Endless battles

[Bullfrog]

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.

The problem here is that non combat divisional forces are severly underrepresented in HoI2, and non divisional forces are totally unrepresented. That is where the US manpower went.
Say Iwo Jima for example...3 marine divisions landed with manpower of 75,000. In HoI2 three marine divisions would be 45,000 men, just over half of the reality.

In HoI2 however, it is somewhat balanced out, that the lower cost of divisions (average 10 MP) allows for the lower MP output...but the US and the UK make way too many divisions than in reality because of the very low cost- for balance sake. Hopefully HoI3 will fix all this.

 

[unmerged(131342)]

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.

Leadership should solve this IMO. Leadership cost of your army should grow exponentially with your army because it's the glue that holds the whole pyramid together, and the pyramid gets bigger and bigger the larger the base is. Thus the US should, as it was historically, be able to field a lot of replacement troops easily, but it should be impossible to have a large army. I love the leadership more and more every day, and it already was love on first sight

 

[barleyman]

I don't know so much about exponentially increasing leadership, after all haveing 4 army groups instead of 2 requires approximately same number of junior and senior officers per army group.

However logistics network that can comfortably supply 2 army groups worth of supplies would start to creak dangerously under the load..

 

[Alex_brunius]

Leadership should solve this IMO. Leadership cost of your army should grow exponentially with your army because it's the glue that holds the whole pyramid together, and the pyramid gets bigger and bigger the larger the base is. Thus the US should, as it was historically, be able to field a lot of replacement troops easily, but it should be impossible to have a large army. I love the leadership more and more every day, and it already was love on first sight

Even if its offtopic I don't agree with that analysis at all.

US should be the nation that have the without a doubt largest leadership income. And if Soviet are going to have a realistic chance at fielding their 400+ historical divisions, then the leadership portion US have to spend on its army is laughable.

As barleyman say, for USA logistics is what limits your army, not leadership.

 

[Bullfrog]

Even if its offtopic I don't agree with that analysis at all.

US should be the nation that have the without a doubt largest leadership income. And if Soviet are going to have a realistic chance at fielding their 400+ historical divisions, then the leadership portion US have to spend on its army is laughable.

As barleyman say, for USA logistics is what limits your army, not leadership.

though it could be a limiting factor if logistics costs some leadership points as well as mp. Also the massive airforce of the USA should cost an extremely large amount of leadership....not too mention the USN and the advanced techs like the atomic bomb....It all depends on whether one plays the US historically or not. The leadership as a limiting factor also depends on how leadership is spent in HoI3, which we don't know.
And if the non divisional forces of the US and the support arm can be modeled, then the US has to use a similar amount of leadership in its army as the soviet union.

 

[unmerged(131342)]

I did not imply the US had less leadership income and thus the army is capped, I mean that leadership costs to maintain your army hierarchy should grow exponantially as your army base grows (no. divisions). A hierarchy is a pyramid above the base units (divisions in this case, but of course it goes all the way down to fireteams) that narrows and narrows all the way to the top, which would be the supreme commanders. Think of it as a businees; the more employees the more managers you need, but the managers need managing too, so the more managers you have the more managers you need, etc. So the leadership maintanance for a 100 div army should IMHO be a lot more then just 10 times that needed to maintain an army of 10 divisions. this brings a natural cap to the size of your army, dependant on your leadership income available for the army.

But then there is also logistics of course. Supplying all those divisions is no easy job either, even on home territory. Eventually there is some cap to what your infrastructure can handle. Knowing nothing of the numericals involved with HoI3 on either of these subjects, itś hard to say which one will lay a physical cap at how big an army can be in HoI3, but it is sure to be one of the two.

 

[Evans]

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.

Doesn't that point to the problem of upkeep, supply, maintenance and financial costs in supporting such a large number of units? HoI doesn't really cap or penalise you for having a large amount of forces under arms - but that begs the question - shouldn't it be doing so somehow? 'Leadership' alone doesn't feel an adequate solution.

As for attrition, I've long thought there should be attrition between adjacent units - the odd combat event sounds good too, local opportunities developing might throw some unpredictability into the mix, and also serve to generate some interest on otherwise stagnant frontage.

 

[Zwiback]

Didn't Victoria had such a feature. I think it is a pretty good addition to the game and if it is balanced right, it could work out.

