Hearts of Iron IV - Dev Diary 6 - Division Design

[D Inqu]

Honestly, when you inject yourself into the middle of someone else's argument at least get the context right. This was in response to the claim that the Germans had better INFANTRY weapons.

At least get the context right, and read carefully. Your statements about comparing rifles and the previous post about infantry weapons. So as I explained you argument was way out of context and rifles were not the only infantry weapons, nor were they important in terms of casualties inflicted.

Again not in context with the argument. The point was strictly the statement that German's 5,000 artillery pieces were better than the French 13,000 because they were newer. Nothing you wrote had ANY bearing on that point.

Of course they were better. The technical advantages were magnified by the tactics and spotting.

If you really think the year makes no difference (even without the obvious metal fatigue and aging), please explain why the soviets went through several iterations of the 76mm gun, even though they had plenty of M1902/30 guns. Instead they went to the trouble of getting the F-22, then the F-22USV, then the ZiS-3.

Maybe do a little research. or better yet provide ANY link to support your numbers. I doubt you can.

Which means you haven't done any research and want me to do it for you. Tough, do it yourself, and you might learn something.

You do love red herring arguments don't you.

So, you nothing say in response. OK, I kinda expected that.

Again do some research. You may be SHOCKED at what you can learn. There are numerous documents to refute your position. They are very easy to find on the internet.

Again do some research. Since you can't name a single event, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

 

[jju_57]

Again do some research. Since you can't name a single event, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

30,00 UK troops captured 100,000 Italian troops. Battle for Singapore Japan had 36,000 troops to the British 85,000. So here are two very easy examples proving you WRONG once again.

Here are some examples from Barbarossa. The Battle of Raseiniai . The Battle of Brody . And of course if you know anything you know about the Battle of Smolensk where a smaller German force defeated a larger Russian force while capturing 300,000 prisoners.

Yet you never once have provided any proof for your claims.

 

[jju_57]

Please, stop this ignorance. Range of a gun is hugely important, to the point, Germany had to develop specialised rocket-assisted shells to compensate it`s artillery`s lack of range in late war.

French guns in fact had far lower range, more than 2 km less on average, if you take guns that posed the majority of the artilery.
German 150 mm howisers and 105 mm guns were more numerous and with better range than their French equivalents.

I'll prove your ignorance with some facts. The French 105 was the Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider . One of those WW1 outdated artillery pieces. It had a range of 12 km or 7.45 miles or over 13,100 yards.

The Germans used the more modern 10.5 cm leFH 18 which had a range of 10.675 km or 11,675 yards.

So show me my ignorance in saying the French 105 had a longer range. Oops you can't. Facts are such a nasty thing.

As for 150-155's the French Canon de 155mm GPF had a range of 19,500 meters way beyond the range of the German 150mm gun. Oops again.

I can refute many of your other comments but why bother? Facts don't mean anything to people that only want to believe what they write.

EDIT: BTW nice link. All in Russian. /end sarcasm

 

[Dalwin]

30,00 UK troops captured 100,000 Italian troops. Battle for Singapore Japan had 36,000 troops to the British 85,000. So here are two very easy examples proving you WRONG once again.

Here are some examples from Barbarossa. The Battle of Raseiniai . The Battle of Brody . And of course if you know anything you know about the Battle of Smolensk where a smaller German force defeated a larger Russian force while capturing 300,000 prisoners.

Yet you never once have provided any proof for your claims.

To keep some of those examples in perspective.

1.) Singapore was not likely to be seeing any resupply in the near future. They were strategically cutoff.

2.) Italian East Africa's chances of ever being resupplied were perhaps even worse than Singapore's

3.) During the initial phase of Barbarossa, many Soviet units were engaged while nowhere near full supply levels. This was compounded by many of the main supply dumps which had been placed too far forward being overrun. In spite of intel warnings, the Russians were badly caught by surprise and were not ready to fight.

Those three all happened near the onset of hostilities in their respective areas. I feel that these mass surrenders are much less frequent in any area where the fighting has been ongoing for a significant length of time, one where logistics and supply lines are in place and functional. The main exception would be when a country's will to fight is collapsing and their overall surrender is near.

 

[keynes2.0]

The 30k vs. 100k refers to Cyrenica, not East Africa AFAIK.

 

[rossBurglar]

The 30k vs. 100k refers to Cyrenica, not East Africa AFAIK.

