I just finished a horrible game.

[Lonc]

My first game playing as a historically SU as possible except for helping communist Spain win. Even though I won and got what I wanted in the peace process, the experience has left a bad taste in my mouth.

• Supply system: European supply regions are small but Asian ones aren't. This means troops in Europe can be spread out to different supply regions while still staying close to each other but in Manchuria that is a huge problem because supply regions are big meaning troops have to be spread out further leaving borders undefended. Taking one province in the state lowers how many divisions can be supplied in that province. Taking more provinces increase how many troops can be supplied in that region. That doesn't make any sense. The closer divisions are to friendly borders the higher the supply should be because the supply lines are shorter and infrastructure is maxed out. Supply should start to become a problem the farther the units are, not the closer they are to the border. Controlling too few provinces doesn't allow me to built infrastructure to that region because I don't control enough provinces. That makes no sense. Why can I not be allowed to build roads and bridges as I advance?

• Planes only assist: Why do CAS not attack units inside their range once air superiority as been achieved? Didn't the allies do that to the Germans once they had air superiority? Or at the very least bomb them a few days before we start an assault. Hoi3 had this AFAIK.

• Bonuses don't have limits? In this particular game the Japanese had insane combat bonuses. 57% entrenching bonus, 20% country bonus, 50% experience, 40% commander. One commander kept getting medal bonuses as I was fighting them. This made it almost impossible to dislodge them from their positions. Even in plains the entrench bonus made them impossible to defeat.

• I tried using the same template of heavy tanks to defeat them (which I used to defeat the axis in Europe) and were effective but the supply limits only meant that I could only put few units into Manchuria, unlike Europe Manchuria has bigger supply regions this meant that units had to be spread out further which led to undefended borders. The huge bonuses meant that I couldn't put weaker units that consumed less supply to defend them because they were defeated withing the day. A garrison type unit that consumes less supplies when stationary is needed, maybe? Forts would become useless once the frontline gets pushed.

• The peace process was a mess with countries just taking stuff randomly. Why did the allies puppet or annex regions? Why wasn't Germany divided historical? Why didn't states go back to pre-war borders like it actually happened? Hungary annexed parts of Romania and puppeted what was left in '38 before war broke out. At the peace process I couldn't liberate it because it already existed. Turkey was on axis and they somehow annexed that puppet Romania. Shouldn't the SU as the faction leader decide who gets what? Was this just a freak anomaly?

 

[Lumpy]

Welcome to the real HOI4 experience.

Regarding your bullet points:

1) Yes, the supply system is a mess. You correctly identified the reasons for this. The size of supply regions is quite arbitrary, and you are unable to build infrastructure unless you control a sufficient number of provinces first. Nothing to add to that.

2) Planes have a mission efficiency which is determined by their range in relation to the size of the air zone they are active in. As you might have guessed, the arbitrary sizes of air zones cause quite some oddities. If your planes are active in a zone they can cover only half, they are going to have an efficiency of only 50%, no matter where the actual combat takes places. They are going to severely underperform, even when the target province is literally next to their air strip.

3) Yes, stacked bonuses are quite overpowered. Additionally, defense is disproportionately more costly than defending, which further increases the problem and leads to very one-sided combat results. Might I suggest playing Japan in your next game? Try dislodging 20 divisions from a pacific island.

4) Related to 1).

5) Yep, the peace conference AI is completely nuts. Any more questions?

 

[Secret Master]

but in Manchuria that is a huge problem because supply regions are big meaning troops have to be spread out further leaving borders undefended.

You could use divisions with a smaller logistical footprint. It's what I would do.

Putting fat 40 width divisions with a huge supply draw in Manchuria is a recipe for failure, and it should be.

Even in plains the entrench bonus made them impossible to defeat.

Nice to see the AI doing well for once.

You realy should be attacking from multiple directions, using air power to hurt the defenders, using multiple divisions in the attack, and probably be using tanks to dislodge them. Oh, and pick a general to lead the attack that has useful traits.

The bonuses you list aren't even close to the highest I've seen. They can get dug in far more.

 

[jamesd]

You could use divisions with a smaller logistical footprint. It's what I would do.

Putting fat 40 width divisions with a huge supply draw in Manchuria is a recipe for failure, and it should be.

