Development Diary #5 - 12th of November 2008

[Epoe Nimistedt]

I'm glad to see some ideas I explained in other threads to be developed in the new game.

I think they will add much more depth to gameplay, with more attention to tactical aspects of warfare.

Very nice job, Paradox. Thank you so much.

 

[unmerged(39808)]

Think of this another way. An armoured brigade uses X ammount of front line space. Blitzkrieg doctrines reduce the ammount of space armoured brigades take up, thus allowing you deploy more troops into the front line giving you greater offensive power.

That's a rather strange solution because armoured brigade will always use the same amount of space (with time they were using even more as the tanks grows up). Of course it also depends how this armoured brigade is organized. You should remember that in 1944/45 US Inf division in has got more tanks than German Arm division.

 

[CSARebel]

Thousands and thousands of new provinces...most in Sweden and Norway


Just kidding, it looks great so far.

 

[NERFGEN]

I take this as an official and very strong hint that divisions can include different numbers of brigades

Yea.. and here comes the odd question.. (maytbe already answered long ago but i have the memory of a fish)

Will there be a maximum of brigades allowed per division?

 

[mbb]

I have to say I'm impressed. A much better model of the tactical within the strategic than before.

What effect will leaders and leader traits have on frontage, the number of units per front and the reserve replacement rate?

How will ariel support affect land combat?

 

[unmerged(52476)]

Think of this another way. An armoured brigade uses X ammount of front line space. Blitzkrieg doctrines reduce the ammount of space armoured brigades take up, thus allowing you deploy more troops into the front line giving you greater offensive power.

That's a rather strange solution because armoured brigade will always use the same amount of space (with time they were using even more as the tanks grows up).

Think of it that way:

If you have bad tank doctrines, you are using tanks as infantry support, just like the allies at the beginning of the war. Thus, you have your tanks spread out over your infantry. Only a few tanks per infantry unit, and you are happy.

Sure, there would be more physical space to deploy more tanks, but you can't do it because your doctrine says a few tanks spread out is enough.

If you research better tank doctrines, you learn to concentrate your tanks for breakthroughs and armored spearheads. Hence, you are allowed to have more tanks at the front line.

I think the key is to see front line not only as a dimension in space. How many thousand tanks could you pile up along a 30 km front line, if space would be the only thing to consider, and not tactics?

 

[unmerged(52476)]

Yea.. and here comes the odd question.. (maytbe already answered long ago but i have the memory of a fish)

Will there be a maximum of brigades allowed per division?

There has been lots of speculation, but no official word on that.

 

[King]

Think of it that way:

If you have bad tank doctrines, you are using tanks as infantry support, just like the allies at the beginning of the war. Thus, you have your tanks spread out over your infantry. Only a few tanks per infantry unit, and you are happy.

Sure, there would be more physical space to deploy more tanks, but you can't do it because your doctrine says a few tanks spread out is enough.

If you research better tank doctrines, you learn to concentrate your tanks for breakthroughs and armored spearheads. Hence, you are allowed to have more tanks at the front line.

I think the key is to see front line not only as a dimension in space. How many thousand tanks could you pile up along a 30 km front line, if space would be the only thing to consider, and not tactics?

Got it in 1.

 

[Zaki]

Think of it that way:

If you have bad tank doctrines, you are using tanks as infantry support, just like the allies at the beginning of the war. Thus, you have your tanks spread out over your infantry. Only a few tanks per infantry unit, and you are happy.

Sure, there would be more physical space to deploy more tanks, but you can't do it because your doctrine says a few tanks spread out is enough.

If you research better tank doctrines, you learn to concentrate your tanks for breakthroughs and armored spearheads. Hence, you are allowed to have more tanks at the front line.

I think the key is to see front line not only as a dimension in space. How many thousand tanks could you pile up along a 30 km front line, if space would be the only thing to consider, and not tactics?

Hm. An armored spearhead is something that happens on a narrow section of frontline, right? And in the blitzkrieg warfare actions are performed in a swift and bold manner, so enemy has no time to organize and confront you with the same number of units that he usually would. Some defending units are forced to withdraw, or even surrender, without seeing any action at all.

Now, I know that Johan is in the dev team, and if he says something is going to be such and such, then it's true, but I just don't follow this logic. So the blitzkrieg doctrine will give you the possibility to use more tanks in the same area than somebody who's implemented another doctrine, right? Well, I just don't think that this was the essence of the blitzkrieg. I mean, if the goal was to model the use of tanks in specialized, armored units, this was already achieved with the existence of armored brigades. German armored brigades wasn't better than French or British in 1940 because they were consisted of more tanks, or even because they had better tanks, but because they had better command, better coordination with air forces and stuff like that.

Of course, I might be mighty wrong...

