Hearts of Iron IV - Development Diary 5 - Production Lines

[Gamer_1745]

Thinking how to say this.

Country A's 2 divisions are attacking country B's 1 division. Make this simple divisions each has 100 points of fire power and 1,000 points of manpower(or whatever), how much damage it could take. So when country A's 2 division attacks it does 200 points of damage. Country B's 1 division has a defensiveness of 30 because of being dug-in so it only take 170 points of damage.

Now if country B's division weapons had a suppressive factor of 20 (reduce all incoming firepower by 20 from each division) only 160 points would be effective. And then reduced by defensive factors of 30 point so now it would be 130

Next setup 1 division from country A with 200 (a stronger division) point of firepower is attacking country B's division and country B's suppression is 20 so 180 point of firepower would get though. And with defense of 30 so 150 points.

 

[zinger98]

Stochastic method? There are a lot of ways to determine this... I have several books on the subject.

 

[Mjarr]

K98 & M1903 both have the long stroke bolt-action and the Enfield has a short stroke bolt action. The Enfield allows you to be able to keep your eyes looking though the sights while working the the action and this increases your effective fire firing rate. In WWI and maybe later some Australian units could work the action of their Enfield with just their thumb & fore finger and pull the trigger with their pinky. This allowed the unit to fire unaimed shots at the rate of machineguns for a short period.

And burn ammunition like hell. I am not denying that especially as the range in general closes in, the difference between semi-auto vs bolt-action and other similar tactical tricks becomes much more pronounced but unless you're sitting in a massive supply dump or there is clear emergency, wasting average load of ammunition in less than two minutes is not really efficient nor desired outcome. After all, conserving ammunition because most of the time troops were not sitting in convenient bunkers or fortified positions with plenty of ammunition was (and still is) notable issue when in prolonged engagement. Resupplying in middle of a battle is nothing too new, but given how easily it is to expend several thousand kilograms worth of ammunition in less than quarter, I pity the people who have to run for ammunition in the long run.

I could imagine drawing a line between somewhat subtle effects of between primary small-arms used but there's potential can of worms to open because if we go that far, and I honestly cannot ignore ammunition quality as well since even the best and sublimely engineered, handcrafted masterpieces turns into inaccurate and unreliable peashooter if ammunition is not par to the task. Not necessarily as pronounced in small-arms outside long range shooting*, but with artillery the subtle difference of someone sleeping on the job and storing ammunition improperly has pretty massive difference in accuracy than one which wasn't stored improperly.

*Yes, I am aware this is pretty broad statement but then again estimating how ammunition behaves with external factors affecting its performance on the fly is not exactly possible without some testing.

 

[Olfert Fischer]

I think the important point here is not to be too occupied with the individual weapon's characteristics, but what effect moving from 98k's to MP44's would have on the battalion level (since IV has a battalion as the smallest building block).

 

[D Inqu]

I think the important point here is not to be too occupied with the individual weapon's characteristics, but what effect moving from 98k's to MP44's would have on the battalion level (since IV has a battalion as the smallest building block).

The key effects of issuing of mass automatics were:
1. Major improvements in defence against soft targets.
2. Improvements in general combat ability close quarters (aka jungles/forests/urban)
3. Better morale for the troops

 

[Olfert Fischer]

The key effects of issuing of mass automatics were:
1. Major improvements in defence against soft targets.
2. Improvements in general combat ability close quarters (aka jungles/forests/urban)
3. Better morale for the troops

So:
1. Better defensiveness
2. Better soft attack
3. Improved morale/affecting organization

??

 

[Beagá]

The key effects of issuing of mass automatics were:
1. Major improvements in defence against soft targets.
2. Improvements in general combat ability close quarters (aka jungles/forests/urban)
3. Better morale for the troops

Considering 5% of casualties were done by small arms I think you´re VASTLY overestimating the importance of a weapon shift here. Not saying it shouldn´t give better stats (like Olfert said) but, for example, doubling the soft attack of infantry divisions would be absurd IMO.

Also for firefights at ranges above 100 meters having automatic capability doesn´t matter THAT much (unless you can supply each soldier with hundreds of bullets). Semi-auto, yes. So maybe a 5-10% better soft attack in plains and 30% for cities, jungle etc. - and that´s IF, and it´s a big IF, the weapon is reliable in such awful enviroments.

 

[Joppos]

Considering 5% of casualties were done by small arms I think you´re VASTLY overestimating the importance of a weapon shift here. Not saying it shouldn´t give better stats (like Olfert said) but, for example, doubling the soft attack of infantry divisions would be absurd IMO.

Also for firefights at ranges above 100 meters having automatic capability doesn´t matter THAT much (unless you can supply each soldier with hundreds of bullets). Semi-auto, yes. So maybe a 5-10% better soft attack in plains and 30% for cities, jungle etc. - and that´s IF, and it´s a big IF, the weapon is reliable in such awful enviroments.