 

[JoeGiavani]

Didn't Victoria had such a feature. I think it is a pretty good addition to the game and if it is balanced right, it could work out.

IIRC your units would suffer attrition if they were in a foreign province and a neighbouring province had fortifications, with a higher level of fortification meaning a higher attrition rate.
I'd like to see a constant attrition rate for units on the front line, it makes no sense to not model in the manpower loss for skirmishes etc.

 

[Luka]

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.

I think that this is quite an important point. as of HoI2 there is no need to retire your unit from the front line for rest, reorganization, refitting, etc. Maybe upgrades can only occur when not adjacent to an enemy province or something?

 

[unmerged(44926)]

Didn't Victoria had such a feature. I think it is a pretty good addition to the game and if it is balanced right, it could work out.

And in HoI a similar won't have the same glaring fault as Victoria did... Having to manually reinforce your divisions in Victoria made the fact that units could be severely depleted, or even destroyed, after a few weeks bordering a fortified enemy province defended by artillery a real hassle.

 

[6354201]

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?

So because your PC is old we can't add new features to the game?

It is a major pet peeve of mine when people argue against a new feature because it would "strain the game engine". Please. HOI3 is using an engine that is already two years old. Any halfway decent computer bought today will run it with ease, heck even an older computer should have no problem since the engine IS old.

Yeah, I know not everyone has a few hundred dollars lying around to build a new a computer (or purchase one), but it's a poor argument to use when saying a new feature shouldn't be added to the game. Nothing Paradox is going to implement, short of adding an infinite loop that runs in the background for no reason, would make HoI3's requirements so high that everyone would have to run out and buy a gaming PC.

For a reference point, I should add that my current computer could be built for under 500$ and it runs EU3 with ease at a high resolution. 2 GB of RAM, a low end Pentium Dual Core and a mid range 8600 GT video card (which you can find for well under 100$) is all that powers it. If building isn't your thing Dell probably has some computers for around ~750$ that would run EU3 nicely. I'm not going to list any specs since this reply is long enough as it is, and frankly I just don't want to bother looking right now..

As to the main thread, I think a small, very small, additional manpower drain should be added. But past that I really don't think much needs to be changed. HOI2 already had attrition which was heavily modified by weather conditions.

 

[Bullfrog]

So because your PC is old we can't add new features to the game?

No, this is not what I meant.

It is a major pet peeve of mine when people argue against a new feature because it would "strain the game engine". Please. HOI3 is using an engine that is already two years old. Any halfway decent computer bought today will run it with ease, heck even an older computer should have no problem since the engine IS old.

I don't think that this thread's particular idea is worth the completely new and independent combat mechanism, requiring extra effort on the CPU, when more valuable features could be included in its place.

As to the main thread, I think a small, very small, additional manpower drain should be added. But past that I really don't think much needs to be changed. HOI2 already had attrition which was heavily modified by weather conditions.

Funny that is almost exactly what I said.

 

[unmerged(132822)]

Is attrition negligeable?

A poster showed how even a small attrition (good on the 200 men per day!) would have a meaning. As it did IN FACT.

In game terms, if the balance is affected, it is wiser to simply add a little manpower AND have the attrition than simply ignore it.
"But its all the same!"

No. Picture this:

200 divisions head to head with 300 soviet divisions. Constant fighting and artillery. Yes, guns get blown up, vehicles and ambulances get shot, people get killed. You don't need to order an attack for it, it just happens.
(some newly-arrived lieutenant fresh out of the hitler jugend decides to show those slackers on the front how the war can be won and gets himself and his platoon shot up).

There is constant drain. A high proportion will be newbies, but some will be veterans. In time, this actually affects experience.

Now you got the same 200 divs. You've won the war and forced your foes to surrender. There is no continuous front facing fully armed enemies. No manpower drain, you rebuild faster.
Just there, you have a difference.

As for attrition... did you know tanks were constantly going to hell simply from wear? That full tank engines had to be replaced sometimes after a few hundreds of kilometers? Ditto for transmissions and other parts. Artillery guns had their gun barrels replaced regularly. Did you know that the first Panthers - which today are so vaunted - were actually despised at times for their ability to break anywhere anytime and catch fire at the slightest excuse?

In the little ideal world of numbers and little unit markers things are neat. In reality just moving a panzer division causes losses in organization. As it continues movement it reaches a "constant" level that is probably 1/3 or 1/2 lower than 100% org. A % of its panzers will be in repairs and some will be getting towed back to the workshops.

