Does HOI4 still have corps,army,army group ?

[franc001sher]

I'm not clear why anyone thinks that if I send a JAP Infantry Army with 10 Divs into North China, that I must have 2 or 3 Corps commanders/HQs well as the Army. Or why Rommel can't command the DAK on his own, without any lower levels. Nor why we must assign an Army Group and Theatre commander above Rommel, and have their rear echelon HQs on the map.

Army is the unit for deploying and corps is the unit for action in a battle. An army with about one or two dozens of divisions is more convinience for deploying while a corp with 3 to 5 divisions is fitable for an action in the battle plan. I don't think it is good for the players to make the same plans for a few divisions seperately. It is just a waste of time.
On the other hand, It is not a problem for AI. So the solution is organizing sub-groups between army and its divisions and that groups can be called as "corps".
It is similar for the role of the army groups between theatre and army.

Of course, it is better to have no individual HQ units on the map for HOI4. It is alhistorical.

 

[Modestus]

But what would be the compromise?

Take out Corps, there's alot of them and it would remove much of the micro of managing all of the HQs. But Corps can have 5 Divs and you can have 5 Corps in an Army. So you go from one Div operating on it's own, to a formation with up to 25 Divs in a battle plan. Too wide a gap?

Paradox cover this with commanders who have different levels, with a max. number of Divs, so you can have an intermediary force, something more of the level of a Corps (even if it doesn't directly have that name), commanded presumably by a Lt. Gen. The compromise is that there is no HQ on the map, no radio range and no tedious arrangements to form a group of Divs into a Corps. Produce 4 Divs and send them all to a province/state, select them all and assign a Lt Gen. There a Corps, simples. Then from that stage you can give orders to the commander and the 4 Divs will move.

So the compromise is to remove higher levels? What about Army Group? It wouldn't save many HQs, but what about immersion if you want Army Group North to attack Leningrad in Barbarossa?

It was mentioned that the game would be very crude if you just grab a big bunch of Divs, put them under an FM and send them in the direction of Leningrad. But a formation can have one commander but multiple axis of advance. This was shown in the video of the invasion of Poland. So you can have an Army Group North type formation with a plan for some Divs (Army/Corps size but no separate commander/HQ) to push up along the coast to capture the Baltic States. Or you can separate those Divs into their formation with a Lt.Gen or Gen commanding.

You decide. And if there is a commander who has a high enough command level, or no limit, then if you want you could put all of the Barbarossa forces under one commander and three axis of attack.

Or you can go smaller scale and have several Army size formations mainly comprising Infantry. And a couple of smaller Corps formations with armour and motorised units, so you have more control over the spearhead units.

The compromises are ones that you make, you are not forced to have Corps size formations, or to have Groups. You can mix and match to suit your strategy. And above all the tedious micro of dozens of on map HQs and assignment of commanders who don't contribute anything to the game play is gone.

I'm not clear why anyone thinks that if I send a JAP Infantry Army with 10 Divs into North China, that I must have 2 or 3 Corps commanders/HQs well as the Army. Or why Rommel can't command the DAK on his own, without any lower levels. Nor why we must assign an Army Group and Theatre commander above Rommel, and have their rear echelon HQs on the map.

What your saying appears to be true but if you decided to create 30 or more Corps you will have 30 Generals along the bottom of your screen and 30 differently coloured coded divisions and attack vectors. If you use a single General to command Barbarossa you will have one portrait and when you click on him you will have a useless list of over 140 divisions.

You have to conclude that the game is not designed to work with a large number of small Groups or that a single General will command a major offensive.


It is obvious that players will look for a sweet spot and will use as many Generals as they can without turning the map into a mess of colour coded nonsense. They will in particular group their PZ divisions because it is these that will spearhead almost every major European offensive.

You cannot seriously make a battle-plan unless you know what divisions are going to attack first and where they are going to attack and as I said earlier assigning divisions to an attack vector as seen in the demonstration is almost useless and would be extremely costly unless you know what the individual divisions will be doing.

There are perhaps only two types of battle-plans

1\ You create a battle-plan first and move into position the divisions that you want for that battle-plan 2\ You create a battle-plan that will suit the divisions you already have in position but either way you need to know where everything is and the best way to do that is to have some form of structure within your army.

