Hearts of IronIII: Their Finest Hour. Dev diary 2. Combat Tactics and Armour/Piercing

[Jazumir]

[...]
This leads to TDs absolutly making AT useless under pretty much any circumstances, as long as price and stats are realistic.
[...]

But wouldnt that price for AT be about half that of TD, realistically (in MP, IC, LS, supplies + no fuel). I agree, TD is clearly superior, but it is more expensive, and not just slightly so IRL and should be so, for game-purposes as well. Later in the war, AT is the poor man´s TD - so what?

 

[1alexey]

But wouldnt that price for AT be about half that of TD, realistically (in MP, IC, LS, supplies + no fuel). I agree, TD is clearly superior, but it is more expensive, and not just slightly so IRL and should be so, for game-purposes as well. Later in the war, AT is the poor man´s TD - so what?

Again, the problem is getting the slow brigade in the way of fast brigade without having to build many more slow ones than the enemy has fast ones.

The AT issue is of the "usefull on paper" nature.

And with penetration mechanics, the AT would be pretty useless for minors because it will not have(probably) the penetration to pierce that armour of major, thus rendering brigade useless.

 

[plasticpanzers]

I agree in putting AT more into the inf/mot/mech brigades. Since they are towed weapons and lack
any real independence like a TD (or AG!) they are true support weapons. Anyhow currently they
are included as part of antitank weapons in the Inf tech tree (as is Arty). Just needs a tweaking
on tech inc a doctrine branch. Currently I see arty as Corps/Army arty.

 

[krche]

Then I suggest that AA is also put directly into the brigades or in a mixed support brigade.

 

[Cybvep]

If the devs don't even want to merge MIL, CAV and INF techs, what makes you think that they will merge support brigades or delete some of them (that would be rather hard to sell, I guess... "Enjoy the reduced number of units!")?

 

[unmerged(245758)]

It would be nice if we could get a comment from the devs on;

"...for very little change in armour value from a tech upgrade your entire army goes from being able to attack 'once' to being able to attack 'twice' with a single tech upgrade either way...

...since it forces you in effect to prioritise both AT [penetration] and Armour values to the highest degree, because you are talking about a bonus of +100% effectiveness for your tank units, or not."

Hence, how this new mechanic doesn't just create another two 'must have' techs, that must be prioritised, otherwise there is little point to trying to keep up in either AT or Armour research. Hence giving major nations yet another bonus above minors, and human players yet another edge on AI ones who won't realise they need to prioritise such techs to maintain a massive superiority with their armour.




Original post on matter:

Spoiler

Armour doesn't become invincible when A>P, it just takes half damage.

Dev dude, is this a binary test to apply the 'half damage', or a scaled linear test...? i.e.

IF: A<P
THEN: Damage

IF: A>P
THEN: Damage x 0.5

Or

func: Damage x (0.5+(A-P)) [or similar scaling function]

A = Armour value
P = Penetration value

Because, if it is a binary test, then that tipping point where A is approximately equal to P, means that for very little change in armour value from a tech upgrade your entire army goes from being able to attack 'once' to being able to attack 'twice' with a single tech upgrade either way. However as I'm sure many people will appreciate, the ability for anti-tank guns to piece various grades of armour was also as much to do with the engagement range of the gun with the tank, as the gun itself. It wasn't a simple case of 'it could penetrate the armour or not' (except with the most armoured variants).

Therefore in that context, the game mechanic if its binary could in principle be 'game breaking' since it forces you in effect to prioritise both AT and Armour values to the highest degree, because you are talking about a bonus of +100% effectiveness for your tank units, or not.

In that sense, it is totally gamey, and you are doing yourself a great disservice in not prioritising and not researching to full. Because this is the optimum strategy, all players will follow this research path, thus netting a 'zero' overall effect, thus making this mechanic worthless between majors, and only serve to nerf minors and the AI yet more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, I hope it is a linear scaling of effect, so that as Penetration passes Armour, you gain that 'double damage' mark, but say you were just below that mark, say 5P to 6A, then your 1.666 'double damage' for example.


This would be a better mechanic, because it would account for the fact that AT gunners could hold fire to closer ranges before firing, or very heavy armoured tanks could literally have shells bounce off them, much like the Japanese found to their horror against the T-34s and other tanks during the fall of Manchuria because they hadn't upgraded their AT guns since about 1934.