Just for historical context, in August 1945 the Russians deployed about 85 divisional sized combat units in the Far East, including 9 tank/mech/mot divisions or corps. That doesn't include the artillery divisions and all the supporting non-divisional units. There were also enough separate infantry brigades & regiments add a number of additional division equivalents. The weakest divisions would be about the AI 7 Inf, 2 Art standard, but probably requiring more supply as there's not enough AT & AA in those templates. The others would require much more supply. Based on the number and size of the German force I could supply on those borders in my current game, I don't think those numbers could be supplied in game, and rather than using the Siberian railway, my supply was coming through the Suez Canal to Vladivostok.

 

[Alex_brunius]

• Planes only assist: Why do CAS not attack units inside their range once air superiority as been achieved? Didn't the allies do that to the Germans once they had air superiority? Or at the very least bomb them a few days before we start an assault. Hoi3 had this AFAIK.

Yes HoI3 had this and also proved an excellent point about why it's a bad idea. In HoI3 Tactical or CAS (Deathstars) of many hundred airplanes moved around mercilessly and annihilated one division at a time without any ability for that division to defend itself...

In reality CAS can only devastate enemy units in two situations, either when they are engaged and their positions are known, or when they are retreating in disorder over open terrain or along a road. A division dug in for example inside a forest behind the front-lines is 100% untouchable by WW2 CAS in reality.

 

[Cardus]

Yes HoI3 had this and also proved an excellent point about why it's a bad idea. In HoI3 Tactical or CAS (Deathstars) of many hundred airplanes moved around mercilessly and annihilated one division at a time without any ability for that division to defend itself...

In reality CAS can only devastate enemy units in two situations, either when they are engaged and their positions are known, or when they are retreating in disorder over open terrain or along a road. A division dug in for example inside a forest behind the front-lines is 100% untouchable by WW2 CAS in reality.

Sedan is on he Ardennes and and German CAS did wonders against the French

 

[SpeedKatMcNasty]

Have you tried using divisions without Artillery in low supply areas? I've actually stopped using Artillery at all lately (except SPArt) because of it's exorbitant supply cost. Use your tanks to push not your infantry, and make sure everything has supply companies.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Sedan is on he Ardennes and and German CAS did wonders against the French

How many divisions did the German CAS wipe out more then 1 province (50km) behind the front line during these battles?

Zero, they didn't even damage divisions heavily...

But what they did do is suppress them, which HoI4 CAS already does (severely damaging ORG or their ability to fight back, and assist own forces engaged with them to be able to cross the river )

Have you tried using divisions without Artillery in low supply areas? I've actually stopped using Artillery at all lately (except SPArt) because of it's exorbitant supply cost. Use your tanks to push not your infantry, and make sure everything has supply companies.

Artillery have more soft attack per supply cost then infantry does. How does reducing your firepower per supply help you?

 

[Cardus]

How many divisions did the German CAS wipe out more then 1 province (50km) behind the front line during these battles?

Zero, they didn't even damage divisions heavily...

But what they did do is suppress them, which HoI4 CAS already does (severely damaging ORG or their ability to fight back, and assist own forces engaged with them to be able to cross the river )

They made them run

 

[Alex_brunius]

They made them run

So exactly what I wrote? Speaking in HoI4 terms they reduced their org and ability to fight back.

 

[SpeedKatMcNasty]

How many divisions did the German CAS wipe out more then 1 province (50km) behind the front line during these battles?

Zero, they didn't even damage divisions heavily...

But what they did do is suppress them, which HoI4 CAS already does (severely damaging ORG or their ability to fight back, and assist own forces engaged with them to be able to cross the river )



Artillery have more soft attack per supply cost then infantry does. How does reducing your firepower per supply help you?

Because you're not attacking with your infantry, you're attacking with your tanks. Infantry are only there to hold the line. Removing Artillery from your infantry divisions saves more supply for your tanks.

 

[mursolini]

Just for historical context, in August 1945 the Russians deployed about 85 divisional sized combat units in the Far East, including 9 tank/mech/mot divisions or corps. That doesn't include the artillery divisions and all the supporting non-divisional units. There were also enough separate infantry brigades & regiments add a number of additional division equivalents. The weakest divisions would be about the AI 7 Inf, 2 Art standard, but probably requiring more supply as there's not enough AT & AA in those templates. The others would require much more supply. Based on the number and size of the German force I could supply on those borders in my current game, I don't think those numbers could be supplied in game, and rather than using the Siberian railway, my supply was coming through the Suez Canal to Vladivostok.

