DEBATE: Unit Sizes for HOI 2

[jpd]

it all depends on the used combat engine (map size - used unit stats - and so on...)

...and as you know I prefer a little more detailed combat engine for HOI2

this means I would like to have the option to manage this thing we have agreed to call "unit" (the smallest sized single unit you put in a free slot of a division ) on some kind of however looking combat map.

and therefore "stealth" and weapon range should matter and a value like "urban warefare" should also be in these unit stats.

Well, what you prefer would not necessarily make the simpler interface unusable. It all depends on the various different base unit types made available.

I strongly prefer all possible stats that are used by the combat engine being part of the individual base units, instead of special selections when defining a division. It makes for a cleaner interface, simpler to understand, and a cleaner tech tree that influences that.

The division stats are then no more than the aggregated stats of the base units, as are the operational restrictions.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(17541)]

I strongly prefer all possible stats that are used by the combat engine being part of the individual base units, instead of special selections when defining a division. It makes for a cleaner interface, simpler to understand, and a cleaner tech tree that influences that.

The division stats are then no more than the aggregated stats of the base units, as are the operational restrictions.

Jan Peter

JPD, you are absolutely right - but where did I write anything about "special selections when defining a division" ?

The 7-step process above is about how to create a "unit" (the smallest sized single unit you put in a free slot of a division )- not a division itself !

.

 

[jpd]

JPD, you are absolutely right - but where did I write anything about "special selections when defining a division" ?

The 7-step process above is about how to create a "unit" (the smallest sized single unit you put in a free slot of a division )- not a division itself !
.

Well, that was my conclusion, based upon your steps 2-6/7. Especially the steps for choosing the main and support equipment, and the special task assignments.

It would be horrible, if you would need to go through these steps repeatedly, just to define a complete division template.

What I envision, is a variant of the current build system. For each free slot, select the base unit type (inf, art, armor, etc), and then browse the available models to select the one you want. For example, what you make selectable in one of the steps as a modifier (the type of INF organic transport) would in my model just be a browse list of the various INF batallions, along with every other INF variant.

This way you can even easily define that militia are leg/horse only, while regular and elite INF can go all the way through mech, mountaneers don't have motor transport, etc. It's just an extention of the current division model system (used extensively for armor), where tech applications enable certain model numbers, and each model has it's stats defined individually.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(17541)]

It would be horrible, if you would need to go through these steps repeatedly, just to define a complete division template.

What I envision, is a variant of the current build system. For each free slot, select the base unit type (inf, art, armor, etc), and then browse the available models to select the one you want. For example, what you make selectable in one of the steps as a modifier (the type of INF organic transport) would in my model just be a browse list of the various INF batallions, along with every other INF variant. Jan Peter

I agree that on the first look this seems to be much work...

...but browsing through a list with 20 or 30 different INF units and finding the right one - doesn't seem quite easy too...


...maybe 7-steps are to much...

...but if you have just one screen and click through the available options...

...then it will be less work than set up a convoy in HOI



but it should be an optional feature - and you should be able to save these customizes units...

...and at this point comes your unit list - containing some pre-defined units as well as your customized and saved units (but you should be able to delete outdated units from this list) and from this list you could build up your divisions (also being able to save divisions as templates!)


but it's never really easy to combine maximum flexibility and playability...



EDIT:

...using this method I think most people would customize between 5 and 15 INF based units and update them every 1-2 years...

...this would be about 50 to 70 unit customizations per game for your INF based units - seems to me acceptable - and who don't like unit-customization could just use the pre-defined units

(would be great if you could reuse your saved templates for your next game)


.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Just a thought - do you suppose that a hex-based system would EVER work with a real-time game? One of the things I liked best about War in Europe (along with the unit-production system) was the way that specific divisions could be represented at specific places on the map. But it makes me wonder whether hexes aren't completely tied into turn-based simulations.
In any case, I don't find myself as completely bothered by provinces as I would have expected. EUI & EUII probably softened me up sufficiently for the shock of HOI.

I also hate real-time I'd prefer turn-based I'm an old-school board wargamer at heart and always will be. Having said that, with CORE, HoI shines to such an extent that what was grudging acceptance is turning to true enjoyment.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Lots of replies

All I'll say about hexes is, it's kind of a "your mileage may vary" argument. I can give just as many arguments for hexes as someone who doens't like hexes can give against. I prefer hexes. If there ever is an HoI2, and that'd not terribly likely, there will most likely be no hexes involved.

SilverDragon's proposed unit construction method is far too complicated for my taste. I'd be just as happy with the current build system as with a proposed template system, but going down to the level you're proposing is taking things too far, in my opinion. This is supposed to be a game, not a course at a staff college. I don't see why there would be 20-30 different infantry battalions in any sort of construction list when building a division. Parachute, Glider, Marine, Infantry, Engineer, Motorised Infantry, Armoured Infantry would do the trick, I'd think. Motor and Armoured Inf could even be eliminated as types if there was an option when adding transport to an infantry battalion to choose trucks or tracks.

