats and special unit features will be also available for the division.

9. as long as you move on a strategic world map you will only manage divisions or corps

10. For battles on a strategic map (HOI/Risc) divisions will fight with there division stats and features

11. if there will be the option of regional maps (HEX, just for combat, with the size of a few provinces) you should be allowed to manage your single units.

12. in all cases units can get destroyed and to get back full division STR you have to invest the build time/IC of the destroyed unit

13. on the design division screen you should be able to give units to a pool, and regroup divisions if necessary.

14. you will always upgrade units and not divisions.

15. HOI2 should give enough preset division-templates (for the AI and the micro-hating player)


any comments / suggestions / other ideas ?


.

Not bad, but I have some problems with it. I like 1-4, 8, 12, and 15.

First, I think the points about how fighting and movement would work on a tactical map vs strategic are part of another discussion. All I'll say is that I strongly oppose adding any kind of tactical map.

On points 5-7, I think it's a mistake to get into dealng with support units. No military formation can function without the appropriate support units, so there should be no option to go without a headquarters, supply, medical, and so on. Note that we're talking about what is generally considered combat support or combat service support here and not supporting combat arms (like artillery, for example). It should be possible to design a division without any division artillery battalion, for example, though I don't know why you'd want to

The pool idea and having the subunits of the divisions damaged seperately has some intruiging possibilities. Essentially, it's the same as what happens now, only we'd be able to see the details.

Also, combined with the idea of removing subunits from divisions and allowing them to be reasigned allows for things such as the historical restructuring of the Wehrmacht in '44, for example, where the Germans reduced their division sizes by about a third in order to increase the overall number of divisions (and thus the Wehrmacht's operational flexibility) without having to raise more units.

I'm kind of on the fence on point 14. There's pros and cons either way, though I can see how it would make a lot of sense. There'd have to be a way to upgrade an entire division, though, to avoid having to upgrade each single unit if all a player wanted to do was upgrade them all at once.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

Originally posted by PBI
Not bad, but I have some problems with it. I like 1-4, 8, 12, and 15.

First, I think the points about how fighting and movement would work on a tactical map vs strategic are part of another discussion. All I'll say is that I strongly oppose adding any kind of tactical map.

> hmmm - I know that you don't like this idea - but it should just be an opition - so you will also be allowed to play "RISC" in HOI2 if you like


On points 5-7, I think it's a mistake to get into dealng with support units. No military formation can function without the appropriate support units, so there should be no option to go without a headquarters, supply, medical, and so on. Note that we're talking about what is generally considered combat support or combat service support here and not supporting combat arms (like artillery, for example). It should be possible to design a division without any division artillery battalion, for example, though I don't know why you'd want to

> let me explain it: from my understanding there are different supply needs:

1. in a defensive / fortified position you can use nearby warehouses and use established transport routes - and you need much smaller amounts of supply - this is some kind of integrated supply via existing infrastructure - so you won't need any additional supply units for these purposes.

2. for offensive / "blitz" operation with ARM MOT and MECH you will need large amounts of supply and fighting on enemy territory you will have a very limited use of existing supply routes and "full warehouses" - this means you have to carry everything with you and this is much more than an standard integrated supply can manage. And only therefore I would recommend supply units.

--> not enough additional supply units gives mali to movement and offensive operations


> Same thing for HQ, all units have some kind of integrated HQ with limited abilities, using an additional HQ Unit gives some boni like more free slots, higher offensive efficiency, and so on...



The pool idea and having the subunits of the divisions damaged seperately has some intruiging possibilities. Essentially, it's the same as what happens now, only we'd be able to see the details.

> one difference - in HOI you make one click and new tanks are beamed in

this way the destroyed unit have to be rebuild (with there original IC and buildtime) and will afterwards automatically go to the division.



I'm kind of on the fence on point 14. There's pros and cons either way, though I can see how it would make a lot of sense. There'd have to be a way to upgrade an entire division, though, to avoid having to upgrade each single unit if all a player wanted to do was upgrade them all at once.

> should be the possibility for some kind of upgrade all

 

[jpd]

Originally posted by SilverDragon 72

First, I think the points about how fighting and movement would work on a tactical map vs strategic are part of another discussion. All I'll say is that I strongly oppose adding any kind of tactical map.

> hmmm - I know that you don't like this idea - but it should just be an opition - so you will also be allowed to play "RISC" in HOI2 if you like

You do realise you open up a can of worms (not unlike Pandora's box) pushing for a tactical map. I mean, versus the AI I can (with difficulty) envision an implementation, but what if your opponent (or worse, opponents) are human players. How would you (in a game that unfolds real time) even negotiate between the players what portion of the strategic map will be placed on the tactical map. How would you envision the deployment of the broken up divisions, and reaching a consensus about this between the players. How would you deal with units in neighboring provinces, that a player wants to move in as reinforcement for the battle. In fact, how would you even make them accessible. How would you deal with multiple combat theaters, where the same player has forces present, and different opponents each want them fought on the tactical battlefield.

