Historical play

[ramlok]

Does anyone play historical and keep to the path your country took during the process of playing your game? I see a lot of people talking about how easy the game is and wonder if you put restrictions on your own play to give the AI a fair chance, most videos and tutorials are for gaming the system and maximizing your abilities to take advantage of all the early research and development you can get from the game.
Just curious if anyone else plays with higher standards and finds the game challenging by limiting the min-maxing. No 40 width, no early wars or annexations. No 4k fighters by war. No large amounts of infantry and tanks. All the things that gives you an advantage.

Thanks!

 

[Zauberelefant]

Does anyone play historical and keep to the path your country took during the process of playing your game? I see a lot of people talking about how easy the game is and wonder if you put restrictions on your own play to give the AI a fair chance, most videos and tutorials are for gaming the system and maximizing your abilities to take advantage of all the early research and development you can get from the game.
Just curious if anyone else plays with higher standards and finds the game challenging by limiting the min-maxing. No 40 width, no early wars or annexations. No 4k fighters by war. No large amounts of infantry and tanks. All the things that gives you an advantage.

Thanks!

As Germany, 33-40w divisions and 2.5k fighters are quite historical. The game suffers from inept AI more than anything.

 

[GSP Jr]

Yes, I do usually when I play.
I also try to try some game rules what-ifs. As USA, have Mexico go Fascist. Try making Japan have a go at the Soviets.
It seems most times I'm testing mods and not really playing at all.

 

[DaleDVM]

33-40 w divisions are not historical by any means. 2.5k fighters is not historical. Germany had around 1K fighters and a little over 1K bombers in 1939.

The only true thing mentioned so far is that the AI is inept. Crazy thing is on defense it is actually better than on offense. So the allies are intentionally weak and the Germans overpowered so that the inept German AI can actually make some normal historical progress.

That said I use Expert AI play on very hard settings do zero cheesy gamey moves, play pretty historically, and I still haven't ever been challenged in this game, EVER. The AI is terrible and if I didn't love WWII simulations I wouldn't play at all.

 

[Zauberelefant]

33-40 w divisions are not historical by any means. 2.5k fighters is not historical. Germany had around 1K fighters and a little over 1K bombers in 1939.

The only true thing mentioned so far is that the AI is inept. Crazy thing is on defense it is actually better than on offense. So the allies are intentionally weak and the Germans overpowered so that the inept AI can actually give you a somewhat historical play through if you are a minor country.

The aircraft numbers you give are correct, I was wrong. Too often played against Expert AI.

However, we had lengthy discussions here about historicity, and a German 1939 Infanterie division with its 9 INF battalions, 3 medium and 1 heavy ART battalions and 1 AT and 1 AA battalion comes out at 32 width. Adding any corps/army/ Independent assets sees it in the mid 30s.

 

[GSP Jr]

With all the abstractions, omissions, and generic stats in the name of balance, realistic historical divisions are just fantasy in game.

My 40 width models American D-Day assault divisions, way over their normal paper strength. Also very historical.

Make what you want, call it what you want. It's a game, not an analysis of WWII combat. It's "Based on a true story".

 

[STABBY5]

No 4k fighters by war. No large amounts of infantry and tanks. All the things that gives you an advantage.

So what just deliberately not playing the game? If you want this then play the 1939 start. Building planes, tanks, and infantry is what the game is about.

 

[ramlok]

So what just deliberately not playing the game? If you want this then play the 1939 start. Building planes, tanks, and infantry is what the game is about.

The game is not challenging if you build up beyond historical. I play for the challenge of it all. I enjoy the building up. But I build many different units. I have 3 different light tank division type, several different infantry divisions, different strength motorized with TD some with SPA some without. It's like why would you play as France? For the challenge. Lots of good perspectives so far.

 

[mursolini]

Does anyone play historical and keep to the path your country took during the process of playing your game? I see a lot of people talking about how easy the game is and wonder if you put restrictions on your own play to give the AI a fair chance, most videos and tutorials are for gaming the system and maximizing your abilities to take advantage of all the early research and development you can get from the game.
Just curious if anyone else plays with higher standards and finds the game challenging by limiting the min-maxing. No 40 width, no early wars or annexations. No 4k fighters by war. No large amounts of infantry and tanks. All the things that gives you an advantage.

Thanks!

The way to "give AI a chance", if you play Germany, is to cranck up difficulty, so your factories are less efficient. Then get Expert AI, and boost UK, France, USA and Soviets sliders to +5.

Now that would produce fairly historical "Germany got out produced by a very wide margin" situation.

Still, AI could fail even under this amount of buffs, but at least with having difficulty maintaining air superiority player might slow down to more historical pace.

The game is not challenging if you build up beyond historical. I play for the challenge of it all. I enjoy the building up. But I build many different units. I have 3 different light tank division type, several different infantry divisions, different strength motorized with TD some with SPA some without. It's like why would you play as France? For the challenge. Lots of good perspectives so far.

