MadViking,
a lot of answers are here
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191553
a lot of answers are here
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191553
-
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'd just like to say that I'm in complete agreement with Mediator on every point. The only thing I'd like to add that hasn't be said is that, regarding the non-tracked "logistic tail" catching up with the rest of the division, this is already well represented by the lower ESE in low infra provinces, namely because of bad roads, you have slower logistics and therefore worse supply and ESE, there is no need for further speed penalties.
Infrastructure does not represent "obstacles" or "soft ground" as some have suggested. It is simply that, roads and rail. Obstacles and soft ground are TERRAIN features, not infrastrucure, and are already well represented by terrain penalties to movement.
If you look at historical examples, every time an armored advanced was slowed, it was not because of bad roads, but because of terrain or weather. From North Africa to the winter of '41 in the east to Italy, even Korea and Iraq(the first Gulf War), armored divisions had absolutely no problem running circles around foot divisions even in bad or no roads. There was only a single "coast road" in North Africa, yet time and time again O'connor, Rommel, and Montgomery managed to outmanuever unmotorized elements of the enemy, often around the southern, roadless flanks. The slow advance through Italy was caused by the winter rain, mountainess terrain, and german defences. The wastes of southwest Irag posed no threat to American M1's in 1991. Tracked divisions were only stopped in bad TERRAIN or bad weather, seldom by lack of roads.
In addition, to claim that the Allies were slowed in Normandy by bad infrastructure is completely rediculous. Hedgegrows are a TERRAIN feature, not an infrastructure feature. In any case, Normandy was an anomaly, as what "should" be flat terrain became infested with hedgegrows grown over the foundations of medieval stone walls, creating a more "forest" like terrain, and should not be applied as a general rule.
Mediator, have you posted in the 1.2 wishlist? If you haven't I suggest you do so, as I too would very much like to see this fixed. The designers of this game obviously never thought through the full implications of this rule. '45 infantry and Air Cav being slower than older units is simply rediculous.
Infrastructure does not represent "obstacles" or "soft ground" as some have suggested. It is simply that, roads and rail. Obstacles and soft ground are TERRAIN features, not infrastrucure, and are already well represented by terrain penalties to movement.
If you look at historical examples, every time an armored advanced was slowed, it was not because of bad roads, but because of terrain or weather. From North Africa to the winter of '41 in the east to Italy, even Korea and Iraq(the first Gulf War), armored divisions had absolutely no problem running circles around foot divisions even in bad or no roads. There was only a single "coast road" in North Africa, yet time and time again O'connor, Rommel, and Montgomery managed to outmanuever unmotorized elements of the enemy, often around the southern, roadless flanks. The slow advance through Italy was caused by the winter rain, mountainess terrain, and german defences. The wastes of southwest Irag posed no threat to American M1's in 1991. Tracked divisions were only stopped in bad TERRAIN or bad weather, seldom by lack of roads.
In addition, to claim that the Allies were slowed in Normandy by bad infrastructure is completely rediculous. Hedgegrows are a TERRAIN feature, not an infrastructure feature. In any case, Normandy was an anomaly, as what "should" be flat terrain became infested with hedgegrows grown over the foundations of medieval stone walls, creating a more "forest" like terrain, and should not be applied as a general rule.
Mediator, have you posted in the 1.2 wishlist? If you haven't I suggest you do so, as I too would very much like to see this fixed. The designers of this game obviously never thought through the full implications of this rule. '45 infantry and Air Cav being slower than older units is simply rediculous.
Last edited:
I think the great danger to making armor always faster then infantry, like some seem to suggest, is that you'll get armor everywhere, even in the jungles of Brazel or Africa. I quite like the current system because it imposes different needs on different situations. Many here complain that barbarossa is hard because many russian provinces lack good infrastructure. Well: newsflash; Barbarossa WAS hard. Even Hitler realized that he could not take russia with the same blitzkrieg tactics that were so successfull in western europe. Where there's none or little roads things do get tough.
I am currently in a japan game making my way through China; before this i had mainly fought in the european theatre with germany and yugoslavia. Armor dominates here. Infantry is only used to mop up after the mess the Armor leaves behind. But alas; you need a completely different army to roll up provinces with low infra. There is a reason the USA didn't use any tanks in vietnam you know. I know wev'e all seen TV-series like 'Tour of Duty'. Just imagine that landscape; then imagine an armored division of 800 tanks, hundreds of light armor and a thousand trucks. Imagine it moving through that jungle...
There is, however, something wrong with the sytem that is currently used. Currently there is a penalty as soon as a unit is using oil. Which is right in some ways; wrong in others.
