Deployments

[RisingSun]

Everytime a unit been deployed, they usually get a free ride all the way on the other side of the world, esp Russia or USA. It should be transported there or set it as strategic move and it should calulate how far and how long it will take to get there. So the factories that building these units or final stages, should be deployed there in that location. Samn as ships being constructed in shipyards.

 

[Daelyn75]

I very much agree with this.

 

[Joppos]

My guess is that units will be put down wherever as empty paper units. Which is fine, and depending on distance from stockpiles they are reinforced at a varying rate. Stockpiles are hopefully not just the capital though.

 

[Dalwin]

I agree in general, except that their point of origin should not be factories. It should be the training facilities.

The production line system, with it's stockpiles of equipment, forces, in my opinion, for there to be a second stage to unit creation which is the training of the unit while equipping it with items that you have already produced.

However, just like we are not going to force a capital ship to have it's location set at the beginning of its production cycle, I do not believe these training facilities are going to be located on map and units assigned to them. This will be abstracted. The best that I think can be done is to have whatever calculation is done to determine training time also factor in deployment time.

I suppose another way to look at this is that deployment time has always been modelled by the fact that a newly placed unit starts with zero org.

 

[Joppos]

I agree in general, except that their point of origin should not be factories. It should be the training facilities.

The production line system, with it's stockpiles of equipment, forces, in my opinion, for there to be a second stage to unit creation which is the training of the unit while equipping it with items that you have already produced.

However, just like we are not going to force a capital ship to have it's location set at the beginning of its production cycle, I do not believe these training facilities are going to be located on map and units assigned to them. This will be abstracted. The best that I think can be done is to have whatever calculation is done to determine training time also factor in deployment time.

I suppose another way to look at this is that deployment time has always been modelled by the fact that a newly placed unit starts with zero org.

Another reason to have separate manpower generated from basic manpower, preferably as air/ground/naval so as to be able to focus training differently. That way, each of those pools could constitute trained personnel to varying degree, and deploying would simply be funneling equipment and personnel to a unit, whether it's a German unit in Brandenburg or Vladivostok.

And please don't remind me of the weird naval deployment design. Why designate a port to produce 10 DDs and have them appear there, when you can just click them out manually wherever you want. Iiiit maaakeees nooo seeensee

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Another reason to have separate manpower generated from basic manpower, preferably as air/ground/naval so as to be able to focus training differently. That way, each of those pools could constitute trained personnel to varying degree, and deploying would simply be funneling equipment and personnel to a unit, whether it's a German unit in Brandenburg or Vladivostok.

And please don't remind me of the weird naval deployment design. Why designate a port to produce 10 DDs and have them appear there, when you can just click them out manually wherever you want. Iiiit maaakeees nooo seeensee

But having air/ground/naval manpower is stupid, it is army that chooses where to put those men, not themselves, if land forces need more soldiers and there are too many volunteers for air force, they simply get transferred to infantry.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

But having air/ground/naval manpower is stupid, it is army that chooses where to put those men, not themselves, if land forces need more soldiers and there are too many volunteers for air force, they simply get transferred to infantry.

The proposed air/ground/naval manpower would represent trained manpower. So the player decides how much goes into each branch (and pays for it somehow), it's not hard-coded into the province files. I find it's a good practice, before declaring something "stupid", to try to give the text a sympathetic reading, and try to think of ways it might not be stupid.

 

[Kimberly]

It seems to me that it would be ideal of manpower and equipment both flowed along supply lines (for simplicity, using the same network) to their units. Then, as Joppos said, a player could create "paper" units anywhere with zero men and zero equipment, which would be resupplied as normal. This allows a player to decide whether they want to place new units at the front, creating a steady influx of reinforcement there, or to place them at home and then move the units en masse when they are at full strength. Such a system would also allow the splitting of various kinds of manpower, if that is desirable (which I think is an entirely different argument).

One issue with this is that supplies cannot, at least on the Hearts of Iron 3 model, flow "in reverse." So if partial division A is at the front and then you place zero-manpower, zero-equipment division B behind it, you cannot disband division A to fill division B; the manpower and equipment will teleport to the capital and then flow across the supply lines back to the front. I think this is an acceptable abstraction, though, especially if we can merge divisions.

 

[Joppos]

But having air/ground/naval manpower is stupid, it is army that chooses where to put those men, not themselves, if land forces need more soldiers and there are too many volunteers for air force, they simply get transferred to infantry.

I can't really make sense of what you are trying to say. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to decide what to build? Manpower is certainly not exclusive to the army. In previous games, training was abstracted into the production of a unit. However in the new game, some other mechanic will have to take that place. Training makes for experience, which can be a deciding factor not least in an air war. How would you be able to maintain experienced pilots if all you could do is send generic infantry to replace those losses?

 

[Dalwin]

It seems to me that it would be ideal of manpower and equipment both flowed along supply lines (for simplicity, using the same network) to their units. Then, as Joppos said, a player could create "paper" units anywhere with zero men and zero equipment, which would be resupplied as normal. This allows a player to decide whether they want to place new units at the front, creating a steady influx of reinforcement there, or to place them at home and then move the units en masse when they are at full strength. Such a system would also allow the splitting of various kinds of manpower, if that is desirable (which I think is an entirely different argument).

One issue with this is that supplies cannot, at least on the Hearts of Iron 3 model, flow "in reverse." So if partial division A is at the front and then you place zero-manpower, zero-equipment division B behind it, you cannot disband division A to fill division B; the manpower and equipment will teleport to the capital and then flow across the supply lines back to the front. I think this is an acceptable abstraction, though, especially if we can merge divisions.

I can see the logic to such a system, but it seems contrary to the design philosophy we have been seeing in other parts of the game. By that I mean that if we are not placing ships into the port at which they are being constructed, why would we do the complete opposite with ground and air units?

However, being completely contradictory does not guarantee that it will not be so.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

The proposed air/ground/naval manpower would represent trained manpower. So the player decides how much goes into each branch (and pays for it somehow), it's not hard-coded into the province files. I find it's a good practice, before declaring something "stupid", to try to give the text a sympathetic reading, and try to think of ways it might not be stupid.

Well, this makes a lot of sense. (no irony)

I can't really make sense of what you are trying to say. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to decide what to build? Manpower is certainly not exclusive to the army. In previous games, training was abstracted into the production of a unit. However in the new game, some other mechanic will have to take that place. Training makes for experience, which can be a deciding factor not least in an air war. How would you be able to maintain experienced pilots if all you could do is send generic infantry to replace those losses?

But this does not. I tough that you meant manpower should automatically go into air force or navy or army, but it seems you meant trained manpower. So it was my mistake, sorry.