AI also doesn't follow historical build. Issue is, Germany has a lot more production to work with then historical, and a lot more manpower.

Then, AI isn't very good at maneuver warfare, and breakthrough, so you can keep winning just by snowball effect.

 

[Bki]

The aircraft numbers you give are correct, I was wrong. Too often played against Expert AI.

However, we had lengthy discussions here about historicity, and a German 1939 Infanterie division with its 9 INF battalions, 3 medium and 1 heavy ART battalions and 1 AT and 1 AA battalion comes out at 32 width. Adding any corps/army/ Independent assets sees it in the mid 30s.

But HOI4 artillery battalion have 36 artillery piece in it, which mean it stands for 3 IRL battalion. This leave you with 24-26 width division depending on how you count the heavy artillery. (And of course, artillery having 3 width is kind of ridiculous in the first place). The AA also seems to be better represented by a HOI4 support company.

I think most historical divisions would fall in between 20-30 width, with a notable exception in the pre-war US square divisions and soviet corps.

 

[Zauberelefant]

But HOI4 artillery battalion have 36 artillery piece in it, which mean it stands for 3 IRL battalion. This leave you with 24-26 width division depending on how you count the heavy artillery. (And of course, artillery having 3 width is kind of ridiculous in the first place). The AA also seems to be better represented by a HOI4 support company.

I think most historical divisions would fall in between 20-30 width, with a notable exception in the pre-war US square divisions and soviet corps.

Your logic falls apart once you consider that infantry Equipment is 100 per battalion.
If a battalion is meant to be one, which is consistent all over the game, then hoi4 uses 36 tubes battalions.
It would be pretty strange having a 50 width Template designer and actually never going much above 28, too.

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

That said I use Expert AI play on very hard settings do zero cheesy gamey moves, play pretty historically, and I still haven't ever been challenged in this game, EVER.

Try playing a nation other than Germany. Like France, or better still, Poland.

 

[him_15]

I normally play with no 40-width division, no tricky strategy to exploit the AI, no tech rushing.

 

[Bki]

Your logic falls apart once you consider that infantry Equipment is 100 per battalion.
If a battalion is meant to be one, which is consistent all over the game, then hoi4 uses 36 tubes battalions.
It would be pretty strange having a 50 width Template designer and actually never going much above 28, too.

Infantry equipment are pretty clearly an abstraction covering rifles, machine guns and SMG, mortars, and some of the regimental/battalion level artillery, AT and AA that isn't represented otherwise. The amount of infantry equipment you need is thus completely arbitrary.

Artillery meanwhile is pretty explicitely the amount of guns, the same way that tanks are the individual, well, tanks (and for tanks, the amount per battalion match relatively well the IRL numbers).

 

[Zauberelefant]

Infantry equipment are pretty clearly an abstraction covering rifles, machine guns and SMG, mortars, and some of the regimental/battalion level artillery, AT and AA that isn't represented otherwise. The amount of infantry equipment you need is thus completely arbitrary.

Artillery meanwhile is pretty explicitely the amount of guns, the same way that tanks are the individual, well, tanks (and for tanks, the amount per battalion match relatively well the IRL numbers).

Funnily enough, infantry equipment is an abstraction, but guns aren't, because apparently that does not suit a specific Line of thought.


A 1939 Panzer division had 4 tank battalions, with 300 to up to 400 tanks.

4 light Armour battalions in hoi4 give 240 tanks.
That's obviously not very closely matching.
A british artillery regiment had 72 guns, not 36, as you would have it. Quite not the same.

And tanks are also the tanks, replacement parts, ammunition. Considering the prodigious amounts of ammo artillery uses, I can accept that 36 guns mean actually 12-24 guns, depending on calibre, plus ammo.
The obvious solution, were you correct, would be an ART battalion of width 1 with 12 guns. This has not happened in 4 years. So, if all battalions are battalions, ART are, too.

Hoi4 goes so far to use NATO counters in the template designer. That would all be battalions, except for one unit? Does this not Sound inconsistent to you?

 

[STABBY5]

The game is not challenging if you build up beyond historical. I play for the challenge of it all. I enjoy the building up. But I build many different units. I have 3 different light tank division type, several different infantry divisions, different strength motorized with TD some with SPA some without. It's like why would you play as France? For the challenge. Lots of good perspectives so far.

Picking a less advantageous start is one thing, purposely not playing the game well is another. I always avoid doing cheesy things but this is just normal gameplay. Doing more than what they did historically is the goal. I'm not sure why I would want to mimic all the mistakes made in real life. You seem to be speaking specifically about Germany and I am speaking about playing as anyone. I'd rather die than to play Iran and never build more than their historical units.