Many have already said; leg infantry uses some oil too. At the very least the GC moves in a car. There is one argument i haven't heard yet though. It's not the fact that there are or aren't any trucks in the div that makes it harder for them to move through terrain. It's the AMOUNT of trucks. Lets say that every truck breaks down once every 10 days when travelling off-road and takes 1 hour to repair. Those are not uncommon numbers; especially with WW2-era trucks. Now imagine an infantry-division which has 20 trucks for carrying supplies. This unit would spend 2 hours a day repairing those trucks. Now imagine a motoized infantry division with a thousand trucks to carry all troops. Naturally, this unit would effectively come to standstill in the wrong terrain! Of course for tanks goes the same with breakdown and getting stuck in mud, soft ground, etc. The more and heavier the tanks, the slower the movement.
The amount of oil-using vehicles and the weight thereof is usually depcited in the amount of oil the unit uses. An infantry with a AC brigade uses next to no oil; while a semi-modern tank division gulps your reserves dry in no-time if kept on the move.
Therefore i have a simple suggestion: make the movement penalty a direct function of oil usage. This way you will still penalize the heavy armor in bad terrain, but you eliminate the "weird" penalties for simple additions of brigades like SP Art or ACs. I think the terrain penalties would take care of the rest. This way, in my opinion, you'll still have a balanced system where panzer generals wont have to be shot if moving in the jungle; they'll shoot themselves through the head.
I am currently in a japan game making my way through China; before this i had mainly fought in the european theatre with germany and yugoslavia. Armor dominates here. Infantry is only used to mop up after the mess the Armor leaves behind. But alas; you need a completely different army to roll up provinces with low infra. There is a reason the USA didn't use any tanks in vietnam you know. I know wev'e all seen TV-series like 'Tour of Duty'. Just imagine that landscape; then imagine an armored division of 800 tanks, hundreds of light armor and a thousand trucks. Imagine it moving through that jungle...
There is, however, something wrong with the sytem that is currently used. Currently there is a penalty as soon as a unit is using oil. Which is right in some ways; wrong in others.
Many have already said; leg infantry uses some oil too. At the very least the GC moves in a car. There is one argument i haven't heard yet though. It's not the fact that there are or aren't any trucks in the div that makes it harder for them to move through terrain. It's the AMOUNT of trucks. Lets say that every truck breaks down once every 10 days when travelling off-road and takes 1 hour to repair. Those are not uncommon numbers; especially with WW2-era trucks. Now imagine an infantry-division which has 20 trucks for carrying supplies. This unit would spend 2 hours a day repairing those trucks. Now imagine a motoized infantry division with a thousand trucks to carry all troops. Naturally, this unit would effectively come to standstill in the wrong terrain! Of course for tanks goes the same with breakdown and getting stuck in mud, soft ground, etc. The more and heavier the tanks, the slower the movement.
The amount of oil-using vehicles and the weight thereof is usually depcited in the amount of oil the unit uses. An infantry with a AC brigade uses next to no oil; while a semi-modern tank division gulps your reserves dry in no-time if kept on the move.
Therefore i have a simple suggestion: make the movement penalty a direct function of oil usage. This way you will still penalize the heavy armor in bad terrain, but you eliminate the "weird" penalties for simple additions of brigades like SP Art or ACs. I think the terrain penalties would take care of the rest. This way, in my opinion, you'll still have a balanced system where panzer generals wont have to be shot if moving in the jungle; they'll shoot themselves through the head.
Last edited:
@ Bladovski
I am sorry to say that, but it seems you didn't read through the thread or you didn't understand it.
- Nobody complains about movement penalty for tanks in jungle (Vietnam).
- a leg division does use considerably more trucks than 20 (just go on the second page of this thread to get the correct numbers).
and for the rest of your arguments (I never thought that I would write something like this), please read through the thread before you make statements which should contribute to the discussion.
As for the one assumption you made:
Where is the logic behind penalizing heavy armor on top of the armor penalties for moving in unsuitable terrain (jungle, mountain) and the speed reduction for heavy armor plus the reduction for ESE when starting in low infra provinces? If there is enough oil around they can move as fast as they can.
I am sorry to say that, but it seems you didn't read through the thread or you didn't understand it.
- Nobody complains about movement penalty for tanks in jungle (Vietnam).
- a leg division does use considerably more trucks than 20 (just go on the second page of this thread to get the correct numbers).
and for the rest of your arguments (I never thought that I would write something like this), please read through the thread before you make statements which should contribute to the discussion.
