Is battlefield width fixed at 80? If so - why?

[Emren]

Optimizing divisions for 20 or 40 width seems somewhat arcane. The reason players do it is to optimize participation in combat, as the battlefield seems to be fixed at 80(?), plus additional width if attacking from multiple directions.

So I was thinking - why is battlefield width not randomized to some degree, and also dependent e.g. on terrain?

 

[durbal]

Optimizing divisions for 20 or 40 width seems somewhat arcane. The reason players do it is to optimize participation in combat, as the battlefield seems to be fixed at 80(?), plus additional width if attacking from multiple directions.

So I was thinking - why is battlefield width not randomized to some degree, and also dependent e.g. on terrain?

As well as general skills.

But baby steps here. The AI already struggle with division optimization.

 

[GeorgieBest]

There are combat events which do alter the combat width.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Yeah but they alter it so that it still stays within multiples of 20.

 

[Beethoven]

The best solution would simply be to alter the ground combat mechanics so that your troops fight neither better nor worse just because you give them a higher or lower width template.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Personally I think the best way to randomize width more would be to give each terrain their own variation of width, and give each combat event a slight modifier as well (+-5-10% is enough)

The best solution would simply be to alter the ground combat mechanics so that your troops fight neither better nor worse just because you give them a higher or lower width template.

How would that be done in a way that still retains the very important function that width fulfills, which is prevent you from stacking all divisions in a single murder stack which kills anything that gets near it in 1-2 hours?

 

[CharlieFox]

How would that be done in a way that still retains the very important function that width fulfills, which is prevent you from stacking all divisions in a single murder stack which kills anything that gets near it in 1-2 hours?

I would do it by allowing fractions of divisions to join the battle if the whole division cannot fit with the current combat width

Example: combat width of 50 and three 20 width divisions try to join the battle. First two divisions will join the battle normally, only 50% of the third division will join the battle (all the stats will be reduced by 50%) allowing to fill the combat width (20+20+0.5*20=50)

 

[Meglok]

If you assign standard combat width numbers to types of regiments, then look at historic templates, it comes out pretty close to 20 as designed. Numbers are just the representations PDS chose when designing the combat system.

 

[Dalwin]

I would greatly prefer to see battle width vary by both terrain and weather. I would also like to see it vary by uneven amounts. The 20/40w mindset is a crutch that I choose not to use and I think many players would have their game experience enhanced if it was removed entirely.

I really cannot relate to the notion that one must develop favorite templates that evenly fit into width constraints. I greatly prefer the idea that I must tailor my units to the particular conflict and theater and that the thing for me to balance is constrained by my production and the need to balance field use against the stockpiles.

I would do it by allowing fractions of divisions to join the battle if the whole division cannot fit with the current combat width

Example: combat width of 50 and three 20 width divisions try to join the battle. First two divisions will join the battle normally, only 50% of the third division will join the battle (all the stats will be reduced by 50%) allowing to fill the combat width (20+20+0.5*20=50)

Fractional unit participation is close to what the current mechanics do. The one unit in a battle which exceeds maximum width gets penalized such that it is in effect only participating with part of its stats. The size of the penalty does exceed the amount that overflows. It is this latter concept, and only it that even lends any value at all to the efficiency of the 20/40w mindset.

 

[jamesd]

The question as to why combat width is fixed at 80 is a very good one because that width prevents historically achievable concentrations of force. A relatively standard 9 battalion division with reasonable levels of support, both organic to the division and attached from higher commands, comes out around 25-30 combat width. Those divisions only need about 2-4 km of frontage to operate effectively. From what I can work out an average province is around 40-50 km across, so with a reasonably straight front line the frontage for a 1 province to 1 province attack should be at least 20 km or between 125-300 width. Doubling the current width to say 160 for attacks into clear terrain provinces should remove a lot of the min/maxing with 20/40 width divisions because players should rarely be able to concentrate enough troops to max out the width without leaving themselves vulnerable elsewhere. Having that increased width for clear terrain would also allow for the use of smaller widths in more difficult terrain, with hills for example maybe reduced to say 120 width and mountains to 80.