It would also mean that non prioritised AT guns can still have an effect, albeit at a lesser value, rather than AT guns being either "yes, can do!" or "No, your screwed!" if it is binary. Not to mention, CA bonuses as well as needing HA attack as well all adding to completely nerf minor armies...

I do strongly hope that it is a scaled test for the sake of the game.

 

[Cybvep]

The AI will research what it is told to research, but you may be right about minors. However, if AT is more useful now, then it may actually become easier for the minors to stop armour. I think that the new tech race dynamics is intentional - this is the whole point, to make AT sth that you have to worry about. Also, I assume that tank armour tech will still lower speed, so abusing tank engine tech will be less of an issue, as the players will have more trouble with keeping their speed at high levels. It may be quite interesting to balance speed and armour and since tank gun is important as well, I think that in the end the new system may work quite well.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Again, the problem is getting the slow brigade in the way of fast brigade without having to build many more slow ones than the enemy has fast ones.

The AT issue is of the "usefull on paper" nature.

And with penetration mechanics, the AT would be pretty useless for minors because it will not have(probably) the penetration to pierce that armour of major, thus rendering brigade useless.

I disagree, here is my interpretation of how things will play out:

If the major have to research armor techs because his enemies can have AT, it means his main tanks divisions (medium or heavy tanks) will be tougher, but slower. This is a victory in itself since speed is crucial.

To exploit a breakthrough majors will now have to rely more on using specific fast divisions without ARM, that instead have LARM, AC and MOT/MEC. These division is what the minor will want to overcome with his AT penetration values, and it will be a feasible task since the major is not interested in tech-rushing armor to slow them down!!!

 

[1alexey]

If the devs don't even want to merge MIL, CAV and INF techs, what makes you think that they will merge support brigades or delete some of them (that would be rather hard to sell, I guess... "Enjoy the reduced number of units!")?

The MIL is a completely different issue, but shows the PI approach to balance pretty well.
(There also is UI issue, that each tech can only have one label, so if MIL and INF uses same weapon tech, they will have same weapon name, that will enrage the 1% that care about it)

Historically MIL was a way to tradeoff, where you save IC for lager loose of MP.

But since the HOI3 majors are more constrained with MP, militia is nearly useless, so PI decidided they will make the MIL use less MP that infantry, that also makes it loose fewer manpower when it fights.

Now, if you look at real HOI3, where INF is just a fodder for Artillery, if you do not nerf MIL somehow, all majors will just use 2MIL+2ART, and pretty much ignore INF as such.

That brought PI to the need to nerf MIL somehow, and they did so by introducing it`s own full tech tree.

Do not get confused, what HOI3 calls militia has none, at all, relation to what was militia IRL. It is just a unit with balanced charactiristics. Maybe call it light infantry, that way it is somewhat more accurate.


Cavalry, again suffers the same issue just in the CAV-MOT bund. CAV is cheap, do not uses fue, and fast. So who needs all those MOT? CAV2+2SPART and CAV2+2TD for the win!
and since armoured formations in HOI3 do not take MOT anyway,..

So, again, PI had to figure out how to make MOT usefull

I disagree, here is my interpretation of how things will play out:

If the major have to research armor techs because his enemies can have AT, it means his main tanks divisions (medium or heavy tanks) will be tougher, but slower. This is a victory in itself since speed is crucial.

To exploit a breakthrough majors will now have to rely more on using specific fast divisions without ARM, that instead have LARM, AC and MOT/MEC. These division is what the minor will want to overcome with his AT penetration values, and it will be a feasible task since the major is not interested in tech-rushing armor to slow them down!!!

It still means AT brigade is useless for everyone, because it`s main issue is speed, you can not overcome LARM+AC with AT, since the division will just avoid the fight.
Also, i can hardly see why would the major even bring LARM to figth the minor, instead of just buldosering it`s troops away with tough armour, that is still faster than minors main army.

In present versions, the HARM is pretty much a unit to bully minors, with the madness of 4HARM extra hard divisions. and AT will hardly change that due to it`s lack of pen to cansel hard on soft.

