HQs, Command Structure and OOBs

[Darkath]

Thats probably what will happen

Good news !

 

[plasticpanzers]

If so that would be sad and a crippling loss to ground combat. Your talking at almost 10% of your combat ability beyond the
riflemen that make up the mass of combat units. Non divisional support units are the sticky stuff that holds divisions together
in combat. A divisions is not an island in a sea of war all on its lonesome. No sieges woule be possible without them so forget
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sveatserpol, Bastogne. No Anzio, Salerno, Gothic line or any line in Italy. You take it by knife or by tank.
Back to the age of Napoleon.

 

[Bullfrog]

If so that would be sad and a crippling loss to ground combat. Your talking at almost 10% of your combat ability beyond the
riflemen that make up the mass of combat units. Non divisional support units are the sticky stuff that holds divisions together
in combat. A divisions is not an island in a sea of war all on its lonesome. No sieges woule be possible without them so forget
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sveatserpol, Bastogne. No Anzio, Salerno, Gothic line or any line in Italy. You take it by knife or by tank.
Back to the age of Napoleon.

You mean corps assets? We don't even know if corps are in the game.

 

[adski42]

I really hope PDS keep the command structure from HOI3. Although setting it up could be time consuming, managing it didn't have to be. It also gave you a connection to the units fighting at the front. I don't know about anyone else, but I developed favourite corps that I liked to watch develop. Losing divisional commanders is one thing, but losing Corps, Armies, Army Groups etc that you could name and track really undermines immersion element of the game. I really hope they won't lose this.

Personally I'd like more detail and want individual divisional insignia represented, but I've a feeling that's a bridge too far... ;-)

 

[plasticpanzers]

Well to get a grip on what would be left out if they are not there were just for the USA:

238 Independent Field Artillery BATTALIONS (that's about 12-18 guns generally per) in the ETO by wars end.
16 Independent Field Artillery Battalions in the Med Theatre
53 Independent Field Artillery Battalions in the Pacific
these range from 2-3 gun 240mm Superheavy guns to 75mm pack howitzers. The majority are 105-155 guns and howitzers.

That does NOT include the Commonweath independent artillery and all other allies.

This does not include all the independent tank, tank destroyer, assault guns, SP AAA, and 600 Engineer units. All Battalions.

This does not include the German Nebelwefers (all independent), TIger battalions, RR guns, and all the above and all their
allies

That's one heck of a lot of folks to be missing from WW2 and why I am so disturbed over the vibes I am getting on this.

 

[DocDesastro]

Same here. I dislike the simplification attempts. While yes, there IS work to do at the beginning of the game to assign and assess the general pool. And yes, if we would add in battalions there is definitely more. But this is no burden (well to me this is not) but playing a detailed simulation. It is part of it. AdSki42 said it - me, too enjoyed 'grooming' certain generals and corps in battle. And the system showed me, that an army fights coherently.

 

[plasticpanzers]

I know that they have not said there will be HQs but HQs now are just boxes to carry generals and a wee little staff. All those
missing assets (3000 guns for just the USA) should be somewhere as should other Aliied and Axis support units. I don't mean
independent but somehow tied into the corps system to support the combat units that make up the main portion of a corps or
higher formation.

 

[Jazumir]

There´s also the logistical aspect, HQs could take a function in (unlike in 3).

But i am torn - on the one side, i am really enticed by the simplicity of the gameplay as displayed in the video. But on the other, i have (had?) high hopes for the HQ-system of 3 being further developement rather than being given up on after just one try. Now, if there was a way to have both... that easy gameplay and HQ having funtions like:
- logistics (most obvious imho)
- corps assets (as PP proposes), army assets (planes)
- collect doctrinal research
- what they did in 3
, that would be best.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Well to get a grip on what would be left out if they are not there were just for the USA:

238 Independent Field Artillery BATTALIONS (that's about 12-18 guns generally per) in the ETO by wars end.
16 Independent Field Artillery Battalions in the Med Theatre
53 Independent Field Artillery Battalions in the Pacific
these range from 2-3 gun 240mm Superheavy guns to 75mm pack howitzers. The majority are 105-155 guns and howitzers.

That does NOT include the Commonweath independent artillery and all other allies.

This does not include all the independent tank, tank destroyer, assault guns, SP AAA, and 600 Engineer units. All Battalions.

This does not include the German Nebelwefers (all independent), TIger battalions, RR guns, and all the above and all their
allies

That's one heck of a lot of folks to be missing from WW2 and why I am so disturbed over the vibes I am getting on this.

Do you really want the fronts in Europe (both east and west) cluttered not only by 100+ Allied/German divisions to keep track of, but also 500+ independent Battalions on each side?



A few independent brigades here and there might work for special tasks like heavy artillery or heavy tanks.
But if the independent units are getting more numerous then divisions then why not simply abstract their use into one or more in each division?

 

[plasticpanzers]

Uh..YEAH!!!
see this post....
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?794611-Corps-assets

Just assign em and forget em. The HQ leader does the work for you with a simple math program.

