But then why not just stick with the current model of abstracting said support units through technological advances? A logical assumption might be that if a state is capable of attaching vital support units to its divisions, it will.
Is It Better to Add Some New Kinds of Units?
- Thread starter franc001sher
- Start date
-
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.
But then why not just stick with the current model of abstracting said support units through technological advances? A logical assumption might be that if a state is capable of attaching vital support units to its divisions, it will.
IMO you can update the model in the template and upgrade the equipment in the troops related with template at the same time.
IMO only equipment that makes big changes during the course of the game needs to be in.
If you`re going to have this equipment in any division, abstract it.
There may be a need for different small arms, mortars, light artillery, AT artillery, AA, and probably more for each division. That is already an impressive list. Adding more equipment just for the sake of it is bad. Who will build divisions without recon or supply battalions?
If you`re going to have this equipment in any division, abstract it.
There may be a need for different small arms, mortars, light artillery, AT artillery, AA, and probably more for each division. That is already an impressive list. Adding more equipment just for the sake of it is bad. Who will build divisions without recon or supply battalions?
Seconded. Some of the units types already seem a bit of a duplication (i.e., tank-destroyers vs. SP-Art vs. Assault guns - a StuG could be all three, or Militia vs. Garrison - both are basically poorly equipped/trained Inf.). Adding more units types, rather than more flavour/customisation for units, seems just like a bad idea.
The number of different unit types live and die with the number of parameters you create and give the units. Some are maybe useless because of missing parameters.
F.e.:
In HOI3 you don't need specific nightfighter units. Make the air attack value of interceptors and MR's and others to 0 by night and make nightbombing runs with strats effectiv by night, then they make sense.
F.e.:
Long range sub hunting seaplanes were deadly to submarines, in HOI3 you can't represent them very well. There should be a better implemented sub detection value and sub_attack value. The strength of this planes is that they're hard to detect by subs because the'yre not a batch of 100 planes and they can stay long into far away areas.
Another parameter or mission type would be helpful there. Some kind of "only attack subs, avoid to attack surface ships"
Same for ASW groups: Subhunting mission with avoidance of sea battles
a.s.o.
F.e.:
In HOI3 you don't need specific nightfighter units. Make the air attack value of interceptors and MR's and others to 0 by night and make nightbombing runs with strats effectiv by night, then they make sense.
F.e.:
Long range sub hunting seaplanes were deadly to submarines, in HOI3 you can't represent them very well. There should be a better implemented sub detection value and sub_attack value. The strength of this planes is that they're hard to detect by subs because the'yre not a batch of 100 planes and they can stay long into far away areas.
Another parameter or mission type would be helpful there. Some kind of "only attack subs, avoid to attack surface ships"
Same for ASW groups: Subhunting mission with avoidance of sea battles
a.s.o.
I think the most important thing is to have an engaging system of design. I dont see a point in adding a few new unit/bde/bn types if they are no brainers of sorts. I mean every modern combat unit in WW2 had a signals co or some other unit that filled that role. So I dont see the value of adding that as a "decision".
I think what ever the design is, there needs to be some purpose and some sense of decisions making. After all, this is a strategy game. What kind of strategy is required to ensure your military has the most basic elements required for operations??
I understand the 'flavor' argument, but one man's flavor is another man's tedium. I would prefer a system with enough variables to allow modders a width berth of content the can add. But the 'canned' version of HOI IV should be pretty straight forward with mostly high level type decisions for design.
I think what ever the design is, there needs to be some purpose and some sense of decisions making. After all, this is a strategy game. What kind of strategy is required to ensure your military has the most basic elements required for operations??
I understand the 'flavor' argument, but one man's flavor is another man's tedium. I would prefer a system with enough variables to allow modders a width berth of content the can add. But the 'canned' version of HOI IV should be pretty straight forward with mostly high level type decisions for design.