1. in a defensive / fortified position you can use nearby warehouses and use established transport routes - and you need much smaller amounts of supply - this is some kind of integrated supply via existing infrastructure - so you won't need any additional supply units for these purposes.

2. for offensive / "blitz" operation with ARM MOT and MECH you will need large amounts of supply and fighting on enemy territory you will have a very limited use of existing supply routes and "full warehouses" - this means you have to carry everything with you and this is much more than an standard integrated supply can manage. And only therefore I would recommend supply units.

--> not enough additional supply units gives mali to movement and offensive operations

Actually, this is a good idea as a supply concept. It will model, even on a strategic level, the difficulty of overextending supply lines, as happened to both the British and Germans in africa, and, of course, in Russia

> one difference - in HOI you make one click and new tanks are beamed in

I don't interpret the repair function as 'beaming in' new tanks, but rather the common practice IRL, where recovery teams would, after the battle, go into the combat zone, recover as much vehicles as possible, and repair them asap.

But I do agree that there should be a difference between such a quick repair option, and returning to full strength by replacing destroyed equipment. Maybe this could be elegantly solved by introducing a second strenght value. This will initially be equal to the normal strength, but lowered (in a slightly lower pace) during combat, just as the normal strength. When doing a quick repair (with the supplies, what you call 'beaming in tanks'), the regular strength will only be raised to the value of this now lowered second strength value. Only by doing a refit/upgrade, can this second strength level be restored to the initial value.

The side effect of this idea will be that repeated quick repairs will reduce the overall combat strength of the division, as the strength level to which a division is restored will be lower after each battle.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(17541)]

Originally posted by jpd
You do realise you open up a can of worms (not unlike Pandora's box) pushing for a tactical map. I mean, versus the AI I can (with difficulty) envision an implementation, but what if your opponent (or worse, opponents) are human players. How would you (in a game that unfolds real time) even negotiate between the players what portion of the strategic map will be placed on the tactical map. How would you envision the deployment of the broken up divisions, and reaching a consensus about this between the players. How would you deal with units in neighboring provinces, that a player wants to move in as reinforcement for the battle. In fact, how would you even make them accessible. How would you deal with multiple combat theaters, where the same player has forces present, and different opponents each want them fought on the tactical battlefield.

Jan Peter

I will try to clarify:


I thought about a "Panzer General"-like combat engine (or better the improved People's/Dynasty General engine)


This "tactical"-map should have the size of all battle relevant provinces - up to a complete combat area like GER - POL. (Panzer General manages this map sizes in a senseful way)


The time factor: HOI is already turn based (one hour turns) so this would be no real problem:


- means you freeze the game time

- jump in the battle screen give orders for the next hour turn

- jump out on the world map give your strategic orders or send reeinforcements to a battle

- jump in to another battle screen and give new orders to that battle or just check for the results

- and so on...



- or you just stay for a few hours on one battle screen and ignore the rest of the world for that time

- you should always be able to switch battles from "tactical" to strategical (HOI - runs automatically) and vice versa

.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Hey, all --

I've been reading this discussion with considerable interest, and I would like to add a couple of reactions.

First, I LOVE the idea of being able to choose divisional templates using a mix of component units. The downside is that the game might have to offer at least two different models: the US Army's regiment-based model and the Commonwealth's brigade-based model. And let's be clear why: gamers in the US would feel aggrieved to have to form "their" army on the Commonwealth's model (not that anyone in his right mind ever PLAYS the US in HOI -- it's too numbingly boring! ) and players from Canada and GB and Australia and so forth would reasonably feel the same way about having to use regiments. But if these troubles could be settled, then I say this should be a priority. Also, note that implementing this would set the modders' mouths to watering, because they could then program unit reorganizations into their events. Very cool.

I began this post thinking that it would be necessary to establish a separate production system for the various brigades or regiments that one would want to build, but the more I thought about it the less likely it seemed that it could be made compatible with anything like the existing production queue. So the most effective and least labor-intensive (in terms of game-design) method of introducing this wrinkle would be to have the result of your different divisional types be different MP and IP costs. Not so terribly complicated.

Second, I also liked the idea proposed some time back for having some kind of defensive unit (a battalion?) appear whenever a fort is constructed. That would help ease the problem of having to place full division-sized units on Palmyra and Wake Islands. Of course, you would still have to create an AI that would pay attention to garrisoning its possessions! But by making a unit appear with a level-1 fort, at least you wouldn't force the AI to go through a 2-step process of first building a defensive position and then garrisoning it.

