Development Diary #16 - 11th of February 2009

[Timmetie]

Nice Development diary!

Just one thing, and yes i've read the diary and all your comments on the shattering.

I know you've been pushing to get people to understand shattered units are nothing but a name and a little experience. But I know of one pretty big exception to the rule which is the soviet union. When Moscow was in danger they just moved everything east with still quite some manpower and industrial capability to cover it all, but the game never moves the capital (neither did the SU though..).

So it might eventually be inevitable to be able to direct shattered units? The same goes with colonial empires but i've seen you battered with India enough to bother.

 

[sbr]

I know you've been pushing to get people to understand shattered units are nothing but a name and a little experience. But I know of one pretty big exception to the rule which is the soviet union. When Moscow was in danger they just moved everything east with still quite some manpower and industrial capability to cover it all, but the game never moves the capital (neither did the SU though..).

The SU capital does move in HOI2, is that what you mean, or something else?

 

[Sangeli]

I love that the development diary finally deals with the meat of the game; combat. I question the logic that units when shattered reappear in the capital; surely a german unit shattered near moscow would reform somewhere closer to the front; perhaps the army group headquaters. Another thing, I like the determining factors in how a unit shatters. However, there simply needs to be more. Ideology should play a role; its not like Soviet formations ever shattered (they just got mauled), whereas it was all too common for French divisions to do so. With provinces actually having depth, what happens when a defending unit retreats and the attacker passes it?

 

[Phax]

shadoooows.. the models look like something made in the 90's without them.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

(...)its not like Soviet formations ever shattered (they just got mauled),

Huh? Where did you come with this idea? They were shattered on numerous occasions each time Germans were advancing in 1941-42 period - and couple of times when they were counterattacking.

And is "mauled" actual military term?

With provinces actually having depth, what happens when a defending unit retreats and the attacker passes it?

I think we have missunderstanding there.

Provinces don't have depth. They have front (all the units that are capable of fighting considering the frontage limit) and 2nd line (all units in reserve). When unit is forced to withdraw from front, it doesn't march back deeper into the province, but moves back into the next province behind it, then when it reaches it, it's again assigned to either front, or second line there. So it's more like 2 province "levels" in one - proper depth would mean actual travel inside the province, which is not the case in HoI3.

So I assume what you mean is what will happen, if attacker reaches next province that is a target of withdrawing troops before they reach it. It's a valid question - in HoI2 withtrdawing troops were regaining ORG on the way, so when they reached occupied province they were usually initiating combat (often loosing, then permanently vanishing). I wonder if it's still the case in HoI3 or do they just vanish right off upon reaching occupied province )(or maybe they just get shattered?).

 

[unmerged(1823)]

12 pages of discussion on shatter, and alot of people still do not get it.

And posters like Radu and potski has even explained it in clearer terms than we have.

There are lots of examples of shattering happening as we describe here during WW2, including units being shattered overseas and reformed at home.

 

[sbr]

Provinces don't have depth. They have front (all the units that are capable of fighting considering the frontage limit) and 2nd line (all units in reserve). When unit is forced to withdraw from front, it doesn't march back deeper into the province, but moves back into the next province behind it, then when it reaches it, it's again assigned to either front, or second line there. So it's more like 2 province "levels" in one - proper depth would mean actual travel inside the province, which is not the case in HoI3.

So I assume what you mean is what will happen, if attacker reaches next province that is a target of withdrawing troops before they reach it. It's a valid question - in HoI2 withtrdawing troops were regaining ORG on the way, so when they reached occupied province they were usually initiating combat (often loosing, then permanently vanishing). I wonder if it's still the case in HoI3 or do they just vanish right off upon reaching occupied province )(or maybe they just get shattered?).

What about this?

The next thing to move onto is what happens when you retreat. Two changes, firstly comes out of the new combat system with front line and reserves. As the defenders do not leave combat as a stack but as individual units, they will retreat as individual units instead of as a stack. In addition the defenders do not retreat the whole distance out of the province, instead the distance the defender has to retreat is determined by how far the attacker has advanced. So if the attacker has moved 50% of the distance into the province, then the defender only has to retreat 50% of the distance. This logical little change should help make the retreat mechanics work more sensibly.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

What about this?