 

[Dalwin]

The question as to why combat width is fixed at 80 is a very good one because that width prevents historically achievable concentrations of force. A relatively standard 9 battalion division with reasonable levels of support, both organic to the division and attached from higher commands, comes out around 25-30 combat width. Those divisions only need about 2-4 km of frontage to operate effectively. From what I can work out an average province is around 40-50 km across, so with a reasonably straight front line the frontage for a 1 province to 1 province attack should be at least 20 km or between 125-300 width. Doubling the current width to say 160 for attacks into clear terrain provinces should remove a lot of the min/maxing with 20/40 width divisions because players should rarely be able to concentrate enough troops to max out the width without leaving themselves vulnerable elsewhere. Having that increased width for clear terrain would also allow for the use of smaller widths in more difficult terrain, with hills for example maybe reduced to say 120 width and mountains to 80.

That is an interesting argument, but I think one must not lose sight of the fact that this is game first and historical simulation second. The design favors numbers including front density with which the designers and early testers were comfortable.

To follow a similar logic to yours for naval engagements, they should be lasting some time between 2 and 48 hours on average instead of the several days or even weeks they do in game. This would fix some of the issues with defensive forces only being able to intercept a small portion of enemy taskforces etc. The system is the way it is, IMO, in response to the frequent complaint in older versions that by the time the player noticed there even was a naval engagement (unless you auto-paused on every single one) the battle was effectively over. There was no way for the player to spectate the action let alone give any orders to affect the outcome.

 

[Meglok]

The question as to why combat width is fixed at 80 is a very good one because that width prevents historically achievable concentrations of force. A relatively standard 9 battalion division with reasonable levels of support, both organic to the division and attached from higher commands, comes out around 25-30 combat width. Those divisions only need about 2-4 km of frontage to operate effectively. From what I can work out an average province is around 40-50 km across, so with a reasonably straight front line the frontage for a 1 province to 1 province attack should be at least 20 km or between 125-300 width. Doubling the current width to say 160 for attacks into clear terrain provinces should remove a lot of the min/maxing with 20/40 width divisions because players should rarely be able to concentrate enough troops to max out the width without leaving themselves vulnerable elsewhere. Having that increased width for clear terrain would also allow for the use of smaller widths in more difficult terrain, with hills for example maybe reduced to say 120 width and mountains to 80.

Sure, you could set the widths at 96/48 and have the standard build at 24. Great min maxing and I remember a mod doing that. But then you have to re-balance the industry to support the extra width it takes the AI to fill all the slots of these bigger divisions, re-balance resources for the extra IC it takes for every nation to build to 24, etc, etc.

And you have to take into the account that the ai works better with more units to play with, something that @podcat readily admits. Part of the division shuffling is that the ai sees it doesn't have enough units to plug in holes along a front. Then it starts robbing peter to pay paul along the front and the front starts to look like spaghetti with all the the unit pathing going everywhere. Larger templates reduces the number of units the ai has to work with unless you are also going to re-balance the manpower across the board, at which point you are making a new game.

The 80 width is based upon game balance taking all of the other game parameters into account. It is close to historical, and nothing prevents you from building historical templates. They just won't perfectly fit into an 80 CW.

 

[jamesd]

Sure, you could set the widths at 96/48 and have the standard build at 24. Great min maxing and I remember a mod doing that. But then you have to re-balance the industry to support the extra width it takes the AI to fill all the slots of these bigger divisions, re-balance resources for the extra IC it takes for every nation to build to 24, etc, etc.

And you have to take into the account that the ai works better with more units to play with, something that @podcat readily admits. Part of the division shuffling is that the ai sees it doesn't have enough units to plug in holes along a front. Then it starts robbing peter to pay paul along the front and the front starts to look like spaghetti with all the the unit pathing going everywhere. Larger templates reduces the number of units the ai has to work with unless you are also going to re-balance the manpower across the board, at which point you are making a new game.

The 80 width is based upon game balance taking all of the other game parameters into account. It is close to historical, and nothing prevents you from building historical templates. They just won't perfectly fit into an 80 CW.

No, 80 is nowhere close to historical as I demonstrated above and you don't need extra industry to fill up the extra width. That extra width makes for more interesting and important choices in regards to allocation of forces. I acknowledge the AI absolutely sucks at that currently, but the division shuffle problems are more deep seated than not having enough divisions, and increasing combat width doesn't mean the AI or players for that matter need to build bigger divisions.

