Division Design - Alternative for XP System (for Podcat )

[Radu]

Podcat, you have stated that the main motivator behind the XP system used in the Division "builder" is to act as a "hindsight break", to represent the institutional/doctrinal "inertia" of the pre-war period.

Trying to placate hindsight is ok, but I feel that the XP system misses the point by acting as a simple "division size limiter".

The revolution in land warfare seen in WWII had -nothing- to do with division sizes!

Simply adding or removing Infantry Battalions from an Infantry Division isn't an earth-shattering revolution of military affairs.

Yes, there should be a limit to the number of Templates "Active" for a given Division Type, but the Division Templates themselves shouldn't "cost" anything to draw up. (Of course they should "cost" to implement, as divisions that transition from one Template to another should enter a "reorganization" mode that makes them unfit to fight, similarly to how Brigade Type Upgrading worked in HOI3, like MOT->MECH for example).

Divisions should be as big or small as the player/AI demands (within realistic limits), with reorganization time (and maybe symbolic resource cost, outside of actual equipment/manpower pool transfers) as the only price to pay for the transition.

Again, the evolution of wartime doctrines has *nothing* to do with the size of divisions.

But that still leaves the issue of the hindsight.

Here is what I propose :

-----------------------------------------------------------

As far as Land Warfare is concerned, 3 big things happened in WWII :

1) Mobile Warfare (tanks, motorized/mechanized infantry, self-propelled support vehicles)
2) Airborne Warfare (paratroopers)
3) Amphibious Warfare (marines)

These are the 3 big areas that saw sweeping changes. These are the 3 big areas that won entire campaigns in WWII.

What I propose is instead of one unified "Land Combat Experience" variable, to instead split it into 3 :
- "Mobile Warfare Experience"
- "Airborne Warfare Experience"
- "Amphibious Warfare Experience"

Each of these variables affect the performance of corresponding units -directly-.

Thus, Barbarossa 1941 translated into HOI IV would mean that German Armored Formations are more effective than Soviet ones not due to superior equipment (*certainly not due to sheer size!!*) but due to the fact that Germany had been at war since 1939 and it had time to gain combat experience in Mobile Warfare.

But where does "hindsight" enter the picture?

Here's what I propose : Combat Experience->Doctrines->Formations/Equipment.

Germany's Great War lessons learned (Combat Experience) -> led the General Staff to seek new ways to wage war (Doctrines, Germany Path) -> which envisioned tank concentrations (Frontline Tank Battalions) and required tanks to be build according to those specifications (Equipment- Light Tanks).

By contrast, France's Great War lessons learned (Combat Experience) -> led them to develop their own doctrine (Doctrines, France Path) -> which meant tanks are restricted to Infantry Support (Support Tank Battalions) (Equipment - Light Infantry Support Tanks).

In other words, in my proposal, the reason why the player cannot simply take all of France's Tank Battalions and then mash them all together in Tank Divisions is , besides their technical specifications which are woefully unfit for mobile warfare (they're slow) , that the Doctrinal Foundations for Frontline (not Support) Tank Battalions simply didn't exist in pre-war France. France -cannot- build Frontline Tank Battalions, only Support Tank Battalions.

For that to change, the Doctrine must change -> For Doctrine to change, Mobile Warfare Experience needs to be gained -> For Mobile Warfare Experience to be gained, Germany needs to prove that Armor Concentration works (or France needs to confront Germany early).

( --- IMPORTANT NOTE !!! ---It would be wise for Combat Experience gain in peacetime for countries not yet at war to ramp up once war starts reflecting increased scrutiny at the unfolding events. That is, USA's military might be untested in 1942, but that doesn't mean USA's military didn't pay attention to the war so far )

I feel that linking <Corresponding> Combat Experience -to-> <Corresponding> Doctrine Progression -to-> <Corresponding> Formation Unlock creates an elegant, organic way of armed forces to grow.

Here's an example :

Let's say you are Japan. Now, Japan is locked in the same Tank Doctrine as France : Infantry Support. You can only build Support Tank Battalions, not Frontline.

