Downgrade Unit Option?

[Hippob4]

Having watched Johann as Britain get PUMMELED in the Scandanavian Front by Germany's regular infantry compared to Britain's motorized infantry, I'm wondering if Paradox will let us downgrade units.

AKA Turn Mechanized/Motorized infantry into regular infantry.

I know you can upgrade units in HOI3 and most likely HOI4, from regular infantry to Mechanized, Paratroopers, etc. But you cant revert back to normal infantry, which is annoying especially when the downsides of motor and mechanzied divisions start appearing, that being terrain (mechanized wont do well in an South East Asian setting), the vulnerability to air attacks, and the supply and fuel consumption.

Realistically, shouldn't these divisions be able just to ditch trucks and halftracks if the terrain, supply consumption, and vulnerability to air harassment was a significant threat?

I think the cost to downgrading should be:

-Organization down to 0%
-And maybe your experience level decreases since the division now has to 're-learn' fighting without vehicle support. Like 2 stars going to 1 and 1/2 stars

Thoughts?

 

[afghanrabbit]

In the last video Daniel changed his armored division's motorized infantry brigade to light tanks so I would think johan could drop to regular infantry. It shouldn't cost him any new infantry equipment and most likely the game would put the trucks into inventory.

 

[panzerzombie]

In the last video Daniel changed his armored division's motorized infantry brigade to light tanks so I would think johan could drop to regular infantry. It shouldn't cost him any new infantry equipment and most likely the game would put the trucks into inventory.

Yes, the surplus equipment is put in the pool, e.g. like the light tanks Daniel changed with medium ones .... you could see that the LT pools increased and the medium pools decreased immediately.

Ditching vehicles does not mean you leave them in the curb to rot. They have drivers and you can redirect them to the nearest supply depot/staging area ( unless you are in a Dunkirk situation ofc)

podcats post in DD6 "division design" doesn´t say anything about "lost" equipment.

So, what's new? The key thing now is that you do not design each Division, you design a Division Template per type of Division you want to use and then build copies of that Template. If you decide to change your Division Template you will be told how much Equipment and Manpower it will cost (or return, you might make your units smaller or swap, say, Anti-Tank guns for Tank Destroyers, etc.) to upgrade all Divisions and then all your Divisions will start upgrading to the new design, subject to things like having enough Equipment and Divisions being in supply and not in combat.

 

[shri]

Instead learn to build - balanced templates.

Mot/Arm/Mech for North Africa, North German/North European Plains and Russian Steppes.
Light Infantry for South East Asia
Mountain and Light Infantry for Scandinavia and Italy and Balkans.
Cavalry for anti-partisan drives.

If light infantry is not given as a template, base infantry with engineers can (3*3 battalions) can be used as lights.
If you send the same template everywhere they will get slaughtered, like it happened to the Western allies in Italy in 1944.

 

[fabius]

Having watched Johann as Britain get PUMMELED in the Scandanavian Front by Germany's regular infantry compared to Britain's motorized infantry, I'm wondering if Paradox will let us downgrade units.

AKA Turn Mechanized/Motorized infantry into regular infantry.

I know you can upgrade units in HOI3 and most likely HOI4, from regular infantry to Mechanized, Paratroopers, etc. But you cant revert back to normal infantry, which is annoying especially when the downsides of motor and mechanzied divisions start appearing, that being terrain (mechanized wont do well in an South East Asian setting), the vulnerability to air attacks, and the supply and fuel consumption.

Realistically, shouldn't these divisions be able just to ditch trucks and halftracks if the terrain, supply consumption, and vulnerability to air harassment was a significant threat?

I think the cost to downgrading should be:

-Organization down to 0%
-And maybe your experience level decreases since the division now has to 're-learn' fighting without vehicle support. Like 2 stars going to 1 and 1/2 stars

Thoughts?

Like the Falaise Pocket; so the manpower can escape? Or similar situations. Makes sense; but I would not make the Org down to 0%. I think there's already a huge cost in downgrading. Maybe their in house 30 day supply is ditched too would make more sense.

 

[Victor Cortez]

You can downgrade.
You simply change div template (and lose veterancy I think).

 

[Nelfe]

Yeah, as Victor Cortez said, you can change the template of a div'. All equipment/vehicles used by the old template and not needed anymore by the new go back to the pool and can be used for another division.

 

[Midden]

Instead learn to build - balanced templates.

Mot/Arm/Mech for North Africa, North German/North European Plains and Russian Steppes.
Light Infantry for South East Asia
Mountain and Light Infantry for Scandinavia and Italy and Balkans.
Cavalry for anti-partisan drives.

If light infantry is not given as a template, base infantry with engineers can (3*3 battalions) can be used as lights.
If you send the same template everywhere they will get slaughtered, like it happened to the Western allies in Italy in 1944.