 

[Beagá]

Considering the cost of 4 H. Armor brigades to one AT brigade, it´s a bit predictable they will win. Two INF with 2 AT might prove to be a bit different. I don´t think the counter fails that hard, it´s just underused. "But then infantry will slaughter said divisions etc etc" - well, if they invested in more than one of such hugely obscene divisions then I guess they won´t have that much infantry right? Not to mention you still can have infantry covering such hard counter AT divisions.

Also about the point of AA and AT not being as concentrated in real life. I´d consider the fact that such divisions usally are engaged supporting 2 or more divisions, and use their attack everywhere, representing that the AT brigade is actually split into smaller units all around the battlefield, just as in RL.

And as Alex said, balancing HA is easy, just increase cost and decrease speed so they would suck at encirclements, just as they should. AA brigades can and should be buffed by a "Dual Purpose AT/AA" tech that would increase it´s crap 1 soft 1 hard attack value to something more decent. Through the thread before turned into a classical discussion about the 88mm my point never was that only Germany should have buffed AA with AT purpose, but every single country that wants to dedicate research into that.

 

[Cybvep]

Cavalry, again suffers the same issue just in the CAV-MOT bund. CAV is cheap, do not uses fue, and fast. So who needs all those MOT? CAV2+2SPART and CAV2+2TD for the win!
and since armoured formations in HOI3 do not take MOT anyway,..

So, again, PI had to figure out how to make MOT usefull

Isn't CAV slower than MOT? If not, they should be. Then you have a reasonable trade-off - fuel consumption and higher ICdays cost for higher speed. Problem solved. Also, MOTs should be the main component of most armoured divs - I hope that the new CA system will encourage mixing MOTs with ARMs instead of using ARM+support brigades combinations.

As far as militia is concerned, I like what HPP did to it. Cheap and can be recruited very fast, but it doesn't benefit from techs as much as INFs and its ORG stays low throughout the whole game, even though it uses the same techs. Even the names of tech components are sensible, due a clever trick with event-activacted techs... However, MP-IC balance is different in HPP.

 

[1alexey]

Isn't CAV slower than MOT? If not, they should be. Then you have a reasonable trade-off - fuel consumption and higher ICdays cost for higher speed. Problem solved. Also, MOTs should be the main component of most armoured divs - I hope that the new CA system will encourage mixing MOTs with ARMs instead of using ARM+support brigades combinations.

As far as militia is concerned, I like what HPP did to it. Cheap and can be recruited very fast, but it doesn't benefit from techs as much as INFs and its ORG stays low throughout the whole game, even though it uses the same techs. Even the names of tech components are sensible, due a clever trick with event-activacted techs... However, MP-IC balance is different in HPP.

Well it is not just HPP who balanced MIL that way, but pretty much all mods.

But as everyone noticed, PI has it`s own balancing agenda.

Considering the cost of 4 H. Armor brigades to one AT brigade, it´s a bit predictable they will win. Two INF with 2 AT might prove to be a bit different. I don´t think the counter fails that hard, it´s just underused. "But then infantry will slaughter said divisions etc etc" - well, if they invested in more than one of such hugely obscene divisions then I guess they won´t have that much infantry right? Not to mention you still can have infantry covering such hard counter AT divisions.

Also about the point of AA and AT not being as concentrated in real life. I´d consider the fact that such divisions usally are engaged supporting 2 or more divisions, and use their attack everywhere, representing that the AT brigade is actually split into smaller units all around the battlefield, just as in RL.

And as Alex said, balancing HA is easy, just increase cost and decrease speed so they would suck at encirclements, just as they should. AA brigades can and should be buffed by a "Dual Purpose AT/AA" tech that would increase it´s crap 1 soft 1 hard attack value to something more decent. Through the thread before turned into a classical discussion about the 88mm my point never was that only Germany should have buffed AA with AT purpose, but every single country that wants to dedicate research into that.

Again, I think you fail to see the point. If you do not build a lot of AT brigades, your AT potential is small, and you have no chances to consentrate it, due to slow speed of AT.

If you build a lot of AT, your infantry becomes mice meat for standart 2INF 2 ATR. At some point, you also approach the problem, that armour can still do it`s job, even with the AT opposition, while your AT is useless against literally anything else, again unlike TDs, which at least gives CA.

