Development Diary #16 - 11th of February 2009

[Tyson_48]

I like the concept of shattering units

It is quite realistic that a division which is heavily decimated in a battle will be formed new. If i understand correctly shattering works like this:

- a division could shatter (X%) if they lost Y% of strength
- good leaders and exp will reduce X
- shattered divs will "reappear" in capital
- "reappear" means only the core (HQ officers etc.) will be shipped Xamount of mp to pool
- the div must be reinforced (IC)
- the exp isn't gone
- there must be a supply line, so sourrounding or port blockade will destroy not shatter the div

Right?

 

[von Tairach]

I like the concept of shattering units

It is quite realistic that a division which is heavily decimated in a battle will be formed new. If i understand correctly shattering works like this:

- a division could shatter (X%) if they lost Y% of strength
- good leaders and exp will reduce X
- shattered divs will "reappear" in capital
- "reappear" means only the core (HQ officers etc.) will be shipped Xamount of mp to pool
- the div must be reinforced (IC)
- the exp isn't gone
- there must be a supply line, so sourrounding or port blockade will destroy not shatter the div

Right?

I hope you’re right... It sounds like a nice concept.

 

[potski]

But there's more to supply then this! Wouldn't the SU have to have merchant ships in order to carry supplies? I mean just having a port doesn't give you a supplied army...right?

Of course they need convoys, and the convoys need to avoid any attempt to blockade the port, so it's not easy for the Soviets to keep them supplied. But in HOI2 no supplies could be brought from Leningrad to units trapped in the Riga area, and they were immediately out of supplies, crippled by a huge combat penalty and quickly destroyed.

In HOI3 the units trapped in the Riga area would be carrying some supplies with them, and may be able to surive long enough for some convoys to start to arrive. Even if they can't keep them fully supplied, as long as there are some supplies getting through it will make the battle longer and more realistic. See the historical battle of Sevastopol.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

If it's cut-off then nothing gets out of the pocket.

When a division shatters while it is cut off from supply, it is lost entirely. Fine.

When a division shatters but it is not cut off, it reappears in the capital at low strength, it retains some experience and you can reinforce this division up to full strength for significantly lower IC cost than building it from scratch. Fine.

Johan justifies the teleportation of the unit from where it shattered to the capital by saying that none of the equipment or people who were in the (supplied) division when it shattered made it out. The division that you see in the capital is a paper division, with just some experienced people who happened to be on vacation or in the hospital when their division shattered.

So all it takes to have a division with some experience that I can reinforce for cheap rather than a division that I have to build from scatch is a division name and a few people who were on vacation. Well, I have that much even if the division in question was cut off when it shattered.

So why does it matter if nothing gets out of the pocket? I'm not using anything that was in the pocket anyway.

 

[Anraz]

I don't like the "shattering effect". It is a bit too synthetic for my taste (instead of closing to RL).

 

[ok2useLane]

1. Can a division/army that has been cut-off be supplied by air?
2. How long will it take a division/army to shatter (be eliminated) once it has been cut-off? I ask this because, many pockets in the SU lasted for months. Will this be re-created in HOI3?

 

[frpe02]

A small idea I had when I saw the Battle View:

What if the divisions that are at the front are facing eachother, and the reserve divisions are behind those divisions.

It would look like this:
( Attacker Reserve divisions -- Attacker Front Divisions -- Defender Front Divisions -- Defender Reserve divisions)

Sort of like it would be on the battle field.

A very minor suggestions but I thought I would mention it anyway

 

[Hallsten]

I really like push back and capturing infrastructure while attacking. Makes a lot of sense...

 

[Alex_brunius]

What everyone is missing is how much more balanced the game will be with divisions shattering most of the time instead of getting destroyed fully. Youll still be able to overrun an enemy (like Soviet) but when you close in on that capital alot of the units you defeated once or even twice will mount a though defence. That plus the additional provinces should make sure the battle of Europe & surroundings isn't won easilly before 1942 by any side.

 

[Jayavarman]

I hope Paradox invests in a manual that is continually updated and expanded like AGEod does.

 

[vertinox]

For those non-english speakers who've commented that maybe their misunderstanding was a language problem, it's not an english-speaker thing. I'm english-speaking, I'm military, and shatter screamed 'rout' to me too. The effects seem consistent with it, as far as I'm concerned, as the unit is effectively broken as a coherent unit and needs to be rebuilt afterwards.

Well in context of WWII routing is quite different than Napoleonic war routing.

Divisions would retreat but if they simply broke (as in every man for himself) would usually result in the complete dissolution of the division.

Think of the Falaise pocket as a good example. The allied bombing basically broke the German divisions and there was hardly anywhere to run to so basically they dropped everything and ran which resulted in the loss of their equipment and major loss of manpower (either dead or captured).

In earlier times, when a unit routed they didn't have anything to leave behind and didn't have the massive firepower that could be delivered on routing units other than a Calvary charge.

So if a unit routs in WW2 times chances are the unit will be devastated.

 

[Delta107]

I hope Paradox invests in a manual that is continually updated and expanded like AGEod does.

