DEBATE: Unit Sizes for HOI 2

[unmerged(16440)]

Silver Dragon, you are nothing if persistant.

Brigadier generals did occasionally command divisions, but it was within the capacity of assistant division commander. Either the commanding major general returned, a new general was assigned or the brigadier was promoted. Patton was a Major General when he commanded the western task force. He was promoted to Lt. General while still in North Africa, all of which is running a little off topic.

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Great Scott! This debate has moved to page two! Will anybody step forward and rescue this thread from the slow death that surely awaits it!

 

[kionas76]

The HoI units

I see many and interesting propositions,now hear mine.Divisions is and must be the minimum unit in the game but with the option to built its elements the way we like no matter whether they will be battalions or regiments.Army HQ and Army Group HQ should be included as new elements from which someone draws command and supply because the way its now sucks.New leader features should be included like "combined arms leader".Artillery should be of different kind to adjust to the respective unit(SPA,heavy art,etc).I think that all the low rank generals should be removed.Instead every division should have a generic leader who will get his feature depending on what he commands.Also a leader should be able to get new features that would represent the change of tactics he uses,for example a leader that in the beggining was offencive if he is used defencivly that should be added to his previous feature.Air units have to change from divisions to squadrons(30-40 planes) and CV units should represent only 1 ship and not 2 because its a major asset like BB.This way a Mj General(air)will command from 1-3 squadrons.New elemnts like combat engineers are needed to represent this special and crusial infantry units or recon (not independant but as a sub-unit for the division).

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.

away from the forum for a month - and this thread moved to page 10 !


time to give a big...


...BUMP...


...to it !!!


.

 

[Mike S]

I agree that being able to build units in Brigade size and then making up your armys by grouping brigades together to form Divisons and so on would be interesting.

However if this would prove to be too difficult then I certain think you should at least have more options than currently exist when adding Brigades to Divisions, for example along with AT, Eng and AA Brigades there should be an option of a Tank Brigade.

This would allow the Allies forces to be make up more to real life in the early stages of the game when only the German Army used full Armoured Divisions and the British/French Armour was spread out and attached to the infantry.

An infantry division with a Tank Brigade would also still need to be cheaper than building an Armoured Div this would then make it easier for smaller countries to use armoured units.

The Tank Brigade would be able to be added to Armoured Div as well once a a tech such as Heavy Tank Brigade had been research this would the be like adding a Tiger Tank Brigade to your Armoured Div.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

No, you should be able to control each tank, and soldier individually. And also, you should (in the event of a fuel shortage for ex.) be in control of each gallon/liter of fuel - and decide which tanks get the fuel. Not to mention supplies, and which resources go to which factories, etc.

It should be an interface like that Zion command & control center in the Matrix movies, but you're hooked up, using your whole body, and brain to maximum capacity... controlling every slight detail of your nation's peace & wartime activities.

Hey, who says I don't raise the bar...

 

[O'Donnel Aboo!]

I think Jagdmaus is on to something.....

SilverDragon, thanks for the bump....i had not seen this before!

I will place my vote for divisions as the base unit for command and supply. It is the only way to represent warfare on a strategic level. However, a 3 Brigade (Understrength garrison) up to a 6 or 7 brigade template should provide the variety and flexibility most players crave. Brigades should be detachable, also. After 6 months skipping rocks off Midway and Wake, the US Army, Pacific Command has decided that those two garrisons will be combined into a new division, for example. Or, in a change of Doctrine, the French Genereal Staff has pulled all tank brigades off of Infantry support and begun creating their own Armored units. Flexibility is a strategist's friend.

One brigade should be the building block of the division, for continuity's sake. Unless they are merged. THis brigade would contain the divisional HQ, from which supplies and support personnel are drawn. HQs should have their own resources available, such as Artillery and Engineers. HQs should be commanded by a general or field marshall, thereby limiting the number of HQs a nation can have. I think the inclusion of colonels is a bit much; best to stick with the 1-star/Mj General as the lowest rank. HQs should be the source of supply, and supply lines must remain open (just like it is already...a land connection is enough) Supply lines should also be targetable by aircraft.

Brigades and Divisions underneath a HQ commander will benefit from his traits. Individual units will benefit only from the traits of their leaders. I believe this is how the game is working currently. Certain traits need to be expanded. For instance, Admiral Nimitz's headquarters at Honolulu should be capable of supplying his fleet relatively far away. But another Grand Admiral may not have this trait, and thus can only supply ships as far away as, say, Guadalcanal. This is a different application of Logistics Wizard, I think.

Smaller representations of Air squadrons and 1-carrier only units also make sense to me. So far, i agree with the other posts that divisional templates with detachable/attachable brigades are the way to go. If I have two INF divisions guarding the Atlantic Wall, I should not have to build two whole new units with ENG brigades; i should be able to build the brigades and attach them to the existing commands.