I mean, leave 3000 artillery barrels out of WW2 and that's just for the USA? If I wanted to play divisional only
games there are a lot of simple ones out there. Leaving about 1,000,000 men and their equipment out of the
war seems a bit drastic to me. I see no clutter now and there never was currently, even in Russia at the height
of the invasion. Try playing of the GDWs board games of the 70s. They include them all and they work but in
a computer game the math and work can be given to the AI as in Matrix Corps assets in War in the East. Has
worked fine for them for years.

Did you think that 'material superiority' the German's wept about in Normandy was aircraft only. I don't want to
see all these assets reduced to a tech increase of .02 soft attack after research for divisions. That would be so
darn bad. With a good general and the right luck calling in 5 heavy artillery battalions on somebodys head has
GOT to hurt.

 

[tommylotto]

In my opinion (without denigrating those who hold any other opinion in any other way), I enjoyed the historical accuracy and immersion of a full chain of command including divisions, corps, armies, army groups and theaters. Just speaking for my self, I even enjoyed the divisional leaders -- grooming them in early conflicts at the divisional level to lead larger organizations when the real war breaks out. I liked dwelling on the micro and the details. That doesn't mean I have OCD, or make me crazy, or put me on a fool's errand. Others might not enjoy those aspects of the game in the way that I do. It is just how I enjoyed playing the game. However, I am not alone on this point. Many other forum posters are also attracted to this game as an historical simulation. It is even seen by some as a learning tool. I know I have learned a great deal playing this game. Podcat is understandably being cagey about what is going to be included in unfinished parts of the game. However, here is one loyal player (in my most humble personal opinion) suggesting that full chains of commands be kept or put back in (as the case may be). And while you are at it, divisional leaders would be nice too.

As for plasticpanzer's request for Corps Assets, I too would like to see them, but I don't think it is going to happen. The best you are going to be able to do is abstract those corps assets into the corps' component divisions. So, a corps controlled tank destroyer battalion will just have to be part of one of the corps' divisions. However, this raises another issue. According to my understanding, divisions are no longer cobbled together on the map but are rather assigned a template, and templates require experience to create. You will not be able to just attach a TD battalion to an infantry division in the field. You will start with a template for an infantry division. You will have to expend experience to create a new infantry division template with a TD battalion attached. Then you would have to assign that template to a given division, then available TD's would flow from stockpile to that division in some as yet undisclosed manner to fill out the new template. Unanswered questions also include splitting and merging divisions in the field.

Smaller units in the game should be easy to implement. All units will be "divisions" but you can have brigade sized, or even regiment sized, or who knows even battalion sized, "divisions" on the map. Then you could name it whatever you want. Of course, each division type will require its own template, and if you do not start with the appropriate template, then experience will need to be expended to create it.

 

[aphrochine]

Independent Bns were almost always attached to Divisions for tactical support. The advantages were that they were floated around and tended to follow the heavier action, afaik.

I'm OK with Division size as a "container", knowing that I can always create smaller units in this "division" sized container.

I'm OK with no division commanders.

I'm NOT OK with loss of OOB. That was one of the few GREAT things from HOI3, and it would be a shame to lose it.

 

[Darkath]

Let's not derail too much the thread about Independant Brigades, it's a topic that probably warrant its own thread if it doesn't already exists.

 

[Darkrenown]

If so that would be sad and a crippling loss to ground combat. Your talking at almost 10% of your combat ability beyond the
riflemen that make up the mass of combat units. Non divisional support units are the sticky stuff that holds divisions together
in combat. A divisions is not an island in a sea of war all on its lonesome. No sieges woule be possible without them so forget
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sveatserpol, Bastogne. No Anzio, Salerno, Gothic line or any line in Italy. You take it by knife or by tank.
Back to the age of Napoleon.

How can not having something we never had before be either a loss or a simplification?

I enjoy the idea of Napoleonic tanks though.

 

[1alexey]

If so that would be sad and a crippling loss to ground combat. Your talking at almost 10% of your combat ability beyond the
riflemen that make up the mass of combat units. Non divisional support units are the sticky stuff that holds divisions together
in combat. A divisions is not an island in a sea of war all on its lonesome. No sieges woule be possible without them so forget
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sveatserpol, Bastogne. No Anzio, Salerno, Gothic line or any line in Italy. You take it by knife or by tank.
Back to the age of Napoleon.

Age of Napoleon and him specifically were really famous for good use of mobile artilery.
:happy:

 

[fizy45]

However there are a few disadvantages as well as first glance :
- Realism takes a hard hit in the jaw. We might have at last proper TO&E within division at the micro scale, but no more OOB at a the macro scale.
- Most generals won't see the war, seeing how the invasion of poland took 2 generals, a player might use more than a handful of them for the entire war but that's about it
- Not being able to organize the hierarchy means you can not use the different bonuses of the various generals at different levels.

Now let's be honest. Setting up the OOB each time and keeping it up to date during the war was a micro-management hell but here i fear we are losing a big part of the larger, macro game.

To me removing divisional leaders was enough, there is no need to remove the corps/field armies/army groups.