Well Soviet doctrine gives -20% supply, 1943 logistic -30% (or -40% for 1945) and FM can further reduce it by 20%. Then you can build up Siberian rail for further boost.

You certainly can support very large force there, in 1944-1945.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

Sedan is on he Ardennes and and German CAS did wonders against the French

Sedan is very open and lacking in trees, or would have been during the time period in question as the terrain was cleared to provide clear lines of fire. Imagine the hill to the left of the town in this picture largely bereft of tree cover. Good hunting ground for planes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Meuse,_in_the_french_ardennes.JPG/1280px-Meuse,_in_the_french_ardennes.JPG

During the approach when Nazi armor was locked into the narrow roads of the Ardennes (chiefly because of the difficult nature of the terrain, frequent and deep rivers and elevation changes, less because of the trees) Allied bombers could have mauled them quite easily because they were tightly packed and because traffic jams would have been immense. Bombers are most threatening to soft skin vehicles that lack the armor of IFV/tank and the ability to make effective use of ground for infantry. Allied damage to Axis trucks over the course of the war was tremendous.

The idea that trees provide magic cover is ridiculous. Have you seen what airburst shells do to forests? It's fucking terrifying, with wooden shards flying everywhere. Now imagine bombs that weigh many, many times what an average artillery shell weighs. Early war dive bombers with their small payloads would have struggled, but level bombers would be unimpeded. There's also white phosphorous and incendiaries to consider.

What matters for infantry survival is depth of trenches and foxholes. Dig deep and cover them and you'll be well protected by earth (cover provides partial protection from shrapnel). Dig lazy and leave uncovered and you'll get blown to smithereens in the open or in a forest or get a nice shard of something hitting you on the head.

Impact of German bombers during breakthrough at Sedan was chiefly morale and the breaking of unburied communication wires. Almost no personnel were killed. This did not stop entire artillery regiments fleeing as sustained bombardment and lack of fighter/AA cover took their emotional toll.

Actual sharp edge of the breakthrough came from impressively motivated small groups of infantry backed primarily by effective fire from AT guns and artillery.

CAS was an interesting topic. Nazis saw CAS as primary role of AF. Soviets similar, but believed it could also have substantial operational and strategic impact. US, UK and French air arms were doctrinally opposed to CAS mission and preferred strategic mission as it was seen as most likely to ensure independence of air arm from fleet and ground services.

In game fighters provide the relevant operational impact. Air superiority reduces enemy defense and slows enemy movements. IMO these debuffs should be provided by TAC with addition of operational interdiction mission (I'd be fine with HFTR also having this mission to fit their multirole nature). CAS provides support offensively and primarily hits org with some strength impact. It is reasonably accurate but overly privileges the wave over the sustained bombardment as used so successfully at Sedan. Strat impact is purely strategic and IMO far too effective. Targeting resolution of high altitude heavy bombers in this period was city size. The infra damage and time it takes to repair is way beyond realism, as is impact on factories and other structures. Nazi production was largely unimpeded despite severe disruption. Same was true for NVA during Linebacker and Linebacker II. Distributed production bonuses to bombing resistance should be broken out to a separate tech line and made much stronger (time gated ofc).

Edit: honestly Sedan is a very complex engagement with a substantial pre-war social-politico-military element impacting the outcome. I've read a half dozen books that focused exclusively on it and I'm still not sure I fully understand every piece. Ex French inability to conduct effective training (Char B crews who had never seen a Char B and had only trained on FT17, infantry who had never trained with anything larger than a company and fired less than ten rounds a week in some regiments due to lack of ammunition) or design an effective mobilization law due to popular disgust with war and militarism, French doctrine of defensive methodical battle being totally at odds with both its alliance strategy and the design of its formations, doctrinal preference for fortification over unit training, willingness to continually tear apart and reform formations thereby disrupting the creation of espirit de corps.

It shouldn't be used as a representative battle. The 55th and 71st were B type divisions largely staffed by reservists that literally imploded. HoI4 doesn't model manpower quality or any of those other factors.

 

[Secret Master]

Based on the number and size of the German force I could supply on those borders in my current game, I don't think those numbers could be supplied in game, and rather than using the Siberian railway, my supply was coming through the Suez Canal to Vladivostok.