 

[unmerged(14284)]

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

I agree with this. I don't think it would be a sensible use of design resources to go mad with a whole brigade-level system, since the divisional system is about right in terms of feel and what one has time for in mid-battle (in Dec 41 you really don';t want as the Soviet or German player to be fiddling with thousands of brigades!). Adding a few specialised units as Redawn suggests would add flavour and solve some special issues like the island defences without needing a big redesign. There are much more important things to improve, such as the bizarrely crude province improvement system (it costs 5 IC or, hey, whatever you've got there, and if it's infrastructure over 34 then who cares anyway).
I also agree with the othe rpost about the islands mentioned. Anyone who has wargames the Pacific war would veryt much miss all of them!

Cheers, Nick

 

[unmerged(11819)]

No, you should be able to control each tank, and soldier individually. And also, you should (in the event of a fuel shortage for ex.) be in control of each gallon/liter of fuel - and decide which tanks get the fuel. Not to mention supplies, and which resources go to which factories, etc.

It should be an interface like that Zion command & control center in the Matrix movies, but you're hooked up, using your whole body, and brain to maximum capacity... controlling every slight detail of your nation's peace & wartime activities.

Hey, who says I don't raise the bar...

This is ONLY feasible if i can also decide the octane of the fuel and what gear the tanks drive in!

 

[Luka]

I think Jagdmaus is on to something.....
Smaller representations of Air squadrons and 1-carrier only units also make sense to me.

Forgive me if this has already been posted but I can't be bothered reading all the stuff as I have to go out. Anyway, I think that aircraft units should be dealt with comepletely separately to the way ground units are controlled. Air units should be based at an airfield and there will be an operational radius. If any enemy units are within that radius then they can/will be affected by our air unit depending on its orders. (i.e. if we have a unit of long range strat bombers they wont be used for fighter interception. Unless you're mad) This will also completely eliminate the micromanagement of the airforce as in HoI. Results from operations and general order will be viewable in a ledger type thing viewing losses and results of their respective mission.

Any good?

 

[unmerged(18189)]

Imho

Gentlemen,

Let me just start by saying that I'm not at all in a position to in any way critizise HoI or the makers of it in any way. It is BY FAR the best WWII wargame, Strategic level or Tactic, as it is.

1. Provinces/Hexagons
From what I've read in the previous posts, most of the discussion is about she size of units produced. The size today (Divisions) is good, when put in perspective to the size of the provinces in the game. Most non-computer game stratecic games have a "stacking limit" to each hexagon, but of course, HoI is not a hexagon game. Since the HoI engine makes it hard or impossible to create a hexagon system, maybe the provinces could be "entered" in some way, creating a hexagon "battle map" and allowing the player to organize his forces for those wanting more Micromanagement for the troops involved. If the player wishes, he can also not enter the battle, and let the computer take care of the battle just as it does today.
[Note: I realize that this option would probably be extremely timeconsuming for the developers]

2. Unit Size
When a player purchase a "Template Division" he should have the option to either get a "pure" division (like today) or he could also customize it with regiments (or whatever the name for it will be), with slots and "drag & drop" like SilverDragon72 suggested. The producton cost and time should be the equivalent percentage of the cost/time to produce a "pure" Division of that kind. If the player later on wish to enlarge the unit with more "regiments", it should be returned to the force pool, for the suitable production time and cost. Also, I suggest the implementation of "pure" artillery units, whith the option to "Barrage" a neighboring province where other units are attacking/defending.

3. [Non-discussion] Division experience
Another wish on my part, is the invention of a way for Individual Divisions to gain experience and skill, just like the leaders. E.g. a German division invading the Soviet Union in 1941 who prior to this takes part in combat in Poland, Denmark, France, Yugoslavia and Greece would have an "edge" compared to a newly formed division. Today, those two divisions are concidered equal when it comes to combat.

Gentlemen, thank you for your attention
Leo121

 

[unmerged(17541)]

ideas on naval battles ?

.

one of the major weaknesses of HOI are still the naval battles...


...so, when discussing about a more tactical mode (e.g. a zoomed in HEX-map for battles) one major aspect should be the improvement of naval battles!


the most important point therefore seems to be an implementation of range:

radar/recon range, artillery range & striking distance of planes


...other points are movement speed, unit stealth & some kind of armor penetration factor (a DD won't do any major damage to a Yamamoto class BB with it's guns)


- islands / coast strips should be parts of naval battles (supporting artillery / planes)

- airraids should be able to "close" airstrips for some time...

- damaged CVs shouldn't also be able to launch planes for some time...

- harbours and docks / repair facilities should be of some importance...


...any comments / other suggestions ?

.