Expeditionary/Volunteer forces!

[Zaku]

Yes it is a broken mechanic. From the German decision to commit forces to Spain, we could see that they were able to send 2 divisions based on the number of divisions they had operational. This means that if a nation spams regiment/brigade sized units, they can then send a greater number of full sized divisions to intervene. Germany had the option of sending 2 divisions of a starting total of 30, so 1 for every 15 units. If instead of 30 divisions they had 5 divisions and 75 brigades, they would be able to send 5 units, meaning they could send the divisions and keep the brigades at home. This would increase the size of their intervention by 150% despite having the same numbers of troops.

This is a non issue since it can be easily fixed during beta by giving a limit of battalions and not divsions.

 

[Zaku]

Japan should be able to supply 4 divisions overseas at cost to their own logistics and supply capacity in areas that they had a historical interest in.

Yes, and? I also mentioned that supporting a civil war should be an economic burden to them. I never said it shouldnt be.

 

[Axe99]

I don't see the connection.
I used historical numbers because someone was debating that sending several divisions was a joke, I pointed out that it happened in real life.
I never argued about historical OOBs, because they are not in HOI4 so it doesn't matter very much in this topic.
All I'm saying is that Japan should be able to supply 4 HOI4 divisions overseas.

I think I mentioned this before but the big reason you can't compare HoI4 division sizes with actual real division manpower is because HoI4 (and 3, and 2, and I'm fairly sure 1 but there's no way my memory is reliable enough to be sure) manpower doesn't include a lot of the non-combat elements of a division. If comparing HoI4 with real-life manpower you should probably multiply the HoI4 manpower by roughly (very) 1.5.

 

[jamesd]

This is a non issue since it can be easily fixed during beta by giving a limit of battalions and not divsions.

Glad to see you're agreeing that it is currently a broken mechanic that needs to be fixed before the game is released.

 

[Zaku]

I think I mentioned this before but the big reason you can't compare HoI4 division sizes with actual real division manpower is because HoI4 (and 3, and 2, and I'm fairly sure 1 but there's no way my memory is reliable enough to be sure) manpower doesn't include a lot of the non-combat elements of a division. If comparing HoI4 with real-life manpower you should probably multiply the HoI4 manpower by roughly (very) 1.5.

You are right, but that's the only number we have. Since hoi4 uses 1:1 ratio(to my knowledge) between manpower and actual men, it means if a battalion costs 1000 MP it has 1000 men in it.

 

[Zaku]

Glad to see you're agreeing that it is currently a broken mechanic that needs to be fixed before the game is released.

If you like to call it that way then sure.
I think a broken mechanic would be something that is absolutely useless or not working at all.

 

[jamesd]

You are right, but that's the only number we have. Since hoi4 uses 1:1 ratio(to my knowledge) in manpower and actual men, it means if a battalion costs 1000 MP it has 1000 men in it.

No that's not entirely correct because the game does not model rear area and logistics troops. Yes that battalion may have 1000 men in it, but for the men that go into it, you also need to account for the troops not explicitly modelled that keep it operational. This means that 1000 MP probably equates to 1500 (or more) men in the army, with 1000 in the battalion and 500+ in the supply chain, HQ's, road and rail maintenance etc.

 

[Zaku]

No that's not entirely correct because the game does not model rear area and logistics troops. Yes that battalion may have 1000 men in it, but for the men that go into it, you also need to account for the troops not explicitly modelled that keep it operational. This means that 1000 MP probably equates to 1500 (or more) men in the army, with 1000 in the battalion and 500+ in the supply chain, HQ's, road and rail maintenance etc.

Do you have a source on that? I don't think that's right. I remember seeing a post that mentioned that every MP is 1 soldier.

 

[jamesd]

Do you have a source on that? I don't think that's right. I remember seeing a post that mentioned that every MP is 1 soldier.

