Division limit mod question?

[goodcigar]

I have question about modding for Division limit. Is it possible to make mod that tells country to make certain amount of Division? Like their historical number for example. Game has way too many Division and it kill performance.

But it be cool if mod could tell Germany to make no more than 21 Panzer Division. No more than 315 total German Army Division etc. Keep number historical and in control and not crazy.

 

[bitmode]

Yes:

ai_strategy = {
    type = build_army
    id = armor
    value = 21
}

ai_strategy = {
    type = build_army
    id = infantry
    value = 294
}

But in my opinion it is usually preferable to mod in mechanical limitations instead of forcing the AI to do something. Germany did not stop fielding new divisions because 315 is such a beautiful number. You can reduce manpower, introduce global attrition, change industry etc. to control how many divisions a country is able to field.

 

[goodcigar]

If you limit AI Division number does it build stronger Division? Also how does AI determine what means Armor and what means Infantry?

 

[bitmode]

If you limit AI Division number does it build stronger Division?

Not necessarily. The AI generally designs divisions as soon as it gets the XP to do so and then attempts to convert to and build those. With less equipment deficits it may be able to switch over a bit faster. Especially the German AI has a lot of special casing and band aids in its unit and equipment production though. You probably need to make a bunch of changes there. See common/ai_strategy/GER.txt.

Also how does AI determine what means Armor and what means Infantry?

AI modding - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[goodcigar]

I really not like XP system for design Division and ship. It annoying and gamey and think it probably make AI do worse. It make you have to grind Division and ship in fake gamey way.

 

[Anaraxes]

The XP system for division design is pretty historical, actually. Most countries had perfect doctrines on paper and organizations finely tuned to execute their doctrine before the war -- or so they thought. And they all changed them as a result of things they learned during the war, just as they evolved airplane or ship designs as a result of lessons learned the hard way. Changing division templates isn't just an abstract paper exercise, and it does need the push of actual experience to inform and motivate the change.

 

[goodcigar]

No it not historic. There not magical wall in real life that prevent you from organizing Division the way you want. That totally made up fake game gimmick. In real life you not have to kill millions of your soldier just so you can organize your Division and ship the way you want. Learning lesson is not same thing as organizing Division.

And Doctrine not the same thing as Division design.

It very bad and annoying mechanic that basic no one like. That why mod to remove it is first mod on Workshop and has millions of download.

 

[Harin]

The XP system for division design is pretty historical, actually. Most countries had perfect doctrines on paper and organizations finely tuned to execute their doctrine before the war -- or so they thought. And they all changed them as a result of things they learned during the war, just as they evolved airplane or ship designs as a result of lessons learned the hard way. Changing division templates isn't just an abstract paper exercise, and it does need the push of actual experience to inform and motivate the change.

Forgive me, but when I first read your post it I thought you were talking about doctrines instead of division templates, which I thought was a great idea. I know it was not your intent, but it gave me the idea below.

Instead of focusing on division templates as a need for experience, what if doctrines required experience for them to activate or level-up?

For example, a country can research doctrines, but those doctrines need experience to flush out errors, recognize nuances, and become effective. If a doctrine had three levels to it, then when a doctrine is first researched, it is level 1 and least effective.

Level 2 could be reached in two ways. First is through doctrine experience gained from combat. This doctrine experience would be automated, not requiring a distraction to the player, much like a general's experience bar. Second, is from observation. What is observation? It is doctrine experience, but gained by observing foreign nations at war that are using the same doctrines you have researched to level 1. In effect, the warring foreign nation is spilling doctrine experience to the rest of the world, albeit at a slower pace than itself is gaining it through direct combat. This observation gives other nations with the same doctrines researched some percentage (10% to 20%?) of the doctrine experience the warring nation is getting, until level 2 is reached. Observation would not be helpful after level 2. I would suggest making observation automated, because militaries observing other militaries has been the case for centuries and does not require a distraction for the player in the game.

Level 3 could only be reached through combat experience. This would create a realistic difference between nations that have combat experience and those who are at peace.

This leveling of doctrines might model history better. Even late arriving nations to the war would have a strong understanding of WW2 warfare if they made the effort to research the doctrines, because the practice and results of those doctrines would be evident, to some degree (level 2) as the war rages. Nations at peace, like the US, could mimic certain doctrines, even introduce their own spin on it, but those who had actual combat experience, would maintain a significant edge in even fights; until the peaceful nation has gained war experience and level 3 in their doctrines. This is different than division level experience or general experience. This could add experience levels and depth to a nation's military theory and its practical application.