A key principle of WW2 era warfare was the concentration of force on a narrow front to effect a breakthrough, allowing for a transition from attritional to mobile warfare, but coming at the risk of leaving other sectors vulnerable to the enemy. May 1940 was a classic example with the German panzer forces concentrated to burst over the Meuse while Allied forces were concentrated to meet the anticipated threat further north. Dec 1944 is another classic example with US forces concentrated around Aachen/the Hurtgen and around Metz leaving a thin line in the Ardennes which the Germans pierced with their own concentration of force. What we can get now in those types of areas is a combat width pretty much filled along an entire front, meaning there are no concentrations of force and no areas left more vulnerable. Its more like a WW1 grind than WW2, except that units have been given unrealistically high speeds so that once a hole is formed the front moves quickly.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Fractional unit participation is close to what the current mechanics do. The one unit in a battle which exceeds maximum width gets penalized such that it is in effect only participating with part of its stats. The size of the penalty does exceed the amount that overflows. It is this latter concept, and only it that even lends any value at all to the efficiency of the 20/40w mindset.

Unless I misinterpret your statement, what you are saying is not true. Currently all divisions in combat on your side get penalized for being over combat width as shown in this screenshot (all get 17.4% penalty to combat stats)

 

[Dalwin]

Unless I misinterpret your statement, what you are saying is not true. Currently all divisions in combat on your side get penalized for being over combat width as shown in this screenshot (all get 17.4% penalty to combat stats)

Even if it is all divisions, now factor in the rest of it. You are 7 width over which is a bit over 9% of 80. That is 9% more stuff you brought to the fight. So +9 -17 means your effective penalty is really only 8%. Furthermore you will only see that penalty in battles that manage to completely fill the width. You will also in effect only be down a portion of a division each time one retreats and you wait for reinforcement. In your example the units are 29 (not one of the sizes mentioned by the way) so when you are down one and waiting for reinforcement you are short 22 width not 29 and during those hours don't have the penalty.

My point is that the 17% penalty you see sounds much worse than it really is once you take other things into account. With width 27, you'd only have gone over by 1 point so the penalty would have been negligible.

Back to the main point, if you are constructing your divisions with a plan and not just randomly sticking pieces together, you also gained something by making you larger divisions. Perhaps that something is more efficient use of support equipment or a balance between infantry and artillery that more suits your production capacity. Perhaps you wanted to add a TD battalion without taking out infantry and lowering your org. There are lots of potential reasons to want to make your divisions differently.

 

[Praetori]

200+ single province width is theoretically sound from a tactical perspective but hardly on a divisional operational scale.
There are only so many avenues of approach that are suitable for combat movement and it usually follows roads and decent terrain.
Combat can happen everywhere but you're not going to see entire divisions utilizing the full breadth of their assigned area when advancing and then the same applies for the defender.

That dominating highground, crossroads, channeling gap, solid piece of ground, village, road, bridge, outcroop, gulley and creek is going to be a focalpoint and that's where the width disappears.
The system could be improved however and be tied to other provincial stats, infra and size. Cities for example should be manpower intensive affairs where in reality a single block can swallow a battalion in terms of "width".

 

[bitmode]

Cities for example should be manpower intensive affairs where in reality a single block can swallow a battalion in terms of "width"

So 80 combat width would be 40 city blocks (when attacking from just one side) which seems like a lot.

Edit: counting the city blocks on the eastern edge of Berlin, 40 is surprisingly accurate

your effective penalty is really only 8%

And you have more overall organization (which doesn't get scaled down). I think this makes the effective penalty almost negligable for a bunch of division sizes.

Personally I think the best way to randomize width more would be to give each terrain their own variation of width, and give each combat event a slight modifier as well (+-5-10% is enough)

I would go as low as +-1-2% variation which would already make 25-width optimal in some battles. The terrain variation would likely cause more micro-management(?)

Overall my feeling is that unless one conciously goes for worst-case combat widths this penalty's effect is smaller than the confusion any of these fixes would cause for new players.