As for the one assumption you made:
Where is the logic behind penalizing heavy armor on top of the armor penalties for moving in unsuitable terrain (jungle, mountain) and the speed reduction for heavy armor plus the reduction for ESE when starting in low infra provinces? If there is enough oil around they can move as fast as they can.
Yes, it seems kind of wierd than tanks go so slowly on perfectly flat terrain without roads (infra 0) vs infantry walking. The penalty for oil use is far too steep. I hope it gets changed.
At the moment, the Lumbering tank heavy German armies can be defeated by the swift, agile infantry heavy Soviet Armies. Think of it- once again, the lightning fast infantry leads the advance, leaving the pathetic panzer armies in their wake.
At the moment, the Lumbering tank heavy German armies can be defeated by the swift, agile infantry heavy Soviet Armies. Think of it- once again, the lightning fast infantry leads the advance, leaving the pathetic panzer armies in their wake.
Mediator said:
I am sorry i didn't fully read through the thread; but there is a a definitive plus for extra penalizing it; infrastructure. Movement panalties apply nomatter what the infrastructure. A division moving through the himalaya's over 4-lane highways or half-decayed carriage trails is quite a different thing. Normal infantry simply has a much easier time crossing this type of terrain; dispite their trucks etc. So there is a definite use in extra penalties for more heavily motorized divisions over lightly motorized ones in low infrastructure.
The reason I gave jungle as an example is to demonstrate clearly that there is a turning point in terrain and infrastructure in which normal infantry gets more desirable then tanks. I think the game already models this quite well but has some trouble distinguishing between heavily motorized units and lightly motorized ones.
If the russian steppes had even half the highways Germany had, the germans would have had only a quarter of the trouble they had in Russia IMO. But then again; it all boils down to opinions in the end. I think the safest solution for Paradox is to simply make it moddable, which they will no doubtely do.
No, in the first few weeks, the infantry in the North and Center could not catch up with the armour and armour had to wait for them.Bladovski said:
Concerning the current Infantry speed - just imagine a division marching (INF Model 1) lets say from Dortmund to Essen with a Headquarter near. They would march with a speed, that would represent about 240 km/day (5 mph * 1.258 * 1.609 * 24) - this is pure fantasy/ridiculous and has nothing to do with real life. I would suggest the Paradox team to pick up 30-40kg of weight and try to march 12 or more hours, as far as they can, to test that.
And the double penalty for oil consuming units has to be removed. Either by removing the oil penalty or by removing the infrastructure factor for them. So they are penalized only by one of them and not both.
Last edited:
Panther II said:
Calculated. If no one gets to it first, I'll try to run some test tomorrow and see if I can pin down that cap/test the theories.
Any word on which movement formula is correct, there seems to be some disagreement?
From what I understand, Mediator has clearly worked out what's wrong with movement speed.
Are there any comments from the mods if this will be patched, ehhhh, enhanced, in 1.2?
Are there any comments from the mods if this will be patched, ehhhh, enhanced, in 1.2?
From my side, there is only disagreement regarding a cap of the oil penalty at 2.3, because I have seen 5 and suppose, that there is no cap for that factor. Only one for minimum speed. Note that at such test, always use the ETA and hours and not speed. Because shown speed in game is NOT effective speed.
SJBenoist said:
I have the feeling that there is no disagreement.
I did my testing by changing only 1 parameter at a time. When you add all modifiers together, there might be an additional cap on movement time. I was looking only on the effect of oil using vs. not oil using disregarding rivercrossing, enemy occupied territory, terrain, weather, infrastructure and ESE. When you add all together, maybe the 5,5 cap applies, but I'm pretty sure that when you compare same speed, same unit type, same target and starting province with same weather and change the infra of the target province, you will see the 2,3 cap for oil using.
Quick test:
Berlin -> Cottbus, tanks
Cottbus has 100% infra ->21 hours
Cottbus has 0% infra ->288 hours
288 / 21 = 13.71
13.71 / 1.7 = 8.067
1.7 is the factor from the infra penalty.
So in this case 8.067 is the factor from the oil penalty.
Berlin -> Cottbus, tanks
Cottbus has 100% infra ->21 hours
Cottbus has 0% infra ->288 hours
288 / 21 = 13.71
13.71 / 1.7 = 8.067
1.7 is the factor from the infra penalty.
So in this case 8.067 is the factor from the oil penalty.
Last edited:
Panther II is right
My first test were done from lower infra into mountain terrain using mot infantry as base unit which yielded a cap from oil using at 2,3 which furthermore is wrong.