 

[Beagá]

I would be disappointed by a lack of OOB. What I would ideally have is a more simplified version of the HOI 3 OOB. A compromise on both ends. Not too complicated but not too streamlined. A balanced approach would be the best call.

That would still allow players to design and enjoy their own OOB's but also would let the players who are not interested in the process give the OOB structure to the AI.

That was my impression from day one. It was a quite extreme decision, and that´s from someone who also didn´t think HOI 3 OOB was perfect.

I´m afraid they are trying to hard to keep the complexity of combat (that includes the multiple, often almost pointless combats from the tiny province model) but sacrificing interaction to avoid making that complexity too annoying for the common player. I´d rather see a bit less complexity as long as depth is mantained. In the end, is what really matters to most.

 

[potski]

It boils down to a couple of things. Basically if you assign that 10 div JAP inf army to a vector which is later modified to split into three, you will have to manually sort out each of the divisions intended for each split.

We were told there was likely to multi-phase plans, so you can set this up in the weeks/months of planning, not during the operation. In any case, what you describe is not unlike what happened in my experience with HOI3, because Divs in a Corps never stayed together. So having captured Beijing and the port, I would then pause and re-arrange units back into order, strat redeploying some units behind the lines.

Imagine doing this for battle plans involving tens of branching vectors, and say even just weekly plan modifications

No I can't imagine that. Can you give me an example of any real life battle plan with tens of branching vectors?

Even if all divisions are identical and no consideration to group composition need to be made, it would still be easier to select just one pre-defined army sub-component and re-assign it rather than three or four, each time for each new stage assigning and reassigning for the duration of the operation. Scaling up to battle plans involving hundreds of divisions there need to be a way for the player to get a good overview and fast easy access to tailored multi-division groups. Like knowing that army group north contains three armies which each contain an armored group with a good mix of various armored, motorized divisions ready to be selected and re-assigned quickly and easily. This overview will also be rather important in planning more intricate operations, as having a bunch of assorted divisions in a few independent groups is rather inferior to having the attacking elements already defined and grouped up.

A player will want to, naturally depending on situation, be able to organize small selectable, persistent groups of different divisions that complement each other for the majority of their units, while still being able to group those themselves together.

I think you over complicate the game, and imagine that your operational plan makes all the difference. When in fact it is largely just a numbers game - more units, with better equipment and better leaders, and some good air support is just as important as the operational plan. To invade North China in mid-1937 no-one needs a plan that involves more than three vectors. Nor should you need to change the plan every week.

We should assume that the front logic in the AI still exists, and if you send 40 Divs in a vector towards Leningrad that they don't all slavishly follow the arrow on the map, even if you select a Schwerpunkt type attack (if that is possible), the flanks remain protected and the units advance maintaining a front. So you do not need to create an attack vector for every single VP / air base / port you want to capture between the start line and Leningrad.

What I think you are looking for is a level of complexity in the battle plan system, and generally in the game that probably won't be there. I understand that you might not want the type of game that is coming. And what you are trying to envision is how you micro manage your units within the battle plan - micro battle plans with tens of vectors.

But I liked the concept that you could select a formation either something small or very large and give it a command and objective, and the AI would control the formation. But it never really worked in HOI3. If the devs say to make it work they need to simplify the CoC, then I'm fine with that. I spent far too many hours attaching/unattaching units to Corps and Army HQs, positioning HQs on the map, and assigning leaders to them. I'm looking forward to playing a different game, that doesn't require all of that stuff. If Paradox get this to work effectively then this could be a magnificent game. But the jury is still out, and I understand your concerns - that we get a game where the AI control still doesn't work, and micro management of units is even harder.

 

[phantomrider]

We were told there was likely to multi-phase plans, so you can set this up in the weeks/months of planning, not during the operation. In any case, what you describe is not unlike what happened in my experience with HOI3, because Divs in a Corps never stayed together. So having captured Beijing and the port, I would then pause and re-arrange units back into order, strat redeploying some units behind the lines.



No I can't imagine that. Can you give me an example of any real life battle plan with tens of branching vectors?



I think you over complicate the game, and imagine that your operational plan makes all the difference. When in fact it is largely just a numbers game - more units, with better equipment and better leaders, and some good air support is just as important as the operational plan. To invade North China in mid-1937 no-one needs a plan that involves more than three vectors. Nor should you need to change the plan every week.