 

[Vlad123]

Forgive me, but when I first read your post it I thought you were talking about doctrines instead of division templates, which I thought was a great idea. I know it was not your intent, but it gave me the idea below.

Instead of focusing on division templates as a need for experience, what if doctrines required experience for them to activate or level-up?

For example, a country can research doctrines, but those doctrines need experience to flush out errors, recognize nuances, and become effective. If a doctrine had three levels to it, then when a doctrine is first researched, it is level 1 and least effective.

Level 2 could be reached in two ways. First is through doctrine experience gained from combat. This doctrine experience would be automated, not requiring a distraction to the player, much like a general's experience bar. Second, is from observation. What is observation? It is doctrine experience, but gained by observing foreign nations at war that are using the same doctrines you have researched to level 1. In effect, the warring foreign nation is spilling doctrine experience to the rest of the world, albeit at a slower pace than itself is gaining it through direct combat. This observation gives other nations with the same doctrines researched some percentage (10% to 20%?) of the doctrine experience the warring nation is getting, until level 2 is reached. Observation would not be helpful after level 2. I would suggest making observation automated, because militaries observing other militaries has been the case for centuries and does not require a distraction for the player in the game.

Level 3 could only be reached through combat experience. This would create a realistic difference between nations that have combat experience and those who are at peace.

This leveling of doctrines might model history better. Even late arriving nations to the war would have a strong understanding of WW2 warfare if they made the effort to research the doctrines, because the practice and results of those doctrines would be evident, to some degree (level 2) as the war rages. Nations at peace, like the US, could mimic certain doctrines, even introduce their own spin on it, but those who had actual combat experience, would maintain a significant edge in even fights; until the peaceful nation has gained war experience and level 3 in their doctrines. This is different than division level experience or general experience. This could add experience levels and depth to a nation's military theory and its practical application.

Fantastic idea

 

[goodcigar]

Forgive me, but when I first read your post it I thought you were talking about doctrines instead of division templates, which I thought was a great idea. I know it was not your intent, but it gave me the idea below.

Instead of focusing on division templates as a need for experience, what if doctrines required experience for them to activate or level-up?

For example, a country can research doctrines, but those doctrines need experience to flush out errors, recognize nuances, and become effective. If a doctrine had three levels to it, then when a doctrine is first researched, it is level 1 and least effective.

Level 2 could be reached in two ways. First is through doctrine experience gained from combat. This doctrine experience would be automated, not requiring a distraction to the player, much like a general's experience bar. Second, is from observation. What is observation? It is doctrine experience, but gained by observing foreign nations at war that are using the same doctrines you have researched to level 1. In effect, the warring foreign nation is spilling doctrine experience to the rest of the world, albeit at a slower pace than itself is gaining it through direct combat. This observation gives other nations with the same doctrines researched some percentage (10% to 20%?) of the doctrine experience the warring nation is getting, until level 2 is reached. Observation would not be helpful after level 2. I would suggest making observation automated, because militaries observing other militaries has been the case for centuries and does not require a distraction for the player in the game.

Level 3 could only be reached through combat experience. This would create a realistic difference between nations that have combat experience and those who are at peace.

This leveling of doctrines might model history better. Even late arriving nations to the war would have a strong understanding of WW2 warfare if they made the effort to research the doctrines, because the practice and results of those doctrines would be evident, to some degree (level 2) as the war rages. Nations at peace, like the US, could mimic certain doctrines, even introduce their own spin on it, but those who had actual combat experience, would maintain a significant edge in even fights; until the peaceful nation has gained war experience and level 3 in their doctrines. This is different than division level experience or general experience. This could add experience levels and depth to a nation's military theory and its practical application.

That be much better and more realistic and not fake and annoying like it now. Division organize and ship design should not require grinding XP. Someone should make mod.

 

[Anaraxes]

Instead of focusing on division templates as a need for experience, what if doctrines required experience for them to activate or level-up?

