Dissent and "live" value

[rommel_sniper]

Hi, I have 2 ideas that I think they would be easy to implent and they would make HOI more realistic without affecting to the fun.


1st Dissent value.

I think dissent value is bad done. Some people thinks that if some country loses 100 divisions in a battle, dissent will raise up.

Others said that when germany was loosing, the industries of Germany produced same.

For that reason, I have an idea.

Dissent will affect to IC but the % will be like partisans. I explain myself.
If German dissent is (for example) 20% they will lost 0 IC.
If German dissent is (for example) 60% they will lost 30% IC
If German dissent is (for example) 100% they will lost 100% IC


What is more, when the country starts a war, the IC lost will be smaller.

Historical facts: In any country the dissent was 0. Including Germany there were people who were not agree with German politic, and for example Rommel didn't like Nacionalism goberment. But that little dissent didn't affect to IC

In spain, people who hate republic was enormous. First all the "nacional" people (who were almoust the 50%). Second the Anarchist (who were a lot) Third Comunism people who wanted a URSS regimen. For that reason the dissent value would be more than 70% and this affected a lot in industry (Lot of strikes etc).
Anyway, when war started, people left make strikes and start fighting (The IC lost will be down) but the war didn't affected, for example, in soldier eficacy.


What do you think??


The "Life" value will be a generic value in Defense part. There are specialy lot of boats and airoplanes that they were very fragile but they could maniobrate well or they were speedy etc and enemys failed when they shot them. This is imposible to make in HOI2. Or we gave them lot of defense (that is not real for example that a Destructor had got the same defense value that a battleship) or we give them extremelly few deffense (that is nor true for example that a battleship always hit to a destructor)


What do you think??


thanks for read it

 

[Driggsd]

Hi, I have 2 ideas that I think they would be easy to implent and they would make HOI more realistic without affecting to the fun.


1st Dissent value.

I think dissent value is bad done. Some people thinks that if some country loses 100 divisions in a battle, dissent will raise up.

Others said that when germany was loosing, the industries of Germany produced same.

For that reason, I have an idea.

Dissent will affect to IC but the % will be like partisans. I explain myself.
If German dissent is (for example) 20% they will lost 0 IC.
If German dissent is (for example) 60% they will lost 30% IC
If German dissent is (for example) 100% they will lost 100% IC


What is more, when the country starts a war, the IC lost will be smaller.

Historical facts: In any country the dissent was 0. Including Germany there were people who were not agree with German politic, and for example Rommel didn't like Nacionalism goberment. But that little dissent didn't affect to IC

In spain, people who hate republic was enormous. First all the "nacional" people (who were almoust the 50%). Second the Anarchist (who were a lot) Third Comunism people who wanted a URSS regimen. For that reason the dissent value would be more than 70% and this affected a lot in industry (Lot of strikes etc).
Anyway, when war started, people left make strikes and start fighting (The IC lost will be down) but the war didn't affected, for example, in soldier eficacy.


What do you think??


The "Life" value will be a generic value in Defense part. There are specialy lot of boats and airoplanes that they were very fragile but they could maniobrate well or they were speedy etc and enemys failed when they shot them. This is imposible to make in HOI2. Or we gave them lot of defense (that is not real for example that a Destructor had got the same defense value that a battleship) or we give them extremelly few deffense (that is nor true for example that a battleship always hit to a destructor)


What do you think??


thanks for read it

Hmm. Spanish?

Ok lets sort this out mate.

1. What you are saying is that there should be a basic dissent value for all countries because not all people will agree with the goverment.

I can understand your arguement. I think that it is already built into the game. You have the gearing up for war events and such. However in any goverment you will have a group of people who will dissent no matter what te goverment does. I dont think there is any reason to include this though. The reason is if the 100% happy person production level of a province is say 100 IC but you will never have 100% happy people. So lets say the maximin % you would have happy is 95% giving you 95 IC. So why not just make the provinces production 95 IC and be done with it!? That way you dont waste time and system resources on a needles calculation.

2. Your "Life" value would be a type of survivability factor. Meaning that a torpedo boat has a relativly high chance of surviving a battle due to its speed dexterity while a BB has a high chance due to its armor belts.