 

[Fawr]

I would go as low as +-1-2% variation which would already make 25-width optimal in some battles. The terrain variation would likely cause more micro-management(?)

Overall my feeling is that unless one conciously goes for worst-case combat widths this penalty's effect is smaller than the confusion any of these fixes would cause for new players.

Personally I like the idea that different terrains may have a 5% or 10% width reduction. In theory you could micro around it with designing different divisions for forest, hills, mountains, plains, etc but in practice (combined with the penalties for going over not being that big) it wouldn't be worth spending time on. Building divisions to 20 width feels gamey rather than realistic, and so I think its something we should avoid. This solution also has the benefit that the game can already reduce widths based on terrain types.

From an AI point of view it may also help. If there are no right sizes then there are no wrong sizes too, and that would let the AI focus on optimising the mix of what went into a division, rather than trying to also optimise the size.

 

[Meglok]

No, 80 is nowhere close to historical as I demonstrated above and you don't need extra industry to fill up the extra width. That extra width makes for more interesting and important choices in regards to allocation of forces. I acknowledge the AI absolutely sucks at that currently, but the division shuffle problems are more deep seated than not having enough divisions, and increasing combat width doesn't mean the AI or players for that matter need to build bigger divisions.

A key principle of WW2 era warfare was the concentration of force on a narrow front to effect a breakthrough, allowing for a transition from attritional to mobile warfare, but coming at the risk of leaving other sectors vulnerable to the enemy. May 1940 was a classic example with the German panzer forces concentrated to burst over the Meuse while Allied forces were concentrated to meet the anticipated threat further north. Dec 1944 is another classic example with US forces concentrated around Aachen/the Hurtgen and around Metz leaving a thin line in the Ardennes which the Germans pierced with their own concentration of force. What we can get now in those types of areas is a combat width pretty much filled along an entire front, meaning there are no concentrations of force and no areas left more vulnerable. Its more like a WW1 grind than WW2, except that units have been given unrealistically high speeds so that once a hole is formed the front moves quickly.

Which historical? German infantry1939, no, 80 is low. German 44 infantry, 80 is about right. Italian historical? 80 is close as they used binary for a lot of their builds. Japanese, well it depends on if you are talking their 2 brigade, 3 regiment, or special detachment templates. US historical, are you talking 1939 infantry or 1944 Combat Command independent units? Russian ToE? Well, once again it depends on the year in question. Each country used different templates during different time periods based upon their military doctrine, history, and industrial capacity. If you want to dig deeper check out the Nafziger ToE files for this time period.

PDS is not going to create and maintain historical templates for each country, the production scripts to handle this would be a royal pain to code and keep up to date with each DLC and patch. This is why each "historical template" at start migrates more or less to the standard generic. They made the game design decision to set the standard combat width at 80 based upon all their other parameters and settings.

Your complaints regarding the WW1 aspect of a grind are valid, but I think it is more of a factor of ahistorical manpower and build capacity for minors and the idiotic volunteer system than combat width. Hungary or Romania fielding 50 or more divisions is so historically implausible as to be laughable. As are the volunteer divisions all over the map. On again this comes down to game design decisions and game balance. PDS wants every nation to be playable, so small nations can field larger than plausible armies. And per PDS the battle planner works better with more units, so smaller size and more of them is the way they went to try and achieve better game play results. Therefore we get more of a grind than easy mobile battle. You can still achieve breakthroughs easily as a player, but the ai will struggle to do it. It just can't change or cancel orders on the fly to react to an opening. I don't like the current results, but I can understand the reasoning and why it exists. Realism will always lose to playability and balance.

 

[Beethoven]

Even if it is all divisions, now factor in the rest of it. You are 7 width over which is a bit over 9% of 80. That is 9% more stuff you brought to the fight. So +9 -17 means your effective penalty is really only 8%.

But you still take casualties/equipment losses on that extra 9% over width. You are paying an extra 9% in production cost on all of those divisions, but they fight 17% worse than they should for that cost.

So while the tactical penalties are not necessarily killer for the reasons you state, on the larger strategic level, you are wasting a significant amount of your production.

Just to illustrate the point, if you were hypothetically to get this same penalty in every battle (which of course you won't, but for the sake of argument), it would have the same effect as if you didn't use 17% of your factories.