The problem is not the combat abilities of AT, but how to get enought AT into the combat in the first place. Instead of looking at it from tactical perspective look at it at strategic perspective, where you have a frontline, and you manuver your AT to counter enemy armour.

Then, the problem of AA is that since it is slow, it only makes sence to attach it to Infantry, but infantry is not a priority target for aviation. Thus, protecting infantry from aviation is rather useless unless you protect every province, but for that you need too many AA brigades, compared to consentration of enemy planes.

It is not a problem of AA brigade SA and HA attack being too weak, it is a problem of near impossibility to use it in it`s primery role of use, the defence against enemy airplanes.

There, the introduction of mobile, SP-AA can solve the problem, since the mobile Spearheads and armour are the priority target for aviation, and it makes sence to protect it with AA.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

Isn't CAV slower than MOT? If not, they should be. Then you have a reasonable trade-off - fuel consumption and higher ICdays cost for higher speed. Problem solved. Also, MOTs should be the main component of most armoured divs - I hope that the new CA system will encourage mixing MOTs with ARMs instead of using ARM+support brigades combinations.

As far as militia is concerned, I like what HPP did to it. Cheap and can be recruited very fast, but it doesn't benefit from techs as much as INFs and its ORG stays low throughout the whole game, even though it uses the same techs. Even the names of tech components are sensible, due a clever trick with event-activacted techs... However, MP-IC balance is different in HPP.

try remember ww2 cavalry divisions used a mix of halftracks . armoured cars and even at times light tanks , not horses =p

 

[Cybvep]

Again, I think you fail to see the point. If you do not build a lot of AT brigades, your AT potential is small, and you have no chances to consentrate it, due to slow speed of AT.

If you build a lot of AT, your infantry becomes mice meat for standart 2INF 2 ATR. At some point, you also approach the problem, that armour can still do it`s job, even with the AT opposition, while your AT is useless against literally anything else, again unlike TDs, which at least gives CA.

The problem is not the combat abilities of AT, but how to get enought AT into the combat in the first place. Instead of looking at it from tactical perspective look at it at strategic perspective, where you have a frontline, and you manuver your AT to counter enemy armour.

Can't you use strategic redeployment for that? You can get anywhere quickly that way. Micromanaging ATs is painful, but last time I tried it, it could be done. You don't need to use ATs in all your divs, but 2 corps of INFs with ATs (2xINF+1xAT+1xART) is sth and maybe turn some of your 2xINF+2xART into 2xINF+1xART+1xAT. Moreover, you can put ATs in places where the enemy is most likely to try to make a breakthrough, thus forcing him to either face ATs or attack in unfavourable conditions. TDs cost more than ATs (ICdays, LP), they require fuel and have to combined with other fuel-consuming units because of speed, so it's not that you are getting the increased mobility for free. Still, this will have to be tested in MP, anyway.

 

[comsubpac]

try remember ww2 cavalry divisions used a mix of halftracks . armoured cars and even at times light tanks , not horses =p

cavalry divisions used horses at least in germany. some motorised and mechanized formations did stand in the tradition of the cavalry and used cavalry names but they were not cavalry.
for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(Wehrmacht)

 

[Alex_brunius]

It still means AT brigade is useless for everyone, because it`s main issue is speed, you can not overcome LARM+AC with AT, since the division will just avoid the fight.

My AT moves at 20km/h when they are strategically redeployed, try to beat that with any armor


Also remind me why should a minor be able to defeat a major again? (You seem to try to argue that they should).

The point is that AT should defeat armor when used in large enough amount, this they already do so things can only become better in favour of AT by giving them high piercing values.

 

[Praetori]

Well it is not just HPP who balanced MIL that way, but pretty much all mods.

But as everyone noticed, PI has it`s own balancing agenda.


Again, I think you fail to see the point. If you do not build a lot of AT brigades, your AT potential is small, and you have no chances to consentrate it, due to slow speed of AT.

If you build a lot of AT, your infantry becomes mice meat for standart 2INF 2 ATR. At some point, you also approach the problem, that armour can still do it`s job, even with the AT opposition, while your AT is useless against literally anything else, again unlike TDs, which at least gives CA.

The problem is not the combat abilities of AT, but how to get enought AT into the combat in the first place. Instead of looking at it from tactical perspective look at it at strategic perspective, where you have a frontline, and you manuver your AT to counter enemy armour.

