Divisional composition should affect tactical decisions

[Michael Gladius]

Right now, a 40-width Division of 28,000 men will steamroll over a more historical 11,000-man division, and be able to sustain its momentum near-indefinitely. IRL, the massive, lumbering divisions of WWI were quickly dropped in favor of smaller, more nimble divisions before 1939 because they were more agile and responsive (which should also be reflected in recovery rate). The biggest problem when working with a large formation is getting everybody to move and fight as a unit, and large formations are inherently vulnerable to destruction in detail. In HOI4, this is not the case.

So how to fix it? The number and type of battalions (including support companies) in a divisional template should affect how frequently a commander can switch tactics. Fewer battalions = more opportunities to switch tactics every 12 hours. So if a 25-battalion division is attacking, it would only get to use one tactic every 12 hours, while the smaller, more nimble 15-battalion division would move faster and get three tactics every 12 hours. The side with initiative would get a second tactic during this 12-hour period, so if the aforementioned larger formation has it, it'll have 2 tactics, and if the smaller side has it, it'll get 4.

Changing this will mean that large divisions have high stats, but constantly have their tactics countered (losing additional men and organization every time this happens), while tiny divisions with 2-4 battalions are super-agile, but have low stats and can be wiped out quickly, particularly if they run out of ammo (see my other posting on that- running out of ammo would result in a 90% drop in strength and +70% casualties: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/logistics-wish-list-for-ussr-dlc.1402341/#post-26695207).

Including support companies in the division's battalion count is imperative, because if they are not counted then players and the AI can build 2-4 width divisions that have 5 support companies, and therefore cheat the system and become less vulnerable to annihilation. I would also tie this into a corps mechanic (see: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/corps-design.1339680/)

Thoughts? Constructive Criticism?

 

[Volodio]

The smaller divisions are already more flexible. Simply because they are separate units. It means they can be at separate places at once and do different things. For instance, you don't need as much men to occupy a border with smaller divisions than with bigger ones. You can also have small two divisions in the same province doing different things, one attacking or supporting a nearby attack, another entrenching in case of a counter-attack. While a single big division would have to completely commit to one or the other. Another example: 4 Soviet divisions of 10 width vs 1 German division of 40 width (nationality is just to difference the two sides, don't pay attention to it). The Soviets can have 2 divisions going around the German one to encircle it, while the 2 others rotate to attack it and pin in down, ensuring it doesn't escape. The rotation allows one unit to recover while the other is attacking. Once the German division is surrounded, the other Soviets join the battle and capture the Germans.

So the small divisions do have flexibility. Also worth mentioning that they're more scary than small divisions, because people see that there is a division but not how big is it, not until they either engaged and checked (which people rarely do) or have a very high amount of intel.

 

[Bki]

The smaller divisions are already more flexible. Simply because they are separate units. It means they can be at separate places at once and do different things. For instance, you don't need as much men to occupy a border with smaller divisions than with bigger ones. You can also have small two divisions in the same province doing different things, one attacking or supporting a nearby attack, another entrenching in case of a counter-attack. While a single big division would have to completely commit to one or the other. Another example: 4 Soviet divisions of 10 width vs 1 German division of 40 width (nationality is just to difference the two sides, don't pay attention to it). The Soviets can have 2 divisions going around the German one to encircle it, while the 2 others rotate to attack it and pin in down, ensuring it doesn't escape. The rotation allows one unit to recover while the other is attacking. Once the German division is surrounded, the other Soviets join the battle and capture the Germans.

So the small divisions do have flexibility. Also worth mentioning that they're more scary than small divisions, because people see that there is a division but not how big is it, not until they either engaged and checked (which people rarely do) or have a very high amount of intel.

What they are though is strictly worse in fighting than the equivalent equipment concentrated in a single division, when if anything, they should be better, due to more HQ and support per men making coordinating them more easily.

Your example is also particularly silly because two 10-width divisions are not enough to keep the 40 width one pinned long enough for other infantry to encircle it, beside the simple fact that the German division can just move into a friendly province shortly before the encirclement finish.

 

[Michael Gladius]

The smaller divisions are already more flexible. Simply because they are separate units. It means they can be at separate places at once and do different things. For instance, you don't need as much men to occupy a border with smaller divisions than with bigger ones. You can also have small two divisions in the same province doing different things, one attacking or supporting a nearby attack, another entrenching in case of a counter-attack. While a single big division would have to completely commit to one or the other. Another example: 4 Soviet divisions of 10 width vs 1 German division of 40 width (nationality is just to difference the two sides, don't pay attention to it). The Soviets can have 2 divisions going around the German one to encircle it, while the 2 others rotate to attack it and pin in down, ensuring it doesn't escape. The rotation allows one unit to recover while the other is attacking. Once the German division is surrounded, the other Soviets join the battle and capture the Germans.

So the small divisions do have flexibility. Also worth mentioning that they're more scary than small divisions, because people see that there is a division but not how big is it, not until they either engaged and checked (which people rarely do) or have a very high amount of intel.

The main problem I have with this is that it assumes he isn't flanked on both sides by more 20-battalion divisions. When every province on the front line is filled with massive ahistorical divisions, then breaking through for an encirclement is impossible, and when he breaks through, the retreating units can't regain organization quickly enough and are driven back nonstop. IRL, the driving back nonstop was for the cavalry and light divisions, not 28,000-man infantry waves.

 

[Michael Gladius]

The number of divisions, corps, and armies in a battle should also factor in to responsiveness. Bifurcated chains of command are a very real problem, and if the general of the army isn't present, then his units will be slower to react.

I'd suggest having the general's portrait appear on divisions he is personally commanding in battle where the icon showing multiple commanders currently does. His bonuses/stats would double for having him personally present, and when he isn't present at the battle, the default icon will appear.