I do think that marines should be a special unit type. Marines were not simply infantry who specialized in amphibious operations. They had different organization than regular infantry, different kit, different training. For that reason, I think marines, like paratroopers, should be their own unit type.

I think that any template should only be expandable beyond 12 with tech research. The skill of the division commander has no effect on how large his division would be, only on how well he fights it. Otherwise, the program would have to track every single division to make sure its commander had enough skill for the battalions in that division.

CC's proposed factory model just doesn't sit well with me. Not that it doesn't seem well thought out, but I think we should either have the current system or factories, but not both. Yes, it means we won't be able to reporduce the Schweinfurt raid(s) directly, but we can do that in HoI already by conducting a bombing campaign against provinces with high amounts of IC and/or resources.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

All I'll say about hexes is, it's kind of a "your mileage may vary" argument. I can give just as many arguments for hexes as someone who doens't like hexes can give against. I prefer hexes. If there ever is an HoI2, and that'd not terribly likely, there will most likely be no hexes involved.

ok - one after the other

If HOI2 should have hexes or not - I don't know - maybe someone will find a better solution - but what I really don't like (for HOI2) is the province-system as it is !

I would prefer a solution with provinces consisting of hexes

these hexes should represent different terrain types, roads, RR, harbours, towns, airports, forts and so on...

...and have different combat modifiers...

(towns needs to be implemented in HOI2 - to have some kind of urban-warefare)


if you manage to control some critical hexes you will own this province

...and in combat you should only be allowed to have one ground/naval + one air unit per hex...

.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

SilverDragon's proposed unit construction method is far too complicated for my taste. I'd be just as happy with the current build system as with a proposed template system, but going down to the level you're proposing is taking things too far, in my opinion. This is supposed to be a game, not a course at a staff college. I don't see why there would be 20-30 different infantry battalions in any sort of construction list when building a division. Parachute, Glider, Marine, Infantry, Engineer, Motorised Infantry, Armoured Infantry would do the trick, I'd think. Motor and Armoured Inf could even be eliminated as types if there was an option when adding transport to an infantry battalion to choose trucks or tracks.

I do think that marines should be a special unit type. Marines were not simply infantry who specialized in amphibious operations. They had different organization than regular infantry, different kit, different training. For that reason, I think marines, like paratroopers, should be their own unit type.

games should give players a maximum choice with how much complexity and depth he wants to play it...


I understand that not everybody likes micro...

...but I like to have the possibilty to have the chance to micro-manage some points of a game !

But it should always be the choice of each player himself...

...the trick is that you always should have the possibility to use some kind of "auto-function" for all aspects of micro-management.

when I propose some kind of improved combat mode, I don't have the intention to fight every single battle manually...

...but I would like to control the 15-20 major battles of WWII or assume control if things run wrong - and go back on "auto" to let the Ai finish the battle for me.


...same thing for unit creation, there should be pre-defined units as you specified them in your post (+GEB, light/heavy INF, combat engineers) that will be automtically upgraded... (e.g. heavy INF '39)

...the AI could use this 7-step unit-creation process in the background...

...but if somebody wants to design his own units - where is the problem ?


Same thing for economic - let the AI build your industries if you don't want to manage them yourself - but in HOI the economic/industrial model is extremly superficial (from my point of view).


.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

I think that any template should only be expandable beyond 12 with tech research. The skill of the division commander has no effect on how large his division would be, only on how well he fights it. Otherwise, the program would have to track every single division to make sure its commander had enough skill for the battalions in that division.

(unfortunately) you are right

would be really nice to give skilled commanders additional slots, but I really don't have any idea (so far) how this should be managed...


...to many different sized divisions - and what would happen if you change a +2 slots commander with a +1 slot commander ?


the only possibility I see is to always have maybe 20 free slots per division - but a medium skilled commander could only command 12 units with 100% efficience if he commands more he would get an overall efficience mali per additional unit...

...better techs and better skills would allow a higher command limit.


.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

ok - one after the other

If HOI2 should have hexes or not - I don't know - maybe someone will find a better solution - but what I really don't like (for HOI2) is the province-system as it is !

I would prefer a solution with provinces consisting of hexes

these hexes should represent different terrain types, roads, RR, harbours, towns, airports, forts and so on...

...and have different combat modifiers...

(towns needs to be implemented in HOI2 - to have some kind of urban-warefare)


if you manage to control some critical hexes you will own this province

...and in combat you should only be allowed to have one ground/naval + one air unit per hex...

.

