Improvements to combat width, manpower and independent battalions

[Max130704]

In my opinion, the combat width system is very poorly implemented because no matter how a division is made, it will always be impractical if it's not 20 or 40 width, which makes historical divisions (9inf 3 art 1at) and other templates you may want to try out almost unusable.

I would also like to add that the artillery battalion should also be reworked, because currently in the game a single battalion adds as many guns as 3 real life ones (36 guns, an entire regiment, not counting the heavier guns when in reality they had 12) and having them be 3 width makes no sense, considering they operate behind the line and should use coniderably less space than an infantry battalion. Also, manpower should be altered for most battalions in order to make this new CW system easier to implement and also add a bit of realism, as battalions in game and divisions as a whole require too little manpower.

Another thing, which would also benefit from a rework of combat width is having independent battalions, or regiments (such as heavy tank, or tank destroyer, etc) which historically weren't part of divisions themselves, but attached to them as part of an army, or a corps. That's what was used for the Tiger for example (independent tank battalion) or the M4s and M10s supporting GIs, and also many artillery formations and other stuff that could add more flavor to the game, but this could also be implemented along with a rework of army organization.

I would like to hear your opinions on this subject, what changes you would make and all that. I know it may look like I want an extensive rework of a lot of the game's mechanics, but I think the game would benefit greatly from it and add another layer to the game to make it even more enjoyable (especially if you like to try out historical set ups and similar stuff)

 

[Synicus]

Combat width has always bothered me. With out changing it, I would like just like to see smaller division widths being more effective than they currently are as long as they are filling up to field, in most cases using more support equipment than the giant division. Division spam needs to be addressed, more required manpower would help.
Food should be better represented in supply, thus massive penalties and attrition should they begin to starve, not so high speed friendly though.
I like the idea of heavy support artillery and light field artillery.
A battalion of tanks should never be useless.

 

[Happy Trigger]

About the heavy tank battalions, or regiments, i think it is possible to add an independent one, similar to the light tanks that are used as scouts. They should give the player a little of armor and defense to the entire division, but with them, you would be able use CP (like 'Last Stand') to gain a increase in breakthrough. That would be very interesting, and historical too. The problem is if adding a tank battalion, your division would lost speed or not.

To tell the truth, my problem with heavy tanks is that they are too easy to get, and exp is too abundant. How can the germans and soviets get IS and Tiger 2 tanks before even facing each other in battle? I think most of tech in HoI4 should be behind a exp requirement, otherwise the time to research would be huge.

I'm not sure about the artillery, but if the idea is to diminish their use in divisions, maybe increasing the width of each artillery battalion added (SP, AT and AA, and support too) in an arithmetic (or geometric) progression would solve it.

 

[Harin]

If the first artillery battalion/regiment had a zero combat width, while the second and so on, had a combat width of 2 or 3, it could put artillery back in the game.

 

[Synicus]

Shouldn't recon support give a boon to artillery?

 

[Harin]

Shouldn't recon support give a boon to artillery?

I believe so. Recon probably is the best at calling in fire and increasing the range of that fire, as they can move the farthest in front of your own lines. They probably should also increase the speed of a division, overall, as they find the best routes for the maneuver units to take. The units are not running, or moving faster, they are just getting their quicker, because recon let them move smarter.

In game, I think it would be realistic for the 1936 recon support company to give all recon buffs including the 10% speed buff and a large artillery buff, while the 1939 and later researched versions make the recon company more expensive and increase the buff to artillery and movement speed. The later versions would reflect that the recon company has better equipment and more people, increasing the abilities of recon. That is why the movement speed buff would increase. The more recon people you have, the faster and more routes they can find for the maneuver units. Remember, recon does not increase the speed of units in a straight line, but it does make them quicker to arrive due to better pathing. For example, no experienced infantry unit is going to use a trail or road, unless it has been cleared ahead of time. Until then, it is going to use the woods and cover, even if it means going out of the way and slowing straight line speed significantly.

 

[halvorni]

Similar ideas pop up from time to time. Some are even addressed in mods, although I agree with OP that more could be done to make combat work better.

- Concerning artillery width: to be fair, one could say that this isn't really about frontage, but an abstraction of how much artillery units and their very considerable logistics tail would need of space in the provinces. This could lessen the maneuver units' ability to manuever, thus reducing their effect, but at the same time giving the division more punch in all.
- Manpower per battalion isn't really far from realistic - if anything, the number of men in a battalion is too large. The fault lies in not representing all supporting units at corps, army, army group and theatre echelons. These would in total be larger than the fighting divisions. An idea proposed by some is to represent the "division slice" in some way, like saying that a division of 20 000 men really binds 40 000 (or whatever) soldiers in rear areas. One needs to take care, however, because if the division is surrounded and lost, you should only lose the 20 000; the rest should return to the manpower pool.
- About heavy tank regiments etc - I agree that some of these belong to corps or army level, not division. Reintroducing the army corps (as in HoI3) could solve some problems here. Let's say you have a corps consisting of three divisions and one heavy armoured regiment. You could have this regiment reinforce any of the divisions, for instance, the first making contact with the enemy. The combat values of the regiment should then be combined with those of the division. Reinforcement could be as per current rules, so that it would take some time. Unless you're conducting a planned attack yourself, then you should have the regiment available with your first division.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