Makes sense to me. That seems like a parallel place to spend xp, though -- unless the idea is to attach pre-designed templates to specific spots in the doctrine tree. Or you might have conditions in the doctrine tree, like "no line artillery allowed in divisions" that get modified as you move up the SF doctrine tree ("<= 1 line arty", "<= 2 line arty", etc), with other conditions appearing in different places in other doctrine trees. Similarly, you could also argue for the practical experience gained to be necessary for tech research (as MtG did for naval research).

All those changes start to earning experience much more central to the game, though, so adding a lot of xp dependency deserves some thought. And of course there's always the argument that theoretical doctrines often precede their practical application or even proper equipment availability. (For instance, JFC Fuller writing about armored breakthrough and encirclement warfare, or Billy Mitchell with the legend of anti-ship use of aircraft.)

(I actually wouldn't be surprised to the xp-for-research feature appear. MtG made the naval xp rates, both incoming and outgoing, noticeably different in feel to the air and land play. That change might appear if Paradox ever did more detailed aircraft or tank designers, because all the extra boxes to research means you need to speed up research.)

 

[AFilthyCasual]

I think the real problem with the XP-for-templates system is not that it exists but what the starting templates are.

Paradox seems to think the game should be played with 20-wdith divisions without line artillery, since all starting divisions start with at most 24-width (for countries still using square divisions) and no line artillery battalions despite them being a standard part of divisions since divisions were invented. The intention seems to be to slightly modify the starting templates to 20 width by changing a couple battalions here and there and spending the rest of your XP on support battalions and tank variants. What actually ends up happening is you dump hundreds and hundreds of land XP into making 40-width divisions packed with artillery, and it may be a few years into the war before you have your templates settled and are able to afford tank variants.

 

[bitmode]

I think the real problem with the XP-for-templates system is not that it exists but what the starting templates are.

Paradox seems to think the game should be played with 20-wdith divisions without line artillery, since all starting divisions start with at most 24-width (for countries still using square divisions) and no line artillery battalions despite them being a standard part of divisions since divisions were invented. The intention seems to be to slightly modify the starting templates to 20 width by changing a couple battalions here and there and spending the rest of your XP on support battalions and tank variants. What actually ends up happening is you dump hundreds and hundreds of land XP into making 40-width divisions packed with artillery, and it may be a few years into the war before you have your templates settled and are able to afford tank variants.

The designers bit off way more than they could chew. Very little in land combat adds up and I'm already dreading the "solutions" the Barbarossa patch will bring.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

Adding to what I said earlier, it would be a simple fix. You'd start every country with their standard division templates, which depending on the country would either be binary (2 line regiments and one artillery regiment - see Italy), triangular (3 line and 1 artillery - see Germany) or square (4 line 1 arty - see Japan) - ie, either 6 INF 3 ART, 9 INF 3 ART, or 12 INF 3 ART. You'd make the optimal combat width 30 by making standard combat width 60 rather than 80, with +30 for each attack direction. This would lead you to change your templates to be what became, as a result of WW2, the modern standard triangular division (27 width) plus either an extra ART battalion or an extra frontline battalion + an AT or AA battalion. For countries that start with triangular or square templates they'd basically already be there, only having to spend 5 or 10 XP to get to 30 width. Those few with binary divisions would take a little longer to get up to standard due to needing up to 25 XP, but that's still not a big deal. The point is, you'd have to dump way fewer points into templates, and divisions would look much more historical in composition.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Adding to what I said earlier, it would be a simple fix. You'd start every country with their standard division templates, which depending on the country would either be binary (2 line regiments and one artillery regiment - see Italy), triangular (3 line and 1 artillery - see Germany) or square (4 line 1 arty - see Japan) - ie, either 6 INF 3 ART, 9 INF 3 ART, or 12 INF 3 ART. You'd make the optimal combat width 30 by making standard combat width 60 rather than 80, with +30 for each attack direction. This would lead you to change your templates to be what became, as a result of WW2, the modern standard triangular division (27 width) plus either an extra ART battalion or an extra frontline battalion + an AT or AA battalion. For countries that start with triangular or square templates they'd basically already be there, only having to spend 5 or 10 XP to get to 30 width. Those few with binary divisions would take a little longer to get up to standard due to needing up to 25 XP, but that's still not a big deal. The point is, you'd have to dump way fewer points into templates, and divisions would look much more historical in composition.

I agree with the concept. But a fix like this is more appropriate as a mod. A change like this will irritate too many people who have spent loads of time determining metas under the existing mechanics.