For you to break out of this path, you need to "flex" your Mobile Warfare muscles : you need to engage in combat with your Cavalry/Motorized Formations + Attached Recon Tankettes/Armored Cars. That's your first, primitive, taste of mobile warfare. Once you've "flexed" enough, a "transitional" Doctrine unlocks whereby you can now use Tankettes as Frontline Battalions and you create your first "proto-armored"/"proto-mechanized" division with Motorized Infantry + Tankettes. Use those a bit as well and now you can graduate to "full" Mobile Armored Warfare.

Or another example. Let's say you're Germany. Your Amphibious Warfare Experience isn't very good and you can't field Marine Formations. To fix that, you'll need to use regular infantry and storm some beaches, gain some hands-on experience that you can then formalize into a Doctrine which unlocks Marine Infantry Battalions.

-----------------------------------------

Podcat, what I wrote above might be found useful, or it might be considered utter drivel.

But please,please,PLEASE do not link Division Sizes to Combat Experience.

Combat Experience restricting Division Types? Yes! Certainly! Scenarios like "France cannot yet implement a Frontline Tank Battalion Template" ? Absolutely welcome. "Germany cannot yet build Marines because it lacks Combat Experience"? Of course.

But... "You can field Infantry Divisions with 2 Support Battalions but not 3, because for 3 Support Battalions you would need Heinz Guderian to whisper in your General Staff's ear", that's just silly.

HOI IV should not rely on Division Size restrictions (outside of common-sense realistic ones) for hindsight balance. HOI IV should rely on Division TYPE restrictions instead.

If victory in HOI IV is brought about the fact that I could give my Infantry Divisions extra battalions instead of effective use of Armored/Airborne/Marine + (Airforce/Navy), then that HOI IV is badly implemented.

Please, again, do not link Combat Experience to division sizes, but division types. Division sizes should be "free floating" within sensible limits.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Joppos]

podcat has already confirmed it will be moddable.

That said, i think the system is fine as it is.

Combat experience can probably be looked at in the same way as leadership in hoi3, in that it is an abstracted unit whose name doesn't really fit all functions logically. I see the payment for adding slots as the administrative, evaluative process which it leads to for that particular setup.

 

[Marximus1]

Combat experience im pretty sure wont just effect divisions, but also things like experience upgrades, but i could be wrong

I do feel the the xp cost is a bit silly to effect division size but to be honest i find it alot better than HOI 3

 

[Big Nev]

podcat has already confirmed it will be moddable.

That said, i think the system is fine as it is.

Combat experience can probably be looked at in the same way as leadership in hoi3, in that it is an abstracted unit whose name doesn't really fit all functions logically. I see the payment for adding slots as the administrative, evaluative process which it leads to for that particular setup.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I see it too. Plus, I think it's logical that you need actual experience using multiple types of units in one formation in order to, not just identify where & which additional units (battalions or brigades) would be of benefit, but how to effectively integrate those additional units in to your existing formations.

 

[Radu]

Bit that's the point. A division of 2 x brigade with 3 x battalions is functionally, doctrinally identical to a 3 x or 4 x brigade one. You don't need combat experience or a new doctrine for that.

Certainly reorganizing a division should not be trivial, yes it should stand down until reorganizing.

It's just that using combat experience as the division size currency is unrealistic and bound to cause problems down the line. Rather, combat experience either raw or filtered through doctrines should determine the division type (if you can field arm/abn/mar) and how effective those units are (muscles you flex are muscles toned).

Size big/small should be a resource (men/equipment/supplies) not doctrinal factor.

 

[Secret Master]

Bit that's the point. A division of 2 x brigade with 3 x battalions is functionally, doctrinally identical to a 3 x or 4 x brigade one. You don't need combat experience or a new doctrine for that.

I don't agree at all.

Your assertion here only works if at least some of the following assumptions are in play:

1) A leader can effectively command any size combat formation with the same number of subordinate officers with the same level of competence.

2) Leaders are an infinite commodity.

3) Commanding 1,000 troops is the same as commanding 3,000 troops and commanding 10,000 troops.

4) Combined arms integration is something that scales perfectly from the fire team level to the theater level of command.

5) Logistics are no more complicated for 1,000 troops than 5,000 troops when those troops are in the same location.

I've probably missed a few items. But as far as I'm concerned, none of these things are true in WWII (or for today, for that matter).

Based on HOI3 and podcat's DD, it is clear that a division is meant to be an integrated unit that fights together in a way that corps do not. If that is true, then it makes sense division sizes are limited to some extent by experience and doctrine.

