Experience & National units

[out]

They should be weaker. A mountain infantry unit lacks heavy support to be able to fight in the mountains so on level ground they are outgunned severely.
Paratroopers and Marines even more so.
What they might be too low on is org and morale, not the other stats quite simply since a units fighting strength isn't dependant mainly on the soldiers themselves but the collection of soldiers, equipment and support they can bring to the battle.

They may lack the heavy support, but they also don't use the same kind of line infantry tactics when unsupported. There are ample stories of these light troops holding their ground against heavy fire. Plus many of the marine and paratrooper divisions where really just regular troops that received airdrop or amphibious training, and deployed as normal infantry most of the time.

A marine or paratrooper division would have the same fire support attached as the regular infantry, they're just not landed or dropped at the same time. They should really only suffer this support shortage when performing amphi or drop missions. Of course regular troops should suffer an even bigger penalty given the same circumstance.

Well, that's for marine and paratroopers anyway. I can't recall any occasion where mountain troops fought on open ground.

 

[unmerged(103753)]

They should be weaker. A mountain infantry unit lacks heavy support to be able to fight in the mountains so on level ground they are outgunned severely.
Paratroopers and Marines even more so.

marines have a heavy tank batalion and a total strength of 19,000 men. infantry have no tanks (by default were talking here, not attachments) and 10,000 men...

paratroopers are outgunned as are mountaineers but marines are heavy infantry and amphibious infantry (with 2 more weeks of training to top it off).
i dont like the marines but this is important to point out.

 

[peo]

marines have a heavy tank batalion and a total strength of 19,000 men. infantry have no tanks (by default were talking here, not attachments) and 10,000 men...

paratroopers are outgunned as are mountaineers but marines are heavy infantry and amphibious infantry (with 2 more weeks of training to top it off).
i dont like the marines but this is important to point out.

Then you can make a division consisting of that. Hiowever you can at most get up to 15000 soldiers in a division given 5 brigade/regiments.
But a marine regiment in itself is no heavier than a standard infantry regiment. Two weeks of training isn't going to make a difference there.
As for light, you need to take into account supporting elements, which in general specialists including marines lack.

 

[peo]

They may lack the heavy support, but they also don't use the same kind of line infantry tactics when unsupported. There are ample stories of these light troops holding their ground against heavy fire. Plus many of the marine and paratrooper divisions where really just regular troops that received airdrop or amphibious training, and deployed as normal infantry most of the time.

A marine or paratrooper division would have the same fire support attached as the regular infantry, they're just not landed or dropped at the same time. They should really only suffer this support shortage when performing amphi or drop missions. Of course regular troops should suffer an even bigger penalty given the same circumstance.

Well, that's for marine and paratroopers anyway. I can't recall any occasion where mountain troops fought on open ground.

I challenge you to find any time when a 3 ton truck was airdropped in ww2. Or a normal artillery piece.

 

[Battlecry]

I challenge you to find any time when a 3 ton truck was airdropped in ww2. Or a normal artillery piece.

Agreed. Airborne units did not have the same heavy equipment as an ordinary infantry unit. The air transport capability did not exist at the time to airdrop or glider-insert full sized artillery etc. The light tanks etc. which were designed to be carried by glider were of such an inferior nature, vis a vis ordinary light tanks, as to be pointless in game terms.

What uly may be referring to is German Fallschirmjager regiments, which had heavier equipment attached later - but only because they were never to be used as airborne forces again (after the disaster of Crete) , by order of Hitler. Hence they became regular infantry units, albeit with higher espirit de corps and longer training.

 

[peo]

Agreed. Airborne units did not have the same heavy equipment as an ordinary infantry unit. The air transport capability did not exist at the time to airdrop or glider-insert full sized artillery etc. The light tanks etc. which were designed to be carried by glider were of such an inferior nature, vis a vis ordinary light tanks, as to be pointless in game terms.

What uly may be referring to is German Fallschirmjager regiments, which had heavier equipment attached later - but only because they were never to be used as airborne forces again (after the disaster of Crete) , by order of Hitler. Hence they became regular infantry units, albeit with higher espirit de corps and longer training.