Not really getting into your debate here, but i just want to say that casualties are not explicitly tied to the effectiveness of different types of weapons, especially not on the scale of this game. Increased tactical advantages given by various factors such as suppression and ease of handling can increase a combat units effectiveness without having to lead to a significant difference in casualties.

 

[Holy.Death]

I think suppression can work in a way that you get fewer losses overall and gain bonuses on top of that (semi-automatic can give bonuses overall, submachine guns in urban area, machine gun should work under most circumstances, etc.). This should give you reasons to upgrade your weaponry over standard bolt-action rifles.

 

[D Inqu]

Considering 5% of casualties were done by small arms I think you´re VASTLY overestimating the importance of a weapon shift here. Not saying it shouldn´t give better stats (like Olfert said) but, for example, doubling the soft attack of infantry divisions would be absurd IMO.

Also for firefights at ranges above 100 meters having automatic capability doesn´t matter THAT much (unless you can supply each soldier with hundreds of bullets). Semi-auto, yes. So maybe a 5-10% better soft attack in plains and 30% for cities, jungle etc. - and that´s IF, and it´s a big IF, the weapon is reliable in such awful enviroments.

I never said "casualties", let alone "doubling". I said defence. Automatics were a key for defending a position. For example, soviet analysis of failed summer/autumn 1943 (and more in 1944) offensives near Leningrad was as as follows:
1. Infantry would be pinned at mid-range by "many MGs" (which included assault rifles).
2. Tanks without infantry support would be either eliminated or forced to retreat.
3. The pinned troops become a prime target for artillery.


So MGs were instrumental in pinning attackers down. The Germans were pioneers in the science. They made 3 breakthroughs which were later emulated by literally every army in the world:
A. The deployment of the MGs at the lowest level. The Germans had MGs at squad level, with every soldier receiving training in operating it. Late in the war, some Panzergrenadier divs had 2 MGs per section. This made attempts of taking out MGs with artillery difficult as they would be spread out all over the place.
B. The MG42. A weapon, which remains in use to the day. Realising how important fire rate the Germans were first to put a 1200rpm MG into service
C. Finally, assault assault rifles, which were the pinnacle of the philosophy. Giving each soldier a automatic weapon which is accurate at mid-range gives an advantage over enemies who do not have that.



So the key in the development of small arms is defensive ability of the division - the ability hold superior forces for some time. Of course, without artillery, this amounts to buying time, not so much about inflicting casualties. The key damaging ability of a division should come from artillery. A separate "close combat" tech (grenades/smgs/flamethrowers) should be used for improving damage ability in jungles/forests/urban/forts.

 

[Beagá]

Man what exactly a SMG gives that na assault rifle doesn´t? Why the hell you think the US issued M16 and not SMG in Vietnam?

Likewise supressive fire is also used ON the attack and thus is pretty darn silly to say automatic capacity doesn´t increase offense. Specially for armies that didn´t follow german tactical doctrine of squad LMG.

So it´s ok that assault rife increases defensive capacity, that is pretty darn obvious, the point is

1- How much
2- And if should improve attack (yes it should IMO)
3- What would be the increase in supply demand
4- If weapon reliability is an issue in research (it should be).

I know you didn´t say "double value" but ultimatedly you have to define a value for the game, that´s what I meant. Which would it be?

 

[D Inqu]

Man what exactly a SMG gives that na assault rifle doesn´t? Why the hell you think the US issued M16 and not SMG in Vietnam?

Likewise supressive fire is also used ON the attack and thus is pretty darn silly to say automatic capacity doesn´t increase offense. Specially for armies that didn´t follow german tactical doctrine of squad LMG.

So it´s ok that assault rife increases defensive capacity, that is pretty darn obvious, the point is

1- How much
2- And if should improve attack (yes it should IMO)
3- What would be the increase in supply demand
4- If weapon reliability is an issue in research (it should be).

I know you didn´t say "double value" but ultimatedly you have to define a value for the game, that´s what I meant. Which would it be?

The assault rifle gives the generally same advantages. But we are talking about 1940-s. Weight and ruggedness for many wartime SMGs were much better than early assault rifles. Also designs like PPSh were very cheap and easy to mass produce.

As you said earlier, bullets accounted for a minority of casualties. So the offensive ability of automatics existed, but was dwarfed by artillery. Especially since it was much harder to suppress the defender in prepared position than the attacker in the open.