In my opinion, the combat width system is very poorly implemented because no matter how a division is made, it will always be impractical if it's not 20 or 40 width, which makes historical divisions (9inf 3 art 1at) and other templates you may want to try out almost unusable.
...
I would like to hear your opinions on this subject, what changes you would make and all that. I know it may look like I want an extensive rework of a lot of the game's mechanics, but I think the game would benefit greatly from it and add another layer to the game to make it even more enjoyable (especially if you like to try out historical set ups and similar stuff)

While the current system has faults relative to historical divisions, I doubt HOI4 will make any changes as HOI4 isn't trying to be a simulation o WWII. To get that effect, you will have to look to mods.

I would also like to add that the artillery battalion should also be reworked, because currently in the game a single battalion adds as many guns as 3 real life ones (36 guns, an entire regiment, not counting the heavier guns when in reality they had 12) and having them be 3 width makes no sense, considering they operate behind the line and should use coniderably less space than an infantry battalion. Also, manpower should be altered for most battalions in order to make this new CW system easier to implement and also add a bit of realism, as battalions in game and divisions as a whole require too little manpower.

Yes, an artillery battalion should only have 12 pieces. And the combat width (and Org) for artillery is not frontage per se, but a means of restricting how many artillery units are assigned to a division.

The unit manpower issue is the division slice, which HOI4 doesn't account for. And the lack of a proper division support unit.

But all of the above can be "corrected" thru mods.

Another thing, which would also benefit from a rework of combat width is having independent battalions, or regiments (such as heavy tank, or tank destroyer, etc) which historically weren't part of divisions themselves, but attached to them as part of an army, or a corps. That's what was used for the Tiger for example (independent tank battalion) or the M4s and M10s supporting GIs, and also many artillery formations and other stuff that could add more flavor to the game, but this could also be implemented along with a rework of army organization.

To handle those independent units, simply make a new template with that unit included. A "rework of army organization" implies Division, Corp, Army and Army Groups. Your asking for something that was left out intentionally when they simplified HOI4.

Bottom line? I doubt the base game will ever have the sort of changes you are talking about.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Shouldn't recon support give a boon to artillery?

It should be the Signal unit giving a boost to Artillery. Establishing an effective communications net is what makes the indirect fire of artillery so deadly. Especially when you are on the move.

 

[DarkSpiryt]

Less manpower will not fix problem (AI is loosing too much manpower due to poor play), ammo does. There is no point when i have too much units and no weapon supply but i have point when i have too much EQ and i dont know what to do with it (24 x 40w modern tanks). You need some kind of sponge for late game if you have too much units (ammo, supply trucks, enginers for new railways or repair old rail).

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

While the current system has faults relative to historical divisions, I doubt HOI4 will make any changes as HOI4 isn't trying to be a simulation o WWII. To get that effect, you will have to look to mods.



Yes, an artillery battalion should only have 12 pieces. And the combat width (and Org) for artillery is not frontage per se, but a means of restricting how many artillery units are assigned to a division.

The unit manpower issue is the division slice, which HOI4 doesn't account for. And the lack of a proper division support unit.

But all of the above can be "corrected" thru mods.




To handle those independent units, simply make a new template with that unit included. A "rework of army organization" implies Division, Corp, Army and Army Groups. Your asking for something that was left out intentionally when they simplified HOI4.

Bottom line? I doubt the base game will ever have the sort of changes you are talking about.

Maybe but.

Several things were left out intenionally when they released HOI4, but then added later. Fuel was left out for simplification reasons, but then added. Also they added field marchalls and army groups.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Maybe but.

Several things were left out intenionally when they released HOI4, but then added later. Fuel was left out for simplification reasons, but then added. Also they added field marchalls and army groups.

It would be nice if some of the above suggested changes were made in the upcoming Barbarossa update. I think we will see changes to the logistics system, but who knows what else.

 

[GeorgieBest]

The main thing that annoys me is that 40 width divisions shouldn't be inherently better than two 20 width divisions.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

related threads:

Improvement to Division design templates

Rework combat and combat width

Suggestion to change max divisions in the armies to max combat width

Varying combat width

 

[CrasherZZ]

They ruined one of the best features, the Division Designer, by using an arbitrary combat width limit. It's like giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Combat width should be eliminated altogether and replaced with stacking penalties so that the Division Designer can actually be used for something other than 20w and 40w division designs. Stacking penalties should be based on actual manpower rather than number of divisions since divisions can be anywhere from 1 battalion to 25 battalions in size.

