Endless battles

[unmerged(132822)]

I was looking at my Eastern front and thinking, NOTHING HAPPENS. Not a shot is fired!

There were a few million people in arms, many thousands of tanks and planes and nobody was doing anything, other than a few poxy Soviet CAS.

When units are in contact, there is constant activity. It is low-key compared to a major assault, but patrols are searching each-other out, prisioners are being taken, hills and artillery observation positions are being fought over. Artillery is sending some love across the front, and getting some in return as counter-battery fire ensues.
Sometimes the action is at the platoon or company level, but things are happening.

My suggestion:
1 - units in contact with the enemy should have a constant, small drain of manpower.

2 - there should be some combat events occasionally. Those supplies being spent are ACTUALLY being spent - and fired.
This represents small battles, but over an entire front it matters.
Weather will greatly influence this (a lot less in bad weather)

2 - intelligence will be taken and the units will have a probability to identify those across them.

3 - if the leaders are very different in skill, the best leader will accumulate some bonus as he reckons the area properly and gains a better picture of the situation, and also by taking and holding good defensive ground. This would appear as a bonus - say an extra 5-10% after a while.

4 - numerical advantage matters, but a LOT less. The action will be at small-sized unit range, which means both sides will be far more even in this sort of fight.

5 - the actions will alternate randomly between defender and attacker, because at that level even the one in inferiority may be the one sending aggressive patrols and provoking fights.

 

[Bob Ilyani]

I was looking at my Eastern front and thinking, NOTHING HAPPENS. Not a shot is fired!

There were a few million people in arms, many thousands of tanks and planes and nobody was doing anything, other than a few poxy Soviet CAS.

When units are in contact, there is constant activity. It is low-key compared to a major assault, but patrols are searching each-other out, prisioners are being taken, hills and artillery observation positions are being fought over. Artillery is sending some love across the front, and getting some in return as counter-battery fire ensues.
Sometimes the action is at the platoon or company level, but things are happening.

My suggestion:
1 - units in contact with the enemy should have a constant, small drain of manpower.

2 - there should be some combat events occasionally. Those supplies being spent are ACTUALLY being spent - and fired.
This represents small battles, but over an entire front it matters.
Weather will greatly influence this (a lot less in bad weather)

2 - intelligence will be taken and the units will have a probability to identify those across them.

3 - if the leaders are very different in skill, the best leader will accumulate some bonus as he reckons the area properly and gains a better picture of the situation, and also by taking and holding good defensive ground. This would appear as a bonus - say an extra 5-10% after a while.

4 - numerical advantage matters, but a LOT less. The action will be at small-sized unit range, which means both sides will be far more even in this sort of fight.

5 - the actions will alternate randomly between defender and attacker, because at that level even the one in inferiority may be the one sending aggressive patrols and provoking fights.

1. This would make it impossible to run a war. A constant drain of manpower would render, let's just say, Barbossa, impossible.

2. Occasionally. Unless you want a combat event firing every 10 seconds, this won't effect gameplay too much.

3. And? So? Does an infantry division become better at killing infantry or tanks if they no that they are in a different territory?

4. HoI is a game about great military conflicts. That's why it's called a "Grand Strategy" game. If you want a game about WW2 squad-based fighting, play Company of Heroes. HoI is about the massive battles of WW2 and experiencing them as a nation, not small squad battles.

5. What is this supposed to mean? That events will be going on for both sides? To much micro in closing all those boxes.

Nice try, but I don't want HoI3 to be a squad-based game. Controlling massive armies is fine by me, and, while someone may put what you said in a mod or something, it's not for me. I like the feeling of massive armies clashing on the front lines.

 

[Ostheim]

I think we just need some minor rate of attrition for units adjacent to the enemy, not just when the weather is bad.

 

[Alex_brunius]

3 - if the leaders are very different in skill, the best leader will accumulate some bonus as he reckons the area properly and gains a better picture of the situation, and also by taking and holding good defensive ground. This would appear as a bonus - say an extra 5-10% after a while.