I do think this is already factored into the game also. As you have different attack and defence values. A PT ( american torpedo boat) can dart around the waves and thus in a one on one battle against a cruiser has a decent chance of hitting the CA but would be blown out of the water becuase the CA can focus all armouments on the PT boat. So speed means nothing there. That is why the PT boats were formed into squadrons! You can see this in the game with Subs (U-Boats) when you build them they are flotilas actualy, representing around 5 subs. So the survivabilty of units VS their fragility is already factored in.

With that said. you did have a good idea! And you presented it logicaly with historical examples. Good on you! And what more you did it in a luanguage that I am guessing is not you native tounge. Well done mate.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I echo Driggsd comments, but think you're on to something with the "lives" thing. I find it odd that a BB has the same number of hit points as say a CL. I think strength needs to play a much larger role in HOI 3 than it does currently.

As it stands now, in say a naval battle, a BB takes damage at the same rate as a CL or DD. This is odd. The lighter ships really could only take a couple of hits, even from another light craft. A BB, by design, was supposed to take multiple hits in a 16inch slugging match.

Also, it still amazes me how hard it is to actually inflict strength damage on units in ground combat. When org goes to zero, the unit retreats, but most often still has 100% strength. Though this is sometimes the case (I've seen units trip over themselves doing basic road marches), more often loss of org corresponds with loss of str, as in soldiers going down, leaders are killed or out of contact, tanks are blown up (in this era, command tanks - not all had radios), etc.

Thus, I propose that org loss and strength loss must be linked, perhaps by a simple ratio of 2 org for 1 str, or along those lines.

Thoughts?

 

[unmerged(84607)]

I echo Driggsd comments, but think you're on to something with the "lives" thing. I find it odd that a BB has the same number of hit points as say a CL. I think strength needs to play a much larger role in HOI 3 than it does currently.

As it stands now, in say a naval battle, a BB takes damage at the same rate as a CL or DD. This is odd. The lighter ships really could only take a couple of hits, even from another light craft. A BB, by design, was supposed to take multiple hits in a 16inch slugging match.

Also, it still amazes me how hard it is to actually inflict strength damage on units in ground combat. When org goes to zero, the unit retreats, but most often still has 100% strength. Though this is sometimes the case (I've seen units trip over themselves doing basic road marches), more often loss of org corresponds with loss of str, as in soldiers going down, leaders are killed or out of contact, tanks are blown up (in this era, command tanks - not all had radios), etc.

Thus, I propose that org loss and strength loss must be linked, perhaps by a simple ratio of 2 org for 1 str, or along those lines.

Thoughts?

I agree with you about the ships. A CL would sink from one hit from a BB gun, while a BB could take lots.

With regard to str loss, very seldom did major formations take major strength losses. This is just historic fact. Looking at numbers of battles you quickly find good examples.

At the battle of the bulge, the allies lost 1/10 men (84,323 out of 830,000 men including captured and wounded), meaning the average theatre strength (assuming NO replacements) would have been around 90% after an extremely intense 40 day campaign. The battle is famous for the very high casualties the allies suffered in the beginning when the German offensive caught them completely off guard.

As a sub-battle, the 101st Airbornes defence of Bastogne cost 1,000 of 11,000 troops in casulaties. This is also famous for high casulalties.

For the eastern front numbers are hard to be certain about since the two sides claimed totally different results but I tend to trust the Germans more. Say what you will about them, they kept the books... At Kursk for instance, the Germans claimed to have lost no more than 50,000 men out of a deployed 800,000 (the Russians claimed to have killed half a million, the truth is probably, again, around 10%). Again, 90% Strength after 50 days of intense fighting assuming zero replacements.

Turning off reinforcements and trying to wage a major east front offensive in '43 against a well prepared Soviet line with twice the troops in HoI2 would probably reduce the divisions substantially more than that. Especially including the Soviet counteroffensive.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I agree with you about the ships. A CL would sink from one hit from a BB gun, while a BB could take lots.

With regard to str loss, very seldom did major formations take major strength losses. This is just historic fact. Looking at numbers of battles you quickly find good examples.

At the battle of the bulge, the allies lost 1/10 men (84,323 out of 830,000 men including captured and wounded), meaning the average theatre strength (assuming NO replacements) would have been around 90% after an extremely intense 40 day campaign. The battle is famous for the very high casualties the allies suffered in the beginning when the German offensive caught them completely off guard.