We should assume that the front logic in the AI still exists, and if you send 40 Divs in a vector towards Leningrad that they don't all slavishly follow the arrow on the map, even if you select a Schwerpunkt type attack (if that is possible), the flanks remain protected and the units advance maintaining a front. So you do not need to create an attack vector for every single VP / air base / port you want to capture between the start line and Leningrad.

What I think you are looking for is a level of complexity in the battle plan system, and generally in the game that probably won't be there. I understand that you might not want the type of game that is coming. And what you are trying to envision is how you micro manage your units within the battle plan - micro battle plans with tens of vectors.

But I liked the concept that you could select a formation either something small or very large and give it a command and objective, and the AI would control the formation. But it never really worked in HOI3. If the devs say to make it work they need to simplify the CoC, then I'm fine with that. I spent far too many hours attaching/unattaching units to Corps and Army HQs, positioning HQs on the map, and assigning leaders to them. I'm looking forward to playing a different game, that doesn't require all of that stuff. If Paradox get this to work effectively then this could be a magnificent game. But the jury is still out, and I understand your concerns - that we get a game where the AI control still doesn't work, and micro management of units is even harder.

I agree with the last paragraph. What the developers (and players) are dealing with is a scale problem and data saturation problem. The scale problem starts with the selection of a division as the primary game piece/unit. The good part of that is that there were few if any major significant actions in WWII that were decided by forces smaller than a division sized units so from a reality emersion real role playing point of view this seems to be good (and in HOI4 the divisions probably will be more realistic in their composition). The divisions also apparently are close to the "right" size for the scale of the map/provinces so their "maneuvering" can be seen as somewhat believable. Going from a division based game to a corp (2 to 5 divisions each) or army based (5- 10 divisions) would shrink the number of units, reduce the number of "provinces" on the map totally. The problem with the division is that their just too many of them to maneuver them individually. Players can't keep track of that many pieces (this is the one advantage the AI has over the player) and players (or me -- the one player I know about) make mistakes and have to spend lots of time "micromanaging" pieces during the game or the whole effort starts to get out of control. On the other hand, that is also realistic in terms of military experience. It is said that even good battle plans start to break down at either the point of first contact or before (intelligence about the enemy is usually less than perfect in terms of initial disposition and how they will react) and this presents both opportunities (targets of opportunity) and problems (we are 2 days behind in our goals and objectives due to unexpectedly difficult enemy action) that armies/commanders need to react to-- including keeping their forces compact enough so all 3 to 5 divisions in a corps are not spreading themselves out along 6 or 7 axis of advance and thus making the whole effort more vulnerable. The point of all this is that there will have to be away to get divisions into something bigger (a pointy arrow for an offensive action, a "wall" for a defensive position) as well as to "transfer" them from one corps, army or arrow/wall when strategic "plans" and situations change. How well the developers handle this situation will effect how well the game plays, how realistic the game "feels" (this is supposed to be a WWII war game) and in turn how successful it is. I have no clue about what the developers are doing/deciding.

 

[Joppos]

We were told there was likely to multi-phase plans, so you can set this up in the weeks/months of planning, not during the operation. In any case, what you describe is not unlike what happened in my experience with HOI3, because Divs in a Corps never stayed together. So having captured Beijing and the port, I would then pause and re-arrange units back into order, strat redeploying some units behind the lines.

Indeed the battle plans were said to be based on several stages, just as it was said that stages are likely to get modified by the player as new situations develop. When one stage is complete there might very well be a need for complete revision for the next, and to basically having to reorganize a temporary oob for each instance of planning seems very inefficient, especially if you have a special div composition in mind. For both pre-execution planning and mid-execution modification of stages, a player will need tools to create efficient and personal organization for the large variation of number of involved divisions. For a 10 division battle plan one large group is sufficient. For a 200 division battle plan an optional hierarchy will make sure that a player can organize and make his battle plan as interesting as s/he might want to, and not be limited by tedium of recurring sorting or lack of overview.