Don't we already have dug defensive in bonus in HoI2? IIRC its even 20%.

 

[Volt]

I agree a slight frontline attrition modifier would be a good addition. But it really should be rather small - after all, there most of the time life on the front is rather quiet.

 

[Luka]

I would imagine that casualties from disease and general ill health would probably cause a more significant drain on manpower. I could be wrong though. Having said that I would oppose the idea of a steady front line attrition, unless this is already accounted for in regular attrition?

 

[unmerged(41034)]

I think its correct that if you place artillery brigades on your divisions it would apply attrition to enemies you border, thus justifying artillary. you shouldnt have to actually place your units into attacking to use artillary



How many posters in the HOI2 forums say they never use artillary brigades because they dont justify the expense?

 

[unmerged(131111)]

well i think its a semi good idea although if its already accounted for in hoi 2 in attrition then the only improvement would be that artillery/ other attachments should increase this amount.

 

[jocke_p]

I think its correct that if you place artillery brigades on your divisions it would apply attrition to enemies you border, thus justifying artillary. you shouldnt have to actually place your units into attacking to use artillary

An artillery brigade is just a concentrated artillery unit, one thing to remember though is that many other brigades/regiments had organic artillery components historically. That would mean that most divisions without a dedicated artillery brigade should also be able to hurt the enemy without "attacking". That would support the idea that enemy divisions next to eachother should hurt eachother continuesly.

Personally i do not like such a feature as this would suggest that artillery resources where expended on a daily basis by all units at the front. I think it should be up to the player to "probe" the frontline by actually ordering attacks now and then.

Divisions with dedicated artillary brigades should instead trigger combat events like "preliminary/defencive bombardment" every now and then, in both attack and defence.This could give the division a combat bonus for 2-4 hours.

 

[Kernest]

I´d like the idea if you have artilleries, you could choose mission with your troops that increases attrition on enemy front, all units had some artillery with them, but ones without actual brigades of artillery would cause lot less attrition to enemy.
Actually most "supplies" used by armies, when not on offensive but rather sitting and holding positions, were food so that there should be no constant battle just so that they use all the bullets they get.
Maybe they should "stock up" the supplies they don´t use so that we can see better fighting even if encircled (i think they were planning to put this some way already)

 

[Fielding]

1. This would make it impossible to run a war. A constant drain of manpower would render, let's just say, Barbossa, impossible.

But Barbarossa was a constant drain of manpower, and arguably one of the main reasons Germany lost the war. Even in the early 'good' days, when the German army was advancing rapidly, they suffered much higher manpower losses than in any of the earlier campaigns in Poland, France or the Balkans.

I'm not sure about some of the OP's other suggestions, but a small drain on manpower for units in contact (i.e. adjacent) with the enemy is a great idea, I think. As it is, in HoI2 Barbarossa is just way too easy, and anything HoI3 can do to make the game more realistic (while still being playable, of course) would be welcome.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Actually, a small drain on manpower sounds like a good idea, it would make moving my Panzer divisions to France to refit a good idea. Instead I can just sit them in Odessa, and their fine, despite Soviet artillery just across in the next province.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

I like the idea - its not only battles - there was constant engages on a level that can not be simulated:
- small probes
- patrols
- taking prisoners missions
- recon through combat
- infiltration
Front lines were not peaceful, soldiers didnt just stand there and looked at each other. They were shooting. Even between trenches. Or sinipers firing on everybody they see.
Frontal attrition should do that.
I thing that a major nr o men were killed during this actions.

 

[Kernest]

yeah, expects prisoners are out of question, and in front line they didn´t really go to enemy side just to put a gun on guy and drag him back to own side.

 

[ulrichomega]

1.-5.

Chill. In no way is he advocating a squad based game. He's advocating a small amount of manpower loss, as well as a few other aspects that would improve the game by making that aspect realistic. However, many of those points were already somewhat represented under HOI2, except for manpower loss.

 

[Bullfrog]

While the OP has a point, the accurate implementation of this feature would have nearly a negligable effect on the manpower loss of the army in HoI terms.