As a sub-battle, the 101st Airbornes defence of Bastogne cost 1,000 of 11,000 troops in casulaties. This is also famous for high casulalties.

For the eastern front numbers are hard to be certain about since the two sides claimed totally different results but I tend to trust the Germans more. Say what you will about them, they kept the books... At Kursk for instance, the Germans claimed to have lost no more than 50,000 men out of a deployed 800,000 (the Russians claimed to have killed half a million, the truth is probably, again, around 10%). Again, 90% Strength after 50 days of intense fighting assuming zero replacements.

Turning off reinforcements and trying to wage a major east front offensive in '43 against a well prepared Soviet line with twice the troops in HoI2 would probably reduce the divisions substantially more than that. Especially including the Soviet counteroffensive.

good points.

Are you talking about killed or total casualties (killed, wounded, captured)? Also, though it may not sound like a lot, 1/10 or 1/11 is HUGE when it comes to seeing guys around you die.

Without looking up exact numbers, I know US infantry divisions were at something like 100% to 150% casualty by the end of the war. These numbers were taken from the total number authorized in the division, divided against the total number of casualties, keeping in mind that some guys were wounded, returned to the front and wounded again (thereby counting twice).

Also, keep in mind that the STR of a unit really represents the fighting soldier. US units had lots of support echelon folks that were not necessarily on the front lines, but contributed in some way. That said, you strip all the infantrymen out of a division, and I love the cooks, truck drivers, etc, but they won't be an infantry division.

 

[rommel_sniper]

Yes I am Spanish.

1º When I am speak about a natural dissen value is not only that. I explain it.

When a nation has got a dissent, this dissen don't affect to the IC if it is not high. If 10% of people don't want this goberment, the strikes will not have the power of the strikes with 50% people agree. 2nd strike will be much more than 5 times effective (which in now's sistem will be like this)

2º "life" value I think onl will be with machinges. More than "life" , the command I want to be implemented it is "structural points".

A bombardement will have more difficulty to scape from AA weapons (few defense) in comparison with a multi-role (high defense) But if a bombardement recieved fire, it is more possible that the bombardement still alive than the multi-role.

Better??


(I am sorry about my english, but it is supposed I have got FCE with B xD)

 

[Driggsd]

Yes I am Spanish.

1º When I am speak about a natural dissen value is not only that. I explain it.

When a nation has got a dissent, this dissen don't affect to the IC if it is not high. If 10% of people don't want this goberment, the strikes will not have the power of the strikes with 50% people agree. 2nd strike will be much more than 5 times effective (which in now's sistem will be like this)

2º "life" value I think onl will be with machinges. More than "life" , the command I want to be implemented it is "structural points".

A bombardement will have more difficulty to scape from AA weapons (few defense) in comparison with a multi-role (high defense) But if a bombardement recieved fire, it is more possible that the bombardement still alive than the multi-role.

Better??


(I am sorry about my english, but it is supposed I have got FCE with B xD)

You are doing fine mate. Please dont think I am making fun of you. I am not.

1. In the game the type of goverment has alot to do with the dissent value. I agree that 50% of your work force striking causes more loss then 5%. But if you have a dissent of 50% in a fascists goverment, then they will be shot when striking, and most of the rest will go back to work. However in a democracy then 50% striking would cuase a massive upset in the goverment and possibly a revolt. Which is already factored in in the game. You can affect it with the sliders. But the partisan factor also takes into account the dissent value. If you want an example. Start a new 1936 games as the US. Then declare war on Mexico. You will see your partisan/revolt risk shoot up. That is not because americans realy want to overthrow the goverment. It is becuase they are unhappy and are dissenting. Strikes, work stopages, protests.....ECT.

2. I understand what you are saying. Totaly. But like i said before the units in HOI represent mutiple planes, or small boats. When it comes to fighters I believe it is 1 icon represents 20 fighters. Bombers is 1 to 10. Destroyers is 1 to 8. And subs are 1 to 5. I could be wrong here and maybe a developer can give you the exact numbers.