Maybe I should have said, that's not how it should work because for every 1000 men in a combat battalion there are many men not in combat battalions. For example, a US divisional slice for logistics purposes was about 50,000 men, but the divisions had less than 15,000 men in them. Even if we say there were 10,000 men in non-divisional combat units for each division, that would still be 50% manpower in combat units and 50% in non combat units, so therefore if 1000 MP in the game builds a 1000 man battalion, then that 1000MP is actually representing 2000 men in the army. Even if we factor in that minimal combat losses would be suffered by the non-combat troops, it would be entirely fair to say that 1000 MP represents 1500 actual men.

If HOI4 has equated 1 MP to 1 man, and is not reducing the manpower points available to account for rear area troops, then players will be able to man many more divisions than they had historically, thus allowing nations that suffered from manpower constraints to be more aggressive.

 

[Porkman]

Do you have a source on that? I don't think that's right. I remember seeing a post that mentioned that every MP is 1 soldier.

Sort of...

This goes back to the problem of them dumbing down the logistics.

Why was a German division so much better than a Slovakian division?

It wasn't that the Slovaks were bad... it was that the German division had all of these supporting elements, better weapons, and better infrastructure supporting them.

The US didn't have many divisions in WW2, but they were massive with a ton of noncombat supporting elements.

This is the tooth to tail ratio. The ratio of combat elements to non combat elements.

I do like the batalllion system, but it is a bit "tooth" heavy where it seems like the MP is largely represented and only reduced to create people who are holding rifles.

This is actually bad for the game. A WW2 army actually needs a large tail to fight effectively. A Japanese division was a lot more effective than a Chinese division because it was 3 times larger and had a tail. Chinese divisions were generally just a bunch of guys with rifles with a very rudimentary command structure and no support battalions.

But if I build a Chinese division with 3 battalions and a German division with 3 battalions the game will think they're equal (except in technology) when they're not. German vanilla infantry battalions had a lot extra that minor nations couldn't have.

 

[Zaku]

Maybe I should have said, that's not how it should work because for every 1000 men in a combat battalion there are many men not in combat battalions. For example, a US divisional slice for logistics purposes was about 50,000 men, but the divisions had less than 15,000 men in them. Even if we say there were 10,000 men in non-divisional combat units for each division, that would still be 50% manpower in combat units and 50% in non combat units, so therefore if 1000 MP in the game builds a 1000 man battalion, then that 1000MP is actually representing 2000 men in the army. Even if we factor in that minimal combat losses would be suffered by the non-combat troops, it would be entirely fair to say that 1000 MP represents 1500 actual men.

If HOI4 has equated 1 MP to 1 man, and is not reducing the manpower points available to account for rear area troops, then players will be able to man many more divisions than they had historically, thus allowing nations that suffered from manpower constraints to be more aggressive.

Well the battalion size varies from 400 to 1000. Since the Hoi4 size is 1000 men we can say that there are 600-700 combat personel and the rest is logistics.

 

[Zaku]

But if I build a Chinese division with 3 battalions and a German division with 3 battalions the game will think they're equal (except in technology) when they're not. German vanilla infantry battalions had a lot extra that minor nations couldn't have.

You can attach several support/logistics units to your division if you want to increase their efficiency. China won't have Ic to build up the support equipment, but Germany will.

 

[jamesd]

Well the battalion size varies from 400 to 1000. Since the Hoi4 size is 1000 men we can say that there are 600-700 combat personel and the rest is logistics.

Unfortunately that still won't work. Using the US as an example, even if all their divisional templates have 25 battalions in them at 1000 men each (and not all HOI4 battalions will have 1000 men - for example it looks like light tank battalions have 500) then that's only 25,000 men per division when there should be 50,000.

 

[Zaku]

Unfortunately that still won't work. Using the US as an example, even if all their divisional templates have 25 battalions in them at 1000 men each (and not all HOI4 battalions will have 1000 men - for example it looks like light tank battalions have 500) then that's only 25,000 men per division when there should be 50,000.

Well its an abstraction. You can't have a hunderd percent accurate game considering the scope of it.
My point was that 1 men is actually 1 MP in this game and the basic logistic is part of the battalions already. Division sizes are smaller, but they can reach the avarage 15-16K men if you spend XP on the templates. If you want a larger "tail" for your divisions, then you can attach logistic battalions field hospitals, etc to them.