Nothing. His explaination when I asked him directly, what withdrawal means.

I'm not sure what does it mean. Is retreating division, after breaking combat:

a) instantly shows up 50% on the way into province directly behind, then continues its withdrawal in normal movement pace?

(...)

Bascially a

 

[unmerged(105596)]

After reading most of this shatter-discussion, I tend to go with the devs. I think 'shattering' is the best method available to handle situations where unit ceases to exist as a unit. I haven't seen any considerably better suggestions here, and the reasoning behind 'shattering' seems perfectly plausible for me. There are historical examples that were utterly similar as 'shattering' is described here. It will fit the mechanics of a war game, and enhance the gaming experience. End of discussion, if you ask me, but of course everyone is entitled to his/her opinions.

 

[donkeysaint]

12 pages of discussion on shatter, and alot of people still do not get it.

And posters like Radu and potski has even explained it in clearer terms than we have.

There are lots of examples of shattering happening as we describe here during WW2, including units being shattered overseas and reformed at home.

But you will find no examples of Indian units being shattered in Burma and reformed in London. Your system seems to be a good one that will work fine in most cases. Make British India its own entity, and it will work fine in that case too!

 

[unmerged(131342)]

Shatter the world I say!

 

[pit]

division schatter you can form a NEW division (gets a small extra from the old)whit the same name in the Capital

 

[Ostheim]

But you will find no examples of Indian units being shattered in Burma and reformed in London. Your system seems to be a good one that will work fine in most cases. Make British India its own entity, and it will work fine in that case too!

Or allow units rebuilt to be deployed in colony provinces (overseas national) if they were shattered there.

 

[Modestus]

Strength = Manpower + Equipment

The USSR might have manpower reserves but it does not have infinite industrial capacity, it doesn't even dwarf Germany's in the way the US's does.

The equipment destroyed during shattering is equipment destroyed without actually fighting and taking losses for it. So it's your gain.

Second,as it has been emphasized, shattered units reappear as "shadows". As long as the numbers are crunched right and reinforcing a unit is not too quick and too cheap,it's not an issue.

Shattered units reconstituting at 30% is far too high for what shattering tries to model and while hard numbers haven't been thrown yet,it's reasonable to assume shattered divisions reappear at 10% strength at most.

So basically shattered divisions are divisions that broke apart due to the stress of combat without the need to encircle them.

What you've missed is that these divisions,due to leadership/doctrinal/technological insufficiencies break without you needing to expend the time and losses that you normally would.

If Paradox gets things right (and if not CORE will ) you won't see shattered units back on the frontline within a month. More like three months, and we're talking a div that shattered in a not-so-catastrophic manner.

Looking at historical cases of reconstituting shattered units, wether Soviet ones during Barbarossa or Romanian ones during Stalingrad or in Normandy, you'll see that three months is the absolute minimum, with six months being closer to the norm.

I know you're not arguing, but I get the feeling you discount the fact that shattering happened historically,and was not disereable. Why do you assume Paradox will seek to muffle and arcadize the effects of shattering?

Again, Johan and King stated clearly that this is not the case of resupplying,but reconstituting units. They made no effort in underlining that shattering is a very bad thing to happen to a div.

Why do you believe they will backtrack on their statements and make shattering almost a Strategic Redeployment?

I think quite the contrary, shattered units are near-destroyed units and again,unless Paradox really f-es things up in making reinforcement too speedy and too cheap,you have nothing to worry about.

P.S. : A quick question for Paradox. Will reinforcement use a logarithmic function? (i.e. harder and longer to reinforce at 10% and easier at 90%) Non-linearity works wonders for real-life simulations

Ah yes I see your points and what Potski,Alex and others have said.

I presume then that shattering a division will be a reasonably rare event,you could see it happening initially at the start of a campaign around the areas of your main points of attack and perhaps a little later if you are using your CAS to ground attack retreating units.

Its an attempt to represent the initial shock of an overwhelming prepared attack.

Of course it may also be necessary because of frontage, at the start of an attack you may be able to attack into a province along 3 axis but when you gain that province you will be faced with perhaps a restricted frontage for your next advance. If you have shattered some of the divisions (they have vanished) you have created gaps and you should be able to push forward again without too much difficulty.