Even in HOI3, just because you picked Superior firepower, it doesn't mean that you add another type of brigade. I am famous for doubling up existing brigades when going to the 5 brigade template because it is simply more powerful. If that is the case, then just letting countries all have the same sized divisions means that even if you disallow some combinations (or types), you'll just end up with people maximizing the number of brigades by duplicating existing and allowed brigade types. We'll be back to cookie cutter divisions that are bland like in the original release of HOI3 in no time.

At least with the current system outlined by podcat, there will be reasons for countries to have different types of division sizes outside of the logistically difficult areas. And that's good, because historically I don't think any country in WWII had divisions that were the same size.

 

[Radu]

Secret Master, I apologize if I come off as acerbic but I must protest for you semi-hijack of my thread. :sad:

Why are you bringing up "leaders" in a thread that has nothing to do with them and has not mentioned them thus far?

The discussion so far centered around the Combat Experience variable of a nation and its interaction (in my opinion, unfortunate) with the size of Division Templates. Leaders don't factor in it.

And even if they did, if by "Leaders" you mean "Officer Pool" as just another resource like "Manpower" and "Equipment" this again underlines the fact that (again, within reasonable limits) the size of a division is limited solely by the resources on hand.

On the other hand if by "Leaders" you mean "Division Leaders" and above, they already have their own "Combat Experience" variables, called the "Skill/Experience" duo with "Traits" sprinkled for flavor. By your rationale a Level 1 Lt. Gen would be restricted to commanding only 2-Division Corps, which is frankly, hogwash, and thankfully no HOI installment thus far was myopic enough to put hard command caps based on Skill because" hey it's a game so we have to make things gamey".

That Paradox suddenly decides "crap it's a game so we have to put something gamey in it" as if they didn't trust realism to provide the fun... at the same time that they treat us with such a mouth-watering Division Template, both realistic and greatly customizable, that's just sad.

But back to my point, commanding 2 to 5 subordinate units, be they Fire Teams, Squads,Companies all the way to Divisions or Corps *is* in fact *the same damn thing* ! That's what doctrine means, that's what operational procedures and tactics mean.

To say that the warfare tenets hold for 3 subordinate units but break down for 5 is like saying the formula for the circle's surface (pi*r*r where r = radius ) is only valid for circles with the radius of less than 10 cm, above there's a different formula. Then that's not a formula. And a doctrine that is only valid for 3 subordinate units but breaks down for 5 is not a doctrine, certainly not a real-world doctrine.

That doctrines hold true for *any* unit size as long as the type ratios are the same is what makes doctrines, well, doctrines! You don't need to write up a new field manual because your cavalry brigades/regiments will now consist of an extra Cavalry Battalion. However, if you add an extra Light Tank Battalion to a Cavalry Formation, *then* things get interesting. But that's the change in a Division's *type* composition that causes things to get interesting, not size.

---------------

However, you do bring up a very valid point!

You say you want to see a realistically diverse array of Division Templates, not just between nations themselves, but also within a nation itself.

I share your desire.

But I think using Combat Experience as a Division Size Unlocker is heavy-handed and causes collateral damage.

Paradox can do better.

Let's think this through.

In real-life, why did nations field divisions with different structures for the same given type ? There are a few reasons, and I feel that Paradox should use those reasons as they provide a soft, organic, natural (listen to me it's as if I'm advertising naturist supplements ) limitation that doesn't intrude on the experience and that meshes itself automatically to each nation :

1) Resources

Transitioning from say a 2 x 3 Battalions division to a 4 x 3 Battalions division, that is, doubling the size, should require Manpower, Equipment and whatever other resources (Officers, maybe?) that are scarce. Plus it also should take time while the division stands down and transitions from one Template to another.

In peacetime... time isn't an issue, but resources are. Hopefully the gradual mobilization of industry and manpower via Laws from HOI 3 is kept in some form. This would better reflect the fact that even Germany or Japan were not fully mobilized pre-1939 and could not afford to immediately double the size of their divisions across the board.

In wartime, resources are not necessarily an issue, but time is. A division needs to stand down to transition Templates and the enemy shouldn't just conveniently wait around.

Thus, one of the reasons is that nations in general fielded different Templates of the same division types is that they lacked the resources and time for sweeping changes.

HOI IV should have that, the fact that Resources and/or Time are scarce and players have to contend with not being able to do everything at the same time.