Well, given the general uproar against hexes on the forum, I doubt seriously that any Paradox game will ever see hexes Even if it did, a stacking unit of 1/hex is a little harsh. It should depend on how big the hexes are.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

(unfortunately) you are right

would be really nice to give skilled commanders additional slots, but I really don't have any idea (so far) how this should be managed...


...to many different sized divisions - and what would happen if you change a +2 slots commander with a +1 slot commander ?


the only possibility I see is to always have maybe 20 free slots per division - but a medium skilled commander could only command 12 units with 100% efficience if he commands more he would get an overall efficience mali per additional unit...

...better techs and better skills would allow a higher command limit.


.

Why on earth would the skill of a commander make any difference as to how many battalions his division can have? The rank of the division commander is what matters, and even then it has nothing to do with how big the division is, only with how well trained a commander is. That's why a Maj Gen, trained to fight a division, doesn't do so well when commanding a corps of more than one division. The things a division commander has to worry about are totally different than the things a corps commander has to worry about.

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Why on earth would the skill of a commander make any difference as to how many battalions his division can have? The rank of the division commander is what matters, and even then it has nothing to do with how big the division is, only with how well trained a commander is. That's why a Maj Gen, trained to fight a division, doesn't do so well when commanding a corps of more than one division. The things a division commander has to worry about are totally different than the things a corps commander has to worry about.

So you don't think it would be reasonable to give skilled generals more assets to achieve his objective? Then here are some fun facts:

1st Infantry Division Attachments
July 6 - July 30 1944

Combat Command B (3rd Arm Div)
33d Armd Regt (3d Armd Div)
36th Armd Inf (-3d Bn) (3d Armd Div)
391st Armd FA Bn (3d Armd Div)
83d Armd Rcn Bn (3d Armd Div)
Cos B&D, 23d Armd Engr Bn (3d Armd Div)
87th Armd FA Bn
Cos B&C (-3d Plat), 703d TD Bn (SP)
Btrys A&D, 486th AAA AW Bn (SP)
Btry B, 413th AAA Gun Bn (Mbl)
103d AAA AW Bn (Mbl)
38th Cav Rcn Sq
Cos B&D, 81st Cml Mort Bn
635th TD Bn (T)

By my count, that's 15 battalions, 1 company. The attachments effectively doubled the size of the division - that would make it a corps in fact, if not in name. I think it quite reasonable to assume that a corps commander would give a division extra battalions from divisions within the corps. I also find it reasonable to assume that the corps commander would choose the division to receive these assets based upon (but not exclusively) the ability of that division commander to effectively utilize those assets to achieve an objective. Therefore, it is reasonable to give a battalion command bonus to skilled divisional commanders. It is also reasonable to give a penality to divisional commanders who exceed their skill levels with regards to number of battalions commanded.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

So you don't think it would be reasonable to give skilled generals more assets to achieve his objective? Then here are some fun facts:

1st Infantry Division Attachments
July 6 - July 30 1944

Combat Command B (3rd Arm Div)
33d Armd Regt (3d Armd Div)
36th Armd Inf (-3d Bn) (3d Armd Div)
391st Armd FA Bn (3d Armd Div)
83d Armd Rcn Bn (3d Armd Div)
Cos B&D, 23d Armd Engr Bn (3d Armd Div)
87th Armd FA Bn
Cos B&C (-3d Plat), 703d TD Bn (SP)
Btrys A&D, 486th AAA AW Bn (SP)
Btry B, 413th AAA Gun Bn (Mbl)
103d AAA AW Bn (Mbl)
38th Cav Rcn Sq
Cos B&D, 81st Cml Mort Bn
635th TD Bn (T)

By my count, that's 15 battalions, 1 company. The attachments effectively doubled the size of the division - that would make it a corps in fact, if not in name. I think it quite reasonable to assume that a corps commander would give a division extra battalions from divisions within the corps. I also find it reasonable to assume that the corps commander would choose the division to receive these assets based upon (but not exclusively) the ability of that division commander to effectively utilize those assets to achieve an objective. Therefore, it is reasonable to give a battalion command bonus to skilled divisional commanders. It is also reasonable to give a penality to divisional commanders who exceed their skill levels with regards to number of battalions commanded.

Nice example. And, yes, I do think it reasonable to give commanders of proven ability extra forces. It still doesn't adress the issue of leader skill. Just because a general is more or less skilled doesn't mean he's going to be eligible to receive extra battalions or command less. How skilled, (in game terms) was the historical commander of The Big Red One at that time? If such things were allowed, which would make an already complex game even more complex, it would also tax the AI, perhaps back to the point where the game gets too easy, but one could argue that allowing division design might do that anyway, so it might be worth experimenting with.

