Hearts of Iron IV - Dev Diary 6 - Division Design

[Darkrenown]

However it is silly to agrue that small countries ever had similar amount of modifications and division templates as larger ones.
Larger nations tended to have much more, despite haing far smaller percentage amount of their military fighing the war.

Large chunk of German army was sitting idle guarding Norway and France. Should Germany really gain less combat expirience fighting with hundreds of divisions in Russia but only having say 60% of it`s forces engaged, than say Slowakia that has 1 division, and has 100% of it`s forces engaged?
USSR historically only had a small fraction of it`s forces engaged in winter war, and yet, it gained significant expirience and certain designs were thrown away, while others uplifted(most famous probably KV-1 tank), while Finland having most of it`s forces engaged didn`t really manage to get ahead in terms of organisation, nor to develop great domestic modification to it`s equipment. It would feel very awkward to see the situation reversed in game.

IMO as people sugested, something like logarithmic dependency would be great, where nations like Germany and USSR would gain 2-3 times the amount of expirience small weak states like hungary will gain.

No, the intent is Germany would be getting less XP per division per hour than Slovakia, they'd still gain more in total because they have so many units in combat.

 

[Gamer_1745]

By script, certainly. By event, maybe. I'm not keen on having an event in '38 saying "Yo, Italy, you got Binary divs now!" (although I can see modders maybe wanting to do so), I'd rather have some reason for Italy to change it. For example, give Italy a reason to want a large number of division - The player can then either devote much more production to reaching that target with triangular divisions, take the short term easy route of downsizing to binary divisions, or just ignore the whole thing as a wast of effort if they want.

1. For having the AI to have historic division - Yes
2. For giving the player the choice (an event that does not force, but gives the player a yes or no to change the division template) to having historic division - Yes

 

[Aleksi_i]

My concern is not about what I can do with new divsions. It is about how much flexibility I have in altering existing ones. Creating a new template does no good whatsoever if existing divisions are locked into whatever template was used to create them. If I created 10 new panzer divisions after the fall of France all on one template, I might later want to make some of those divisions be different from each other rather than the 10 always being alike.

Yes and that means you have to make a new template, and change wanted division to match that one.
I have understanded that if i have infantry division, i can upgrate that to armored. The way to do it is to change what template that division is following.
It can be the armored i allready have, or i can make totally new one, or change the old for littlebit better.
Every division follows a some template. Templates can be changed, and what template every single division is following. Means lot of flexibility.

Edit: Correct me if i'm wrong. :blink:

 

[Dalwin]

An example of what i meant is if i have this mix of medium tank types across all battalions, and as i just started pumping out a superior medium tank type these gets distributed evenly across all medium tank battalions. But in planning for an offensive, lets say i want to concentrate my new tanks as much as possible in fewer divisions, for a larger chance of breaking through enemy lines. To do this I'd like to break of a few tank divs and give them a sub template which is then prioritized for these new tanks, maybe even drawing from other divs

I doubt this will be possible, and what they have now seems like a great system nonetheless.

I am pretty sure that is not how it is going to work. Podcat has said as much in a few different places. When that new model becomes available, getting it to the field is not about altering the division template. It is about going to the divisions and flagging which Bns get the new equipment. Hopefully there will be a good overview type interface to make this easier than selecting them on the map, though at times the latter will be easier if you are wanting to get all the new stuff into a certain sector.

Yes and that means you have to make a new template, and change wanted division to match that one.
I have understanded that if i have infantry division, i can upgrate that to armored. The way to do it is to change what template that division is following.
It can be the armored i allready have, or i can make totally new one, or change the old for littlebit better.
Every division follows a some template. Templates can be changed, and what template every single division is following. Means lot of flexibility.

Edit: Correct me if i'm wrong. :blink:

That is exactly right, but I did not see anything in the DD that spelled out clearly the ability to change an existing division to be following a different template.

If you keep the option to use counters instead of sprites on the map, then using the same counters in the division builder would be more than logical. It would actually be quite confusing to see counters on the map and weird made-up faux Nato-symbols in the division builder.

It is a bit more complicated than that since a key part to having counters is for them to display the essential information at a glance. There is a bigger difference between battalion counters and division counters than simply changing the size designation from "XX" to "II". No one fielded whole divisions of rocket artillery, but I don't want to see just a generic artillery icon for rocket artillery since there is absolutely a special NATO icon for such. The same is true for AA or AT etc. They all have well known icons that you will never see on the divisional level.