Planes? Even worse.

In may-june 1940, out of 1369 fighters, 235 got destroyed on operations. 169 went down to enemy action, 66 NOT to enemy action. 22 were destroyed not on operations.
Read this again. 1/4 of total was not due to enemy action. It was just planes getting flown about. Even out of operations, 22 got destroyed on a normal course of events - just moving planes around or bad landings or something.
This was an easy period.
In other periods, the Luftwaffe was competing with the allies and soviets to see who could destroy the most german aircraft. Sometimes the Luftwaffe won.
But really, just setting the squadrons to patrol without a single enemy plane in sight would mean constantly replacing them. Add in a few scrambles and missions in bad conditions – even without a single shot you’ll be losing them by the hundred.

It was for no reason that fighter and bomber strength in frontline units varied from 80 to 70% in feb to aug 1943.

In bomber command (brits) there were 764 planes present for duty in january. During the whole year they lost 2751. Yes, almost 4 times the total strength.
Were whole squadrons destroyed one by one? Hell no. None was totally destroyed in the air, UNLIKE HOI. Big losses were 10% in a battle, catastrophic somewhat more. But 10% ten times is 100%... (assuming you replace them).
They just suffered... attrition. The world wasn't perfect.
In 1944 things got a lot better. They had 1224 in january 44. They lost 3220 in 1944. This WAS a lot better. Still pretty gruesome, though.

Aircraft production shows this.
Me 109 - in 1943, production was:
june 663
july 704
august 515
sept 525
Yes, 6-7-5-5 squadrons in 4 months.

But the squadrons themselves were NOT destroyed. What happened? They destroyed them landing, taking off, on bad weather, whatever.

Cumulative effect is a bitch, boys and girls. You don’t need a single decisive battle. Just waste 7 to 12% of your strength every month and see how it turns out.

Actually, the way squadrons are eliminated in HOI is just totally plain wrong. It didn’t happen that way. This is the limitation of a system that treats a battleship, a division and a squadron of planes the same way.

 

[unmerged(135580)]

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.

German soldier 1: I'm bored! We've been sitting here for weeks, staring at the Russians.

German 2: Let's have a snowball fight!

German 1: GOOD IDEA! I'll get Hans and Fritz!

Russian calling out: Can we join?

German 1: Sure! Gray verus red!

Russian: Vasily! Get Commisar Petroff! We need offical Josef Stalin snowballs straight from the factory!

10 minutes latter, in an epic snowball battle.

Suddenly, Fritz pulled out his mp44 and sprayed the Russians.

Russian 7: WTF! H4X0R!

Fritz: I just recieved orders telopathically from another dimension in an instant to actually start fighting.

 

[208]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in one of the Dev Diaries (or replies to one) that there would be a scaling reduction of manpower income (basically a "manpower tax") based on the size of your standing army. This should accurately simulate ongoing manpower maintenance costs outside of actual combat.

 

[Nemsys]

If there are attrition losses due to "minor" combats (patrols, snipers and so on) wouldn't it be justified to also add small experience gains? Soldiers on a static front line do not learn as much as soldiers in active combat, but they still learn more than soldiers not on the front line.

 

[Hansag]

They might not lose any XP when they get new recruits?

I like the idea though. Even if illnesses probably take down more soldiers. Some extra attrition aught to be present from the enemy harassing you all the time.

 

[Premu]

Higher attrition due to enemy presence sounds quite historical, but there were also situations in which practically noone shot at each other, like in the "Sitzkrieg" on the western front 1939 and early 1940.

So I think an abstraction would be fine enough. Every unit should suffer a slight attrition which could be influenced by weather, province infrastructure, partisan activity, terrain, etc. This would be realistic enough in my opinion, it's not necessary to include the number of adjacent enemy artillery brigades.

Another point to constant wear off of tanks, artellery, etc. Well, this is included in the supplies in my opinion. Heavy or unreliable tanks have higher supply costs than reliable and light ones. I think reliability is also included as attribute for all the war machinery, so it shouldn't be so hard to add a supply cost penality for unreliable tanks.

 

[unmerged(128095)]

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.

Spot on! Your post had moved to the second page and I responded to another thread with almost the exact thoughts. I too thought it strange you could have divisions facing each other for weeks or months at a time and nothing at all happens.