Yes, but those units were really normal infantry and in some cases even inferior to normal infantry. For example during the battle of the bulge one or more of the divisions were called fallschirmsjäger but were in reality nothing more than vulkstürm (if i remember the name correctly).

 

[Battlecry]

Yes, but those units were really normal infantry and in some cases even inferior to normal infantry. For example during the battle of the bulge one or more of the divisions were called fallschirmsjäger but were in reality nothing more than vulkstürm (if i remember the name correctly).

Some were yes, but this is just a naming convention (Volksturm raised by the Luftwaffe = Fallschirmjager) to inspire pseudo-pride in those units; they began as and for game purposes always were regular militia/infantry.
However, the actual airborne-trained Fallschirmjager regiments were equipped with heavier equipment as well, and used as regular infantry. They fought much better than the 'fake' Fallschirmjager, a testament to their training.

 

[peo]

Some were yes, but this is just a naming convention (Volksturm raised by the Luftwaffe = Fallschirmjager) to inspire pseudo-pride in those units; they began as and for game purposes always were regular militia/infantry.
However, the actual airborne-trained Fallschirmjager regiments were equipped with heavier equipment as well, and used as regular infantry. They fought much better than the 'fake' Fallschirmjager, a testament to their training.

Yes.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

no but i think like the guards, gurkhas & waffen adds a flavor to the game, all the mods have implemented them so.... but hey its just my 50 cent

And named divisions makes this.

No way is it justifiable that Hans my SS soldier is any better then Detriech my Wehrmarcht soldier.

The SS, compared to other divisions, were (On the whole) rubbish, the only point you could argue is that they occasionally refused to surrender at a point that would make a non-politically invovled soldier surrender.

Another argument however could be preference of new equipment, but this would be in the upgrade element, it won't make a soldier better then his standard counterpart.

 

[Radu]

The SS, compared to other divisions, were (On the whole) rubbish, the only point you could argue is that they occasionally refused to surrender at a point that would make a non-politically invovled soldier surrender.

Rubbish...You don't say? I'm assuming you count the late-war inflation of SS named hodge-podge divisions on par with the fully fledged panzer divs? Gotta love your logic.

Unless you missed it, there were also volunteer divisions drawn from satellite/occupied territories.

The SS divs everybody is talking about, unless you weren't paying attention,are the Panzer/Mechanized divisions formed usually prior to 1942-43 NOT the (later) volunteer units like those drawn from Baltic nations,Croatians,Hungarians,Albanians,etc. and/or divisions that only existed on paper near the end of the war. Wikipedia is your friend.

Sure,anybody can name their divisions "SS" or "Guards",the discussion here is about those units that really were all that.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Rubbish...You don't say? .

Yes. They were, sure, they're are exceptions, but on the whole, no, they were not as good as divisions of the same size. The two most famous SS divisions however, were anti-paritisan divisions (Think HOI2 garrisons with Heavy tanks brigade)

I'm assuming you count the late-war inflation of SS named hodge-podge divisions on par with the fully fledged panzer divs? Gotta love your logic.

No. The Waffen SS were just as bad in 1941 as they were in 1944.

Unless you missed it, there were also volunteer divisions drawn from satellite/occupied territories.

Ah, now here I'll make an exception, the foreign SS divisions are actually good compared to most of the Waffen SS. But still, just about as good as ordinary Wehrmarcht.

The SS divs everybody is talking about, unless you weren't paying attention,are the Panzer/Mechanized divisions formed usually prior to 1942-43 NOT the (later) volunteer units like those drawn from Baltic nations,Croatians,Hungarians,Albanians,etc. and/or divisions that only existed on paper near the end of the war. Wikipedia is your friend.

Yes, becuase Kampfgruppe Nord performed well in 1941 ... oh no, they were beaten fairly easy. Or Totenkopf's actions during Barbarossa were the took few loses ... oh no, hang on, they performed poorly aswell.

Again, look at the Waffen SS actions during the 41 - 43 period. They were, on the whole rubbish compared to their reputation, of course, exceptions exist, like at Kharkov.

