I think someone said it was only for land battles, but I'll go digging for a quote.
--
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think someone said it was only for land battles, but I'll go digging for a quote.
--
I think, as much as i love realism, that TD/AG are simply support armor irreguardless of turret
or no-turret and are applicaple for armor, mech, or infantry. At this scale its irrelevent from
a simple technical point of view. They are not tanks but support armor of various types.
or no-turret and are applicaple for armor, mech, or infantry. At this scale its irrelevent from
a simple technical point of view. They are not tanks but support armor of various types.
That IMO should exist in game, because AGs were present in very large numbers, on eastern front they were in comparable numbers to tanks.
Especially considering the existance of such "rare" units as Super heavy armour, Rocket interceptor, ex, not having AGs looks ridiculous!
Maybe the game "assumes" that SPARTs include AGs? They are used in very large numbers by most players... Obviously SPARTs are not the same as AGs, but I think that the unit is ubiquitous enough to "include" AGs as well...
I think, that the problem with AGs was the low usefullnes of HA.
If you basically have a unit with price of TD and similar parameters, but one is SA primery, and second one is HA, which one would you choose?
I think it is obvious.
Now, with the new penetration mechanics, AGs will not toss the TDs out, so their introduction should not create balance problems, and PI would be better to introduce them into game.
If you basically have a unit with price of TD and similar parameters, but one is SA primery, and second one is HA, which one would you choose?
I think it is obvious.
Now, with the new penetration mechanics, AGs will not toss the TDs out, so their introduction should not create balance problems, and PI would be better to introduce them into game.
HoI franchise is rather conservative in terms of which land units are included. So I do not expect AG being added any time soon. Just consider how much the whole army structure and division composition systems changed between HoI2 and hoI3 but the variety of land units remained the same. Improvement of combat mechanics and other aspects of the game is IMO more important especially in HoI3 where adding new land units is easy. Given the limited nature of combat representation and unit stats there is not much to gain by having wider range of units. You can mix pretty much anything you want with the current variety. BTW, AG is available in common weapons DLC and it has been modded in too.
Well, most mods do add AGs.
And they cause a lot of balance problems. The cheap, reasonably high SA, hard, support brigade.
And you can throw the Armour in the trash bin.
And they cause a lot of balance problems. The cheap, reasonably high SA, hard, support brigade.
And you can throw the Armour in the trash bin.
Assault Guns and TDs provide the same support for infantry and armor. They have tactical
limitations (either lighter armor or casemate gun) which does not make them tanks. They are
really, at the game scale, comparable. Its one of the only ways to give armor to mot infantry
without making them an 'armored/tank' division. Superheavy like Jadgtigers were limited in
production and JSU152s are more support artillery. Since AGs are support weapons they could
never be the main line of armor except in games where you can tweak the numbers to make them
so but that does not make them so in real life. They have too many limitations to be considered
MBTs. For the Gemans simply mesh the types in for flavor.
limitations (either lighter armor or casemate gun) which does not make them tanks. They are
really, at the game scale, comparable. Its one of the only ways to give armor to mot infantry
without making them an 'armored/tank' division. Superheavy like Jadgtigers were limited in
production and JSU152s are more support artillery. Since AGs are support weapons they could
never be the main line of armor except in games where you can tweak the numbers to make them
so but that does not make them so in real life. They have too many limitations to be considered
MBTs. For the Gemans simply mesh the types in for flavor.
TDs + AGs = uberunit. Bad idea. AGs would be much more similar in terms of stats to SPARTs (they should have lower softness, though), so it would be more logical to assume that they are included in that unit.
However, I seriously doubt that the devs will even consider adding AGs in. They are very reluctant to add/remove any new units or change the tech trees for some reason. AGs could replace SHARMs IMO. I mean, who is using this useless and unrealistic unit, anyway?
However, I seriously doubt that the devs will even consider adding AGs in. They are very reluctant to add/remove any new units or change the tech trees for some reason. AGs could replace SHARMs IMO. I mean, who is using this useless and unrealistic unit, anyway?
If we do not complain, how will PI figure what parts of game need improvements?
Not really.
AGs are quite impractical to use against tanks, due to low velocity of the gun.
TDs are not really practical to use for use as anti-personel due to weak HE, granted, guns of 75+mm caliber, even low velocity have an OK HE, but in game TDs have extreemly unrealistic and weak SA.
THe major feature of tank that made casemate obsolate was gun stabilisation. But it was not delivered in quality before the Korean war.
No. AGs are heavily armoured units, it makes no sence to include those in the sof unit, at all.
My thoughts exactly.
After all, not representing AGs, is like getting rid of UK&CW ability to build armour(in terms of numbers of viechles).
Just work AG into the mods. I don't think they are a viable main armor unit either gamewise
nor in real life (which is why there are no casemate tanks now even the S tank from Sweden).
I don't believe in SHARM either (unless you add it in as a single tech). There is too much of
a temptation that would allow AGs an overuse in the game. They were not used in huge units
but again in smaller units in support roles, just like TDs.
nor in real life (which is why there are no casemate tanks now even the S tank from Sweden).
I don't believe in SHARM either (unless you add it in as a single tech). There is too much of
a temptation that would allow AGs an overuse in the game. They were not used in huge units
but again in smaller units in support roles, just like TDs.