Finally, just to add my own reaction to the mix: Silver Dragon, I think what you are asking for here is really a different type of game than what HOI is now. There's a long tradition of so-called "grand-tactical" games reaching back to Avalon Hill's ancient and not very good "Kriegsspiel" that modeled combat at the level of provinces and corps/armies. There are things you can do at this level of abstraction, and things you can't. For my money, I think HOI is a fantastic grand-tactical simulation. To ask for it to become an operational-level simulation is asking for it to become another game and lose the strategic aspects that I and many others like about it. If there's going to be an HOI2, I would much rather see Johan and the boys devote their energy to enhancing existing aspects of the game -- such as the division-component idea -- and improving those that now don't work well (the Pacific theater, for example), than introduce a mechanism for switching between stretegic and operational-level combat.

 

[unmerged(20271)]

Hi,

I have the impression that people are coming to some kind of "agreement".
If a division made of slots is available to a player then he can build any type of division he wants. On the other side if this player doesn't want to waist his time on that part of the game he just chooses "infantry division".
That sounds good.

I personnaly don't think that we should have hexes or operational battles... More provinces would be nice but built diferently with maybe roads or anything that makes moves and supplies more "normal".

On the other side it's very important to have something about stacking limits. Something like 10 = equal 1 brigade maximum...
34 = 6 divisions... or more...

If that is implemented then we would have an easy way of handling islands for example.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I know exactly what you're getting at, SilverDragon 72, I simply disagree about including a tactical mode, and including support units in division templating

Others have made better arguments than I about the difficulty in including a tactical mode, so I won't touch on that

As to the support units being part of division design, it does not matter if a division is sitting quiet in garrison or conducting offensive operations in the field, it cannot fucntion without its specialist support units. You seem to be arguing for having actual corps or army logistic formations. The same applies to any HQ. The presence of absence of a higher formation HQ has no effect whatsoever on how many batalions there are in a division.

Since most of us do seem to be agreed on some sort of template idea, the question is, how to go about it? Brigades/regiments or battalions? What will the maximum division size be? Will things like the division arty battalion be assumed (and therefore not part of the design process) or will we have to deal with that, too?

I'd say battalions as design slots would seem best, with a maximum number of 12 in the division, barring doctrine research. That way, we can avoid having to worry about those that want to follow the US model and those that want to follow the UK model, as Kriegspieler pointed out.

Further, some basic assumptions would have to be made about what an "empty" template represents. I'd say it would have to represent the div HQ, the supply and support units, the division arty battalion, and any AT, eng, and AA assets. That would mean that when designing a division, we'd only be deciding how many and what types of "line" battalions the division would have. Recce battalions could be handled as they are now, as tech or doctrine advances that modify detection values.

We should also have the option to reinforce a division by adding up to, say 3? battalions, of any type (arty, armour, inf, AA, eng, AT) much as we do now when we add a brigade during construction.

Additionally, as I alluded to before, certain doctrinal advances would permit us to add extra battalions. I'm thinking something similar to how CORE handles the ind tank battalions.

Finally, there's the issue of ind brigades/regiments. These did exist in reality and do currently in HoI. I think they should be present in any HoI2, but be outside the design process; they should be available as a unit type that could be built, and would have roughly 1/3rd the strength and combat power of an "average" division. They're not needed, but they do give a fairly nice flavour, and, if we had stacking limits, we could say that for some of the very small islands, that we could put a brigade/regiment there and nothing larger, if that's still an issue for some folks. Disbanding one of these ind bde/regts would put 4/3 battalions of the appropriate type into the assignment pool. This would allow bdes/regts to be expanded to full divisions, as was done historically.

One last thing. I know it's very very tempting to get very detailed with designing units, but let's keep the Campaign for North Africa experience in mind. That SPI boardgame is recognized (mostly) as THE monster game of all time. Incredibly detailed, wonderfully accurate. And also almost totally unplayable. The big advantage computer games have over board games is the computer can crunch the numbers for us. That doesn't mean, though, that we can simply ramp up the complexity level and everything will be okiedokie. As it stands right now, HoI is seriously threatening to become so time-consuming to micromanage, with all the leaders, and tech, and the fact that it's real-time, and everyone is playable, and... that only accountants and tax-lawyers are going to be interrested in playing.

Let's try, very hard, not to lose the playability aspect in all the detail.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Forts and garrisons

Oh, forgot to mention this in my previous post. Kreigspieler brought up or supported the concept of having a defensive unit appear on-map when a fort is built. How about, to avoid map-clutter, that, instead of a battalion-sized unit, which would also be far too small of a garrison to occupy the Maginot Line, for example, why not have forts have an instrinsic defence?