I won't dispute what you are saying, but this is what the OP said:

This means troops in Europe can be spread out to different supply regions while still staying close to each other but in Manchuria that is a huge problem because supply regions are big meaning troops have to be spread out further leaving borders undefended.

Unless I am misreading the OP here, he is saying he can't put enough divisions into the theater to cover all provinces that border the enemy. This is simply not true if you pay attention to the supply footprint of your units.

Here's a 20 width infantry division with ART, AA, and AT and no LOG (1942 techs for all equipment, no doctrines reducing supply consumption):

Here's the same division with 1942 LOG:

Surely you can put 30 of these divisions in each of those supply regions the OP is talking about without even cutting into your supply grace. And if you are fighting Japan, you can probably take the AT out and replace with rockets or MAINT.

But if you took the time to get doctrines, you can cut the supply consumption of your units substantially by running all the way through Deep Battle. On top of that, Mass Assault has doctrines that reduce the out of supply penalty and extend the supply grace.

I know fighting in Siberia and Asia is a pain, but anyone who thinks you can't put enough divisions on the front to at least cover all the provinces needs to reexamine their templates and techs. (Or do what I did one time, and just ignore the equipment lost to lack of supply.)

 

[jamesd]

Well Soviet doctrine gives -20% supply, 1943 logistic -30% (or -40% for 1945) and FM can further reduce it by 20%. Then you can build up Siberian rail for further boost.

You certainly can support very large force there, in 1944-1945.

I won't dispute what you are saying, but this is what the OP said:

Unless I am misreading the OP here, he is saying he can't put enough divisions into the theater to cover all provinces that border the enemy. This is simply not true if you pay attention to the supply footprint of your units.

Here's a 20 width infantry division with ART, AA, and AT and no LOG (1942 techs for all equipment, no doctrines reducing supply consumption):

View attachment 308754
Here's the same division with 1942 LOG:

View attachment 308755
Surely you can put 30 of these divisions in each of those supply regions the OP is talking about without even cutting into your supply grace. And if you are fighting Japan, you can probably take the AT out and replace with rockets or MAINT.

But if you took the time to get doctrines, you can cut the supply consumption of your units substantially by running all the way through Deep Battle. On top of that, Mass Assault has doctrines that reduce the out of supply penalty and extend the supply grace.

I know fighting in Siberia and Asia is a pain, but anyone who thinks you can't put enough divisions on the front to at least cover all the provinces needs to reexamine their templates and techs. (Or do what I did one time, and just ignore the equipment lost to lack of supply.)

I managed to supply sufficient troops on my side of that border to cover it and exploit the undefended gaps left by the AI. Most of my divisions were in the 30-40 width range, but my force was smaller than the Russians deployed in 1945. I made sure to repair damaged infrastructure and upgraded it in places and expanded Vladivostok's port, so I wasn't using just the base supply conditions either. My larger infantry divisions also had logistics support. Russian logistics weren't that good overall, meaning they probably only had 1936 Log tech in 1945 (their doctrine bonus potentially accounts for their logistical abilities), and their divisions had very small logistics services, so its a stretch from a historical point of view to include Log in their infantry divisions, let alone 1942 Log. There's also the matter of having enough research to actually get that Log tech in game. Germany, USA and USSR usually lag in game compared to historical tech achievements. I think the UK is not too bad given it can get some savings through the commonwealth tech grouping. In reality, WW2 armies stuck to relatively stable TOEs and the divisions in the Far East would have had their full complement of 48 ATG's in addition to supporting weapons at higher command, and rockets and AA and non-divisional tank support.

I think a relatively standard Russian non Guards Rifle Division in Aug 45 would be:

6 x Inf (actually 9 battalions but small), 2 x Art, 1 x AT, 1 x Arm plus Eng, Art, AT, AA & Rkt support

Recon was only a small company of less than 100 men, so best to ignore. Medical, Supply & Signals were also very small and they did not seem to have any divisional maintenance. To include Log support from higher level command, and there were only 17 transport regiments amongst 3 Fronts and those 90 odd divisions, AA would need to be upgraded to a battalion to make room. Its probably a better representation to only include Log in the Tank/Mech Corps/Divisions and maybe the Guards Rifle Divisions.

 

[Cardus]

So exactly what I wrote? Speaking in HoI4 terms they reduced their org and ability to fight back.

Yes, this is what you said

 

[safe-keeper]

My first game playing as a historically SU as possible except for helping communist Spain win. Even though I won and got what I wanted in the peace process, the experience has left a bad taste in my mouth.