So no, judging by statistics, they were not as successful as the res of the Heer, even before 1943, and then, after 1943 it got even worse. So how would you code that into a game? A division that performs midly, often defeated or takes needless casualties, but then, when manpower runs low, it gets even worse, taking the role of a fire brigade.

Sure,anybody can name their divisions "SS" or "Guards",the discussion here is about those units that really were all that.

Yes. Becuase thats all they were. Names. Nothing made Hans of the SS better then Deitrich of the Wehrmarcht for the sole reason of Hans being in the SS.

The only thing that you could argue made the SS elite, was priority of equipment. But then you can do this in HOI2. Name an armoured, or mechanised division SS something, then give it priority of upgrades. And that, is what seperates elite units from non-elite. Not fighting skill, but equipment, this is what gave rise to their false reputation. Besides that, their occasional willingness to fight to the death does not make them elite, or would you consider the 240th Naval Brigade was elite were the 1st Airborne Division was not? Becuase the 240th didn't surrender at Iwo Jima, but the 1st Airborne did at Arnhem.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Guys, we've already had this thread, and it got closed for the same reasons that this one is headed towards. National units ain't gonna be in the game. Every nation had what they considered to be their "elite", and if you wish to have it in the game, I'm sure the devs won't mind a bit if you mod it in there, but they're not going to do it for you.

 

[unmerged(103753)]

The light tanks etc. which were designed to be carried by glider were of such an inferior nature, vis a vis ordinary light tanks, as to be pointless in game terms.

oh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E_KuKZ02Y

 

[out]

I challenge you to find any time when a 3 ton truck was airdropped in ww2. Or a normal artillery piece.

Why challenge me for something I already said never happened?

A marine or paratrooper division would have the same fire support attached as the regular infantry, they're just not landed or dropped at the same time.

The 82nd and the 101st both withstood overwhelming assault on numerous occasions. If you want to model this purely with org, I'm not totally against it. But I do think their stats vs infantry are so low that there's very little chance even a small boost to org would give them a fighting chance.

 

[peo]

Why challenge me for something I already said never happened?

The 82nd and the 101st both withstood overwhelming assault on numerous occasions. If you want to model this purely with org, I'm not totally against it. But I do think their stats vs infantry are so low that there's very little chance even a small boost to org would give them a fighting chance.

You said:

A marine or paratrooper division would have the same fire support attached as the regular infantry, they're just not landed or dropped at the same time.

You can not in any way drop a 3 ton truck in ww2.
I challanged you to find it. It doesn't matter that you belive they did it later, it was just not done since it wasn't possible to do at all.
A para unit did not have the same firesupport as a normal infantry unit. That they managed to dig in and hold limited objectives despite heavy casulties doesn't affect the general firepower of a unit.
There are numerous occasions when units who where seriously outnumberd and outgunned could defend objectives and even fight back decently.
An example would be the finnish winter war 1939-1940 were soviet divisions were fought to a standstill by relatively small units of finns. Does this mean the finns had the same firepower? No it doesn't.

 

[out]

I know what I said. I said that heavy equipment were NOT dropped with the divisions. What do you not get? Please read what I said before taking offense. Now stop making pointless challenges.

The Winter War raises a good point. It's a fact that in HoI2 Finland gets eaten up like cheesecake whenever Soviet feels like invading, so the Winter War phenomenon is clearly beyond the current design. I'd say either create new arctic/forest troop types (along with jungle), or give militia some kind of special advantage.

 

[peo]

I know what I said. I said that heavy equipment were NOT dropped with the divisions. What do you not get? Please read what I said before taking offense. Now stop making pointless challenges.

The Winter War raises a good point. It's a fact that in HoI2 Finland gets eaten up like cheesecake whenever Soviet feels like invading, so the Winter War phenomenon is clearly beyond the current design. I'd say either create new arctic/forest troop types (along with jungle), or give militia some kind of special advantage.

And I keep saying that heavy equipment wasn't dropped at all since they were not able to drop them.
An entire US airborne division had a total of 36 75mm howitzers (nominally 60 after 1944)
A normal US infantry division had 4 artillery battalions of which 3 was 105mm and 1 was 155mm. That 36 105mm and I would suspect 12 155mm guns.
Not included are the infantry guns in the regiments which were of a similar type to the 75mm howitzers.
In pure firepower a normal infantry division is A LOT stronger than any airborne unit and then you have to include the fact that a airborne unit is nigh on impossible to keep supplied with ammo needed for the little artillery they have.