 

[halvorni]

I also limit the size of my divisions to what I mean is historical - 3 regiments/brigades with 3 maneuver battalions each, ART, AA, AT and support.
I have no more than 12 divisions in my armies, possibly even that a bit too many, since a 'normal' army (if that ever existed) could consist of say 3 army corps each with 3 divisions. I limit my special forces armies to 6 divisions.

 

[Bki]

A 1939 Panzer division had 4 tank battalions, with 300 to up to 400 tanks.

4 light Armour battalions in hoi4 give 240 tanks.
That's obviously not very closely matching.
A british artillery regiment had 72 guns, not 36, as you would have it. Quite not the same.

And tanks are also the tanks, replacement parts, ammunition. Considering the prodigious amounts of ammo artillery uses, I can accept that 36 guns mean actually 12-24 guns, depending on calibre, plus ammo.
The obvious solution, were you correct, would be an ART battalion of width 1 with 12 guns. This has not happened in 4 years. So, if all battalions are battalions, ART are, too.

I looked at a 1939 Panzer division toe and it had 2 regiments of 3 armor battalions each, and most division I looked up had around 300 or so tanks at the beginning of the war. This is coherent with 50-60 tanks per battalion.

The British division had each 3 "field regiments" of 24 guns each, which on organisation chart have a battalion marker... confusing. Though I admit I hadn't looked it up before. I had checked the US though, who had 12 gun per battalion (with 3 battalion of light and 1 of medium artillery per division). In fact, it appears that the British were quite unique in that since basically everyone else had battalions of 12 guns.

The issue about the abstraction excuse in that for infantry equipment what the abstraction mean is quite clear : one infantry equipment is the equipment for 10 men. If 36 artillery is supposed to be 12 guns, then this feel like a completely arbitrary "abstraction" with no meaning.

Hoi4 goes so far to use NATO counters in the template designer. That would all be battalions, except for one unit? Does this not Sound inconsistent to you?

No, because battalion is the only unit the division designer have (well, that and support "companies", but that's the ultimate level of abstraction, representing anything up to a regiment), and so it has to represent the things which aren't organized as part of a battalion. Given that for some reason artillery battalion has 3 width which is... why? Yes, I don't find it hard to believe that they could actually represent 3 battalion.

 

[ramlok]

Picking a less advantageous start is one thing, purposely not playing the game well is another. I always avoid doing cheesy things but this is just normal gameplay. Doing more than what they did historically is the goal. I'm not sure why I would want to mimic all the mistakes made in real life. You seem to be speaking specifically about Germany and I am speaking about playing as anyone. I'd rather die than to play Iran and never build more than their historical units.

I play mainly as Axis nations, Germany, Italy and Japan. China is fun as well.

I look at it like when you play basketball with your 10 year old kid. I'm not blocking all his shots ( not that I care about the AI's feelings, lol)

Way more fun if I make it a challenge and set rules I need to follow. I play for the challenge. I can still rule the world, just not as fast.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I looked at a 1939 Panzer division toe and it had 2 regiments of 3 armor battalions each, and most division I looked up had around 300 or so tanks at the beginning of the war. This is coherent with 50-60 tanks per battalion.

The British division had each 3 "field regiments" of 24 guns each, which on organisation chart have a battalion marker... confusing. Though I admit I hadn't looked it up before. I had checked the US though, who had 12 gun per battalion (with 3 battalion of light and 1 of medium artillery per division). In fact, it appears that the British were quite unique in that since basically everyone else had battalions of 12 guns.

The issue about the abstraction excuse in that for infantry equipment what the abstraction mean is quite clear : one infantry equipment is the equipment for 10 men. If 36 artillery is supposed to be 12 guns, then this feel like a completely arbitrary "abstraction" with no meaning.



No, because battalion is the only unit the division designer have (well, that and support "companies", but that's the ultimate level of abstraction, representing anything up to a regiment), and so it has to represent the things which aren't organized as part of a battalion. Given that for some reason artillery battalion has 3 width which is... why? Yes, I don't find it hard to believe that they could actually represent 3 battalion.

Can you give a source for 2 regiments of 3 battalions in the 1939 Panzer division? My source is Lexikon der Wehrmacht, and Osprey "the German Army in WW2".
The british used the 25 pdr oqf gun, that had ~86 mm calibre. That is much less than the 105 mm other nations used, hence the difference.

It is also arbitrary to say 1 infantry equipment is for 10 men (except in MOT, where it is for 12 men, despite motorized troops being heavier equipped than leg infantry, and cavalry, marines, mountaineers and paras, who use 120-150 Inf/1000 men), but 3 guns cannot be the equipment for 1 artillery section.
10 is not a natural number for abstraction. It is a deliberate choice.

I do not understand your final point. There is nothing that would have hindered devs to make an artillery battalion with other values. In fact, the only Thing keeping ART from being just another battalion is the equipment count.

I believe this is in line with the "equipment is ammo" design that ties into attrition as well.