 

[Vulture]

I misread, thought you said a division would LOSE 50% when shattering, sorry

Interesting addition, this means that as Germany you will have a few divisions in Berlin that you can use to guard the Atlantic Wall while they reorganize, sounds sweet

... and very historical too. Units that were being rebuilt/reorganized were often sent to Belgium/Holland/France instead of Russia.

 

[Porkman]

But you will find no examples of Indian units being shattered in Burma and reformed in London. Your system seems to be a good one that will work fine in most cases. Make British India its own entity, and it will work fine in that case too!

Seconded!

I love the idea of shattered units, and in most cases it will work great. However, it's this situation that needs to be addressed.

The "instant transport" halfway across the world is the problem. If a British division is shattered in Burma, or a Japanese division is shattered in New Guinea, or a US division is shattered in France, it will appear in the capital as usable, if severely understrength unit, the very next day, give it a week and a half and it might even be combat worthy (org would probably be near full, even if strength was way down. I'm sure everyone who's played the Germany 44 scenario has noticed that severely understrength units can become surprisingly useful if they are left alone for a week or two.) It should take it a week and a half just to get there.

Or if the instant thing represents them making the whole unit from scratch as in, "The 82nd airborne has just been destroyed mauled in Trieste, let's start building another, this instant." Make the divisions immovable for a certain amount of time based on how far away they were from the capital.

I'd like to see some travel time factored in there.

The idea of shattering is really good, I worry that the logistics of it are going to be somewhat ridiculous.

 

[unmerged(38672)]

Hasn´t much of the logistics been simplified in HoI? For example, Portugal can have units in Macao and East Timor that is being magically reinforced and upgraded despite Portugal having no troop transports. So I guess those supply convoys are excellent for shipping large quantities of troops and equipment as well, eh?

 

[pwwl]

shattering

I have to admit, I am really looking forward to playing HoI 3!

I have a question to shattering.

"If a unit shatters and does not have a valid supply line then it is simply eliminated. Otherwise the unit loses a large percentage of its strength and reappears in the capital ready to be rebuilt back up to full strength. ...."

What happens if you say play the US and land in North Africa. You approach Tunis and a division gets shattered. Does that mean it reappears in Washington? Is that realistic? What if several of your divisions shatter? Do you end up with no troops in Africa? Would it not be more realistic to have them appear at your port of supply when overseas and if you want them back in the US in this example, you have to transport them with all the risks of interception?

 

[Ostheim]

.. If a British division is shattered in Burma, or a Japanese division is shattered in New Guinea, or a US division is shattered in France, it will appear in the capital as usable, if severely understrength unit, the very next day, give it a week and a half and it might even be combat worthy ...

I don't think shattered units can be used as soon as they reach the capital, but I also don't think this is confirmed for certain and has caused much confusion.

What happens if you say play the US and land in North Africa. You approach Tunis and a division gets shattered. Does that mean it reappears in Washington? Is that realistic? What if several of your divisions shatter? Do you end up with no troops in Africa? Would it not be more realistic to have them appear at your port of supply when overseas and if you want them back in the US in this example, you have to transport them with all the risks of interception?

So far the indication is that all shattered units return to the capital as a 'paper' or 'ghost' division with nothing more than a small percentage of surviving mp with a little xp. From this point on you can begin rebuilding the division. Two things unconfirmed about this is when the unit being rebuilt becomes usable and if rebuilding a shattered division costs the same as building a new one minus the base cadre of survivor/veteran mp. I have been assuming the latter is true, and hoping the former isn't any time too soon.

If shattered units weren't always sent to the capital I wouldn't see much issue with being able to mobilize it prematurely, afterall it would probably be very weak and suicidal to put in combat. We don't know all the details about mobilization, production, and reinforcement--so it is likely you would need to wait anyway for the officers % to build up.

 

[Johan]

I don't think shattered units can be used as soon as they reach the capital, but I also don't think this is confirmed for certain and has caused much confusion.

They are completely useless for a long period of time.

If shatter threshold for you is at lets say 50% strength.

And your division gets below it..

It then appears reconstructed in your capital at 1-5% of its last strength.

1-5% of 49% strength is about.. 0-2% strength.

Which means that this unit will get shattered or even eliminated at contact again for the next few months until its rebuilt to above 50%.