Things like random arty strikes and patrols would have no more than a small percentage of MP losses inflicted on the front line per division. You are speaking of such small losses that the MP drain would be .00XX per week.

Perhaps a decrease of national MP gain would work better, rather than taking it directly from the divisions? This would simulate attrition on all levels, including loss from the front due to low level fighting. It would include accidents, discharges, sickness and other non battle losses as well. Of course the amount lost would have to be based on various factors like climate, terrain and the extensiveness of the front and the amount of fielded divisions or total MP...

But modeling such low level attrition as is presented in the OP is beneath HoI's scope. I would prefer all of it to be lumped together, so basically an enhanced model of attrition that we have in HoI2.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Things like random arty strikes and patrols would have no more than a small percentage of MP losses inflicted on the front line per division. You are speaking of such small losses that the MP drain would be .00XX per week.

If a single soldier dies from attrition per day in each division (one squad a week) and you have 200 divisions on the front lines, then thats 200men or 0.2manpower per day, 20% of Germanys ENTIRE manpower income or 10% of Soviets. No matter how your counting its to large to ignore, more effect than most ministers.

 

[Jmland]

Easy to impliment

New ground forces mission(s)

Arty bombardment- shell enemy unit in contact, costs extra supplies, inflicts a randomly small amount of casualties /hour (something like 0 to .001-completely arbitrary numbers). You can set the mission like "anti partisan duty", and leave it alone. The key point is that the enemy can do the same to you. Can be used to support adjacent units attacks (similar to air units targeting units in combat now), and does not cause the unit to leave it's well built and extensive entrenchments, as no movement is involved.

Aggressive Patroling-Additional supplies used, and small random amount of casualties to both sides. Possibility to generate some random combat based event (don't ask me what, just a suggestion). Probably the unit could get some small (possibly random) experience gain out of this also.

 

[Bullfrog]

If a single soldier dies from attrition per day in each division (one squad a week) and you have 200 divisions on the front lines, then thats 200men or 0.2manpower per day, 20% of Germanys ENTIRE manpower income or 10% of Soviets. No matter how your counting its to large to ignore, more effect than most ministers.

But I did not say it should be ignored. I just said it should be lumped into attrition as we know it from HoI2. Making a whole mechanic just for this is only going to add further strain to the engine. My poor PC is already on its last leg.
I am sure that attrition from weather, regular sickness, etc. would cause far more indirect casualties than the company and below daily operations. IMO, it is more important to model those things if we are trying for accuracy. If HoI2's attrition could be made more serious, would you not include the OPs idea into it?

 

[Jmland]

If a single soldier dies from attrition per day in each division (one squad a week) and you have 200 divisions on the front lines, then thats 200men or 0.2manpower per day, 20% of Germanys ENTIRE manpower income or 10% of Soviets. No matter how your counting its to large to ignore, more effect than most ministers.

German losses were far far higher than this, at least after Sept 41. One of the reasons that the entire german establishment was severely understrength from 42 onward. Most german units were lucky if they could muster 70% of TO&E authorized strength. This caused the German High Command to prioritize reinforcements to specifiic units/sectors, which lead to the Stalingrad/Caucus campaign, rather than a general front-wide summer 42 offensive on the Eastern front.

I agree that the numbers of new soldiers coming availible each day/month/whatever needs to be looked at, because in my opinion, they are way too low for a nation in "full mobilization of the population" like the Sov's were, and the Germans were in 44-45. The problem is balance, as the US can throw everything off. Historically, the US planned for 100 divisions (89 actually formed and deployed), but this used up a total of approx 2.4 million (2384 MP in HOI terms). The US (in HOI) can easily triple that number without hitting a MP shortage, and probably go higher if they ignore naval and air building. If the US were to go into something similar to full mobilization like the Sov's or Germany had to do, easily 500 divisions, based on population and industrial capacity.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that I think PI intentionally kept the MP low for everyone so as keep exploits out. If you were to consider Nat China's population and the number of militia divisions that this population could field, I think you get the picture.