? AT was useless, or at least under-used, because there are far more soft targets than hard, and Arty's high SA values meant that even halving it vs Hard targets left it pretty effective. Having Pen on AT and none on Arty. Narrow focus is only a problem when a generalist unit does the job just about as well and also has other uses.
Edit: Reading further you seem to be basing your position mostly on hardcore MP games where things may be different.
Last edited:
Darkrenown, I think AT and AA (and Eng and TD) would be better represented as smaller Battalion
sized support units rather than brigades/regiments should PI redo HOI3 into an HOI4. Making two
sepertate types of ground units: Base Regiments (such as Inf/Mot/Tank) and support Battalions
(such as AT/AA/Eng/TD) with a couple more slots would be more fun (game wise) and allow a better
historical game. Those nations with a larger IC and Research base would be able to build the larger
divisions with all the bells and whistles while smaller, poorer nations would build stock divisions of just
a couple inf and an art unit. Better gaming all round.
sized support units rather than brigades/regiments should PI redo HOI3 into an HOI4. Making two
sepertate types of ground units: Base Regiments (such as Inf/Mot/Tank) and support Battalions
(such as AT/AA/Eng/TD) with a couple more slots would be more fun (game wise) and allow a better
historical game. Those nations with a larger IC and Research base would be able to build the larger
divisions with all the bells and whistles while smaller, poorer nations would build stock divisions of just
a couple inf and an art unit. Better gaming all round.
That is sad to hear! Maybe it will be changed later or could be added to the other battle types via modding!
Yeah I'm an optimistic fellow
Part of the problem is that non-ART units also consume brigade "slots", so without Superior Firepower you cannot really add non-ART units without significantly lowering the division's firepower when fighting most units.
Concerning AGs and TDs, IMO these units should have combat width. That would also separate AGs from SPARTs (apart from softness), i.e. direct fire weapons and indirect fire weapons. TDs and AGs occupy as much space as tanks and fight on the frontline, but there are fewer of them in the unit, so maybe they should use 1/2 of ARM's combat width. Their stats would be rebalanced, ofc, but with combat width it would be possible to create units with different advantages and disadvantages and AGs wouldn't be a copy of SPARTs with lower softness.
I think that MP games can a good indicator of balance, because everyone is min-maxing and every gamey trick not banned by HRs is used. That means that all imbalances are easily noticeable. In SP, people like to follow more historical path, use AI control, play with mods etc.
Concerning AGs and TDs, IMO these units should have combat width. That would also separate AGs from SPARTs (apart from softness), i.e. direct fire weapons and indirect fire weapons. TDs and AGs occupy as much space as tanks and fight on the frontline, but there are fewer of them in the unit, so maybe they should use 1/2 of ARM's combat width. Their stats would be rebalanced, ofc, but with combat width it would be possible to create units with different advantages and disadvantages and AGs wouldn't be a copy of SPARTs with lower softness.
Last edited:
Nice idea for human players if you want to make divisions with all their possible support units
Could end up be micromanagement hell though...The problem would be teaching the AI to build and use divisions with all the bells and whistles intelligently :blink:
Just give a malus on offense for TD and Assault guns so they are better on defensive role. It does make sense. Even if tanks didn´t fire on the move a lot, the fact still remains that they could fire with their hull forward instead of changing facing and exposing the flank, and a turret also allowed faster target tracking. Tanks simply were better in the breakthrough role and the only reason why StuG was built in huge number was cost. There´s good reason why only SU and Germany relied so much on turretless vehicles and allies did not. Allies conducted offensive operations 99% time and weren´t on such a tight budget.
Quoted for truth, but I'd add that ARM and SPART fall into the same paradigm. HARM ends up only being used by people who are experimenting or by players like me who are gaming the "too many soft units" system by building pure HARM divisions to spoof all that SA, not because HARM actually has anything to offer me in terms of firepower or armor.
But I have a question for everyone here: I may have missed it, but is the softness mechanic going away?
I appears i didn`t explained it clearly so let me try again.
There are two units with high HA. One of them is slow, soft AT. The other one is hard, fast, TD. Since both have miserable SA, they pretty much both have to be directly deployed against armoured formations, in which TDs are way better than AT, due to spead, and TDs provide their divisions CA, that is always usefull, even if division fights soft targets.
This leads to TDs absolutly making AT useless under pretty much any circumstances, as long as price and stats are realistic.
That is pretty much what is the problem with AT.
Again, AA, same problem, there just so few planes units, compared to divisions, that having AA is pretty fruitless, since you either need to build a lot of it, and sacrifice your ART support, or you end up pretty much never using it against planes.
Also historically AT and AA were not deployed in dedicated brigades, unless asigned to corps or army level.
They are just way too consentrated for divisions, and cover too small aeria. there either needs to be some mechanism of assigning them higher in comand, but i do not think you will change the combat system radically, so what i would say would be better:
Delete AT brigade, and let all infantry brigades benefit from AT tech directly.
Instead of AA brigade, introduce self-propelled AA. Since your armour is a high priority target for aviation, it makes sence to protect and suport it with AA, and AA brigade is just way too slow to use it that way.
It would neatly solve the entire problem with brigades.
Also, would you think about adding AGs?
No, why would it? We know that the CA system will be changed, but the devs didn't say anything about SA, HA or softness.