Simply put, large divisions (or massed divisional reorganization in general) require lots of resources and time, and if HOI IV is balanced right those "lots of resources and time" isn't something that's just lying around within easy reach.

2) Strategic Concerns

While players might not necessarily be able to outright "grow" their divisions across the board, what they can do is "cannibalize" their existing divisions into fewer, larger ones. Disbanding some divisions to "feed" other divisions transitioning to a larger Template.

Now that can work, if the players accept the fact that fewer divisions means less flexibility. See, fewer divisions might not be such a big deal when fighting, for example, in North Africa where the front was narrow... but in Russia with such a huge front width, having fewer maneuver elements means not being able to exploit breakthroughs properly.

So there's a trade-off between combat power and flexibility when transitioning from more divisions of smaller size to fewer ones of bigger size.

Simply put, a 16 Battalion Division of 4 x 4 Battalions can only be in one place at one time. The only thing it can do is just barrel through, attacking the enemy head-on and hope to wear it down via attrition. That may or may not be viable.

On the other hand, the same amount of Battalions split into 4 Divisions of 2 x 2 Battalions yields 4 maneuver elements that can break through, encircle and eliminate the enemy with fewer losses and in less time than if the 16 Battalions just plowed through head-on.

There is also a more subtle but equally important difference between Fewer Big or More Small Divisions : Support Units.

Transitioning to Big Divisions from Small Ones means that Support is "diluted". Simply put, instead of 4 x Artillery Regiments servicing 4x (2 x 2) Divisions,you have 3x Artillery Regiments disbanded and you will only have 1x Artillery Regiment servicing 1x (4 x 4) Division.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that rather than Divisions growing, in real-life, they became smaller!

USA, Japan transitioned from Square to Triangular Divisions. The Soviet Union went to the extreme as its Armored and Mechanized forces were organized into Brigades (divisions with 1 Regiment's worth of frontline Battalions), but each Brigade had a Division's worth of Support.

Imagine having 16 Battalions with 1 x Artillery Regiment backing them up (Big Division) or 16 Battalions with 4 x Artillery Regiments backing them up (4 x Small Divisions). That extra artillery is not a trivial difference, or it shouldn't be.

Thus, if HOI IV is balanced correctly, Big Divisions should actually be the cheaper and less oomph!-packing solution because you have 1 x Support Package servicing X amount of Frontline Battalions, whereas Battalion-number-equivalent of Smaller Divisions more Support Packages each servicing X amount of summed up Frontline Battalions between the small divs.

Larger Numbers of Small Divisions simply have more total Support than Fewer Number Big Divisions. And that extra Support should be worth it.

In closing, Secret Master, I 100% agree that Big Divisions shouldn't be the be-all-end-all standard for HOI IV.

However, an XP Locking system which is unrealistic and cumbersomely shoehorned in is not necessary to achieve that.

Rather, scarcity of resources + a realistic pay-off in fielding more support per same amount of Frontline Battalions ( for example 1 x Artillery per 16 Battalions of a (4x4 Battalions) Big Div -vs- 4 x Artillery per 16 Battalions for equivalent smaller 4 x (2x2 Battalions) Divisions )

Thus, the with realistic mechanics in place people will naturally gravitate towards realistically,historically making their divisions smaller with more support associated, rather than just uniformly bloating their divisions.

All I'm saying that realism of resources and realism of units serve the purpose of diversity much better than the unrealistic hammer of the XP system.

 

[unmerged(83175)]

Yes, I can agree with you Radu.

Now for HoI4 it seems, if you level up you can make bigger divisions. But this is ahistorical and unlogical. It's not like a RPG where you earn experience that levels your character up from level 6 to 7 and results in 5 new points that you give to the intelligence, strength, dexterity ... stat.

 

[mursolini]

I don`t think you only pay to increase division size. I think you pay for any change in the existing template, thus forcing you to consider how you will reorganise your divisions, and you can`t reorganise your starting army overnight.

If you can build a type of Division, you have access to a basic/historical Division Template, and you can customise it using Land Combat Experience. You can use Experience to swap out Battalions, or unlock either new Brigades or Battalions, but you cannot simply optimise your division makeup on day 1. Despite the name, you earn a little Land Combat Experience even while at peace, but the primary gain is from combat.