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Think of it as being able to bring more mechanised units to the part of the front where they are needed (and count those which are where they aren't needed as reserves) or being able to extend the front in the 2nd dimension by sending a spearhead through a local breakthrough point, then.

 

[Chaplain]

So the blitzkrieg doctrine will give you the possibility to use more tanks in the same area than somebody who's implemented another doctrine, right? Well, I just don't think that this was the essence of the blitzkrieg.

Ahem ... uhm, I believe that is exactly what the blitzkrieg doctrine was all about - specialized armor units operating independently on narrow frontages to achieve critical breakthroughs with fast-moving troops. The Allies didn't understand this (well, Hart did, but nobody listened) and consequently were overwhelmed by it.

 

[Zaki]

Ahem ... uhm, I believe that is exactly what the blitzkrieg doctrine was all about - specialized armor units operating independently on narrow frontages to achieve critical breakthroughs with fast-moving troops. The Allies didn't understand this (well, Hart did, but nobody listened) and consequently were overwhelmed by it.

Narrow frontages, say you? Then so say we all. Except Johan. He's not talking about narrowing frontages; he's talking about amassing units.

And Allies will (and did) have armored brigades, too, as they did in every installment of the HoI.

But it's ok. I mean, I'll play the game anyway; I'm just missing something here.

 

[Darkrenown]

Will attacks still be instant? One thing that bothered me in HoI2 was being able to pause whenever you were attacked (or not pause and just react fast) and send any nearby defenders to attack the attacker in his flanks. I know counterattacks are a part of war, but no one could go from full dug in defence to all out attack in ~ an hour.

 

[mbabbs]

Will attacks still be instant? One thing that bothered me in HoI2 was being able to pause whenever you were attacked (or not pause and just react fast) and send any nearby defenders to attack the attacker in his flanks. I know counterattacks are a part of war, but no one could go from full dug in defence to all out attack in ~ an hour.

Yes agreed. The whole being able to move units instantaneously thing is a bit gamey for me, particularly those with low org.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

But in reality, divisison A could have a standing order to carry out a flank attack when division B is attacked from a specified direction and the local recon units would alert division A (and B) when enemies are moving up for the specified type of attack.

 

[mbabbs]

But in reality, divisison A could have a standing order to carry out a flank attack when division B is attacked from a specified direction and the local recon units would alert division A (and B) when enemies are moving up for the specified type of attack.

Which is why I like the suggestion of deployments and stances in this thread,

Land movement

 

[Razor]

Very nice information in this developer diary! Keep up the good work!

The map is absolutely marvellous!

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Will we be able to pick who goes first into the line? In other words, if I'm defending can I put my militia units up front to absorb the attack, then my good infantry units will then fill in as they fall out? Would also be useful on the attack, especially for those armies filled with large numbers of low quality units.

Also, I am interested in the user interface. Will there be a tooltip that will let me know how many units I can deploy on the frontline, and how many will be kept in reserve, or perhaps how many are left in reserve. This will become rather useful in larger battles, where you are regularly exceeding the set max. The screen shot may show this, but my lovely government computer won't show it.

 

[Modestus]

Think of it that way:

If you have bad tank doctrines, you are using tanks as infantry support, just like the allies at the beginning of the war. Thus, you have your tanks spread out over your infantry. Only a few tanks per infantry unit, and you are happy.

Sure, there would be more physical space to deploy more tanks, but you can't do it because your doctrine says a few tanks spread out is enough.

If you research better tank doctrines, you learn to concentrate your tanks for breakthroughs and armored spearheads. Hence, you are allowed to have more tanks at the front line.

I think the key is to see front line not only as a dimension in space. How many thousand tanks could you pile up along a 30 km front line, if space would be the only thing to consider, and not tactics?

I understand what your saying but I fail to understand how it works. I am assuming that having a blitzkrieg doctrine narrows the frontage of an armored unit and this then allows more units to fight in the front line but only because you can stay below or equal to the maximum frontage level.

Am I now to assume that if you exceed the maximum province frontage level a certain doctrine may also mean that a certain type of unit will deploy to the front line?

Assuming that your are nowhere near the maximum frontage for a province whats the difference between (5 PZ divisions + blitzkrieg doctrine) V (5 tank divisions + Infantry support doctrine) as regards frontage?

 

[blue emu]

Assuming that your are nowhere near the maximum frontage for a province whats the difference between (5 PZ divisions + blitzkrieg doctrine) V (5 tank divisions + Infantry support doctrine) as regards frontage?

Just guessing here... but some games use a mechanic that translates roughly into : "How many of our guys can overlap the opposing line?"

Possibly Paradox has a similar game mechanic in mind... in which case narrower Tank unit frontages will naturally lead to more Tank units actually in action (instead of just waiting in reserve).

Also, I suspect that the Blitzkreig doctrine path will have many other, additional effects on the combat examples that we're examining.