Diminishing Returns

[unmerged(64214)]

After playing HOI2 for a while I began to get frustrated by the unbalancing effect of airpower. I think this can be solved fairly simply by applying a formula that produces diminishing returns (or perhaps an inverse square rule). So initially airstrikes are very effective against a retreating target, as soldiers and vehicles are killed and destroyed further airstrikes become less effective. This could emulate the greater difficulty in finding a target in the province, lower density of soldiers etc.

I also think that there should be greater use of battle fatigue on soldiers and equipment. So as units are used more frequently they become more vulnerable. This is to reflect breakdown in equipment, wear and tear, and fatigue. I understand that org sort of reflects this, but I don't think that org is the right measure. A very low org unit can be forced to retreat quickly, but not take many casualties, whereas a very fatigued unit in retreat should take many casualties. It would also prevent endless airstrikes by the same airfleets. If they are constantly flying for months on end the planes will break down as they are never serviced. It would slow ground advances and stop huge pockets by single tank divisions driving from Leningrad to Baku. I think it would actually force players to use more tactics.

Diminishing returns can be used in all aspects of the game, and will give a more realistic feel. Almost everything in our daily lives is governed by it, from gravity to electricity.

Oh, and please can we have supply depots. Perhaps as a structure for a province. That way you could create supply points close to the front line, or supply points at regular intervals to try and prevent pockets. They could also become a target (if found) and could be captured by the enemy.

Cheese

 

[Volt]

petition signed.
oh well, and as far as I understand it, supplies will be province-based. Just read the last development diary

 

[Jerzul]

After playing HOI2 for a while I began to get frustrated by the unbalancing effect of airpower. I think this can be solved fairly simply by applying a formula that produces diminishing returns (or perhaps an inverse square rule). So initially airstrikes are very effective against a retreating target, as soldiers and vehicles are killed and destroyed further airstrikes become less effective. This could emulate the greater difficulty in finding a target in the province, lower density of soldiers etc.

I also think that there should be greater use of battle fatigue on soldiers and equipment. So as units are used more frequently they become more vulnerable. This is to reflect breakdown in equipment, wear and tear, and fatigue. I understand that org sort of reflects this, but I don't think that org is the right measure. A very low org unit can be forced to retreat quickly, but not take many casualties, whereas a very fatigued unit in retreat should take many casualties. It would also prevent endless airstrikes by the same airfleets. If they are constantly flying for months on end the planes will break down as they are never serviced. It would slow ground advances and stop huge pockets by single tank divisions driving from Leningrad to Baku. I think it would actually force players to use more tactics.

Diminishing returns can be used in all aspects of the game, and will give a more realistic feel. Almost everything in our daily lives is governed by it, from gravity to electricity.

Oh, and please can we have supply depots. Perhaps as a structure for a province. That way you could create supply points close to the front line, or supply points at regular intervals to try and prevent pockets. They could also become a target (if found) and could be captured by the enemy.

Cheese

I think some of your concerns with the retreating units being demolished by air power are going to be settled simply by the size of the map. With 10,000 provinces retreat times (and move times for that matter) should go way down because you don't actually have to travel as far to get back to your own province.

 

[jasond363]

I remember reading something in one of the development diaries about units being supplied whilst encircled. I think each unit will consume it's own supplies for a while before running out. That's not really what you wanted in terms of supply depos but its a step forward.

 

[Battlecry]

I remember reading something in one of the development diaries about units being supplied whilst encircled. I think each unit will consume it's own supplies for a while before running out. That's not really what you wanted in terms of supply depos but its a step forward.

Provinces will have stockpiles of supplies, and units will each carry a certain amount of their own. In cases of encirclement both of these sources will have to be depleted before the unit encircled is actually 'out of supply'.

 

[unmerged(64214)]

"I think some of your concerns with the retreating units being demolished by air power are going to be settled simply by the size of the map."

That's true, although I still feel it should be progressively harder to eliminate units.

"Provinces will have stockpiles of supplies, and units will each carry a certain amount of their own. In cases of encirclement both of these sources will have to be depleted before the unit encircled is actually 'out of supply'."

that's good. I wonder if you can increase the supply of particular provinces? And can you capture the supply in enemy provinces?

 

[FOARP]

Absolutely agree. It is stupid for infantry divisions to be completely destroyed whilst moving deep within your territory where they might easily find camouflage and shelter, but able to survive at the front-line where they are dug in. Whilst dense masses should certainly suffer heavy losses, as they thin the effectiveness of bombing should decrease as it becomes harder to find the enemy, it should not be possible for them to be destroyed completely by air attack, only ground forces should be capable of annihilating the remaining elements.

 

[dublish]

My guess is frontage will come into play again. We already know there will be a penalty for units in combat in a province whose frontage is not filled, so why can't there be a penalty for air units attacking units in a province whose frontage is not filled (i.e. the troops are dispersed enough that air attacks will be ineffective)? Applying a similar penalty based on the assumption that retreating units disperse naturally shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[egslim]

After playing HOI2 for a while I began to get frustrated by the unbalancing effect of airpower.

I remember an early version of HOI2 - pre-DD - when airpower was much weaker. Still I was able to use it with absolutely devastating effect to wipe out some 200 divisions in the space of a year. But the key was exhaustive micromanagement, everytime an airwing attacked a a suboptimal target I would reassign them until they finally got it right.

The problem with airpower is that its effect is very much proportional to the amount of micromanagement you put in. Too little micromanagement and it's ineffective, too much and you go insane. Currently HOI2 airpower is balanced for very little micromanagement. If you manage only a little more it becomes overpowered.