At least, that is how I would read the quote. You can add additional batalions for EXP, you can substract battalions, but that also costs EXP.

 

[Radu]

Yes, I can agree with you Radu.

Now for HoI4 it seems, if you level up you can make bigger divisions. But this is ahistorical and unlogical. It's not like a RPG where you earn experience that levels your character up from level 6 to 7 and results in 5 new points that you give to the intelligence, strength, dexterity ... stat.

Which is sad because realistically divisions only got smaller (for all nations) as the war dragged on (and more numerous, in general = higher Artillery & Other Support ratio per Frontline Battalion).

 

[Alex_brunius]

It's not like a RPG where you earn experience that levels your character up from level 6 to 7

You mean it's not like a HoI3 game where you earn experience to level up your leaders / generals from level 6 to 7 and unlock new bonuses? or wait....?

 

[unmerged(83175)]

You mean it's not like a HoI3 game where you earn experience to level up your leaders / generals from level 6 to 7 and unlock new bonuses? or wait....?

Sigh, what are you talking about???? I am talking about experience for unlocking your division size, not about experience for leaders which is normal. Experience for leaders as in previous HoI titles is just fine.
Infact a bigger RPG element for leaders would be fantastic.

Looking at your response, I wonder are you trolling?

 

[Radu]

The same thing that's scary when somebody uses a shotgun on a mosquito. It's overkill.

Locking off the -size- of a Division, of all things. Not Composition, not Force Rations, not things that are realistically subject to Doctrinal considerations, no, the freakin -size-, is overkill.

Explain to me how increasing the size of an Infantry Division from 4 x Infantry Bns to 6 x Infantry Bns requires a Doctrinal change?

Because Fielding Armored/Mechanized Formations, damn straight you need a solid Doctrinal Foundation and/or Combat Experience! Agreed! Airborne? Same, sure. Marine? Of course.

But the size? Of all divisions, no matter their type? That's nonsense.

Especially since again, divisions got smaller if the war progressed. By Paradox's skewed rationale bigger is better. And that's just not true.

And please don't bring the "you don't like change" argument. So far, every other feature revealed makes sense.

But XP limiting the size, Good Lord, the size! not type (which would make sense), but size!, even if we're talking about Infantry Divisions where adding/removing Battalions which is -not- a doctrinal issue... *that* has absolutely no grounding in reality.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Sigh, what are you talking about???? I am talking about experience for unlocking your division size, not about experience for leaders which is normal. Experience for leaders as in previous HoI titles is just fine.
Infact a bigger RPG element for leaders would be fantastic.

Why is experience for the leaders commanding troops fantastic, but experience for the leaders responsible of organizing your divisional structure a horrible thing?

What is so bad about a new fresh game concept?



IMO while it may not be 100% historical accurate in case divisions did not in fact get bigger as time progressed, it has the potential to add alot of immersion as you can gradually develop your divisions as the war progresses and your staff get experience and feedback from the field what combinations work and which ones don't.

 

[Radu]

Why is experience for the leaders commanding troops fantastic, but experience for the leaders responsible of organizing your divisional structure a horrible thing?

What is so bad about a new fresh game concept?

Uh, dude... The progression of divisional structures throughout World War II saw divisions getting -smaller- . How in the heck does that translate to an "XP" system preventing divisions getting bigger. Not divisions having certain structures, or force ratios, no, apparently that's not relevant to Paradox, not, it's about Paradox being afraid players will field BIG divisions when historically divisions got smaller.

This makes NO sense, fresh or not.

EDIT : Wait, so we're throwing realism out the window by saying "Oh black is white", "Instead of divisions getting smaller, they are now getting bigger, same difference, right?"! Okay, then why does Paradox even bother creating these realistic TO&E-like structures?

 

[vonhavoc]

The point SecretMaster made about leaders is valid, as it was a practical limiting factor for efficient use of certain amount of troops. If one were to go over the capacity of the HQ leaders, some troops would not be receiving higher level orders and would not thus be able to operate as efficiently. How so? Since they would not be able to co-ordinate their efforts properly. After all, there is only a limited number of hours in a day during which a limited number of officers has to lead the troops. There is a limit.

I briefly touched on this matter in the DD thread.

