The kind of subtlety I waited for since day 1 in HOI, thank you very much for having injected it in eventually DH team and thank you ewphoenix123 for the heads up!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
But what about the fact that the ussr used barely trained troops, in ww2 they built 5 t34s in the time it took to build a panther, and they barely trained these troops, many tanks were not even painted, because in many battles near industrial centers, soldiers rode their tank from the factory to battle
The USSR should get a barbarossa triggered decision, "division formation". Cap the unit strength to 65, -15% org, but make infantry build time -70%. Historically the first new divisions joined the war in early august, a mere 1.5 months after the war start. In the first half year of the war USSR formed 251 divisons (661 over the entire war). Not very strong, not very well trained, understrength and underequiped, but they were a fighting infantry unit, and not a mob. The very few militia divisions the USSR formed took a mere couple of weeks to form.
Meh, that's already simulated by armor having penalties in all other terrain.
I think armor should significantly increase the chance of the breakthrough combat event and perhaps the encirclement and counterattack ones as well. And perhaps those events could be buffed a bit.
This is actually a good idea. It would be cool if the composition of the two armies affected the chance for events to fire, i.e. a bigger chance for encirclement if you have many mobile divs and numerical superiority, a better chance for Tactical Withdrawal if your troops are more experienced etc.
In HOI3 you get a combined arms bonus (20% or somesuch) for including armor in your army.
No, it it based on DIVISION composition and the bonus can be as large as ~50% with all the additional modifiers (leaders and techs).
In HOI2 and DH you get a combined arms bonus from mixing hard and soft divisions in formations (with each type making up at least one third of the overall number of divisions). In HOI3 it's based solely on the softness of each division.
The bonus is modest, which is fine; infantry divisions didn't magically become 80% more powerful just because there was an armor division nearby. However, the ability of those forces to make a breakthrough would be greatly enhanced, and then the infantry could exploit the breakthrough and fight lopsided battles.
So that is what you spent your time on? Half of the customers are clamouring for stats and you go Rainman on a super duper reinforcement system?
one suggestion. maybe this comes because i was trained lately to be medic in army. i used to be teamleader in missile anti-air group. i did notice how much it did influenced troops when they noticed that we were "professionals" (we are all working in real life in healtcare). This is far from realthing but still, itwas big reserve units pratice.
i would like to see little more detailed medical system in this game. like building field hospitals or something. and tech levels could me little more than it is now. and this could affect the reinforce troops. it could be some % from casualties who can return in line after battle is over (smallish wounds only...). this might be microlevel tweaking but still...
i would like to see little more detailed medical system in this game. like building field hospitals or something. and tech levels could me little more than it is now. and this could affect the reinforce troops. it could be some % from casualties who can return in line after battle is over (smallish wounds only...). this might be microlevel tweaking but still...
Hello gentlemen,
here are my 2$:
An Infantry Div has to get the gear and the training to be combat ready. Right?
But a ship is ready for a mission once it is finished? Didn't they make exercises and drills to train the crew before actually sending them into combat?
The Bismarck
(http://www.deutsche-kriegsschiffe.de/Schiffe/schlachtschiffe/bismarck.htm)
01.07.36 Kiellegung bei der Werft Blohm & Voss in Hamburg
14.02.39 Stapellauf in Anwesenheit von Hitler.
24.08.40 Indienststellung durch den Kommandanten, Kpt.z.S. Ernst Lindemann
24.08.40 - 17.05.41 Erprobung und Ausbildung in der Ostsee
The dates are: Start building, launching, commission, trials and traning in the Baltic Sea, which took them almost 9 months before sending her to OP Rheinübung.
Then you said it took them longer to train an infantry guy than a pilot.
Well, don't forget that the pilot or other specialist recieves his training on top of his basic military training.
What does a grunt need to know? How to shoot and not to get killed. Those are skills which every soldiers is trained during basic training. After that basic training the grunt knows all the basics he needs to. Of course he will recieve a more sophisticated infantry training afterwards, but the other guy has to learn something completly new.
A tank driver will do his drivers license, technical stuff about the tank engine, the tracks, the wheels and the maintenance and finally he will learn how to drive "tactically". And after all these basic things he still needs to train with a real tank platoon to learn the drill.
The Pilot:
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Germany/Pilot-Training.htm
In short: a fighter pilot had about 13 months of training from joining the Luftwaffe till he got into a "replacement unit". Which meant he didn't see combat there either.
My grandpa, born in 1920, joined the Luftwaffe in 39, in summer 40 he was a 109-pilot in France in such a "replacement unit" and his first combat was in summer 41 against the USSR. That's almost 2 years later (24 months or about 104 weeks...) 10 weeks for a pilot seems awfully short. Is that Luftwaffe training in March 45?
I know that you have to make decisions between playability/fun and historical correctness, I just thought I had to clarify those training times.
Nevertheless I really enjoy DH. Keep up the god work.
Last edited:
Unlike the USA, most European armies had conscription, that leaves you with a pool of manpower that already has basic training. If needed, these countries also had the pool of WW1 veterans.