Exactly. I've sticked to HPP mod because it deleted all these unneeded units. If player himself has doubts of what to use, imagine the havoc the AI must have in its priorities. Generally, I'm OK with having only two types of divisions: infantry and armored - all standardized. If the count of standardized divisions goes above five (except MAR/PARA etc. - those rare units), I think it's a bad idea and I can't understand how someone can use all the units BICE offers :mellow:
I suppose a compromise could be to allow the players to tell the game that "okay, these divisions I've selected here could use more than average combat engineers", or "right, this division is being hit hard by bombers, send some more AA their way". Abstracting this so that we're not moving brigades, but just giving them bonuses, like when you shift commanders around in HOI3, would reduce micromanagement and also make things far more manaeable for the AI, as all you would need would be a simple if-then script to the likes of "if division x is being bombed more often than average, give them some more AA units". Kinda like how you can tell the game to prioritize certain units for upgrades and reinforcements.
This could also very easily be automated so players wouldn't have to do micro-management if they didn't want to.
I suppose that to balance things, you could have a delay before the added support units actually arrived, and perhaps a slight organization penalty, to simulate the units moving to their new destination and the division officers having to organize them as they arrive.
This could also very easily be automated so players wouldn't have to do micro-management if they didn't want to.
I suppose that to balance things, you could have a delay before the added support units actually arrived, and perhaps a slight organization penalty, to simulate the units moving to their new destination and the division officers having to organize them as they arrive.
The equipments I focused are need for every division but there should be some different for different kinds of divisions like horse towed, motorized, self propelled.
I agree with this point that the most important thing is PI is better to set a system to allow these modding.
All of you forgot the most essential: sanitary battalions to dig the jakes (latrines)...how can soldiers survive a single day without them.
Please no do not do this. Having to add signal divisions or a field hospital is introducing complexity where it is not needed. I would much rather see critical parts (ball bearings and stuff of that nature) before this, but I think even that may be adding to much complexity to an already complex game.
If new units can be easily modded in as we're used to it in the previous sequels I'm fine (will do this anyway).
But nevertheless I like to get more parameters/ mission types included to implement some new unit (parameters to improve naval battle, naval to sub battle, air to sea and air to sub battle)
But nevertheless I like to get more parameters/ mission types included to implement some new unit (parameters to improve naval battle, naval to sub battle, air to sea and air to sub battle)
Personally I won't be happy until I can customize my divisions from platoon level on up, including support units, and I expect to be able to assign not only divisional leaders but regiment, battalion, company, and platoon, and probably XOs as well since verisimilitude demands a higher casualty rate among low-tier officers and they should have replacements ready. It's probably best to just have each nation's entire officer corps from ensigns on up statted out and assignable. Cmon Paradox, this is a hardcore strategy game for hardcore elite computer strategist generals.
EDIT: We'll need squads customization to build each platoon, come to think of it. How else will we model historical FACT such as veteran GIs 'losing' their HMGs and mortars and requesting more, thus doubling up, or the increase in firepower to a division because Cpl. Täärni of Finland has captured a few new mags for his looted PPSh? For that matter, will different styles of magazine, such as drum vs. stick, be represented? IMHO militia should get special penalties in stick mag-using nations since they may grip their weapon by the magazine rather than the appropriate stock or barrel, reducing the effectiveness of their fire.
EDIT: We'll need squads customization to build each platoon, come to think of it. How else will we model historical FACT such as veteran GIs 'losing' their HMGs and mortars and requesting more, thus doubling up, or the increase in firepower to a division because Cpl. Täärni of Finland has captured a few new mags for his looted PPSh? For that matter, will different styles of magazine, such as drum vs. stick, be represented? IMHO militia should get special penalties in stick mag-using nations since they may grip their weapon by the magazine rather than the appropriate stock or barrel, reducing the effectiveness of their fire.
Last edited:
What the OP proposes, while it is less abstraction, it doesn't seem worth it to me.
As long as there are freaks like me out there, and I believe there quite a few, some people will like to compose their divisions themselves. Personally I would like to be able to build them consisting out of battalions and regiments (because thats how they were built during that time) for various reasons.
But this shouldn't be a problem for people who do not like this micro management. It's easy for Paradox to make templates of certain frequently used types of divisions which those people can use.
But in my opinion, the more historical units are present... the better.
But this shouldn't be a problem for people who do not like this micro management. It's easy for Paradox to make templates of certain frequently used types of divisions which those people can use.
But in my opinion, the more historical units are present... the better.
Could be cool to have 'attachments' as tiny little augmentations, like an Engineer Company or a HQ & Signals detachment, alongside the bulky combat units (brigades, battalions etc.)