And yes, as we all know hoi3 was a mess. I for one really do not want a hoi3 system back. It lacked a lot of sound design relating to unit management, and the oob was for purposes other than overview kind of lacking. That said, hoi3's shortcomings were not in any way inherently related to the concept of a hierarchy, but rather just a result of bad design. The situation you mention wouldn't need to be a problem at all in hoi4 if for example your zoom level showed the different hierarchical levels instead of just some chaotic proximity stack function. Zoom out a bit and you no longer see divisions, but division groups. Zoom out some more and you see [division group] groups and so on. This is just one example of a different-from-hoi3 design still incorporating a hierarchy with a much easier interface.

No I can't imagine that. Can you give me an example of any real life battle plan with tens of branching vectors?

http://www.military-history.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Operation-Barbarossa.jpg

There's one example of what a player might want to create. Each main vector and related branches are likely intended for multi-division groups, so to force the player to manually group them up each time modification or planning of a new stage takes place is the very opposite of streamlining. just as a player might want to create just one large vector towards Moscow, or 20, there should be tools for making the whole spectrum of endeavors as simple as possible.

I think you over complicate the game, and imagine that your operational plan makes all the difference. When in fact it is largely just a numbers game - more units, with better equipment and better leaders, and some good air support is just as important as the operational plan. To invade North China in mid-1937 no-one needs a plan that involves more than three vectors. Nor should you need to change the plan every week.

Likewise i believe you are oversimplifying the game. Remember that this core feature has it's roots in this thing. How nice wouldn't it be to be able to define those groups and subgroups so that you didn't just have 15 - 30 independent armies with an assortment of division types, but 3 - 4 groups of armies, each for dedicated fronts with some or each army containing defined easy to grab division groups with a good mix of division types? If you get an opportunity to pocket the enemy or need to reinforce another front you wouldn't have to pause and sort out a good mix of divisions from a list of twenty divisions, but just click a predefined subarmy group and be on your way.

One should be able to do those simple three-vector plans you mention, but in order for there to be any gameplay evolution for this core feature there has to be tools for making plans more complex (even unhistorically so) without it becoming a headache for the player. If the game is based on creating three-vector battle plans with no need for modification for even barbarossa scale plans, there will be no gameplay to speak about.

We should assume that the front logic in the AI still exists, and if you send 40 Divs in a vector towards Leningrad that they don't all slavishly follow the arrow on the map, even if you select a Schwerpunkt type attack (if that is possible), the flanks remain protected and the units advance maintaining a front. So you do not need to create an attack vector for every single VP / air base / port you want to capture between the start line and Leningrad.

Naturally they are going to try to make the AI logic as functional as possible which include having the AI establish a coherent front, but you're basically expecting an announced core feature of the game to be virtually functionless and i do not recognize that point of view. We are supposed to be able to design battle plans to encircle, spearhead and so on. It's already been established that there won't be any AI cruise control in this game. The AI will need orders from you, and will follow those to a large extent.

What I think you are looking for is a level of complexity in the battle plan system, and generally in the game that probably won't be there. I understand that you might not want the type of game that is coming. And what you are trying to envision is how you micro manage your units within the battle plan - micro battle plans with tens of vectors.

I don't like to micromanage, that is why i'm arguing here. I want to be able to set up a hierarchy if i deem the operation will be easier to handle from it, so that any stages of modifications can be done as effortless as possible. I hated sorting stacks like in hoi3 and i want--depending on operation--to be able to make a corps unit the smallest effective unit which i need to manage, but since i do not want 60 individual colored groups to handle and keep track of, i want a hierarchy.

But I liked the concept that you could select a formation either something small or very large and give it a command and objective, and the AI would control the formation. But it never really worked in HOI3. If the devs say to make it work they need to simplify the CoC, then I'm fine with that. I spent far too many hours attaching/unattaching units to Corps and Army HQs, positioning HQs on the map, and assigning leaders to them. I'm looking forward to playing a different game, that doesn't require all of that stuff. If Paradox get this to work effectively then this could be a magnificent game. But the jury is still out, and I understand your concerns - that we get a game where the AI control still doesn't work, and micro management of units is even harder.

Again, very few people are talking about hoi3. I for sure ain't. I want a different game as well.

 

[Admiral Piett]

I really loved making OOBs in HoI III. I hope there is still the option to in IV, even if it is purely aesthetic.

 

[Chaffers]

"I'm not clear why anyone thinks that if I send a JAP Infantry Army with 10 Divs into North China, that I must have 2 or 3 Corps commanders/HQs well as the Army."

