Is military strenght going ot be based on units again?

[unmerged(15623)]

The fact that military strenght was based on an exact number of "units" in HoI and Vicky left me a little bit cold. Never losing a unit was crucial since it was the commissioning part that strained your resources, not filling the units with men and equimpent afterwards. Unless you were low on manpower, reinforcing units was, well... free.

Is HoI 2 going to utilize the same model?

Personally, I'd prefer a system where you could set up a unit anytime with little or no cost (of preferably money or leadership, or any other comparable resource in HoI 2) and then you would have to fill it up with the men and equimpent. It would make my small soul more at peace, since I wouldn't have to constantly monitor my units in combat as to avoid losing them, which could be a critical blow if you had relatively small industrial capacity. Would cut down on micromanagement (or maybe micromonitoring would be a better term), so to say...

 

[unmerged(20829)]

I think it worked quite well in HoI, and I don't see any real reason to change it, but this is only my opinion.

 

[Chaplain]

I think it worked quite well in HoI, and I don't see any real reason to change it, but this is only my opinion.

Agreed.

 

[snoopdogg]

I would like to see reinforcing armies maybe cost some extra supplies, maybe lower the org by even more, and have org take extra time to regenerate. This way sending in replacements and getting your armies up to full strength would put a real halt on offensive action for a while.

 

[Zwiback]

The original problem is (was), that units at 10 str and 20 org fight as good as units with 100 str and 100 org.

1. units under 100 should have a much higher combat value than one at 50
2. same with org. One unit with very low org could be hardly combat ready.

So fighting at low org should give a penaltiy, reinforcing should lower the org significant, so it would stop people with filling up troops all the time to full str. while being combat ready after a few day. Sure, units with low org would retreat earlier, but in RL no unit is disarray which just hardly surived a combat could replace its full str and being combat ready again after a few days.

The German Pz Divisions got nearly no reinforcements at all in the first year of Barbarossa. When they reached the gates of Moskow, many where down under 50% strength.

 

[Zwiback]

I would like to see reinforcing armies maybe cost some extra supplies, maybe lower the org by even more, and have org take extra time to regenerate. This way sending in replacements and getting your armies up to full strength would put a real halt on offensive action for a while.

How about

a) making max. org 100% (like str.)
b) changing org increasing techs this way, that you regain org faster
and c) that the org lowers the combat value of a unit by its percentage. Nobody would have problems to understand that his units are fighting only at 50% efficiency when at 50% org

Just my opinion- but then I am a hardcore wargamer.

 

[Dievs]

The reinforcing of units in HoI was ridiculously cheap - it does need to be changed.
And understrength units must have their effectiveness reduced - but wasn't that in already ? If half of your men are dead, then you can only do half as much damage...

 

[unmerged(10574)]

If half of your men are dead, then you can only do half as much damage...

Im quite sure that it does the same amount of damage no matter what streangth your units are on and this is clearly a problem.

BTW: I like the suggestion of a 100org limit to work as a percintile for combat redyness.

 

[Zwiback]

BTW: I like the suggestion of a 100org limit to work as a percintile for combat redyness.

... which I have shamelessly stole from War in Russia

 

[MadUrb]

... which I have shamelessly stole from War in Russia

Retorical question: Can a military unit in real life ever be more than 100% combat ready?

looks kinda funny to have units that are 130% combat ready, they must be on drugs or something like that

 

[unmerged(10574)]

Retorical question: Can a military unit in real life ever be more than 100% combat ready?

looks kinda funny to have units that are 130% combat ready, they must be on drugs or something like that

True. But you gotta admire those crazy germans who fight at 130org.

 

[unmerged(10574)]

... which I have shamelessly stole from War in Russia

Almost all opinnions are stolen because you are barely ever the first to have thought of it.

 

[Adam B.]

Almost all opinnions are stolen because you are barely ever the first to have thought of it.

Correction;

Never.

 

[Dawnfire]

Retorical question: Can a military unit in real life ever be more than 100% combat ready?

looks kinda funny to have units that are 130% combat ready, they must be on drugs or something like that

I never thought it as a percentage - isn't that just an abstract value of the effectiveness of the different soldiers? A german infantry division with org 120 is at 100% effectiveness just as a tibetan is at 100% effectiveness at 40 org - they just can't take the similar kinds of drops in org and still be able to fight.

If every division has a max org of 100% from the start how are we modelling the difference between the highly trained german units and some obscure minor country units? With atk/def values?
Or did I misunderstand?

 

[qvcatullus]

I strongly agree that some change needs to be made here. The difference between losing the last man in a division or not is hugely more important than losing the first man or not, which makes no sense to me. If my panzer division only has one tank left, then I can reinforce it with no hit to my industry. Lose that tank, and it will be months drained away from other efforts...
I understand it's a simplification, but it causes a fundamental shift in playing style. Hitting the enemy hard and fast from several angles causes much less long-term damage to the enemy under this system than waiting for my armor to make strange salients behind enemy lines to "encircle" them. It also forces me to detach planes to take out those last few strength points from retreating forces, which just doesn't make any sense to me (seems that the fewer men and vehicles left in an army, the less vulnerable it would be to planes without clear targets, especially in rough terrain).
I would really like to see a shift here. Reinforcing should cut into the same pool as production. I'm not sure quite how to work it, but that's why they don't pay me to program their games.

 

[AugCaesar]

I agree with the original poster, i do not think it should take IC to build infantry type units, or if it does like 1 or 2. It would be better if the ground troops were modeled with manpower and "supplies". Supplies being the small arms, mortars equipment like that which is needed. For brigaded regiments perhaps a few more IC to represent the artillery, bridging equipment, etc....

Any country can create 500 divisions and name them, so let them, but only the powerful countries can fill and equip those divisions.

Of course supplies would have to be handled differently, but I think it would be more realistic.

 

[unmerged(23356)]

I'd love to see real figures, like strength of 10.000 Men instead of "100", "2000 tanks" instead of "1 Tank division".
Additional, it would be great to determine the size of a division yourself, lets say at the end of the war the German Player might want to reduce the average division size to 6.000 instead of 10.000 men.

 

[unmerged(26477)]

Yeah, it'd be nice to see how many men that each division contains. That way, you could tell your friends how you held [insert important province here] and only lost [insert low number of men here] while defending against an army superior in manpower. Could create some really epic moments.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

We already know how many men per division. 15,000. As for infantry not requiring IC, um, where do you think the kit comes from? The supply category does not include the actual rifles and mortars and machine guns and trucks needed to stand up a division. Those all have to be manufactured and increased capacity built into the logistics system for the new division.

I do agree that reinforcement should be handled differently, though. Why not have land units regain strength just like naval units?

 

[unmerged(6780)]

What would be nice would be to see some of the changes CORE has made included in the new game. In particular, I love how CORE has modelled the differences between the various armies by the rather intelligent use of new doctrines.