 

[Alex_brunius]

"Instead of divisions getting smaller, they are now getting bigger, same difference,

Bigger is always better, everyone knows that

 

[Secret Master]

Secret Master, I apologize if I come off as acerbic but I must protest for you semi-hijack of my thread. :sad:

Why are you bringing up "leaders" in a thread that has nothing to do with them and has not mentioned them thus far?

Because in any real world army, how leaders are trained, function, and how their staff officers execute orders is a vital component of how wars have been fought for as long as I can remember.

Zhukov commanding 1,000 troops in 1920, is simply not the same thing as Zhukov commanding 5,000 troops in 1939 and is definitely not the same thing as Zhukov commanding 10,000 troops in late 1941.

That doctrines hold true for *any* unit size as long as the type ratios are the same is what makes doctrines, well, doctrines! You don't need to write up a new field manual because your cavalry brigades/regiments will now consist of an extra Cavalry Battalion. However, if you add an extra Light Tank Battalion to a Cavalry Formation, *then* things get interesting. But that's the change in a Division's *type* composition that causes things to get interesting, not size.

The ratio is not the same if you add anything to an existing unit. Adding another rifleman to the fire team? It now functions differently than it did before. Add another rifle company to a battalion? It now functions differently. Add another infantry battalion to a division? It now functions differently. The ratio of infantry to supporting arms changes the moment you change the ratio in either way.

Even if you don't write up a new manual (since doctrines actually change with far greater frequency than the HOI series allows), giving smaller units more assets changes the way smaller units fight.

However, you do bring up a very valid point!

You say you want to see a realistically diverse array of Division Templates, not just between nations themselves, but also within a nation itself.

I share your desire.

But I think using Combat Experience as a Division Size Unlocker is heavy-handed and causes collateral damage.

Paradox can do better.

Let's think this through.

In real-life, why did nations field divisions with different structures for the same given type ? There are a few reasons, and I feel that Paradox should use those reasons as they provide a soft, organic, natural (listen to me it's as if I'm advertising naturist supplements ) limitation that doesn't intrude on the experience and that meshes itself automatically to each nation :

Alright, let's go through this step by step.

1) Resources

Transitioning from say a 2 x 3 Battalions division to a 4 x 3 Battalions division, that is, doubling the size, should require Manpower, Equipment and whatever other resources (Officers, maybe?) that are scarce. Plus it also should take time while the division stands down and transitions from one Template to another.

In peacetime... time isn't an issue, but resources are. Hopefully the gradual mobilization of industry and manpower via Laws from HOI 3 is kept in some form. This would better reflect the fact that even Germany or Japan were not fully mobilized pre-1939 and could not afford to immediately double the size of their divisions across the board.

In wartime, resources are not necessarily an issue, but time is. A division needs to stand down to transition Templates and the enemy shouldn't just conveniently wait around.

Thus, one of the reasons is that nations in general fielded different Templates of the same division types is that they lacked the resources and time for sweeping changes.

HOI IV should have that, the fact that Resources and/or Time are scarce and players have to contend with not being able to do everything at the same time.

Simply put, large divisions (or massed divisional reorganization in general) require lots of resources and time, and if HOI IV is balanced right those "lots of resources and time" isn't something that's just lying around within easy reach.

I agree. In fact, given what podcat has said, this seems very likely. Divisions can't switch to a new template when they are tied down in combat, for example. And you must have the equipment and manpower handy to do it.

2) Strategic Concerns

While players might not necessarily be able to outright "grow" their divisions across the board, what they can do is "cannibalize" their existing divisions into fewer, larger ones. Disbanding some divisions to "feed" other divisions transitioning to a larger Template.

Now that can work, if the players accept the fact that fewer divisions means less flexibility. See, fewer divisions might not be such a big deal when fighting, for example, in North Africa where the front was narrow... but in Russia with such a huge front width, having fewer maneuver elements means not being able to exploit breakthroughs properly.

So there's a trade-off between combat power and flexibility when transitioning from more divisions of smaller size to fewer ones of bigger size.

Simply put, a 16 Battalion Division of 4 x 4 Battalions can only be in one place at one time. The only thing it can do is just barrel through, attacking the enemy head-on and hope to wear it down via attrition. That may or may not be viable.

On the other hand, the same amount of Battalions split into 4 Divisions of 2 x 2 Battalions yields 4 maneuver elements that can break through, encircle and eliminate the enemy with fewer losses and in less time than if the 16 Battalions just plowed through head-on.