 

[demon72]

They ruined one of the best features, the Division Designer, by using an arbitrary combat width limit. It's like giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Combat width should be eliminated altogether and replaced with stacking penalties so that the Division Designer can actually be used for something other than 20w and 40w division designs. Stacking penalties should be based on actual manpower rather than number of divisions since divisions can be anywhere from 1 battalion to 25 battalions in size.

There is more then just w20 and w40.

w16, w10, w8

also w26-, w19- and w13-Divisions will be close enough to 80.

 

[Corpse Fool]

- Concerning artillery width: to be fair, one could say that this isn't really about frontage, but an abstraction of how much artillery units and their very considerable logistics tail would need of space in the provinces. This could lessen the maneuver units' ability to manuever, thus reducing their effect, but at the same time giving the division more punch in all.

That sounds more like it should be affecting supply consumption, which it does. Tactical maneuver is not represented very well or at all, as far as I can tell.

The main thing that annoys me is that 40 width divisions shouldn't be inherently better than two 20 width divisions.

They aren't. Both 40's and 20's have their strengths and weaknesses. The general rule that I have suggested is 20 wide defense, 40 wide offense, for a number of reasons.

They ruined one of the best features, the Division Designer, by using an arbitrary combat width limit. It's like giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Combat width should be eliminated altogether and replaced with stacking penalties so that the Division Designer can actually be used for something other than 20w and 40w division designs. Stacking penalties should be based on actual manpower rather than number of divisions since divisions can be anywhere from 1 battalion to 25 battalions in size.

Congratulations! You have just replaced combat width, with combat width. Any sort of limit put on how much power/how many divisions you can bring into the battle, be it combat width, total manpower, or whatever else, is going to have the same mechanics. People are going to fine the same 20/40 numbers and standardize their builds around those. There are some more interesting differences between combat width as it exists and your proposed combat width, like artillery and tanks being 1 width and mot/mek being 2.4 width, as well as support companies now contributing to width.

There is more then just w20 and w40.

w16, w10, w8

also w26-, w19- and w13-Divisions will be close enough to 80.

10 is another one of the universal widths, but 16 and 8 are not. 26, 19, and 13 are going to very quickly run into under or over width penalties. Because the width of a combat can vary greatly between a lowest of 20 and a realistic highest of something like 360 in steps of 20, using widths that might be an even factor of one of the widths is going to start running into problems whenever the combat isn't exactly that width.

 

[demon72]

That sounds more like it should be affecting supply consumption, which it does. Tactical maneuver is not represented very well or at all, as far as I can tell.



They aren't. Both 40's and 20's have their strengths and weaknesses. The general rule that I have suggested is 20 wide defense, 40 wide offense, for a number of reasons.



Congratulations! You have just replaced combat width, with combat width. Any sort of limit put on how much power/how many divisions you can bring into the battle, be it combat width, total manpower, or whatever else, is going to have the same mechanics. People are going to fine the same 20/40 numbers and standardize their builds around those. There are some more interesting differences between combat width as it exists and your proposed combat width, like artillery and tanks being 1 width and mot/mek being 2.4 width, as well as support companies now contributing to width.




10 is another one of the universal widths, but 16 and 8 are not. 26, 19, and 13 are going to very quickly run into under or over width penalties. Because the width of a combat can vary greatly between a lowest of 20 and a realistic highest of something like 360 in steps of 20, using widths that might be an even factor of one of the widths is going to start running into problems whenever the combat isn't exactly that width.

I always thought the minimum is 80.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I always thought the minimum is 80.

The default for a combat is 80, +40 for each opened flank. But certain Tactics also come with width modifiers, and the various totals are -75%, -50%, -25%, no mod, +25%, and +50%. This is always applied to the basic 80 width regardless of opened flanks, which translates into -60, -40, -20, +20, +40 width in your combats.

A very common example is going to be fighting across a river, where dropping into the bridge fighting phases has most tactics combine to be -50%. In a basic no-flank battle, that is going to be 40 width available.

 

[demon72]

The default for a combat is 80, +40 for each opened flank. But certain Tactics also come with width modifiers, and the various totals are -75%, -50%, -25%, no mod, +25%, and +50%. This is always applied to the basic 80 width regardless of opened flanks, which translates into -60, -40, -20, +20, +40 width in your combats.

A very common example is going to be fighting across a river, where dropping into the bridge fighting phases has most tactics combine to be -50%. In a basic no-flank battle, that is going to be 40 width available.

yes, but these are rare circumstances from my point of view.

I deploy defensive regions with w75 - w80, while my offensive Divisions are combined always w38 - w40.

Might not be perfect, but works fine for me.