Hearts of Iron IV - Dev Diary 6 - Division Design

[Dalwin]

But the only posts that matter are the ones from the Devs. the rest is just an opinion, guess or wish.

If the ONLY posts that mattered were the ones from the devs, there would be no reason to have a forum. We would just have a bulletin board or press releases instead.

Some of the players have good ideas and some of those will find their way into the game.

The things that are unclear to some from the dev posts get clarified by the devs once they see there is confusion. There is a lot of value to posts from non-devs.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Probably due to lack of long familiarity with those alloys, although the couple of mentions I saw of the issue weren't specific. German chemistry (explosives, etc.) was superior to the Soviets', but the Soviets made better use of specialty metals (suspension and recoil springs, gun barrels, etc.), which the US only matched years later when computer technology and improved spectrum analysis techniques allowed for rapid metallurgy advances in a relatively short time. Previously, it was mostly trial and error to get the right combinations of specific metals, and difficult to reproduce when anything changed in terms of metal purity, etc. The Soviets had plenty of experience at it, Germany had less.

I can't see how it makes much sense that Soviet had "more experience" in metallurgy then Germany.

Germany had been an industrialized nation since over 100 years back with some of the highest graded armor and steel alloys and been through two naval arms races as well as developed some very impressive artillery pieces both during WW1 and before WW2. All which I doubt would be possible without a very high level of metallurgical knowledge.

Here are some examples of Germany being world leading in metallurgy, steel and artillery development.

Soviet on the other hand were a agricultural Society up to only 20 years before the Game start date ( 1936 ), and much of their metal industry was a very recent expansion, even after 1936.


Of course I am far from an expert and it would be interesting to read more on the subject if someone has more knowledge or in-depth articles then can be easily found through wikipedia and google.

 

[Baltasar]

If you havn't already, you should read through these 30 odd pages of posts which discusses this topic quite ferociously. It might influence your viewpoint.

Do you have a particuar posting in mind? If so, please point me to it.

 

[nimrod123]

I can't see how it makes much sense that Soviet had "more experience" in metallurgy then Germany.

Germany had been an industrialized nation since over 100 years back with some of the highest graded armor and steel alloys and been through two naval arms races as well as developed some very impressive artillery pieces both during WW1 and before WW2. All which I doubt would be possible without a very high level of metallurgical knowledge.

Here are some examples of Germany being world leading in metallurgy, steel and artillery development.

Soviet on the other hand were a agricultural Society up to only 20 years before the Game start date ( 1936 ), and much of their metal industry was a very recent expansion, even after 1936.


Of course I am far from an expert and it would be interesting to read more on the subject if someone has more knowledge or in-depth articles then can be easily found through wikipedia and google.

the Russians where as surprised as you.

their testing on captured tanks revealed massive discrepancies in the quality of the metal that were completely unexpected. It appears the germans lacked nationwide quality control on steel production (possible linked to raw material issues).

FTR (a WOT related website) has a whole lot of sources for this. it was actually quite interesting.

 

[Darkath]

Yeah the metal of german tanks was more and more derpy towards the second half/end of the war. It was a known bug of reich 3.0. It's not like they didn't know how to do strong and durable alloys, it's just that they didn't have the required materials to do so, and well oiled process to assure some kind of quality standard i guess.

 

[Klausewitz]

To put it differently:
Yes, German metallurgy was better than Soviet metallurgy.
However even if you are the worlds greatest steel cooker, things are very difficult to get up to specs if you lack essential ingredients.
Which the germans lacked and the Soviets did not.
And using forced labour probably also did not help the issue.

 

[Praetori]

To put it differently:
Yes, German metallurgy was better than Soviet metallurgy.
However even if you are the worlds greatest steel cooker, things are very difficult to get up to specs if you lack essential ingredients.
Which the germans lacked and the Soviets did not.
And using forced labour probably also did not help the issue.

This!
Also tempering steel for heavy armor to a decent degree requires quite cumbersome machinery and could potentially slow down production and needs a whole lot more specialists (which you might have already drafted a large number of for the Army) while at the same time you have the little problem with thousands of heavy bombers pounding your industries every now and then blowing said equipment to pieces.

The Germans probably did as best they could in regard to quantity vs quality. Some pretty large issues were found by the American DoD after they ordered studies of captured pieces of German armor, where some pretty basic methods well known by the Germans apparently wasn't used for one or another reason. Cold-rolled steel plates might have been efficient enough from a production-pace point of view since it's easier to maintain smaller tolerances and is by far the fastest/easiest method for creating durable plates but the end result might be lacking due to brittleness.

