-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I do not know what he meaned, i just know that what he said was a gross over estimate.
I know this is a little thing, but is there any chance that the map-mode keyboard shortcuts could be ported over from V2 and EU3? I play those games a lot, even if I'm not active in those forums, and I instinctively hit the "W" key when I start HOI3, even though it doesn't do anything. It would be nice if the game went to the political map mode when I hit the W key...
I jizzed my pants when reading the title and expected the long overdue rework of naval and air model.
Too early
Ah well, maybe with HOI4 ^^
Too early
Ah well, maybe with HOI4 ^^
There, there 1alexey - no need pounce so aggressively. Yes, the word "fielded" was badly chosen - as Cybvep and jamhaw kindly pointed out I was referring to the total amount of military personnel serving at one time or another over the course of the war. Thank you gentlemen for inferring what I meant in my absence
:rofl:There, there 1alexey - no need pounce so aggressively. Yes, the word "fielded" was badly chosen - as Cybvep and jamhaw kindly pointed out I was referring to the total amount of military personnel serving at one time or another over the course of the war. Thank you gentlemen for inferring what I meant in my absence
You screwed up and now try to make a good face by ,calling other persons agressive, and patronising.
Go go go
Sorry guys but the point was and is that one matter is to produce weapons and another is to “build” divisions. In my opinion Canada in WWII is a good example of that. I would like to have the option to see that in the game.
Regarding Canada from fttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_divisions_in_World_War_II
List of Canadian divisions in World War II:
• 1st Canadian Infantry Division “activated” in 1939
• 2nd Canadian Infantry Division “activated” in 1939
• 3rd Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1940
• 3rd Canadian Infantry Division (CAOF) new name, see above
• 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division formed in 1940
• 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division formed in 1939
• 6th Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1942
• 6th Canadian Infantry Division (CAPF) new name, see above
• 7th Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1942
• 8th Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1942
As you can see Canada was able to form in 7 years (from 1939 – to 1945, I include 1939 and 1945) 8 divisions i.e. the average of 1.14 divisions per year. Nevertheless the country gave an outstanding contribution to WWII because of manufacturing and convoys.
Regarding Canada from fttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_divisions_in_World_War_II
List of Canadian divisions in World War II:
• 1st Canadian Infantry Division “activated” in 1939
• 2nd Canadian Infantry Division “activated” in 1939
• 3rd Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1940
• 3rd Canadian Infantry Division (CAOF) new name, see above
• 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division formed in 1940
• 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division formed in 1939
• 6th Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1942
• 6th Canadian Infantry Division (CAPF) new name, see above
• 7th Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1942
• 8th Canadian Infantry Division formed in 1942
As you can see Canada was able to form in 7 years (from 1939 – to 1945, I include 1939 and 1945) 8 divisions i.e. the average of 1.14 divisions per year. Nevertheless the country gave an outstanding contribution to WWII because of manufacturing and convoys.
BTW it's best to analyse the number of men that country X fielded, not the number of divisions. Division composition varied greatly, e.g. Japanese divisions were different than American or French ones and during late-war there was also a tendency to increase the number of formations without increasing the number of troops proportionally (Do you see this AG over there? Let's split it in half and we will have two AGs! ).
).
The number of men fielded in anything other than directly participating in combat have no impact on the military strength.BTW it's best to analyse the number of men that country X fielded, not the number of divisions. Division composition varied greatly, e.g. Japanese divisions were different than American or French ones and during late-war there was also a tendency to increase the number of formations without increasing the number of troops proportionally (Do you see this AG over there? Let's split it in half and we will have two AGs!
The division size argument is moot. Most literate countries have revealed their division composition, so you can analyse it.
Also HOI do not take drivers, cooks, occupation troop, police, paramilitaries, SS, NKVD, ex into account, and those are a significant part of "fielded troops" actually about 2/3.
Last edited:
The point is that it doesn't matter if you have 150 divs or 200 divs, as long as the number of troops is the same, because this is your "real" combat strength. It can be misleading to look at the number of divisions alone.