Yes, that would be Operation Compass

 

[mariandavid]

Um - as someone of some expertise on the subject it is dangerous to simplify national characteristics. For example Japan (I am being very careful - or cowardly by not taking on France or Germany): There was a huge range in both the size and quality and firepower of its divisions, even sticking to the 35 or so that were active in the opening years of the war. On size - some had four company battalions, some three; quality - some were expert, others marginal (this including the Guards); firepower - no they did not have 36 7.5cm, some also had 10cm, others mountain not field 7.5cm; more important some battalions had 12 HMG, others 8 HMG and whether they used 7cm infantry guns or light anti-tank guns was anyone's guess. And just to make matters worse, a Japanese division aiming to march through difficult terrain would cheerfully leave one-third or more of its guns and equipment behind, using the spare men to carry supplies or ammunition.

The same is true of course in all armies - but alas submerged in manufactured myths, of which the Germans are very prone. As one would expect in every army, but most especially one that expanded quickly (which means almost all of those in WW2) quality quickly became exceedingly variable - even in so-called elite service branches (27th Panzer? Layforce Commandos? etc).

Which is why I like the concept proposed - in effect it forces you to create a standard division (with I note the ability to make inexpensive changes within it). Leaving it up to other factors (Officers, commanders, experience blah, blah) to show the variations within that group. I certainly agree with the rationale - before writing this I went through my armoured divisions in the game I am playing - of which exactly two were alike! A clear contradiction of WW2 practice in which in most armies there would be only two types of armoured division at any time

 

[mursolini]

I'll prove your ignorance with some facts. The French 105 was the Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider . One of those WW1 outdated artillery pieces. It had a range of 12 km or 7.45 miles or over 13,100 yards.

The Germans used the more modern 10.5 cm leFH 18 which had a range of 10.675 km or 11,675 yards.

So show me my ignorance in saying the French 105 had a longer range. Oops you can't. Facts are such a nasty thing.

As for 150-155's the French Canon de 155mm GPF had a range of 19,500 meters way beyond the range of the German 150mm gun. Oops again.

I can refute many of your other comments but why bother? Facts don't mean anything to people that only want to believe what they write.

EDIT: BTW nice link. All in Russian. /end sarcasm

Unlike you, I actually did a "study" on the quantity of respective guns and their quality.

Just to prove myself:

The French 150mm gun you posted was an equivalent of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Kanone_16 with 22km range. OOOps.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_K_18 with same 24.5km. Duh.

Also Breakdown of French heavy artilery:
??? Canon Court de 105M(montagne) modèle 1909 Schneider 6km
??? Canon Court de 105 M(montagne) modèle 1919 Schneider 7.5km
144 Canon de 105 court mle 1934 Schneider 10km range
232 Canon de 105 court mle 1935 B 10km range
854 Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider 12 km

210-300 Canon de 155 C modèle 1915 St. Chamond 9km range
2043 Canon de 155 C modèle 1917 Schneider 11km

159 Canon de 105 L mle 1936 Schneider 16km range

German artilery:
at least 1,353(1939 numbers, no idea how many buil in 1939-1940) 15 cm sFH 18 13km range.

702 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18 19km range.

??? probably thousands 10.5 cm leFH 18 10km

As one can see, Germans heavilly outnumbered and out-ranged Frenchies in 105mm long-ranged artilery, had similar numbers of 150mm howisers, while still being outranging french, and in 105mm howisers, France had some avantage in quality, although for numbers I have no idea as i can`t find the number of 10.5 cm leFH that participated in battle of France. Ironically Germans could match almost 1 for 1 every Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider with 10,5 cm schwere Kanone which was far better on average.

So overall situation in heavy artilery was not that dire for Germany, as one can imagine a lot of French heavy guns were in coastall defence and didn`t participate.

 

[Beagá]

I can expect not having air superiority being nasty, anyway, Big guns = big targets for Stukas I wonder how much artillery was destroyed or abandoned?

How will heavy tanks be handled? At brigade level or can you still ONLY have full brigade like in hOI 3?

 

[mursolini]

I can expect not having air superiority being nasty, anyway, Big guns = big targets for Stukas I wonder how much artillery was destroyed or abandoned?

Not having airforce fire direction would probably be another huge disadvantage, as Germans actually did made a lot of efforts to assist fire direction by recon planes and French lacked air superiority to do same, even if they had the equipment(did they?).

 

[LCPD2012]

It look interesting.

 

[Dan1109]

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.

It's a critical need to help the AI defend itself - and to use your dogma, the AI has no friggin clue what happened in 1945, and never will. By script, you mean decision scripting?

IMO. HoI3 modding survives solely from load_oobs which gives a modder instant created units to challenge the human. In hoi3, the AI went absolute full retard with division composition. Absolute zero chance for it for form a KG, or re-assemble its forces for new situations. Hence, you had to give the AI OOBs, while it's other units sit with their thumbs up their colon. Modding this template stuff, can allow the modder to get the AI to reform in a more appropriate formation....something I have a feeling that the AI will still have problems with.