 

[mursolini]

Combat experience is not solely used for Division building, it's also used to improve/customize your unit design etc. and probably get other things as well.

So smaller countries having the opportunity to earn as much CE as bigger ones must be above all a matter of balance IMO (and avoid the big country = better at everything country pitfall)

"the big country = better at everything country pitfall" is not a pitfall. Big country tends to be developed in more way than small one, if they are at similar development level.

Compare GB and Nederlands in the timeframe. Is there anything that Nederlands were significantly better at than GB? Nope. Was there for GB? Definitely, starting with the fact that Nederlands didn`t build battleships or carriers, or tanks similar to MatildaII.

There are objective things like how is your economy structured(IC) and how eductaded is your population, but if that is similar, more=better is true.

Bu, how about a play. Pick how many different models did a big country that didn`t fought on land all that much(USA) developed. Then, compare to a small country that fought plentry on land (Romania) and tell me who had developed more models(land army models/variants and division organisation). Why the comparison? Well, Romania and USA suffered relatily similar amount of cassualties. Hence it is not too far to imagine Romania would get several times more "expirience points" as much larger persentage of it`s army actually fought.
So does the mechanics match history? I think, not in the slightest. And yes USA was a bigger country. And yes, USA was better at most of things(everything?).

What is your problem with that?

 

[seattle]

Well if you play with sprites, it's logical to have icons in the div builders, if you play with counter it's logical to have counters in the div builder, i don't see the issue.

Exactly, but that's not confirmed yet. It's merely a "probably" at the moment. So yeah, there should be counter in the div-builder if you pick counters on the map.

 

[Amallric]

At worst, this kind of graphics is usually extremely easy to mod.

 

[Amallric]

Bu, how about a play. Pick how many different models did a big country that didn`t fought on land all that much(USA) developed. Then, compare to a small country that fought plentry on land (Romania) and tell me who had developed more models(land army models/variants and division organisation). Why the comparison? Well, Romania and USA suffered relatily similar amount of cassualties. Hence it is not too far to imagine Romania would get several times more "expirience points" as much larger persentage of it`s army actually fought.
So does the mechanics match history? I think, not in the slightest. And yes USA was a bigger country. And yes, USA was better at most of things(everything?).

This argument leads nowhere since experience points have nothing to do with the ability to build battleships or carriers. Actually several small Axis countries were extremely good at making efficient use of their ridiculously limited ressources by the way of field adaptations, innovative tactics etc. I don't remember whether it is Romania or Hungary who adapted a lot of obsolete light tanks into efficient Tank Destroyers and managed to inflict heavy losses on the immensely superior Soviet tank forces, and this is EXACTLY what experience points are going to represent.

 

[snoopy1710]

ehm, compare it to a 1941 panzer division instead, its pretty identical to the historical setup. I just copied it for this DD:

So does that mean I can add Art (or other support Bats) to the Brigades?

Snoopy

 

[scroggin]

An example of what i meant is if i have this mix of medium tank types across all battalions, and as i just started pumping out a superior medium tank type these gets distributed evenly across all medium tank battalions. But in planning for an offensive, lets say i want to concentrate my new tanks as much as possible in fewer divisions, for a larger chance of breaking through enemy lines. To do this I'd like to break of a few tank divs and give them a sub template which is then prioritized for these new tanks, maybe even drawing from other divs.

I doubt this will be possible, and what they have now seems like a great system nonetheless.

I like this it would be good if we could prioritise both a template or individual division for new equipment

 

[Roardk]

Mmmm Dreams coming true

 

[whiskeytown]

I think this is really interesting - I've wanted to see division structure go more this route or a route similar to the ICE mod with one support battalion vs. replacing regular brigades with them

reminds me of this kind of stuff - (page taken from Tank Tactics by Roman Jarymowyck - Stackpole Military History Series) - I've wanted to customize divisions this way for some time now - (forgive the crappy scan please - the book is thick and I wasn't going to ruin my binding for this scan - LOL

 

[Dalwin]

So does that mean I can add Art (or other support Bats) to the Brigades?

Snoopy

Exactly, look at the recon BN. It's a mix of light artillery and armored cars. I have a feeling we are reading too much into that diagram and that things like the artillery that was organic to an infantry battalion will not be represented. I would be happy to be wrong in this instance.

 

[mursolini]

No, the intent is Germany would be getting less XP per division per hour than Slovakia, they'd still gain more in total because they have so many units in combat.