 

[Praetori]

Probably due to lack of long familiarity with those alloys, although the couple of mentions I saw of the issue weren't specific. German chemistry (explosives, etc.) was superior to the Soviets', but the Soviets made better use of specialty metals (suspension and recoil springs, gun barrels, etc.), which the US only matched years later when computer technology and improved spectrum analysis techniques allowed for rapid metallurgy advances in a relatively short time. Previously, it was mostly trial and error to get the right combinations of specific metals, and difficult to reproduce when anything changed in terms of metal purity, etc. The Soviets had plenty of experience at it, Germany had less.

The machining requirements on the T-34 were far less exacting than on the Panzers, but that's another matter completely. When the massive tight-tolerance lathes required to produce turret rings were about to be overrun by the Germans, and mostly destroyed to prevent capture because they couldn't be moved, the Soviets switched to novel methods of electrical arc cutting machines using wooden fixtures in some cases. The tolerances were way off, but the metal was sound.

It's been so many years since I ran into some of this material that I can't pin down a source anymore, sorry. Some wasn't even specifically about WWII, but about electrical cutting and welding, aircraft development, and other "loosely related" material, which happened to mention the issues in our context.

The first T-34s were marvels of engineering. If memory serves me right the engineers involved drove one of the first examples across most of western Russia via Moscow to Leningrad without it breaking down (which was quite a feat for a tank of that period) but it required some pretty advanced production methods.
The real Soviet magic trick however was in their ability to simplify production and the number of tools and operations required to produce a piece of hardware over time (fueled by so called "socialistic competition"). Now it was a long time since I studied it so I don't remember the details but the T-34 went from a plethora of operations required in production to just a handful for each part by the end of the war allowing for huge numbers to be produced without every laborer having to be a highly skilled engineer or with lowered efficiency due to extensive production and quality control.
This on the other hand provided some problems for the men on the front as different factories had some differences in production methods and even odd parts (being at different points in the simplification process) meaning that two tanks from different factories were at times incompatible for scavenging.
This is something that continued in Soviet production well into the cold-war with tanks and AFVs from different factories displaying differences such as extra roadwheels or odd dimensions (moving a hatch or engine part from one individual to another sometimes turned out to be impossible if manufactured at different factories even for more modern BMPs and T72s).

 

[dassie]

Yeah, I don't see how that makes any real logical or historical sense.
I have to assume it'd be per archetype, so if you modify a panzer template then duplicate it, the duplicate can get any modifications you make to the original for free.

i am sorry if this have been answer by someone else before, but it does make a lot of sense.
In fact if you look at early Tank divisions (by Germany or anyone else) i think you will notice that early tank division trend to be tank heavy and infantry light. as war goes on, every nation all progress toward a lighter tank with More infantry in the tank division as they find that they need lot more inf than have more tank. the only way they could know is to have experience through excess and war( Mostly war through)

this system that Heart of Iron 4 adopted is quite realist, as it prevent someone from rushing through the doctrine tree and build super-division without need to combat and learn.

the system i think also represent Heart of iron 4 attempted to prevent the Let's Build a Division TOE and somehow within a day of the game time the units some how manage to able to fight just as you build them. this is quite untrue in real world as most army send years in trying to find out how many equipment a division need or could be improve upon. and also the amount of time that the soldier and officer need to train in the way of fighting with the equipment and structure.

 

[jju_57]

So I have a question. Will production reflect historical production amounts with the capability to change them somewhat? What I mean is Germany was vastly out produced in tanks and other equipment. Heck France had way more tanks. But we know what happened there.

How can the AI as Germany produce less tanks, tanks that aren't as good yet still defeat larger forces from 1939 through say mid 1942? History tells us there were three reasons for this.

1) Better leaders. So does the game only give good leaders with a great bonus to Germany at the start?
2) Better tactics. Germany while out numbered concentrated forces at specific points to create localized superiority and then the morale broke for their enemies as they out flanked them. Does the game prohibit France from massing tanks together? How does the Pz-II and PZ-III defeat T-34's even when outnumbered?
3) Air superiority was a real critical factor. In fact you can plot the entire war and each battle based on air superiority. Will air power be the number one factor here also?

Somehow PI has to allow a German AI that has less tanks, worse tanks the opportunity to defeat larger armies in a very fast manner. In previous HOI games most division fought to the bitter end. But in the actual war vast amounts of troops just gave up.

 

[Alex_brunius]

In previous HOI games most division fought to the bitter end. But in the actual war vast amounts of troops just gave up.

What? I've never seen any division in any HoI game fight until zero strength ( the bitter end ). All of them surrender when they become surrounded and disorganized ( just like in reality ).

 

[Gort11]

In previous HOI games most division fought to the bitter end. But in the actual war vast amounts of troops just gave up.

Eh? In previous HOI games divisions fought until they got to 0 organisation.

How did this thread get to a discussion of tank designs and metallurgical quality? The tanks in this game are all going to be identical at the same tech level, right?