It completly depends on you.Rather than assigning all armies under the command of one guy.If you divide and assign them for multiple generals then you will have multiple HQ.Also you can still keep hiearcy with assigning specific generals for divisions and armies.For example you assign good talented low ranking panzer generals to your panzer corps and Generals like Rommel on top of them.

Simple plain and every problem you talk about is gone and yes maybe this means few micromanagement when we compare it with the HOI3 but who care's that game was a mess anyway...

Edit:Hold on I will give HOI3 a try now with lastest expansion lets see if I am going to like it this time.

 

[jju_57]

From watching the video it appears that different generals can command various amounts of divisions. So Rommel in the video was limited to 5 divisions and therefore would be a corps commander. you don't have to do what Podcat did in the video.

You could have selected 5 divisions in the north of Germany and that was a corps. Then place the other 20 (or however many there were) under a general that can control that many and that would be an army. And finally give the 4 in Prussia to Rommel for another corps.

But what you most likely be able to do is assign the two corps (in my example) to a higher level guy creating a chain of command. This is a guess on my part as only a portion of the battle planner was actually shown.

 

[Dalwin]

I'm surprised there is no thread about this yet but let's talk about the elephant in the room :

From what we've seen in the Gamescom demo, there are no more HQs on the Map.

Instead you seem to assign a general to a selected group of divisions to create an army.

There doesn't seem to be any hierarchy between armies either. Each army has one leader and is "independant" from the others.

There seem however to be a limit of divisions a single general can handle, according to rank. So a Von Rommel would not be able to command as much units as a Von Rundstedt

If what i say is wrong or incomplete please correct me.

I can see the advantages of such a system :
- First, it's much simpler to handle both for the player and the AI
- Second, it's very fluid and tie in nicely with the new battleplans
- Third, each leader become much more important
- No time lost on setting up an orderly OOB.

However there are a few disadvantages as well as first glance :
- Realism takes a hard hit in the jaw. We might have at last proper TO&E within division at the micro scale, but no more OOB at a the macro scale.
- Most generals won't see the war, seeing how the invasion of poland took 2 generals, a player might use more than a handful of them for the entire war but that's about it
- Not being able to organize the hierarchy means you can not use the different bonuses of the various generals at different levels.

Now let's be honest. Setting up the OOB each time and keeping it up to date during the war was a micro-management hell but here i fear we are losing a big part of the larger, macro game.

To me removing divisional leaders was enough, there is no need to remove the corps/field armies/army groups.

There have been a few other threads on this topic, but that does not stop your points from being valid.

In many of the cases, I think the simplifications make for a better model to simulate the war. This is true for air war and production lines/resource stockpiles among others.

In the case of simplifying the command structure, I do not think the change gives a more realistic result. In a certain sense it is a step backward. The reason it is being done, in my opinion, is two-fold. One is the obvious one to make the game more approachable to players who have not been involved with HOI before. Let's be honest, managing the command structure was one of the more difficult tasks for a new player to learn. If this were the only reason for the change, I'd probably be against it.

The second reason is that this streamlined structure is most likely essential to make the battle plan mechanic work smoothly. If the end result is a competent AI, the tradeoff is probably worth it. If on the other hand the AI still plays like a 3rd grader who sniffs too much glue, this bad choice of simplification will be lost among much bigger reasons to be disappointed with the game.

 

[Gamer_1745]

As for plasticpanzer's request for Corps Assets, I too would like to see them,.. ... Then you would have to assign that template to a given division, then available TD's would flow from stockpile to that division in some as yet undisclosed manner to fill out the new template. Unanswered questions also include splitting and merging divisions in the field.

Smaller units in the game should be easy to implement. All units will be "divisions" but you can have brigade sized, or even regiment sized, or who knows even battalion sized, "divisions" on the map. Then you could name it whatever you want. Of course, each division type will require its own template, and if you do not start with the appropriate template, then experience will need to be expended to create it.

I too like the idea of Corps assets, but think it will have to wait for HOI 5.

If it is a question of having the Division Planner or the HOI4 system I would pick the Division Planner even with the limitations. It is very historical that assets were moved around (Kampfgruppe) and I can live with event generated unique divisions (I very much hope that there will be the ability to have event generated unique divisions with their own unique counter symbol (these need not be added to the build list)).

My limited programming knowledge makes me think that with the Division Planner system you cannot just move 1 sub-unit from 1 division of a Division Type. Now you might be able to remove 1 or more sub-units from all divisions of a Division Type.

 

[RickInVA]

How can not having something we never had before be either a loss or a simplification?

It is true that we did not have it. Is that a reason not to have it?

The lack of Corps, Army, and Army Group assets has always been near the top of my personal list of items I would like to see fixed. The United States certainly had a robust amount of non-divisional units. Artillery, tanks, and tank destroyers were common Corps and Army level assets. Nebelwerfers for Germany. I'm sure many things for the Soviet Union (I'm not very knowledgeable of the Soviet OOB).

But if the fact that we didn't have something in HOI3 is a reason not to improve the game and have it in HOI4, then there is no point in my spending any more of my time on this post.