Multi role (0tech) has a surface defence= 7
Tac (0tech) has a surfacedefence = 4
CAS (0 tech) has a surfacedefence = 4

This shows that the developers have already factored in what you were talking about in your first post. If I put 100 rounds of 30cal anti air into a Fighter it is going down, but if I do it into a Tactical bomber probably not. But the defense values take into effect it is harder to hit the individual fighters then it is the individual bombers. Also there are probably twice as many fighters then bombers.

Again I am not faulting your logic here. Just saying it is already implimented.

 

[rommel_sniper]

Driggsd, thank you for your cheerings, I didn't think you were laughtin and me

Firstly, I know that in a democratic goverment the dissent is higher than in fascism but is not the think I am speaking about

With a 5% dissent in fascism, the police will shot them and the others will dessapear (no problem)
But with a 50% dissent, it is difficult to the police to anniquilate a half of the population. Also, lot of polices will be agree with dissidents.

in HOI2, with a 5% dissent, democratic and fascist lost 5% IC (it exist that the dissent value grows easilly in democratic goverment, but not more)
It is evident that with my system, in democratic goberment will be more dissent than in fascism etc, like now in HOI2, but I want realle IC lost by dissent.


Secondly, I disagree in what you are saying about "escuadron number". If a multirole division has got 20 planes and tactical bomber 10, then I don't understand why the cost os bomber is higher (it cost more to do 20 planes than 10) In example you have made, TAC and CAS has got the same deffense value, when in real time, CAS will have more deffense (but less "life"/structural points) than TAC. It is nor difficult to make another value (And they have done a lot of value that we can say they where "implimented" like toughtness and deffenseness no?)

 

[Alex_brunius]

At the battle of the bulge, the allies lost 1/10 men (84,323 out of 830,000 men including captured and wounded), meaning the average theatre strength (assuming NO replacements) would have been around 90% after an extremely intense 40 day campaign. The battle is famous for the very high casualties the allies suffered in the beginning when the German offensive caught them completely off guard.

As a sub-battle, the 101st Airbornes defence of Bastogne cost 1,000 of 11,000 troops in casulaties. This is also famous for high casulalties.

For the eastern front numbers are hard to be certain about since the two sides claimed totally different results but I tend to trust the Germans more. Say what you will about them, they kept the books... At Kursk for instance, the Germans claimed to have lost no more than 50,000 men out of a deployed 800,000 (the Russians claimed to have killed half a million, the truth is probably, again, around 10%). Again, 90% Strength after 50 days of intense fighting assuming zero replacements.

Turning off reinforcements and trying to wage a major east front offensive in '43 against a well prepared Soviet line with twice the troops in HoI2 would probably reduce the divisions substantially more than that. Especially including the Soviet counteroffensive.

I disagree with your points. There is a HUGE difference between fighting strenght (represented in HoI2) and total number of men deployed (IRL numbers).

First: Fighting strenght is determined mostly by the number of tanks, aircraft and other materials available. How many % of their tanks did the Germans lose at kursk? I suspect these numbers would be more in line with what you see in HoI2.

Second: Of the total men deployed in a division/army, how many do you think contribute nothing at all or very little to fighting strenght? All chefs, medics, officers & staff, logistics personal(huge numbers), rear personal. I would suspect an almost 50/50 ratio putting fighting strenght lost from Manpower casualties at 20% in those battles.

 

[unmerged(84607)]

I disagree with your points. There is a HUGE difference between fighting strenght (represented in HoI2) and total number of men deployed (IRL numbers).

First: Fighting strenght is determined mostly by the number of tanks, aircraft and other materials available. How many % of their tanks did the Germans lose at kursk? I suspect these numbers would be more in line with what you see in HoI2.

Second: Of the total men deployed in a division/army, how many do you think contribute nothing at all or very little to fighting strenght? All chefs, medics, officers & staff, logistics personal(huge numbers), rear personal. I would suspect an almost 50/50 ratio putting fighting strenght lost from Manpower casualties at 20% in those battles.

It should be noted that in discussing Kursk, we are using as an example on of the most dramatic and extreme engagements during the entire war. The latter part of the battle would be better described as an overrun or an encirclement in HoI. Routes of the type and size of Kursk should not be common, they should occur, as in reality, once or twice per war.