 

[Radu]

Yes, becuase Kampfgruppe Nord performed well in 1941 ... oh no, they were beaten fairly easy. Or Totenkopf's actions during Barbarossa were the took few loses ... oh no, hang on, they performed poorly aswell.

Again, look at the Waffen SS actions during the 41 - 43 period. They were, on the whole rubbish compared to their reputation, of course, exceptions exist, like at Kharkov.

So no, judging by statistics, they were not as successful as the res of the Heer, even before 1943, and then, after 1943 it got even worse. So how would you code that into a game? A division that performs midly, often defeated or takes needless casualties, but then, when manpower runs low, it gets even worse, taking the role of a fire brigade.

Revisionism much? What a load of manure...

Performed poorly? Beaten? Are we talking about the same universe? Are you sure you're not confusing this with a Soviet campaign you've played?

How is advancing all the way to Lengingrad "beaten"? (a decision had been taken,btw,to siege the city,not storm it) :rofl: By that rationale the Kiev encirclement was a huge defeat for Germany, nearly ending the war. To say nothing of the fact that Army Group North performed its task with the smallest amount of tanks attached by far and that its only Armored formation, the 4th Panzer Army was reassigned to Army Group Center after the Baltic countries were secured. The rest of the advance towards Leningrad was done without tanks.

As for the 3rd SS's performance, you again must have had your opposite glasses on since the spring 1942 Demyansk pocket of 5 depleted infantry divisions + 3rd SS were not annihilated by the Soviet forces that numbered over a dozen divs, fresh divs at that.

If anybody needs to take a look at history,it is you my friend. Your bias is showing.

 

[Naga Niome]

As far as I'm concerned, the last thing the Finnish need is a miraculous advantage into equipment, since the Russian's would be at the same point as them in anything winter-related.

I blame it upon vanillas combat system. Pure and simple. Terrain needs to player a bigger part and battles need to last longer, hopefully this Frontage Combat model will allay something...

Let's be honest though, Paradox Interactive would never create any unique divisions because the Waffen SS will get involved, and that ain't happening. But I am Pro-National units in the sense of the SS were pretty much regular soldiers, yet their political indoctrination and unusual fanaticism made them far more tenacious and dangerous in combat than other Wehrmacht branches. Say what you want about the Guards, American Airborne, SAS, alright, but the major nations did have some very experienced and stubborn divisions that had a major impact on the war alone.

 

[Bullfrog]

This thread is getting a bit too emotional. Let's look at the OP.

More experienced divisions should have higher org and morale.

Really hopes that national units will be in hoi3.

Iam wondering what uk france and usa for an example have for national units? Russia will have their Guards and Germany their waffen ss.

And how will this be implemented? By events like mod 34 for an example. Others ideas?

"More experienced divisions" I am assuming means better trained, for experienced divisions already get quite a hefty combat efficiency bonus. I also assume this will be kept in HoI3.
If by "more experienced divisions" you meant elite divisions from the gate rather than combat veterans, or better trained divisions, I disagree that they should receive higher org and morale. Remember that you will be making your own divisions in HoI3, and therefore they do not pop out of the force pool as intrinsically "better" than any other. They must earn this through combat. However, you will have the ability to decide to equip a division with your "best brigade" types as well as make it as heavy as possible, including 4 or 5 brigades. Thereby this new division will have a high IC cost and effective combat stats. This could certainly qualify it as a high quality, elite division. It will probably serve you well in combat, and easily acquire experience, making it truly formidable.
"National units" is a misnomer, but I get your point. You want Waffen SS, Soviet Guard, FFL?, US/UK Airborne, Rangers, etc. I don't disagree, but often these units performed similarly to regular units, and the inherent addition of org/morale would not fit every time.
Like I said above, make a division of your choice and name it to your liking, then use it in an elite manner. It will either be intrinsically better, like the commando units with +10 org, or your decision of divisional composition will influence its usage and your personal attachment to its performance.