 

[Klausewitz]

@jju_57
PI needs to tweak the balance somehow since a France-Uk Alliance actually committed to saving Poland would steam-roll Germany in a year.
What allowed Germany to win was a mix of operational luck (the Allies changing their line of defence to Belgium) and misplaced Allied caution (the drole de guerre, keeping the Royal Air Force in reserve when it could have neutralized Germany air supremacy, etc.).
A Player would not make such mistakes.
Hence the need to hobble them.

 

[Traks]

@jju_57
PI needs to tweak the balance somehow since a France-Uk Alliance actually committed to saving Poland would steam-roll Germany in a year.
What allowed Germany to win was a mix of operational luck (the Allies changing their line of defence to Belgium) and misplaced Allied caution (the drole de guerre, keeping the Royal Air Force in reserve when it could have neutralized Germany air supremacy, etc.).
A Player would not make such mistakes.
Hence the need to hobble them.

And hence boosting AI Germany and nerfing AI France with ridiculous builds. But then again, Germany that loses every time to France because AI plays to win and only win is also awfully boring.

 

[jju_57]

What? I've never seen any division in any HoI game fight until zero strength ( the bitter end ). All of them surrender when they become surrounded and disorganized ( just like in reality ).

Alex you know what was meant. Unlike in the real world where 10-500K or more surrendered en mass that just doesn't happen in previous HOI games. Cut off SU divisions in the marshes and they fight and fight till all surrounding provinces are occupied and each division is destroyed. Too often in history divisions gave up while NOT disorganized or even beaten down that much.

And depending on the version of HOI (how air power was handled) I've seen divisions completely lose all their strength.

So in the real world 20 divisions in 5 provinces surrender en mass even sometimes with retreat routes open to them. In HOI you have to completely surround the divisions or get to the retreat province before the retreating unit.

 

[-Toni82-]

As always - not so much information from the DD's.

Naaa, I am not sure :glare:
Where is the uniqueness from different divisions?

I like to deploy, de- and attach single brigades to my divisions as I think they need.
Experience should be only experience, I dont understand what's the point from the dev-diary.
Units fight and gain experience - finished.....or will single units gain also traits?

 

[Secret Master]

Alex you know what was meant. Unlike in the real world where 10-500K or more surrendered en mass that just doesn't happen in previous HOI games. Cut off SU divisions in the marshes and they fight and fight till all surrounding provinces are occupied and each division is destroyed. Too often in history divisions gave up while NOT disorganized or even beaten down that much.

Yes, but you're specifically invoking examples from the first 6 months of Barbarossa. If you are going to use those examples, then we have to be fair to the HOI3 engine. HOI3 models Soviet problems that caused these surrenders with low officer ratios killing ORG.

Go ahead and set the Soviet Union to an officer ratio of 50% and run Barbarossa against them. Sure, divisions are "fighting to the bitter end," but that bitter end is "we spent 6 hours in combat before giving up and trying to retreat." It's a far cry from German divisions at Stalingrad.

The system wasn't perfect, but let's not pretend that Soviet divisions in HOI3 with low officer ratios are putting up a very stiff resistance. The labels are a bit off, but the effect in the game is the same. Anyone with crappy officer ratios will watch divisions give up easily in the face of even weak offensive action.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Alex you know what was meant. Unlike in the real world where 10-500K or more surrendered en mass that just doesn't happen in previous HOI games. Cut off SU divisions in the marshes and they fight and fight till all surrounding provinces are occupied and each division is destroyed. Too often in history divisions gave up while NOT disorganized or even beaten down that much.

There are historical examples of where units didn't surrender in situations they do in HoI too. The rules need to be consistent for the game to be fun and this is not really something I feel is bad.

And depending on the version of HOI (how air power was handled) I've seen divisions completely lose all their strength.

And you know I meant fighting in land combat

 

[Klausewitz]

@-Tomi82-
The experience talked about here is above the division level in the staffs and headquarters:
How many of what do we need to make a proper division, how should units be commanded and how should they work together, etc.

 

[jju_57]

SM, I want to be fair to HOI. I own every version and DLC of it.

But mass surrenders happened not just during the first 6 months of Barbarossa. France, Singapore, North Africa, and Germans in Russia and France, not to mention Russian troops at the start of the 42 German offensive.

Basically, many of these troops still had the capability to fight and had plenty of organization. They just felt their situation was hopeless. They were cut off so gave up without a fight.

My point is that when looking at production numbers HOI has a potential huge problem. Germany produces way less. Yet somehow they captured, destroyed more for the first half of the war. If a level 2 tank is a level 2 tank no matter what country or name then this creates an issue. If the two sides fight it out I have a bad feeling that Germany will suffer more losses than historically when compared to enemy units lost.

In HOI3 I surround massive SU troops. But instead of surrendering I have to push them into a single province and then kill them off. I have a fear that I'll lose precious tanks doing this, especially if my production is limited to historical numbers. And of course the poor AI.