Also, this statement - "The number of men fielded in anything other than directly participating in combat have no impact on the military strength." - is false, because it discounts the impact of support troops and staff, which don't participate in combat directly. The USA had a massive number of support staff (while only having ~90 divisions) and they were crucial for logistics and logistics is sth which often determines the outcome of the whole campaign.
Also, this statement - "The number of men fielded in anything other than directly participating in combat have no impact on the military strength." - is false, because it discounts the impact of support troops and staff, which don't participate in combat directly. The USA had a massive number of support staff (while only having ~90 divisions) and they were crucial for logistics and logistics is sth which often determines the outcome of the whole campaign.
Support troops that participate in figthing, such as artilery or aviation, are inclded it the directly participating.
Logistics does not take manpower in HOI, time to suck it up finally.
I agree
I agree, in addition I would say that it would be the right time to fix the manpower in HOI but this cannot be done by Paradox. It needs some volunteers. As far as I know Darkest Hour did an outstanding job on the map including manpower and resources.
It is more revelant to combat AI, because it does not recognise the lack of manpower, in the end, GER and SU will just grind eachouther down to where they have about 1/2 or 1/4 of divisions strength and can not reinforce.
Basically it is either give a nation enought MP to last for a desired time, or do a lot of improvements to the strategic AI, to know when to attack, when to utilise the MP-advantage to grind the opponent down, when to disband less importaint troops, ex.
Considering PI is incapable(or unwilling, or lacks time, or whatever the reason is there) of making fairly small AI improvenets such as moving ships out of the harbour that is under constant air attacks,
positioning planes in places from where they can actually attack the enemy(not the 5-10 ariwings sitting in Bavaria out of range of any enemy),
Not to mention gamechangers like teaching AI to upgrade, reorganise it`s army division composition, or teaching AI to know the supply situation,
Asking for AI improvements to just make a 0.1% of people that are discontent with current MP mechanics(though not level) is night unreasonable.
I think that the devs are trying to create the best AI they can, but they also realise that the AI development requires much work and bugfixing and at the same time it isn't really the greatest selling point, especially when we compare it with flashy features. Hopefully the AI will be improved in the expansion, but I wouldn't expect ground-breaking developments here, although I would love to be proven wrong in that case. Maybe we will get some info in the DDs, but we still don't know when they will come .
.
So you say that the army with the most frontline soldiers always win ? There are numerous exemples where that was not the case...
Makes me want to try and learn how to play the game properly.......again.
God I love you Paradox.
God I love you Paradox.
Read this about impact on frontline units and the guys in the back(f.e. medics)..
Very nice written thesis:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA284499
US was able to get much wounded folks back into the battle because of a very big medical team.
But they had at the same time a very bad reservist system etc.. If this wouldn't have been written by an US-Military guy you would have called that maybe lies what he reports in his work..
(At least reading that pdf would keep discussions about that topic calm here for a while..)
Cheers,
Chromos
Very nice written thesis:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA284499
US was able to get much wounded folks back into the battle because of a very big medical team.
But they had at the same time a very bad reservist system etc.. If this wouldn't have been written by an US-Military guy you would have called that maybe lies what he reports in his work..
(At least reading that pdf would keep discussions about that topic calm here for a while..)
Cheers,
Chromos
Wasn`t that mostly because of the nature of US soldiers wounds(afaik mostly shrapnel wounds)?Read this about impact on frontline units and the guys in the back(f.e. medics)..
Very nice written thesis:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA284499
US was able to get much wounded folks back into the battle because of a very big medical team.
But they had at the same time a very bad reservist system etc.. If this wouldn't have been written by an US-Military guy you would have called that maybe lies what he reports in his work..
(At least reading that pdf would keep discussions about that topic calm here for a while..)
Cheers,
Chromos
Mod related question will it be possible for events to trigger in a middle of a month?