• Supply system: European supply regions are small but Asian ones aren't. This means troops in Europe can be spread out to different supply regions while still staying close to each other but in Manchuria that is a huge problem because supply regions are big meaning troops have to be spread out further leaving borders undefended. Taking one province in the state lowers how many divisions can be supplied in that province. Taking more provinces increase how many troops can be supplied in that region. That doesn't make any sense. The closer divisions are to friendly borders the higher the supply should be because the supply lines are shorter and infrastructure is maxed out. Supply should start to become a problem the farther the units are, not the closer they are to the border. Controlling too few provinces doesn't allow me to built infrastructure to that region because I don't control enough provinces. That makes no sense. Why can I not be allowed to build roads and bridges as I advance?

• Planes only assist: Why do CAS not attack units inside their range once air superiority as been achieved? Didn't the allies do that to the Germans once they had air superiority? Or at the very least bomb them a few days before we start an assault. Hoi3 had this AFAIK.

• Bonuses don't have limits? In this particular game the Japanese had insane combat bonuses. 57% entrenching bonus, 20% country bonus, 50% experience, 40% commander. One commander kept getting medal bonuses as I was fighting them. This made it almost impossible to dislodge them from their positions. Even in plains the entrench bonus made them impossible to defeat.

• I tried using the same template of heavy tanks to defeat them (which I used to defeat the axis in Europe) and were effective but the supply limits only meant that I could only put few units into Manchuria, unlike Europe Manchuria has bigger supply regions this meant that units had to be spread out further which led to undefended borders. The huge bonuses meant that I couldn't put weaker units that consumed less supply to defend them because they were defeated withing the day. A garrison type unit that consumes less supplies when stationary is needed, maybe? Forts would become useless once the frontline gets pushed.

• The peace process was a mess with countries just taking stuff randomly. Why did the allies puppet or annex regions? Why wasn't Germany divided historical? Why didn't states go back to pre-war borders like it actually happened? Hungary annexed parts of Romania and puppeted what was left in '38 before war broke out. At the peace process I couldn't liberate it because it already existed. Turkey was on axis and they somehow annexed that puppet Romania. Shouldn't the SU as the faction leader decide who gets what? Was this just a freak anomaly?

1. Supply system is apparently being revamped for a future patch, according to a recent dev diary. Yes, it's a bit of a mess right now. Promising, but in need of work.

2. Agree, planes should be more active. CAS and light bombers should both damage units and also interdict moving units to slow them down. Perhaps moving divisions should be more vulnerable to CAS damage, too. Interdiction was actually a specific order you could give planes in HOI3, I seem to recall, though I might be wrong.

Also, the way you can't give air units specific targets in an air region makes zero sense. I could have CAS planes defend my frontline two provinces from an air base, and they will get a massive penalty because they "can't cover the air region". Especially annoying in the east where air regions can get quite large.

3. This actually makes perfect sense in my eyes, and lots of strategy games do this. I play a board game called Europe Engulfed which I love to refer to, and in it you roll dice and hit your enemy on a roll of six. You then get +1 bonuses which add up, so you can get a ridiculously high hit chance if, say, your unit is a fortified elite infantry corps firing on enemies that attack from across a river in bad weather.

In my eyes, this makes sense. If too many negative conditions stack against you, you should be outclassed. Obviously if this causes the game to get unbalanced in ways it shouldn't be, numbers should be tweaked, but the idea itself that bonuses can stack to become really powerful is OK with me.

Also, as Secret Master says, there are many ways to defeat entrenched opponents. HOI4 has a pretty deep combat system, and things like attacking from multiple directions, trying to surround and cut off your enemy, and so on can be incredibly effective.

4. See Secret Master's reply . I've got bad experiences with supply shortages myself, and sometimes I guess you just have to bite the bullet and leave some of the fancy support equipment behind and go with lighter divisions.

5. Yes, peace negotiations are a royal mess.

 

[Alex_brunius]

2. Agree, planes should be more active. CAS and light bombers should both damage units and also interdict moving units to slow them down. Perhaps moving divisions should be more vulnerable to CAS damage, too. Interdiction was actually a specific order you could give planes in HOI3, I seem to recall, though I might be wrong.

If there is some battle going on though the active CAS will contribute to air superiority penalty slowing down all enemy forces in an airzone.