So how is the forumula looking(i know it is subject to change)?
You made it should like something like "coeficient*percentage_of_your_troops_fighting", which, as far as I get from your explaination, is wrong.

This argument leads nowhere since experience points have nothing to do with the ability to build battleships or carriers. Actually several small Axis countries were extremely good at making efficient use of their ridiculously limited ressources by the way of field adaptations, innovative tactics etc. I don't remember whether it is Romania or Hungary who adapted a lot of obsolete light tanks into efficient Tank Destroyers and managed to inflict heavy losses on the immensely superior Soviet tank forces, and this is EXACTLY what experience points are going to represent.

Afaik, the "axis minor" famous for converting light tanks into efficent tank destroyers is Germany. PanzerJager, whole MarderII series, Hetzer.
Another "minor" well known for converting light tanks into tank destroyers was SU, with it`s SU-76 an a number of smaller models.
Then, both Germany and USSR developed lines of succesfull TDs and AGs on the chasis of their tanks. StugIII, StuH42, Jagdpanzer4, Sturmpanzer Brumbar, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger for Germany, and Su-85, SU-122, SU-100, SU-152, ISU-152. And that is just of the top of my head.

 

[Amallric]

I was specifically speaking about an Axis minor. How the fact that major countries also succeeded to develop tank destroyers disproves the same success experienced by minors is beyond my understanding.

 

[Concept2D]

Looks very impressive Podcat and team, thanks for reducing pointless clicks

I hope ye are tuning the EXP generation formula so that the following 3 Germanys get similar EXP.

(1) Defeat France efficiently in 1 month, 11 months later Barbarossa
(2) Defeat France's and the BEF's mainland forces, sit outside Paris and other VPs for 10 months to prolong the battle of France, 2 months later Barbarossa
(3) Maximise the number of battles in France by retreating from winning battles, finally finish France after 10 months, 2 months later Barbarossa

 

[tommylotto]

By script, certainly. By event, maybe. I'm not keen on having an event in '38 saying "Yo, Italy, you got Binary divs now!" (although I can see modders maybe wanting to do so), I'd rather have some reason for Italy to change it. For example, give Italy a reason to want a large number of division - The player can then either devote much more production to reaching that target with triangular divisions, take the short term easy route of downsizing to binary divisions, or just ignore the whole thing as a wast of effort if they want.

That's cool. I hope you make the option available though event or decision for us weekend modders. I have dabbled with the scripts, but feel much more confident with events and decisions. To be honest, I would not make the event for the player, I would let him make his own decisions on how to build divisions. Rather, I would make the event for the AI so that the Italian AI or the USA AI changed its division templates. In that way, the divisions you meet on the battlefield would match their historic makeup.

 

[vonhavoc]

Looks very impressive Podcat and team, thanks for reducing pointless clicks

I hope ye are tuning the EXP generation formula so that the following 3 Germanys get similar EXP.

(1) Defeat France efficiently in 1 month, 11 months later Barbarossa
(2) Defeat France's and the BEF's mainland forces, sit outside Paris and other VPs for 10 months to prolong the battle of France, 2 months later Barbarossa
(3) Maximise the number of battles in France by retreating from winning battles, finally finish France after 10 months, 2 months later Barbarossa

Don't be silly. It's a game, it's supposed to be gamey...

 

[FmrPFCBob]

I would like to remind some of the posters this is still Pre-Alpha at this point, don't get too worked up about the little things just yet. By all means give feedback on stuff that concerns you but it's WAY to early to start saying the systems are borked and should be scrapped. Also don't get tunnel vision on a single diary, think about how the systems will be related to each other and understand there is much more detail to come.

 

[Dalwin]

That mentioning of binary divisions for Italy made me think of something. It is pretty obvious what happens if I add a BN to an existing template, but what if I am deciding to go in the other direction?

This is not meant to resemble any known TOE but simply to illustrate an example. Say I have a template which consists of 3 brigades each with 3 inf Bns. I then alter that to have 2 brigades of 3xinf and a brigade which is 1x armored car, 1x AT and 1x arty BN? I understand what needs to happen for all the newly added support battalions to fill up, but what happens to all the existing inf Bns that I am pulling out of these divisions? Those inf may well have unit level combat experience.

I hope they don't just evaporate back into the manpower pool and their equipment back into that stockpile. I should be able to organize those inf BNs that are being removed from the TOE into new divisions, so that where I had 4 divisions of the old type I now have enough already trained and already experienced infantry to form 6 divisions of the new template.