Reduced ESE? Increased combat casualties due to the density of forces?blue emu said:
-
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.
General Guisan said:
Yes, but on the other side of the coin, you should not be able to attack Malta with 30 German divisions, either. It should work both ways.
blue emu said:
If tech increases this cap, then countries like Germany/USA would benefit from it, whereas countries that needed it such as the USSR would get boned.
Even more so, the USSR would get boned on any cap of units per province. Generally their entire strategy is large amounts of men?
pedal2000 said:If tech increases this cap, then countries like Germany/USA would benefit from it, whereas countries that needed it such as the USSR would get boned.
Even more so, the USSR would get boned on any cap of units per province. Generally their entire strategy is large amounts of men?
And those large amounts of men were quite often slaughtered in apalling numbers... So a penalty for such stacking still makes sense.
Yes, I think a "soft" cap would certainly help. Have most provinces on the same level (like 90%) and put special cases of especially tiny (or large?) provinces in, in which less/more than X divisions could fight at the same time (For example, very large cities should be able to be defended/attacked by more than X divisions) at maximum capacity.. for another example, Switzerland wasn't defended that well because of it's fortresses, but more because the Germans couldn't rush the valleys with their massive amount of forces. Just one path to fight makes it much harder to advance, so also the speed should be severe hampered when attacking with too many units on a tiny front. Have units spreading more out. It's just too unlogical when I mount my gigantic 48-division-offensive with Mao in the direction of Beijing in 1938 and smash the japanese lines into pieces. Have infra taking into account, have terrain (mountains, flat, hills, forests etc.) taken into account, and have special province size feature taking into account, to give penalties for too big offensive as well as defensive operations.
Perhaps something like coastal forts could do damage to ships passing through straights. Depending on day/night and other things obviously.
Penguin929 said:
That should be penalization for those ships passing trought.. obiusly on wars
The RC said:
They were, but in the game this isn't modelled very well. In reality, the Soviets could afford those losses and replace them very regularly. In the game, the fact you have to spend IC to replace losses would lead to the SU spending craploads more IC on reinforcements than any other nation.
Unless, with these apparent new 'unique' units, the SU's are far cheaper to reinforce. Then I don't see an apparent issue.
pedal2000 said:If tech increases this cap, then countries like Germany/USA would benefit from it, whereas countries that needed it such as the USSR would get boned.
Even more so, the USSR would get boned on any cap of units per province. Generally their entire strategy is large amounts of men?
Well, perhaps Paradox should make the USSR strategy realistic? Their strategy varied depending on what they were facing, how desperate the battle was, and how many resources including men they had. At Rzhev and Moscow and early Stalingrad they sent large amounts of men into tight spots and took heavy casualties. It was the reverse during say, Lvov or Budapest.
The total-casualty disparity was mostly due to the mindboggling proportion of Soviet PoW deaths in German camps. The Germans achieved the large number of prisoners due to breakthroughs and encirclements early on, which is what the German doctrine should be all about.
The Germans also took disproportionately heavy KIA casulaties at say, Odessa or Sevastopol or other city fight scenarios. The Soviets should certainly be far better at city fights than the Germans. That could be their big thing.
What do you mean with FAR BETTER in Cities? Attack or Defense?
Why should any nation be better in Cities?
Shouldn´t doctrine, Minsters, tech lvl decide that, rather than hardcoded superiorness?
Why should any nation be better in Cities?
Shouldn´t doctrine, Minsters, tech lvl decide that, rather than hardcoded superiorness?
why russians?
sewastopol was a fortress leningrad was a major city and germans didnt assault it just waited as it starve and stalingrad? was almost whole taken - but it felt becouse germans were sorounded. It would be captured if not of this. Russians deployed massive troops there - the city was a symbol.
I think that all should be equal and it should depend on tech rather and units used than nation IMO
sewastopol was a fortress leningrad was a major city and germans didnt assault it just waited as it starve and stalingrad? was almost whole taken - but it felt becouse germans were sorounded. It would be captured if not of this. Russians deployed massive troops there - the city was a symbol.