1. According to German numbers, they lost 300 out of 2700 tanks during their Kursk offensive and a further 600 during the Soviet counteroffensive (which became an encirclement and a route, something certainly represented in HoI2. Just over 10% while attacking and some 30% in total. They also lost about 200/2100 aircraft during the first phase. Again in the order of 10%. Further, while a model which separated manpower from equipment strength in terms of damage to a division would be, in many ways, preferable, at the moment, every percent of recovery for a division requires MP - the suggestion thus being that damage to equipment and staff is in proportion (not unreasonable).

2. None. If a man is with a division but does not contribute to the combat strength of the division he should not be there. My personal experience is that the supply and rear personal add just as much or more combat value to a combat formation than the riflemen. When the supply teams fubared (which happened a couple of times), my company was immediately reduced to near zero efficiency. Further, since 75% of casualties in WWII were indirect fire shrapnel casualties, suggesting that rear echelon forces didn't get hit is silly.

 

[Alex_brunius]

2. None. If a man is with a division but does not contribute to the combat strength of the division he should not be there. My personal experience is that the supply and rear personal add just as much or more combat value to a combat formation than the riflemen. When the supply teams fubared (which happened a couple of times), my company was immediately reduced to near zero efficiency. Further, since 75% of casualties in WWII were indirect fire shrapnel casualties, suggesting that rear echelon forces didn't get hit is silly.

Your totally missing my point. If we say that 50% are made up of real "soldiers" whose only job is to fight. Then what would happen if the division is reduced by 50%? Well close to 100% of its combat strenght would be gone since riflemens or soldiers are the first to go. You would be left with a division made up only of truckdrivers, chefs exc exc exc.

And about kursk, For several reasons I really doubt you can trust the numbers the germans claimed they lost here. For soldiers you added 60% more than what they claimed but not for tanks? Adding 60% for tanks would give us, 17.8% loss rate. Even if we (wrongly might I add) subtract the other 900 (33%) because you assume all tanks lost during the soviet counteroffensive was due to surrender/encirclement. Just the thought of 3 out of 4 german tanks crew plain surrendering in the most important german tank battle is mind boggling.
If none of them did infact surrender but all fought to the end we would get a (1200x1.6)/2700 = 71% loss rate of tanks, This is using your own numbers!

You think its not unreasonable to assume staff and equipment losses are roguhly equal? Well I do.

Some american divisions lost 500% of their tanks from landing in normandy to victory. This is with complete and total air superiority (supposed to drastically reduce tank losses). Americas massive industries were working overtime to replace sherman losses (some say their GNP in 1945 was more than the rest of the world COMBINED!).
Its not unreasonable to assume twice as high tank loss rates if enemy have air superiority. That would give us a 1:20 ratio in MP:Tanks lost even if the division suffered a (according to you outlandish) 50% manpower casualty rate for the full campain...

This is why HoI3 Needs to seprate manpower from equipment.

 

[unmerged(84607)]

Your totally missing my point. If we say that 50% are made up of real "soldiers" whose only job is to fight. Then what would happen if the division is reduced by 50%? Well close to 100% of its combat strenght would be gone since riflemens or soldiers are the first to go. You would be left with a division made up only of truckdrivers, chefs exc exc exc.

"riflemens or soldiers are the first to go" - in a universe without indirect fire (except the point about soldiers, but I think most of the division level support staff would object to you defining them as non-soldiers). In reality, support troops often face as high or even higher casualty rates when compared with front line troops due to interdiction targeting by aircraft and artillery (probably not true in famous battles like Kursk but a safe statement when speaking about, for example, the allied advance across eastern France) and the flexibility and unpredictability of the "front" during maneuver warfare.

Also, the 50/50 estimate above is a question of definition. Are you excluding Company level C&C? Brigade Artillery? Divisional Artillery? Engineers? AA? The ammo carrier for a machine gunner? Battlefield Medics? If you are, the numbers can keep falling but I wouldn't exclude any of the above. Note that corps level and above support organizations in HoI are represented by the TC concept, not organically included into the MP usage - drastically reducing the number of soldiers in each formation which would be considered non-combatants.

This is why HoI3 Needs to seprate manpower from equipment.

Not disagreeing, but I don't expect it.

 

[rommel_sniper]

I hope to be included too, but if I am sincered, I am not sure if you are agree or disagree with my idea xD