Then, the problem of AA is that since it is slow, it only makes sence to attach it to Infantry, but infantry is not a priority target for aviation. Thus, protecting infantry from aviation is rather useless unless you protect every province, but for that you need too many AA brigades, compared to consentration of enemy planes.

It is not a problem of AA brigade SA and HA attack being too weak, it is a problem of near impossibility to use it in it`s primery role of use, the defence against enemy airplanes.

There, the introduction of mobile, SP-AA can solve the problem, since the mobile Spearheads and armour are the priority target for aviation, and it makes sence to protect it with AA.

Well Divisions with AT attached has it's merits. It's way cheaper than building INF from a manpower perspective and they are best used in Corps either placed in the operational reserve or in areas where you DON'T want the enemy armor to breach.
Every INF brigade has it's own integrated AT anyhow, the specialist support brigades are just there to act as specialized counters in specific environments. There's no one-build-to-beat-them-all as every game is different (especially MP games).
AA brigades make for wonderful HQ attachments btw.

 

[Beagá]

Again, I think you fail to see the point. If you do not build a lot of AT brigades, your AT potential is small, and you have no chances to consentrate it, due to slow speed of AT.

If you build a lot of AT, your infantry becomes mice meat for standart 2INF 2 ATR. At some point, you also approach the problem, that armour can still do it`s job, even with the AT opposition, while your AT is useless against literally anything else, again unlike TDs, which at least gives CA.

There, the introduction of mobile, SP-AA can solve the problem, since the mobile Spearheads and armour are the priority target for aviation, and it makes sence to protect it with AA.

But the division with AT doesn´t need do beat the armored division 1vs1. All it needs to do is stall it. It´s simple, if it gets bogged down fighting well entrenched infantry in good terrain it buys time both for aircraft to pound it, and for armored divisions to reinforce the position OR even better - flank it. You can´t fix balancing if you think of everything as 1vs1 engagement. The classical example is 4 heavy armor division, for the price of that one I can build a 2 INF 2 AT + one standard armored division and while the heavy whacks at the infantry, I encircle and cut off your heavy armor division.

If you look at the tactical analysis I´ve posted before AA brigades were far from not being active and doing only AA role. Light AA was pretty hard to dislodge and heavy AA (88) was actively used by the germans to attack fortified positions, bunkers etc besides the obvious defensive role. I´d rather see a buff to standard AA than to to rely on brigades of mobile AA that are even more ahistorical, considering few AA vehicles were built in huge numbers - IIRC Wirbel and Ostwind only appeared in 1944 and no more than 200 of each were built. Hardly justifies even 3 brigades, let alone 10. Not to mention all other countries which simply didn´t use those.

 

[Alex_brunius]

If you look at the tactical analysis I´ve posted before AA brigades were far from not being active and doing only AA role. Light AA was pretty hard to dislodge and heavy AA (88) was actively used by the germans to attack fortified positions, bunkers etc besides the obvious defensive role. I´d rather see a buff to standard AA than to to rely on brigades of mobile AA that are even more ahistorical, considering few AA vehicles were built in huge numbers - IIRC Wirbel and Ostwind only appeared in 1944 and no more than 200 of each were built. Hardly justifies even 3 brigades, let alone 10. Not to mention all other countries which simply didn´t use those.

Just because it's mobile doesn't mean it's a vehicle.

The German 88s were used in large numbers in all their tank divisions, towed behind trucks to keep up with the speed.

 

[Kovax]

IIRC Wirbel and Ostwind only appeared in 1944 and no more than 200 of each were built. Hardly justifies even 3 brigades, let alone 10. Not to mention all other countries which simply didn´t use those.

The 2cm AA was mounted on a number of light trucks, halftacks, and other vehicles, or could be towed using a light carriage. The 3.7cm FlaK was mounted onto a number of halftracks. The 8.8cm FlaK and its "cross" carriage was also easily "folded" for towing on a wheeled dolly, commonly behind a heavy SdKfz.8 "prime mover" halftrack. The later Wirbelwind and Ostwind were notable because they were fully armored AA (which the US, UK, and even Hungary also fielded in small numbers), not just mobile or self-propelled AA like MOST other countries fielded.