Throughout the war, depending on how desperately new units are needed varied from over a year to under a month. Real history-wise, it mostly applies to Soviet Union and 1944 onwards Germany, but I can't see why other countries could not do the same.
Throughout the war, depending on how desperately new units are needed varied from over a year to under a month. Real history-wise, it mostly applies to Soviet Union and 1944 onwards Germany, but I can't see why other countries could not do the same.
i would like to see experienced units act lot better thab new units. or experienced troops to have bigger influence in battlefield.
and idea: event. propaganda event. sometimes in battlefield generals or some soldiers makes some big acts. using these as heroes and model for younger soldiers or civilians has great value. this could lead to event thah increases manpower because there is some volunteers who want to be like these big fatherland heroes.
and idea: event. propaganda event. sometimes in battlefield generals or some soldiers makes some big acts. using these as heroes and model for younger soldiers or civilians has great value. this could lead to event thah increases manpower because there is some volunteers who want to be like these big fatherland heroes.
The US had a draft during the war and also had a cadre of WW1 vets from which also came many of our officers during WW2. Perhaps not as large as most European powers but we had them nevertheless.
man. where do you get your info from? In the last part of the war Germany would get her infantry trained in a few weeks. All they needed to know is how to march properly.
USA could have spent more time to train troops cos they weren't in such a hurry. they haven't got so many losses like the germans or the russians.
If you want to keep historical accuracy it would be an idea that every division to have men and equipment.
For example a tank division has now 6000 soldiers. Add also how many tanks should have. And when the battle is fought they would lose men and tanks separately. If a tank division losses it's tanks it would fight like an infantry division. This thing happened in WW2. Same goes for infantry divisions. Remember Stalingrad when russians had a rifle for 2 men.
You'll have to separate the type of factories, like tank factories, small arms factories etc.
So if the equipment is available a player should decide how much time to spend training the troops.
Adding those factories and equipment may slow down the game a bit but a good PC should put up with it very well. The game will become more realistic and attractive
USA could have spent more time to train troops cos they weren't in such a hurry. they haven't got so many losses like the germans or the russians.
If you want to keep historical accuracy it would be an idea that every division to have men and equipment.
For example a tank division has now 6000 soldiers. Add also how many tanks should have. And when the battle is fought they would lose men and tanks separately. If a tank division losses it's tanks it would fight like an infantry division. This thing happened in WW2. Same goes for infantry divisions. Remember Stalingrad when russians had a rifle for 2 men.
You'll have to separate the type of factories, like tank factories, small arms factories etc.
So if the equipment is available a player should decide how much time to spend training the troops.
Adding those factories and equipment may slow down the game a bit but a good PC should put up with it very well. The game will become more realistic and attractive
good idea to separate things. but i think it might be little to much for many players. i would like to see something like player choosing units to be trained to veteran units/or similar elite unit and standard unit. Unit that has veteran/elite status would take lot longer to produce.
germany did recruit everything they could in the last year or so. children and old people, didnt give them much training and casualties were high.
germany did recruit everything they could in the last year or so. children and old people, didnt give them much training and casualties were high.
Would be cool if there was an option to decide how many days you want to spend on division's training. Spend a year and get +10% org, or 2-3 months and get -10% org.
To take the USA and Germany by comparison:
The US maintained large reserves to constantly top up their divisions and moved them through a series of replacement depots, so reinforcing divisions shouldn't take too long as long as the theatre replacement depots were keeping up with losses. Replacement shouldn't be a set period, it should be loss dependent too.
The Germans, at least before things got too bad, replaced from the same region, initially defined by corps areas, more being added after Austria annexed. The training Btns linked to their parent units were used for rear area duties. There were transfer Btns that processed trained men and got them to their parents. Later in the war it all broke down and transfer Btns ended up being committed to combat.
Difficult to abstract so much.
I always thought a system I'd love to see would be to have separate manpower pools. Could be used to represent fit manpower, trained manpower, second line manpower. Some of the trickleback from casualties could go into the second line reserve of manpower; invalid units. I wonder if a reserve of trained pilots could ever be modelled, thinking of Battle of Britain here.
If I tried to design a game it would be a mess
The US maintained large reserves to constantly top up their divisions and moved them through a series of replacement depots, so reinforcing divisions shouldn't take too long as long as the theatre replacement depots were keeping up with losses. Replacement shouldn't be a set period, it should be loss dependent too.
The Germans, at least before things got too bad, replaced from the same region, initially defined by corps areas, more being added after Austria annexed. The training Btns linked to their parent units were used for rear area duties. There were transfer Btns that processed trained men and got them to their parents. Later in the war it all broke down and transfer Btns ended up being committed to combat.
Difficult to abstract so much.
I always thought a system I'd love to see would be to have separate manpower pools. Could be used to represent fit manpower, trained manpower, second line manpower. Some of the trickleback from casualties could go into the second line reserve of manpower; invalid units. I wonder if a reserve of trained pilots could ever be modelled, thinking of Battle of Britain here.
If I tried to design a game it would be a mess