There is also a more subtle but equally important difference between Fewer Big or More Small Divisions : Support Units.

Transitioning to Big Divisions from Small Ones means that Support is "diluted". Simply put, instead of 4 x Artillery Regiments servicing 4x (2 x 2) Divisions,you have 3x Artillery Regiments disbanded and you will only have 1x Artillery Regiment servicing 1x (4 x 4) Division.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that rather than Divisions growing, in real-life, they became smaller!

USA, Japan transitioned from Square to Triangular Divisions. The Soviet Union went to the extreme as its Armored and Mechanized forces were organized into Brigades (divisions with 1 Regiment's worth of frontline Battalions), but each Brigade had a Division's worth of Support.

Imagine having 16 Battalions with 1 x Artillery Regiment backing them up (Big Division) or 16 Battalions with 4 x Artillery Regiments backing them up (4 x Small Divisions). That extra artillery is not a trivial difference, or it shouldn't be.

Thus, if HOI IV is balanced correctly, Big Divisions should actually be the cheaper and less oomph!-packing solution because you have 1 x Support Package servicing X amount of Frontline Battalions, whereas Battalion-number-equivalent of Smaller Divisions more Support Packages each servicing X amount of summed up Frontline Battalions between the small divs.

Larger Numbers of Small Divisions simply have more total Support than Fewer Number Big Divisions. And that extra Support should be worth it.

Or did the number of supporting arms per line company/regiment increase as the war went on? Fair question, because we don't know how many, say, howitzers comprise an artillery support element for a division. Maybe making a historical late war division for the US will require a "larger" division because the supporting arms eat up so many slots. If you want the historical ratio of supporting arms to line regiments, you'll have to pay the XP (which you learned from fighting in the war) to do so.

And while you keep saying that divisions got smaller, I keep looking at the British armored division reorganizations throughout the war, and I see fluctuations both down AND up. I was going to look at German divisions, but as the war dragged on, they rarely matched their paper composition in the field, so it seems futile.

In closing, Secret Master, I 100% agree that Big Divisions shouldn't be the be-all-end-all standard for HOI IV.

However, an XP Locking system which is unrealistic and cumbersomely shoehorned in is not necessary to achieve that.

Rather, scarcity of resources + a realistic pay-off in fielding more support per same amount of Frontline Battalions ( for example 1 x Artillery per 16 Battalions of a (4x4 Battalions) Big Div -vs- 4 x Artillery per 16 Battalions for equivalent smaller 4 x (2x2 Battalions) Divisions )

Thus, the with realistic mechanics in place people will naturally gravitate towards realistically,historically making their divisions smaller with more support associated, rather than just uniformly bloating their divisions.

All I'm saying that realism of resources and realism of units serve the purpose of diversity much better than the unrealistic hammer of the XP system.

And I feel that, given that we do not know how the leadership will fully work at this time, and given how HOI3 played out, and given how military leadership worked in the war, that making it doctrinally difficult to make fatter divisions for command by the same good leaders might make real sense.

You gotta keep in mind most good players of HOI3 rarely put an extra combat brigade in their divisions when they get superior firepower unlocked right now. It's 99% of the time a support brigade. Which is historical by your estimation, but it also means that bigger divisions in HOI3 usually equal more supporting arms for the same number of frontline combatants.

 

[mursolini]

Bigger is always better, everyone knows that

An old Sovier joke:
"Our micropocesors, are the biggest micorprocesors in the world, rejoice comrades!"

 

[Bullfrog]

Divisions got smaller largely due to combined arms theory maturing into practice. AKA increased firepower and mobility via technological advancements (and a shortage of manpower, necessitating more effective combat formations). Thus in order to field the most efficient divisional sized unit, there should be a balance of combined arms (smaller and more integrated units) versus larger (and more unwieldy) units. Simply adding more battalions is not the best thing for a TOE. The units must be integrated with proper ratios of support vs assault units and also have similar capabilities to perform a variety of missions, i.e., they need to be similarly armored and able to move at a somewhat equal speed.

The most effective divisional unit in this time period would be one that had integrated units with full supporting arms, some armor protection and AT capability as well as full mobility (entirely truck/tracked). This unit would be able to perform in a wide variety of missions against most enemy force compositions. Bigger is not better you'll find, if you study combined arms during WW2.