Because I can group my armour into one of the Corps and achieve a local superiority in numbers or type. One the defensive I can assign a Corps to defend a province or two and would hope that my Corps commander will rotate his units and or keep a reserve in case a primary assault happens on his patch. The alternative is to have an Army commander with a mix of divisions, which will be spread relatively evenly. This is easily beaten by concentration and specialism. I can assign a mountain Corps to a particular sector knowing the terrain, an amphibious Corps to take an Island ( this worked remarkably well in hoi3) or a line infantry Corps heavy on artillery and engineers to take forts.

You would end up micromanaging 25 divisions in an Army, or ending up with all sorts of units in the wrong places, I could achieve local superiority and smash your lines by merely commanding 5 units.

"Or why Rommel can't command the DAK on his own, without any lower levels. Nor why we must assign an Army Group and Theatre commander above Rommel, and have their rear echelon HQs on the map."

Rommel did so bad example. Group and Theatre were pointless in hoi3 other than a strange bonus system. Don't confuse this with being pointless in real life though. It is all doctrine dependant as the various HQs had different roles depending upon the Army. Generally speaking though the further back you go the more focussed the formation is upon logistics and maintenance. Hoi3 saw Theatre HQs commanding 2000 men, the reality would be closer to 250,000, most of whom would be involved in maintenance shops or logistics.

For instance a GTR company ( 40 trucks ) would be expected to move 200 tonnes of supplies 100 miles per day. As an infantry division ( Allied) needed about 600 tonnes per day that would be one battalion of transport ( 120 trucks) per 100 miles. After Dday the front was 300 miles from the main supply dumps ( Cherbourg and the beaches) hence a full Brigade needed to supply a single division on the front lines. Someone then has to fix, recover and manage all of these trucks, hence repair and maintenance depots. For extended operations deep into the hinterland you end up with 12 men behind the lines to support 1 on the front lines, all of whom need feeding and fueling. In order to supply Patton's 3rd Army on the advance 1 gallon of fuel was needed for every gallon delivered ( about 25,000 tonnes per day IIRC), though the figures don't take into account that he had a habit of stealing supplies from all nearby formations. This was in excellent Western European infrastructure, though admittedly the railways had been pounded to dust.

Without Corps you have a problem on the front lines too if I'm reading the system properly. Say you find out that you need more AT at the front in certain sectors. You could either alter you division template, which would take a great deal of time, or attach several AT units at Corps level and allow the local commander to distribute them where needed. Altering the template would see your divisions in the mountains receiving pointless AT, attaching at Corps lets you assign them to sectors where plains or lack of defensive map features make concentration of assets vital. You could say but I'll just attach them to the Army level, though if you only have enough AT for three or four units then these would be spread out over 25 divisions......

Don't confuse hoi3's system with a proper OOB.

 

[Sir Garnet]

With motor and air transport, HQ can be more mobile than the troops and may float within the command area. A flag or icon would suffice for any purpose where a specific province must be identified and the player would want to know which it is. I would think enough info would be given by Corps/Armies boundaries (as seen on military maps) and onscreen visual color or other coding within the current screen for the purpose of knowing where the formation elements are and their objectives.

For movement, in practice planning could be most simply done with vectors of successive phase lines and formation boundaries with flanking and rear echelon formations. Zoom out, or add overlay, to see the boundaries of higher formations. Draw a giant sweeping arrow across the map for an army and the logic can sort out the phase lines for the advance (or fallback positions for a withdrawal) depending on timing and terrain.

 

[potski]

"I'm not clear why anyone thinks that if I send a JAP Infantry Army with 10 Divs into North China, that I must have 2 or 3 Corps commanders/HQs well as the Army."

Because I can group my armour into one of the Corps and achieve a local superiority in numbers or type. One the defensive I can assign a Corps to defend a province or two and would hope that my Corps commander will rotate his units and or keep a reserve in case a primary assault happens on his patch. The alternative is to have an Army commander with a mix of divisions, which will be spread relatively evenly. This is easily beaten by concentration and specialism. I can assign a mountain Corps to a particular sector knowing the terrain, an amphibious Corps to take an Island ( this worked remarkably well in hoi3) or a line infantry Corps heavy on artillery and engineers to take forts.