This is not the general cap for anything, but for this specific setup. As Panther II already mentioned there is an overall cap for the movement time multiplier at 5,5. This multiplier includes all modifiers (like terrain, unit type, weather, ESE, infrastructure and oil using). As soon as the multiplier reaches 5,5 it is capped. So an oil using unit will never take longer than 5,5-times the time than a compareable non-oil user will take and in many cases less.
So it seems units have a minimum speed which cannot be less due to modifiers.
My first test were done from lower infra into mountain terrain using mot infantry as base unit which yielded a cap from oil using at 2,3 which furthermore is wrong.
This is not the general cap for anything, but for this specific setup. As Panther II already mentioned there is an overall cap for the movement time multiplier at 5,5. This multiplier includes all modifiers (like terrain, unit type, weather, ESE, infrastructure and oil using). As soon as the multiplier reaches 5,5 it is capped. So an oil using unit will never take longer than 5,5-times the time than a compareable non-oil user will take and in many cases less.
So it seems units have a minimum speed which cannot be less due to modifiers.
Some time ago I thought of a cap at 5.5, now - again - I think that there is none. Only for
non oil using units - 1 mph (shown) = 0.376 mph effective
oil using units - 1 mph (shown) = 0.125 mph effective
Those two are probably the only capped variables. They represent the minimum speed with which the units will move. This is true regardless of any max. speed (>= 1 mph) you are choosing.
non oil using units - 1 mph (shown) = 0.376 mph effective
oil using units - 1 mph (shown) = 0.125 mph effective
Those two are probably the only capped variables. They represent the minimum speed with which the units will move. This is true regardless of any max. speed (>= 1 mph) you are choosing.
Last edited:
Interesting thread. Just posting so I can remember to check it, keep up the good work people!
/F
/F
Actually, they did use tanks and other armored vehicles in Vietnam... I also believe the Japanese and US/British used tanks in jungles in WWII as well.Bladovski said:
Panther II said:
I played around in '36 scenario/Germany. I changed the infra of Hannover and Göttingen to 0 (to have a reduced ESE). I added airbases to both so that I can see the distance (at least I assumed that the travelling distance of the planes is the same distance the army units need to travel, but this is not the case when I had a look at the distances for farther away provinces, so the 85km distance I got are wrong).
I changed the speed of 1 infantry divisions to 1, another got also 1 and oil using and another one was transformed into light armor with speed 1(to check if different unit types have different minimum speed). This was in addition to checking the movement time with a speed 5 oil using infantry.
My finding was, that no unit had a longer travelling time than 269 hours. I couldn't find a difference between oil using and non-oil using. It is difficult for me to find the correct travelling distances since I have the strong feeling that the speed displayed is wrong when you don't have starting modifiers for 100% (100 infra, 100 supply, plains, 100 ESE).
But when I assume that for having the a.m., the time for an infantry unit with speed 5 is 27 hours to travell from Hannover to Göttingen, we have a distance of 135 miles. This is pretty much consistent to the calculated time it would take if Hannover were 40 infra (-> 70% ESE) which is 38,5 hours (39 is the testing result). It is not consistent with the displayed speed (3,9 mph), so I guess the displayed speed is bogus. What makes this so nice, is the minimum speed which seems to be 0,5 mph (135/269) no matter which unit type.
In different terrain types this gets messed up a bit (I just tried from Munich to Friedrichshafen and I did not get consistent results). You would expect that a speed 1 unit takes 5 times as long as a speed 5 unit (which is not the case, it was 97h vs. 23h, but maybe it is due to some rounding...). The maximum movement time was 165h (when playing around with the speed of the units and the infra of both provinces).
In addition I found that when removing the terrain (made both into clear), I get a distance of appr 80 miles, which means I again have the 0,5 mph minimum speed. When I keep both terrains (munich=hills, Friedrichshafen=forest), I can calculate the right distance only when I apply the terrain modifier for forest twice (movement time was 23h, when taking speed 5 and multiplying with 0,7 (terrain modifier is -15 for forest so I took 0,7). I made another test with SU (prov 1857 and prov 1858) and played around with different terrain types (to assure that the terrain of the starting province has no influence) which confirmed that the terrain modifier is applied twice when moving.
I think I will stop to dig around in the movement logics since I can't find them.
pmanlig said:
Actually the US had GREAT succes with using tanks/APCs in vietnam even in jungle areas.
I remember reading an article in Armor Magazine(From US Army: Armor School)
where the procedures and tactics from an armored cav reg where discussed.
First they had great lethality by using canister rounds for tanks. Also the vehicles were not that unmanouvrable. They didn't have to slow down to watch for booby traps and so on. Of course this was mostly tactical mobility, which mostly has an effect on combat power, not moving province to province...
Bottomline of the article was that armor was usefull even in jungle areas...