I think that all should be equal and it should depend on tech rather and units used than nation IMO
GS_Guderian said:
I wasn't suggesting hardcoded superiority, simply a doctrine tree that gives bonuses in defensive cityfights. Much like the German doctrine would give armoured breakthroughs a big boost.
Germans were also quite qood at defending. Remember battles in cities were they showed great performance? Cassino was whole deastroyed the same with Caen and other cities - but germans survived and keep on fighting even thou the cities were massively bombed. U can say that it was due their tactic kampfgruppen to withdraw many units and draw them into battle again but also were able to survive those attacks. Especcialy Fallshirmjeager divs witch were units used for those purposes. They hold the ground when other units retreated. Were masters of survive and keept biting - that was what allies didnt expect - they were sure that after such dewastating fire and bombardemend there wil be none enemies left. Those divs simply cave in when others retreated on better positions.
Stalingrad also was not only russian performance - both sides fight furious. Germans simply could not use their superiority in a city and also made it more difficult by turning it into the ruins becouse of heavy bombings.
All should have equal city stats. But it also should be very difficult to fight in cities. With terrible losses - especcialy for mech arm divs.
Germans also was not only focused on breakthrough/blitzkrieg doctrines - they were superior in all tactics. Russians had wast resources and manpower so they just used waves. And allies used their firepower. It were germans witch dominated in almost all confrontations when forces were equall.
Stalingrad also was not only russian performance - both sides fight furious. Germans simply could not use their superiority in a city and also made it more difficult by turning it into the ruins becouse of heavy bombings.
All should have equal city stats. But it also should be very difficult to fight in cities. With terrible losses - especcialy for mech arm divs.
Germans also was not only focused on breakthrough/blitzkrieg doctrines - they were superior in all tactics. Russians had wast resources and manpower so they just used waves. And allies used their firepower. It were germans witch dominated in almost all confrontations when forces were equall.
Volf said:
At this point I can suggest nothing except for you to go and read some history books that are based on a variety of sources and cover different periods of the war. Russians using "waves" is comfortable fiction, but it's hard to take anyone who says that very seriously.
You know, even if it was the case, in terms of game mechanics it would be the result of better experience for German units as well as German tech teams being further along the doctrine tech tree. Which is already the case in HoI2.
i dont wanna argue about knowledge - i was just generalizing
and yes russians changed their tactics a lot but still were 'overfloating' the germans, they were tought a hard lesson during the first period of war
then they also made their own encirclement - breakthrough tactics but still in their own way
my english is to poor to write to much about it so im generalizig many aspects
and yes russians changed their tactics a lot but still were 'overfloating' the germans, they were tought a hard lesson during the first period of war
then they also made their own encirclement - breakthrough tactics but still in their own way
my english is to poor to write to much about it so im generalizig many aspects
Penguin929 said:
Hmm ... that doesn't make sense really.
No Axis ships ever sailed down Gibraltor or Suez.
Why have it possible in HOI3, but say its ok becuase my Tirpitz lost 25% health ...
It would be a sitting duck, having to travell damn slowly against a fort carved into rock ... yeah.
Theres a reason Axis ships didn't travell down these straights
but if they would be stupid enough they could do it - send an axis armade and swim through the gibraltar LOL lots will sink but many will pass
its not historically nore wise but possible and if u want the game to be realistic and not strictly historical (only 1 path) so it should be allowed
but heavy to do
its not historically nore wise but possible and if u want the game to be realistic and not strictly historical (only 1 path) so it should be allowed
but heavy to do
Theres no chance of anything like that happening again, look at Galipoli.Volf said:
But, I guess maybe, possibly it might have been possible, pointless and costly, but possible.
... but sinces theres such a low historical chance of it happening, and what would it really add to gameplay value, thers a 98% Scharnhorst will sink getting into the Med, whats the point in taking the risk?
Great idea, after coastal batteries destroyed transport ships can pass the area if we can do this in the gameGS_Guderian said:
Gallipoli war can happen.