As far as the fix is concerned, you also need to change the AI division builds. And I disagree on what you are defining an artillery regiment as. The existing Artillery unit is a regiment.

Lastly I would suggest changing the division designer from 25 bn slots (ie 5x5) to 16 (ie 4x4). And either increase the support slots to 7 or create a Division Support unit. I went with the latter, which combines the effects of the Field Hospital, Maintenance and Logistics.

PS ... After the above is done, you'll then find that the combat mechanics don't provide historical results. It can be fixed, but it is a bit more involved (at least the approach I took).

 

[Laffertytig]

Not necessarily. The AI generally designs divisions as soon as it gets the XP to do so and then attempts to convert to and build those. With less equipment deficits it may be able to switch over a bit faster. Especially the German AI has a lot of special casing and band aids in its unit and equipment production though. You probably need to make a bunch of changes there. See common/ai_strategy/GER.txt.

AI modding - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

Do any of the big mods make any such changes? it does get a much much when all the countries especially minors start spamming way more division than they could ever dream of raising in reality

 

[AFilthyCasual]

I agree with the concept. But a fix like this is more appropriate as a mod. A change like this will irritate too many people who have spent loads of time determining metas under the existing mechanics.

As far as the fix is concerned, you also need to change the AI division builds. And I disagree on what you are defining an artillery regiment as. The existing Artillery unit is a regiment.

Lastly I would suggest changing the division designer from 25 bn slots (ie 5x5) to 16 (ie 4x4). And either increase the support slots to 7 or create a Division Support unit. I went with the latter, which combines the effects of the Field Hospital, Maintenance and Logistics.

PS ... After the above is done, you'll then find that the combat mechanics don't provide historical results. It can be fixed, but it is a bit more involved (at least the approach I took).

If we take into account that infantry battalions should have artillery, but don't, and corps usually had their own artillery units, but don't exist, having artillery battalions in-game be the size of regiments makes more sense.

Of course, I've argued this battalion-level minutiae is irrelevant and should be done away with anyway, but as long as we're going to keep doing it I'm fine with it being balanced around production cost and durability (which it is) rather than count.

Also, there's nothing fundamentally different about a 30 width meta vs a 40-width meta. About the only difference is the number of frontline battalions in a division - 9-10 as opposed to 13-15. The rest is the same.

 

[Vlad123]

If we take into account that infantry battalions should have artillery, but don't, and corps usually had their own artillery units, but don't exist, having artillery battalions in-game be the size of regiments makes more sense.

Of course, I've argued this battalion-level minutiae is irrelevant and should be done away with anyway, but as long as we're going to keep doing it I'm fine with it being balanced around production cost and durability (which it is) rather than count.

Also, there's nothing fundamentally different about a 30 width meta vs a 40-width meta. About the only difference is the number of frontline battalions in a division - 9-10 as opposed to 13-15. The rest is the same.

The problem is HOW AI interacts with this. If the AI continues to make questionable templates where with 1/2 template from combat with 40 airs all the AI army because it makes templates of 24, 12 or other at random ...

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

If we take into account that infantry battalions should have artillery, but don't, and corps usually had their own artillery units, but don't exist, having artillery battalions in-game be the size of regiments makes more sense.

I see it differently. Infantry battalions (in the game) are assumed to have their slice of the regimental weapons assigned to them. That would be heavy machine guns, mortars greater than 80mm, AT rifles and Infantry Guns. Currently these are all lumped into Inf Equip. That's fine, as long as the Inf Equip combat values reflect this.

Corp artillery is easily reflected by simply attaching additional Artillery units to existing divisions.

Only Paradox knows why the Artillery unit has 36 guns and a combat width of 3, instead of 12 guns and a combat width of 1.

Also, there's nothing fundamentally different about a 30 width meta vs a 40-width meta. About the only difference is the number of frontline battalions in a division - 9-10 as opposed to 13-15.

But isn't that the point? We want triangular divisions of 9 Inf.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

The problem is HOW AI interacts with this. If the AI continues to make questionable templates where with 1/2 template from combat with 40 airs all the AI army because it makes templates of 24, 12 or other at random ...

Expert AI recognized this a long time ago. Players developed different metas, that the AI couldn't adapt to. Expert AI gave you choices on what division types the AI could build. The base game doesn't.

So while the AI division builds can be changed, they will never be able to adapt to player changes, unless a different design approach is taken.