You would end up micromanaging 25 divisions in an Army, or ending up with all sorts of units in the wrong places, I could achieve local superiority and smash your lines by merely commanding 5 units.

"Or why Rommel can't command the DAK on his own, without any lower levels. Nor why we must assign an Army Group and Theatre commander above Rommel, and have their rear echelon HQs on the map."

Rommel did so bad example. Group and Theatre were pointless in hoi3 other than a strange bonus system. Don't confuse this with being pointless in real life though. ... [snip]

Don't confuse hoi3's system with a proper OOB.

I used the example of Japan, an Infantry army, North China. What armour would you be grouping into a Corps? What mountain corps and indeed what mountains? Which Island would the marines be taking?

And I would be beaten by exactly which specialism of the Chinese? Those specialised militia really fill me with dread.

The only "specialised" unit in the JAP OOB are the Mongolian Cavalry - useful in the remote hills inland along the Mongolia border, where IC is extremely low. By mid-1937 I might have created an Armoured Div with light tanks. Put it in one of the attack vectors to give them a bit of a boost in the attack stats, in the centre or left flank.

Strategy involves managing the supply situation, winning with minimal units - if you pile in too many units, then you run out of supplies inland. Capturing the port near Beijing is a necessity. Being very careful with basing air forces, keep them out of supply lines in North China as long as possible. TAC can fly from Dalian, though they won't be able to cover whole area of the invasion. Use CAG from a CV task force in the Yellow Sea.

Capturing the port at Tianjin is important to improve supply lines. It can be captured by ground forces, but you might want to make this as quick as possible by an amphibious invasion. Not by a marine Corps though. IRL JAP landed the 5th Infantry Div there. But by the summer of 1937 I probably have enough new Inf Divs built on the home islands to launch a corps sized invasion, further down the coast behind Chinese front line, diverting forces away from Beijing. But you have to be confident to push down the coast from Tianjin to link up with the beachhead, so they don't run out of supplies. Or you delay the invasion, and send a larger number of Divs to the peninsular further south, and capture the port there. This then gives a major staging post to push inland, and split Chinese forces.

So however you do it, two phases: Beijing and Tianjin; defeat main forces, then keep them on the run, with three ground attack vectors for the ground forces - into Shaanxi/Inner Mongolia, Shanxi towards Yuncheng and down the coast. And you might have an invasion vector. Pause and create a separate battle plan for a major invasion either the peninsular or at Shanghai. Capture Shanghai and you could branch out in a number of directions, but a couple of attack vectors are the way to go - north along the coast and north west. Keep them in touch, aim to link up with North China forces. If you can emphasise the inland vector, include some armour if you have it. Try to pocket a major group of Chinese forces between them and the coast.

This is all going to take a couple of months. There is no need to have a single very complicated battle plan with several phases and many branching vectors, including the invasions. You might not have most of the Divs even built before Marco Polo. The additional IC available once DoW happens quickly allows major expansion of forces.

BTW I never mentioned about the usefulness of higher level HQs IRL. My argument is these levels above the level of combat, add nothing to the gameplay. As soon as you decide which level of formation you are going to be using as your primary combat forces, anything above that is pretty irrelevant. If you need some sort of bonuses affecting rear area forces, logistics etc. then using the General Staff guys to decide what bonuses should be sufficient. Have someone as a logistics wizard in the General Staff, rather than an Army Group commander would work for me. So unless the devs had a plan for the higher level HQs to have a very specific logistics role, such as operating as a mobile supply base, then they can be removed from the game. If the devs give us a good way to control build-up of supplies for a major offensive that doesn't depend on any on-map HQs then that's great.

 

[Chaffers]

You are still confusing hoi3's system with a proper OOB... The only functions that a corps gave you in hoi3 were an extra weak division and a strange bonus.

Even in the rather extreme example you have chosen a Corps would coordinate units on the defensive. For instance your lone divisions ( lets say three) attack a similar sized Corps. Once the attack began the Corps would coordinate the subordinate unit's artillery, and prefereably it's own, in counter battery fire. It would have the sigint and intel functions lacking in a line division as well as the sigs to do this. Hence three divisions organic artillery plus the Corps level against each individual divisions wins the dual quickly.

So your artillery would be destroyed piecemeal.

You might think that divisions would cooperate naturally but if this were so there would be no need for a chain of command.