The ideal solution for HOI3 would be elective automation, where the AI is able to select and engage its most optimal targets according to a priority list. For example:
1 - active combats
2 - advancing units
3 - retreating units
4 - moving units
5 - if none of above available switch to nearby region.
This way airpower can be balanced (nerfed) for more micromanagement without making players go insane.

 

[potski]

My guess is frontage will come into play again. We already know there will be a penalty for units in combat in a province whose frontage is not filled, so why can't there be a penalty for air units attacking units in a province whose frontage is not filled (i.e. the troops are dispersed enough that air attacks will be ineffective)? Applying a similar penalty based on the assumption that retreating units disperse naturally shouldn't be too difficult.

What about also taking something from the new naval rules - that you might know a Div is in a province, but not necessarily be able to find it, or at least, find good targets. A small HOI3 land province is not as big as a sea area, but it is still about 700-800 sq.km. More Divs in the province, then the more likely you are to find targets to hit.

If instead of just crude numbers of Divs, you take account of the strength of Divs to allow for different numbers of Bde's, then the more you reduce the strength of a single Div, the more difficult it should become to further find targets. Especially if they are on the move, as they could easily change position quite considerably during the night and air patrols would need to identify their new positions each day before they could attack them.

If dug-in, and therefore stationary, then you should usually just be able to come back time and again to the same positions. It would be easier to identify positions/targets, but more difficult to cause any damage.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Here's the problem with airpower - it used to be realistic in HOI2 on release. Then people started bitching en masse because their wonderful airforce wasn't delivering Hollywood-like carnage, so it got an upgrade.

 

[Radu]

What about also taking something from the new naval rules - that you might know a Div is in a province, but not necessarily be able to find it, or at least, find good targets. A small HOI3 land province is not as big as a sea area, but it is still about 700-800 sq.km. More Divs in the province, then the more likely you are to find targets to hit.

If instead of just crude numbers of Divs, you take account of the strength of Divs to allow for different numbers of Bde's, then the more you reduce the strength of a single Div, the more difficult it should become to further find targets. Especially if they are on the move, as they could easily change position quite considerably during the night and air patrols would need to identify their new positions each day before they could attack them.

If dug-in, and therefore stationary, then you should usually just be able to come back time and again to the same positions. It would be easier to identify positions/targets, but more difficult to cause any damage.

I don't think that could work. The scale is different for one,and the dynamics are different too. On land the very nature of ground units and logistics demand that they stay,strategically in contact.

At sea units can be "lost",but not on ground.

Again,the dynamics are very-very different, and that's quite a trap.

The truth is that naval combat is actually,by its nature,much closer to the "tactical" than land or air. "tactical" things matter much more for naval combat (speed,armor,detection,etc). "Detection" values vs ground units would have no place in the game whatsoever.

Thus cross-overs from navy to land should be very limited,if at all.One of the worst thing in HOI2 was the fact that naval combat and air combat were "derived" from land combat,when things simply don't work that way.

Land,air and naval combat should actually be completely different and have their own separate mechanics.

 

[ROMANU]

and also the defence advantaje is being given by the nature of the terrain,

mountains>hills>forrests>fields>desert

 

[unmerged(64214)]

Radu, I think you could use 'detection' values for ground combat. I do agree that you would need a different system to Naval combat though.

ROMANU, yeah it does seem currently that it's very easy to airstrke units to death in mountains when really this would have been hard.

If it were possible to model the difficulty in continuously running airstrikes for months on end without the aircraft breaking down, that would be an easy solution. Players just wouldn't run continuous airstrikes.

The use of a simple mathematical formula, such as an inverse square, could actually approximate the reduction in effectiveness of airpower very easily. I don't think the problem has a complicated solution, but I think it does need A solution.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Diminishing returns for airpower damage would enable paradox to increase the SUPPORT value of airstrikes massively without making them overpowered. Thats why I like the idea, because it actually rewards you for using the airforce as a general support to a ground advance and not as an independent sniper rifle to boom-headshoot retreating tank divisions.

But we also need a better AI.
What to keep from HoI2: priority to supporting combat.
What to not keep from HoI2: selecting a single fully dug in HQ behind enemy lines for zero damage because its the only solo division.

So a HoI3 air AI with diminishing returns would have priorities to support combat, and to target divisions with high strenght and org values / low dug in (for maximum damage).

 

[unmerged(105596)]

Diminishing returns, definately. For a simple example, air bombing could take out a certain percent of unit's current strength. Thus the amount of damage delivered would be lower as bombing continued, simulating fewer troops in a certain area being harder to find.

Another thing, which could have something to do with this new frontage thing also, is that I always wondered why bombing superstacks was impossible in Arma. Planes took terrible losses and delivered no damage at all, even though there were half a million men gathered on a small island! Although superstacks are supposedly now gone for good, larger concentration of men and materiel should indicate easier targets for aircraft, not harder.

 

[Thunda]

I'll tend to go along with this one.

I've just dusted off Doomsday and had a game - but made it a little alternative.

As Germany I invaded Russia from Bulgaria and landing in Svestapol. I piled up Strat and CAS Bombers and effectively destroyed the Red Army has they relocated to the Crimea .. took only 12 tank divisions to cut through what was left and I had them Annexed in 6 months.

 

[unmerged(64214)]

Thunda,
It does seem that to get a good contest with the AI you need to arbitrarily restrict the aount of air support you use, which is disappointing.

What do people think of the battle fatigue idea, whether there is a need for a measure of how fatigued units are. I can't imagine that units would be able to be deployed for years on end, constantly fighting. Is there a need to show how fatigued units are?