Lots of board games follow this approach and it might work here. Say every level of fortifications would provide an infantry unit with 1s across the board as stats? This fortification unit could not move, would take damage only after all defending units had been forced to retreat, and would automatically recover any losses over time, much like org recovers? The number of fort units present in a province would be linked to the highest level of fort, be that coastal or land, present in the province.

This would mean that, even if "empty" a province protected by fortifications would still need to be attacked. We could even have it so that fort units suffer a combat penalty if fighting alone.

 

[unmerged(16440)]

I think you'll have to include artillery as an assignable battalion. There are too many types and quantities within the divisional matrix to have a "standard" battalion. Otherwise, I agree with PBI completely.

What if instead of the generic 1-100 strength of a division, it was broken down into men, guns and vehicles? Then instead of the instant re-supply we have now, the re-supply would take time, based on the number of men, guns and vehicles needed to be replaced. You could also have an auto-resupply button, and the ability to re-supply on the move, but at a much slower rate. Thoughts?

 

[Strucky]

Thats exactly what i want.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by bkdull
I think you'll have to include artillery as an assignable battalion. There are too many types and quantities within the divisional matrix to have a "standard" battalion. Otherwise, I agree with PBI completely.

What if instead of the generic 1-100 strength of a division, it was broken down into men, guns and vehicles? Then instead of the instant re-supply we have now, the re-supply would take time, based on the number of men, guns and vehicles needed to be replaced. You could also have an auto-resupply button, and the ability to re-supply on the move, but at a much slower rate. Thoughts?

Two things.

First, I don't see why we'd have to worry about the div arty battalion. In a very real sense, it's part and parcel of the combat power of the division. Adding an arty battalion as part of an upgrade, or taking the place of one of the line battalions is a different matter, though.

This does bring up the matter of division stats. I used to think that just adding up the stats of the component bttns would be enough, but now I think that the sum should be greater than the total of the parts. Not by much, a point or two, but enough so that having a single division would give a bit more combat power than three independent brigades. My justification is that a division would have added units a brigade would not, plus, the brigades that make up a division would train together and that kind of familiarity does make a difference. I've seen it every year for most of my adult life when I'd go on summer exercise with a brigade that was made up of units that only trained together for a couple weeks every summer.

Second, if we're going with the template idea, then we'd be doing away with the current division strength and org system and moving it down to the individual battalions, so the tank battalion attached to an inf div might take more or less damage than the inf battalions, for example, and each would have to be reinforced separately.

There should be some sort of time involved, though, so we can do away with the instant repairs we can do now.

 

[unmerged(15561)]

Been following the debate and must say quite a few things that I hadnt thought of have been aired. Id like to thanks everyone who has contributed to a great debate. Now a few things to comment on.

- Tactical Map : I didnt not think that a tactical map would be needed, as I stated a division would be the actual visible/combat performing. If whats referred to is some sort of zoom in, to a province, depending on what stack is selected, then that would be nice. You could see how the regiments/brigades lined up.

- Regiments/Brigades : Kriegspieler mentioned that both should be modeled in game. Ive no problem with this, but how should combat be modelled?

- BattleFronts : If both items above are implemented, Id also like to see a system that allows for divisions to be attached to 3fronts in a province; North, Centre, South. These would allow for limited manevering in a zone, with the possiblity of pincer/flanking and the one where you sucker in at the centre and pummel from the north and south! Furthermore, each front should be around 3 deep, so; frontline, reserve, supply/air units in a province.

That way briages/regiments can battle in one front and it dont matter how they are lined up. Of course the side with a t least 3 divisions could line up on each front. Obviously the advantage would be with the greatest number of troops and at least three divisions wide. But micromanagement would be minimal as you are still only assigning your formation at the divisional level, and only when assign the unit to the stack (Corp/Army/Armygroup).

- Micromanagement : For those that worry about mm, they are forgetting that we are not looking to too much of it being implemented, rather, for alot of current functionality to be detailed to THE NEXT LEVEL, but for map operations and the like to be at the division level.

- Attached brigades : I agree, arty brigades should not be attachable. What Id like to see is somesort of system that represents the arty brigade as a sepearate component of the division, with its own sub value. This could go down in relation to the front line formations. Also air units could be assigned specific mission to find these during battle, but are generally at the rear of the battle, reserve or 3 tiers.

- Reinforcement : Id like to see a change too reflect the new level of units. When a unit must be resupplied/restrengthed, Id like to see the, in the Strat Redploy area, as done for ships OR a gradual recovery to str and org by the unit, with depletion of MP and SUP as time passes. Of course this should be slow. The reason is that I think that in combat, youd be getting reinforcements trickle in all the time, but also if your combat unit went below combat effectiveness, then you would be sent to the rear to be reformed OR remanned.

SOmeone stop me if Im talk crap!

Cheers
2Coats