I don't think history shows the evolution of armies follows your silo of types for operations at all. During the 20th century armies that can afford it have become more and more motorized, including for all of the terrain types you mention. Motorization is an enhancement to an armies flexibility not a disadvantage. Hey, they don't fight from trucks they are a tool to get them and their kit where they need to be.

 

[shri]

I don't think history shows the evolution of armies follows your silo of types for operations at all. During the 20th century armies that can afford it have become more and more motorized, including for all of the terrain types you mention. Motorization is an enhancement to an armies flexibility not a disadvantage. Hey, they don't fight from trucks they are a tool to get them and their kit where they need to be.

Well, now you are comparing the armies of the 1930s with ones in 2000s. Motorised infantry in the 1930s meant that all your heavy weapons and ammo as also art/at/aa was truck mobile. If trucks were out of fuel, broke down or couldn't traverse difficult terrain in time, then the infantry regressed to light infantry without support.
Motorisation is an enhancement when the "Terrain" and "Logistics" co-operate, not when they do not. Motorisation is a dis-advantage when you fight in difficult terrain and do not have the means to keep the supplies flowing. for further reference- See the battles of Burma, Malaya, China, Eastern Europe's Finnish and Northern Fronts, Italian front, Balkan Front, "Balkan wars of the 1990s and 2000s", "War in Afghanistan in 1980s, 2000s". Everywhere (in the modern era) it is air-mobile troops and air-support which has helped the infantry, lack of these air-support would have meant a collapse of supply chains.
Modern armies use "helicopters" instead to air-supply troops and "air-drop" heavy weapons.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Malaya

Japanese committed three of their most motorized divisions (5th, 18th and Guards) to Malaya, so surely a counterpoint.

 

[shri]

Japanese committed three of their most motorized divisions (5th, 18th and Guards) to Malaya, so surely a counterpoint.

Japanese divisions were far less motorised than even the - foot infantry of the BEF and France's regular divisions in 1940, also they used - Bicycle infantry which cannot be called motorised. See their divisions TOE and check how many trucks, they had and you will find that they were as motorised as Graziani's Egyptian army or maybe lesser.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Japanese divisions were far less motorised than even the - foot infantry of the BEF and France's regular divisions in 1940, also they used - Bicycle infantry which cannot be called motorised. See their divisions TOE and check how many trucks, they had and you will find that they were as motorised as Graziani's Egyptian army or maybe lesser.

I am not disputing they were in reality semi-motorized. But that's besides the point in this case, because in a semi-motorized division the heavy equipment and logistics tend to be motorized and you seem to be arguing that it's motorization of these that can make a division vulnerable.

According to Niehorster, 25th Army's army level supply train was also heavily motorized: http://www.niehorster.org/014_japan/41-12-08_army/southern/army_025_transport.html

 

[shri]

I am not disputing they were in reality semi-motorized. But that's besides the point in this case, because in a semi-motorized division the heavy equipment and logistics tend to be motorized and you seem to be arguing that it's motorization of these that can make a division vulnerable.

According to Niehorster, 25th Army's army level supply train was also heavily motorized: http://www.niehorster.org/014_japan/41-12-08_army/southern/army_025_transport.html

I think in the website you pointed itself, there are 2 key markers-
http://www.niehorster.org/000_admin/009_symbols.html and http://www.niehorster.org/014_japan/41-12-08_army/southern/army_025.html

The first shows the "symbols" and the second shows the OOB of the Southern Army. The Southern army had 4 divisions, 2 foot and 2 motorised, BUT- they were not "Truck Mounted" infantry instead as rightly said by you yourself- it is "semi-motorised" (some of the MODS had this, but base game of HOI does not have it).
Now to difference between motorised and truck mounted-
Truck Mounted is US style infantry (WW2) which has its own trucks and can move around.
Motorised Infantry is wherein the Supporting staff, artillery etc is motorised but infantry walks or is helped at times by trucks (by doing several shifts).

In GAME-
Motorised infantry is US style infantry and rest all (including semi-motorised) is FOOT Infantry.
So, you have instead proved my own argument.

P.S.: in the DD's they stated that support equipment does not reduce speed, ever guessed why? because supports are supposed to be motorised.

 

[Killerrabbit]

Motorized Infantry is just normal infantry which will always fight and advance when under fire on foot like normal. The difference? They can arrive at the site of the battle via trucks, and thus be rested when engaging the enemy. That is the only difference. Actual combat effectiveness difference is not increased when adding trucks, only mobility is.

Mechanized Infantry have armored troop carriers, which function as support during battles. The actual fighting is still on foot.

Units which can fight effectivley from vehicles are relativley modern, (Cold war technology) and would consitute something called "Armored Infantry".

 

[fredgiblet]

Units which can fight effectivley from vehicles are relativley modern, (Cold war technology) and would consitute something called "Armored Infantry".

And even then not common. The Bradley's had their gun ports sealed up last I heard. It's not easy shooting out of a vehicle using just a little gun port.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I think in the website you pointed itself, there are 2 key markers-
In GAME-
Motorised infantry is US style infantry and rest all (including semi-motorised) is FOOT Infantry.
So, you have instead proved my own argument.