 

[catz27]

It would be cool if there are ways to get more combat experience pre-war like doing wargames, manoeuvres and expending fuel/supplies on training. Or some proxy wars like historically in Spain.

Exactly, I mentioned this for HOI3. For countries like the US, USSR, Japan, etc., who don't get involved fully until later, I think that it should be possible to spend IC or leadership to get some doctrinal experience before the shooting starts. The US Navy war exercises, for example, basically worked out how carrier TFs would work quite early...and showed how the Pearl Harbor attack would happen in 1938 IIRC (Great book on this by Al Nofi title is, IIRC, "To Train the Fleet for War").

 

[Jakalak]

Alright, I did, in fact, lie. This was a much longer thread, though, hah.

I didn't see any answer to the question of whether experience gained by brigades in a division whose template is downsized will retain their experience when reassigned to other divisions, or instead simply lose their experience.

If I've missed it, my fault, and if it was intentionally not answered because you don't know for sure yet, or haven't decided, or are addressing it later, etc, then my fault as well.

 

[gjflanker]

Will manpower requirements be variable? Not all nations used the same number of men in regimental/brigade formations. Also, one might wish to raise or lower the size of regiments/brigades depending on strategic considerations, i.e. perhaps you need a large number of smaller units vs. a small number of large units.

 

[gjflanker]

The rate of gain depends on the proportion of your units in combat, the more of your units that are fighting, the faster you gain Experience. This also means that smaller nations do not necessarily earn less than larger nations, as it's not the total number of units that matters, and large nations will likely not get much Experience when rolling over small ones.

Hmm. Not sure I'm liking this too much. What about instances where forward thinking individuals were able to influence division/unit design and/or strategy? For example, Liddell Hart's or Billy Mitchell's work? Also, lessons were learned in small conflicts, e.g. Spanish Civil War that were incorporated (or not) into strategic/doctrinal planning. Will there be decisions available that allow an increase in 'experience' or choosing of strategic/doctrinal pathways? For example, even though Mitchell demonstrated the efficacy of naval aviation strikes against battleships, the USN decided to continue with battleships as the backbone of the fleet.

 

[PlacidDragon]

Will manpower requirements be variable? Not all nations used the same number of men in regimental/brigade formations. Also, one might wish to raise or lower the size of regiments/brigades depending on strategic considerations, i.e. perhaps you need a large number of smaller units vs. a small number of large units.

I doubt that they are going to make various sized brigades of the same base type (then again, what do i know, hehe)

The division planner itself should take care of everything you say, in terms of manpower per division, etc. Need more divisions but dont have the manpower ? Just make your divisions smaller. And so on.

 

[Joppos]

It's of course too early to tell since we don't know the complete role and nature of experience points yet, but it does seem like the exp. gain should be at least partially influenced by the total number of units fighting and not only by the proportion. A smaller nation even if committing all it's troops should seemingly not gain more exp. than a large nation committing far more units although a smaller proportion. Seems a bit wonky getting an experience malus because you choose to have reserves or guard other fronts even if you currently commit 3 million men to fighting. I guess that will be up to beta testing to find out though.

 

[Gort11]

Seems a bit wonky getting an experience malus because you choose to have reserves or guard other fronts even if you currently commit 3 million men to fighting.

Not really, it makes sense that a nation with 100% of its units in combat would get more experience than one with 80% of its units in combat and 20% resting.

Of course, having 100% of your units in combat might be a bad idea for other reasons, so it balances out.

 

[Joppos]

Not really, it makes sense that a nation with 100% of its units in combat would get more experience than one with 80% of its units in combat and 20% resting.

Of course, having 100% of your units in combat might be a bad idea for other reasons, so it balances out.

How so? The amount of battles and general opportunities for experience is not a relative thing. Would 300 people working on a car gain ideas and experience equal to one person doing the same in the same time frame? See, that does not really make sense. I can get 300 people not being 300x better, or that the total amount of experience and ideas possible to gain would be the same; but not that a smaller amount would actually be as effective per unit of time. having 3 million men committed to fighting hundreds of battles shouldn't in the same time frame generate the same amount as ten thousand fighting a few, no matter the relative army size.

It's a very artificial construct that seems gamey by nature. To maximize war experience you're incentivised to have as few garrison units or units guarding other fronts as possible, even if you have millions of soldiers already committed to battle. A minor would likewise rather disband one of his two divisions if there isn't opportunity to use both constantly, else he forgoes experience.