EDIT:
I'm also wondering if the game has an added bonus to battalion size to superior firepower doctrine, to simulate the extra MP in logistics the USA had.

 

[Porkman]

Well its an abstraction. You can't have a hunderd percent accurate game considering the scope of it.
My point was that 1 men is actually 1 MP in this game and the basic logistic is part of the battalions already. Division sizes are smaller, but they can reach the avarage 15-16K men if you spend XP on the templates. If you want a larger "tail" for your divisions, then you can attach logistic battalions field hospitals, etc to them.

EDIT:
I'm also wondering if the game has an added bonus to battalion size to superior firepower doctrine, to simulate the extra MP in logistics the USA had.

I would like the idea in the edit.

I have a problem with the game focusing more on the frills than the base logistics.

I was bringing up the China example because they also lacked not just the tail but also things like mortars, machine guns, artillery etc. They had all of them, but in such short supply as to be nearly useless.

The same was true of the armies in Spain. They had modern weaponry, just not enough.

 

[jamesd]

I would like the idea in the edit.

I have a problem with the game focusing more on the frills than the base logistics.

I was bringing up the China example because they also lacked not just the tail but also things like mortars, machine guns, artillery etc. They had all of them, but in such short supply as to be nearly useless.

The same was true of the armies in Spain. They had modern weaponry, just not enough.

One of the things I liked about HOI3 and the on map HQ's was that they required manpower and so at least some of the logistics & other rear area troops were explicitly represented. I also plonked garrison troops down on all occupied provinces that contained something of value necessitating lots of additional manpower in the rear areas.

 

[Porkman]

One of the things I liked about HOI3 and the on map HQ's was that they required manpower and so at least some of the logistics & other rear area troops were explicitly represented. I also plonked garrison troops down on all occupied provinces that contained something of value necessitating lots of additional manpower in the rear areas.

I had a really good idea for how to handle garrisons here....

Not implemented in the game.

 

[agus92]

I had a really good idea for how to handle garrisons here....

Not implemented in the game.

He, I remember that one. It opened a really good discussion.

 

[takedown47]

Terrible video. It didn't show any fix to the oil debacle. Paradox still haven't learned anything it seems.

 

[FOARP]

Those Moroccans were Spanish, in the sense that Spanish Morocco was part of Spain and their regiments were long standing parts of the Spanish army and were regarded as a cut above the average unit - probably because they had more combat experience due to regular skirmishing with Moroccans who weren't happy at being part of Spain. To me, those units are the Spanish equivalent of the pre-war British Empire Indian forces.

@Porkman 's point was that Japanese are non-Christians and the Nationalists would be discredited by making use of such troops. This is obviously not true given that the Nationalists made extensive use of non-Christian troops.

There is no rationale for Japanese forces to be committed to Spain.

Except for the same reasons that German and Italian troops were deployed there. You could say the same of USSR troops in Somalia, or Cuban troops in Angola.

Again, I'm not saying that this is likely. I'm just saying that there's no reason why this should be impossible.

It is technically possible for the Japanese to have hypothetically sent troops to Spain...

It's just so improbable/implausible to the point that it should be impossible.

So "It's possible, I just think it should be impossible because reasons".

I'm all for putting some weighting on the AI that makes this unlikely, I just think people are simply reacting against the fact that it did not happen historically.

Yes it is a broken mechanic. From the German decision to commit forces to Spain, we could see that they were able to send 2 divisions based on the number of divisions they had operational. This means that if a nation spams regiment/brigade sized units, they can then send a greater number of full sized divisions to intervene. Germany had the option of sending 2 divisions of a starting total of 30, so 1 for every 15 units. If instead of 30 divisions they had 5 divisions and 75 brigades, they would be able to send 5 units, meaning they could send the divisions and keep the brigades at home. This would increase the size of their intervention by 150% despite having the same numbers of troops.

It's in beta. The feature worked in the example we were shown. Ergo its not broken, just requires balancing.

People attacking features of a game that is still in beta as "broken" is just ridiculous. We see the same thing with the silly attacks on the supply system from people who still haven't even played the game.