I'm honestly not sure what you are arguing for. I don't mean that in snarky way either. You have previously indicated that you think it's the motorization of support (as opposed the combat infantry elements) that makes a division vulnerable in real life and historically when compared to formations that use horses and carts and limbers for the same purpose. But now you seem* to be saying that division with motorized support only is (or should be?) considered as regular foot division and only those that add capability to truck-lift the entire division at once are motorized and should suffer from it's associated penalties.

For ingame representation, there is apparently a motorized army national focus for UK which Johan picked in WWW which motorizes the British infantry divisions. This seems to be modelled on the historically semi-motorized British infantry (including BEF). For Japan, I'm almost certain that 5th division was treated as motorized in HoI3, as was the Guards division before they implemented the elite units. I'm bit mixed about this, because the conditional full motorization of such units would depend on higher level HQ transport assets. So in certain situations they could be fully motorized, in other cases not, but the game can't represent this.

*Seem, because you used US divisions as example. US infantry divisions were semi-motorized with their organic assets. Based on your explanation I take what you meant are formations akin to early British motor formations.

 

[Iarodus]

Motorized Infantry is just normal infantry which will always fight and advance when under fire on foot like normal. The difference? They can arrive at the site of the battle via trucks, and thus be rested when engaging the enemy. That is the only difference. Actual combat effectiveness difference is not increased when adding trucks, only mobility is.

Mechanized Infantry have armored troop carriers, which function as support during battles. The actual fighting is still on foot.

Units which can fight effectivley from vehicles are relativley modern, (Cold war technology) and would consitute something called "Armored Infantry".

Motorized division TO&E's did often include extra support assets. Some things were added divisionally, TD's, AAA, or armored cars, but the infantry would often have extra MG's, light anti-tank weapons, mortars, I-guns, etc. Nothing too major though. On the flip side they often had smaller infantry squads, fewer AT guns (made up with TD's), and for the Germans at least, 6 battalions vs. 9 (until later in the war when all infantry went to 6 battalions).

More accurately, modern "armored infantry" are mechanized infantry whose armored vehicles can fight along side them. Mechanized infantry transported in APC's were still, in theory, supposed to largely fight on their own. APC's like the M113 and MTLB were "battle taxis" meant to drop the infantry off at the front and hang back providing distant HMG support at most (of course things don't always work out as planned). Trucks dropped the infantry off a few miles from the front and were mostly stuck to roads and trails. The main difference between APC's and trucks was cross country mobility, ability to keep up with tanks, protection against artillery and MG fire the infantry may face as they walked the few miles to the front, and the ability to dash in to pick up the infantry for a quick escape if need be.

And even then not common. The Bradley's had their gun ports sealed up last I heard. It's not easy shooting out of a vehicle using just a little gun port.

I think the M3 cavalry variant still has a couple, though they're not used much if at all. Fighting from the vehicle was a core part of the Soviets' doctrine and by extension everyone they supplied and advised until at least the '73 Yom Kippur war. I'm not sure if the Soviets changed their doctrine after that but they should have as the Arabs took huge casualties since every BMP the Israelis lit up took 10 or more soldiers with it. The soldiers themselves were also virtually useless at their main job of taking out anti-tank teams sneaking around their tanks.

 

[Midden]

@Antediluvian Monster ..... I think we have been responded to through this thread, with the classic argument stratagem of move the goal posts.

What we have failed to anticipate is that Shri's INF, include just enough horse transport (to keep them effectively supplied but not too many to be laughed at as a medieval era technology) and actually It appears - from post #14 that they of course have just enough motorised transport (to keep them moving fast and able to tow just enough heavy weapons - but not too many so they don't clog up the Jungle with their out of fuel hulks).

You see these INF can be everything he can imagine and slip through and match any tricky counterpoints.

 

[shri]

@Midden

https://www.google.co.in/maps/place...0x4664bcea4d8e22cd:0x7186faed0155b381!5m1!1e4
That is a terrain map of Scandinavia.
See those forests, lakes, hills, ravines and nearly impassable terrain? Now what you propose is a motorised army in the 1930s is making solid ground through these terrain.
What i am basically stating is that should be impossible. Why? because - metaled all weather roads were minimal in Scandinavia esp, Finland but also Norway in the 1930s, even Sweden had less of them. So, basically all those trucks of yours will be doing blitz via those forests and jungle paths which are difficult for a man to walk let alone a truck.
Add to these, Johan had TDs in his OOB, now all those Tank Destroyers also need their gargantuan supply. With so many problems if blitz of motorised succeeds that means the game is a failure in portraying terrain and weather conditions.

 

[Kazansky22]

Of course you can "downgrade" as well as you can "upgrade" just change your division composition via the division planner, and make sure you have the right equipment for your new style divisions.

On a side note, Does it cost experience points to unlock brigades on new division templates if you have already unlocked them on a previous template?