I would certainly wish that Paradox does not follow AGEOD's policy in releasing games in pre-beta stage-WWI, or some others that required harsh patching an rewriting of the manual. I think that they will have time for the manual.

 

[unmerged(11593)]

i think the idea of 'shattered' units is, along with division builder, the best news so far on this game.

It will represent the destruction of divisions far better than wiping out almost every last soldier.

 

[Jayavarman]

I would certainly wish that Paradox does not follow AGEOD's policy in releasing games in pre-beta stage-WWI, or some others that required harsh patching an rewriting of the manual. I think that they will have time for the manual.

That wasn't really AGEod. That was Thibaut and the one WW1 developer, Luca Camissa (calvinus). In any case, the manual they eventually got out seems to be very exhaustive.

 

[Ostheim]

When a division shatters while it is cut off from supply, it is lost entirely. Fine.

When a division shatters but it is not cut off, it reappears in the capital at low strength, it retains some experience and you can reinforce this division up to full strength for significantly lower IC cost than building it from scratch. Fine.

Johan justifies the teleportation of the unit from where it shattered to the capital by saying that none of the equipment or people who were in the (supplied) division when it shattered made it out. The division that you see in the capital is a paper division, with just some experienced people who happened to be on vacation or in the hospital when their division shattered.

So all it takes to have a division with some experience that I can reinforce for cheap rather than a division that I have to build from scatch is a division name and a few people who were on vacation. Well, I have that much even if the division in question was cut off when it shattered.

So why does it matter if nothing gets out of the pocket? I'm not using anything that was in the pocket anyway.

If I understand correctly: Division destroyed in a pocket, whether it shatters or not, you lose the entire contents. No manpower survives, so no xp survives.

Remember that divisions are built out of brigades, and the division you lost in the pocket may have been special or it may have been ordinary. The point of the paper division is this: to give the player--or I suspect the AI as well--the option to easily begin rebuilding a full replacement of that division using the original template or composition. So for those finnicky players instead of having to fool with the division designer to get back your favorite/elite/beloved division you had since the start of the war...you can simply rebuild using the 'paper division' feature. It's just a quick, convenient template.

Divisions that are shattered are destroyed theoretically by some of the same means as ones destroyed in a pocket, the difference being without encirclement there will always be some avenues of escape for survivors of the chaos. If I understand correctly the survivors are put into the force pool to be reassigned to a newly created unit if you so choose. They don't just teleport, they are considered in an abstract way to be behind the lines somewhere resting with the rest of the available replacements, waiting to be assigned somewhere.

The other option, is to rebuild the shattered division using that small group of survivors of the shattering by placing them into the 'paper division' now making it an understrength division with some carry over experience that must be rebuilt. You can then proceed with rebuilding/reinforcing the division back to full strength with the latest equipment (tech stats/model w.e) while using the same name as the old shattered unit AND the same brigade composition as before all quickly and easily. It's really pretty simple, and makes sense to me. It's not like you can have a bunch of insta-teleporting divisions because you still need to take the time and spend the resources to reinforce the unit back to full strength. The paper division has no weapons or vehicles, they must be built again. Again it's building a 'new' division with the same name as before, just less MP cost and with some starting xp, with the added benefit of not having to fiddle with the division designer to get the original composition in the new unit. Do you guys get it yet?!

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Will your "man on the ground" rotate the units that are on the front line, depending on your doctrines, perhaps? This would ensure that you don't immediately lose a battle where you have tonnes of reserves, but practically no frontage.

And am I correct in thinking that divisions can shatter under aerial attack as well?

 

[Gaudry]

Say I have 5 shattered divisions in my capital and the enemy is getting close to it, can i reform those 5 low strength division into 1 or 2 full fighting divisions to try and defend against the enemy?

 

[Razor]

Very nice! Looks like it's going to be a really thick and heavy manual for this version. Splendid

 

[Ostheim]

Will your "man on the ground" rotate the units that are on the front line, depending on your doctrines, perhaps? This would ensure that you don't immediately lose a battle where you have tonnes of reserves, but practically no frontage.

And am I correct in thinking that divisions can shatter under aerial attack as well?

I wish I could search but I do recall King or Johan saying that doctrines do affect the front-reserves mechanic.

On Twitter:

"The skill of the leader in charge of a Corps affects the odds of reserve commitment for all divisions below him."

http://twitter.com/heartsofiron3

@Gaudry: I would doubt they become operational in time to save you because the 'paper divisions' are just that, they don't have any equipment and must be rebuilt like building new divisions.

 

[208]

I believe the difference is you lose all of the manpower and experience from divisions lost in a pocket, whereas you retain both some mp and experience from a shattered division. You can rebuild both, but for a destroyed unit I don't think there's any benefit other than an easy way to have a new division of the same name.

From what I understand. a destroyed unit is gone (a la HoI2) - to get a new one you have to build it yourself through the production interface.

I know you said it's still in testing, but it certainly sounds like a green division without a leader should break much easier than that. Both because unlead green divs should break fairly easily, and to make it so there can be a bigger difference between unlead green troops and well lead venterens.

Are you sure you mean to use the term 'break'? I think many people would understand 'break' as retreating, not as a near-destruction of the unit (which is what Paradox is referring to as 'shattering').