As for numbers, I don't know, but let's say for the sake of something to start with:
A. Altogether, infantry weapons (rifles, MGs) should account for, say 20% of an infantry division's "defence" and 10% of "soft attack". In raw numbers. Varied infantry weapons should give additional bonuses in terrain, possibly tied to battle events, (like make "ambush" more powerful or "tactical retreat" more likely to happen). Also should affect enemy attack move.
B. With full assault rifle deployment (which should be expensive) the raw numbers could become 25% defence and 12-13% soft attack.
C. Supply consumption should increase slightly (after all, bullets pale in comparison to artillery consumption). Say 10% rise for full deployment.
D. Reliabilty should be a decision, not just tech. When you "finish" such a "breakthough" tech you you should fact the choice, whether to you want to rush in into production or test the design.
**If you rush, you get the weapon deployment immediately, but it has problems which will degrade some of weapon bonuses and increase supply consumption. You could refine the design over time, but it will cost quite a lot.
**If you test, then the weapon can't be put into production for a few months, but then does not have the problems.
If you test the weapon

 

[zinger98]

How about we look at this differently from a practical point of view.

If you were going into combat, what infantry weapon would YOU want?

 

[Secret Master]

How about we look at this differently from a practical point of view.

If you were going into combat, what infantry weapon would YOU want?

What's the terrain? The mission? Expected enemy resistance? What's our supply situation? What's the current weather and season?

If your sending me into urban combat, I'm giving you an entirely different answer than if we're fighting in open plains. And if we're running a lengthy operation in mountains or very cold climates, I might have yet another answer for you. I might also have a different answer depending on what the rest of the fire team is using, too.

 

[zinger98]

Exactly my point. I spent a few years in the infantry...

Point is, infantry equipment is crucial. If the game chooses to not take this into effect, there are repercussions... same as if they do. Point is, a bolt action vs semi-auto vs sub-machinegun vs assault rifle are all valid points. Each was designed for a purpose (same reason why I was retrained on an M4 carbine instead of a standard M16A4). Firepower is only part of the equation.

However, how your battalion is equipped will determine how they fight in general and on specific terrain. Urban? Submachinegun. Plains? Semi-auto or assault rifle. Forest? I'd personally take a semi-auto (WWII here). Hills? Assault Rifle.

So, if your line infantry had the option to be armed with bolt-action rifles or semi-auto rifles, what would you decree for them?

 

[plasticpanzers]

I think in WW2 its a variation of 'Murphy's Law' in that soldiers will never have the right weapons they need for the right battle.

 

[Holy.Death]

So, if your line infantry had the option to be armed with bolt-action rifles or semi-auto rifles, what would you decree for them?

Semi-auto rifles beat bolt-action rifles any day, but you can't equip everybody that way. Combat often means re-making the whole equipment soldiers need when you replace losses. Ideally you will never be able to satisfy the demand created by war and you want to produce something else than firearms + uniforms. Germans had problems equipping their Volkssturm units with proper firearms due to constantly losing all their equipment in the war. Myself I wouldn't undervalue bolt-action rifle when it comes to long distances or open terrain.

 

[plasticpanzers]

The Brits loved their Enfields but the US Armed forces was virtually all armed with semiauto (M1 Garand and M1 Carbine). In fact the US
can be considered the only nation to have full semiauto overall. Although there were a number of Springfield bolt action rifles, especially
in the beginning, they rapidly were replaced except in special circumstances as you mention, as high quality long range rifles. The Spring-
field was also easier to use as a grenade launcher due to it being able to accept single rounds unlike the Garand.

On Dec 7, 1941 there was a shipment of M1 Garands on the way to the Phillipines along with reeinforcements that was turned around after the attack.

 

[Beagá]

What's the terrain? The mission? Expected enemy resistance? What's our supply situation? What's the current weather and season?

If your sending me into urban combat, I'm giving you an entirely different answer than if we're fighting in open plains. And if we're running a lengthy operation in mountains or very cold climates, I might have yet another answer for you. I might also have a different answer depending on what the rest of the fire team is using, too.

Sure but ultimatedly you do have to make a choice. You can´t issue SMGs, sniper rfiles and assault rifles to everyone because not everyone is Rambo

But this is going off-topic, the bottom line is that assault rifles should be overall na improvement, despite the fact that bolt-action was more accurate and SMGs cheaper, and thus eventually would become the standard weapon. The question is, how difficult it should be to research good, RELIABLE AR and how cheap it would be to produce them and supply a brigade during long battles. And reliability really is crucial.

 

[Chromos]

Exactly, if overall using a bolt action is still better in the average battle situation, all would still use that.

SMG's were mostly only issued to some few squad member as also MG's were not given to all.
But the rifles were getting better in overall combat usage from bolt action, to semi-auto and finally to assault rifle.
It gave just more options in most battle situations and it was seen that most assault rifles were powerfull enough to be used at combat ranges up to 100m.
And today we can see that squads get reequiped with older firearms wich just have more punch. Not the full squad, but just some very few.
So unit composition is a key here too, but neglectable for the scale of HoI.
-> Better weapon(more automatic) better combat stats for some areas..
-> More to choose from, aka SMG, shotgun.. better combat stats for some areas..