My main concern here is that the game does not become a computer version of Campaign for North Africa. Also, if extra slots were allowed based on skill, I think that extra slots should be allowed only if the skill level of a given commander is greater than 1 or 2, probably 2. My reasoning is that I think it's safe to assume that a competent commander would be at least a 2, an adequate commander a 1 and for any commander to be given extra battalions to command he'd have to be at least above average (3).

Only one other thing, and that is that going off the historical OOBs can be a bit misleading, as some of those attached battalions would be included in the tech advances, some would be true attachments, and others would be corps and army assets not modelled in HoI and it's important we keep that in mind when talking about how many battalions and what type the various divisions had.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.

you could give commanders a second stat: "command points - CP"

CPs could be raised by promition and / or experience

every unit needs a several amount of CPs (e.g. INF=10CP - tanks=15CP - PARA=18CP)

every division have maximum free slots for 20 units

if a commander has 120 CPs and commands units with a total value of 150 CP he would get an (in)efficiency penalty (120-150)/120=-25%


an average commander should be able to command about 12 units without penalty


EDIT: this system should be manageable by the AI

.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

Well, given the general uproar against hexes on the forum, I doubt seriously that any Paradox game will ever see hexes Even if it did, a stacking unit of 1/hex is a little harsh. It should depend on how big the hexes are.

I would prefer smaller hexes

I have no problem with provinces on a world map scale - but if zooming-in the smallest provinces / islands should consist at least of 10x10 hexes !

with this stack limit this would allow ~8 divisions with ~12 units each ! (more than enough if you ask me !)

.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I would prefer smaller hexes

I have no problem with provinces on a world map scale - but if zooming-in the smallest provinces / islands should consist at least of 10x10 hexes !

with this stack limit this would allow ~8 divisions with ~12 units each ! (more than enough if you ask me !)

.

Yes, well, I'd not want to zoom in for tactical battles. I'd prefer a single map of hexes. perhaps in the 20-30 miles/hex range.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

.

you could give commanders a second stat: "command points - CP"

CPs could be raised by promition and / or experience

every unit needs a several amount of CPs (e.g. INF=10CP - tanks=15CP - PARA=18CP)

every division have maximum free slots for 20 units

if a commander has 120 CPs and commands units with a total value of 150 CP he would get an (in)efficiency penalty (120-150)/120=-25%


an average commander should be able to command about 12 units without penalty


EDIT: this system should be manageable by the AI

.

This would require a total re-working of the leader system as it now stands. Even if such a re-working happened, why would an infantry division require more command points than an armoured division?

I'm also against this proposal as well. Being able to design divisions is great. Having a limited ability to reinforce divisions is okay, too, but now we're starting to go too far afield.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

This would require a total re-working of the leader system as it now stands. Even if such a re-working happened, why would an infantry division require more command points than an armoured division?

1. I hope HOI will get more than some reworking before it becomes HOI2

I don't like sequels that are just an improved part one (don't need to buy a HOI v1.09e as HOI2)


2. I think commanding paradrop operations or tank assaults is more complex than commanding INF

3. For getting the elite units - you will need some influence - means the commander had already some succesful operations !

.

.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

It's not more complex, its just a different type of complex. If we go to your CP model, then not only will be assigning individual leaders likle we are now, we'll have to also worry about if a given Maj Gen is skilled enough, and that's too much micro.

Your argument about successful commanders being the ones to get reinfor ed units is false. It was the nature of the tasking that dictated force sizes. That, and availability. Stalingrad is good example. Von Paulus was not the best choice to command a formation as large as 6th Army, but after 6th Army's commander died, Von Paulus was the guy on the spot, so he got command.

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Leave it to Silver Dragon to take a simple idea and turn into a mathematics thesis.

Your argument about successful commanders being the ones to get reinfor ed units is false. It was the nature of the tasking that dictated force sizes. That, and availability. Stalingrad is good example. Von Paulus was not the best choice to command a formation as large as 6th Army, but after 6th Army's commander died, Von Paulus was the guy on the spot, so he got command.

That doesn't nessarily invalidate my argument. We don't have to mess with assistant division/corps/army commanders, XO's or military staffs. We can replace a leader pretty much anytime, anywhere without penality (what about an org hit when reassigning commanders, like the rebasing penality?). So with Von Paulus, he would either suffer a penality for commanding too many battalions, or you would replace him with a different general. And I'm not sure I'd use the command bonus/penality outside of the division. I'd have the divisional commander assignable right on the template screen. I'd also add a "re-assign" button next to the "promote" button. Click on it and a generic general takes over and the "named" general goes back in the pool. I seem to have wandered off topic - back to the skill level debate! At best we are talking about a regiment sized bonus at skill level 5 (using your skill level 2 base). I'd also add battalions at each divisional signal tech and each HQ tech. I'm not sure which other techs I add one with. Ideas?