Is XP for division/ship composition good game design?

[Herr B.]

This is certainly a controversial topic, so all opinions are welcome.

Topic is, if the army/navy XP cost for designing devisions/ships are good game design or if these costs should be removed.

Let me go first:

In my opinion, it does not make sense from both a logical and a game design point of view. First, the logical point of view is, that it is not really a matter of expirience to assign man or equitment to a unit. Divisions are (from an immersive POV) just the group structure of the army, after all. For ships, it does a littlebit more sense (from the immersive POV), because the design process of a ship would be "better" with experienced designers.

However, I'm more concernd with the game design aspect. For me, the XP requirement is more limiting for game fun, after all. I think, I'm not the only one who would like to design the army at the start of the game. Think of the possible tasks the divisions could be assigned to, and assign equitment and men accordingly. The XP requirement doesn't let me do that, which leads to mismatched production and generally a lot of hassle I don't want in the later stages of the game (when I want to focus on war, you know...).

For the navy, it is even more of a killer, IMHO. When I reaserch a new component, I want to add them to my designs, and not wait until the game is half over (until 1940, that is) before I can do anything meaningful with naval tech. For me, this renders component research more or less useless, instead I focus on tech that gives me modifiers.

So, what remains is the question: Wouldn't XP become useless then? And the answer is no, it wouldn't. It could and should be used for research bonuses and for upgrading equitment (like tanks or airplanes). Naval tech already implements this real nice, land tech and air tech could implement a few more XP-boostable techs.

 

[demon72]

you have read my post in the HOI5 thread?

Where to go for HOI5?

Greetings everyone! The release of CK3 got me thinking, or rather, the feedback to it that I came across. More and more content had been added to CK2 and a newly released vanilla CK3 could never hope to have the same depth and richness on...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

XP shouldn't be necessary to add/change modules or design/change divisions.

XP should be used to design better or even additional modules / techs or speed-up research (what is already partly integrated in HOI4, but could have been done better)

 

[Herr B.]

you have read my post in the HOI5 thread?

I don't read all the posts and I could imagine that this topic pops up from time to time. But in this case, I wanted a thread dedicated to it. Also, it is not a change that has to wait 4+ years (assuming a 8 year life from CK) for HOI5.

 

[Evethor]

I agree with your statements, there is no need for "mana" when we are paying for it with IC.
The suggestion that XP instead should be used for the research is to me a much better use for the xp "mana"

 

[BeauNiddle]

Sid Meier (of civilization fame) once said games are a series of interesting choices

The problem with removing xp from division design is everybody has the same units on 1.1.1936 and nobody has to look at the division design screen for the rest of the game.

Currently the allies have a harder time setting up the 'right' armies before the conflict kicks of due to the fact they are mostly starved for xp. Which fits historically.

It also acts as a brake on variant design since you need to keep some xp in reserve.



Now an argument could be made that it's not the best solution to the problem (and another could be made that military advisors are way overpowered) but just sweeping the whole thing away and saying players want all the shinies immediately isn't the right solution.


The HOI4 design obviously intends much more back and forth between units - the enemy added another artillery so we need to add X, they did Y so we must add Z. Unfortunately they undercut that with the 80 width limit which impose a 'hard' limit on how people want to design their units - hence we get the meta division designs we currently have. It's meant to be 'oh no the enemy have rolled out a new anti-tank unit - We need to persuade our units to add some more armour to get our rating above 16.5' what we actually do is 'at the start of the game design a tank division with armour above 25 since the AI will never pass that' (or what ever the current META is)



No if we do want an interesting choice it would be to change the rules as new doctrines get unlocked. Thus the 'best' division at 1936 will be different to the 'best' division in 1940 and different still to 1944. But that's a much larger bit or rework (and is already on their dev roadmap)

 

[jpd]

Look at this way. Anyone can cook up a new idea (from scratch, inspired by someone else, whatever) and come up with a new piece of equipment. Mark 0 if you will. But only in the crucible of combat you find out if your idea works or not. And only combat will show you how to improve upon your original idea. Mark 1, 2, 3, etc.

And the only currency currently in the game to represent combat is .... XP

 

[demon72]

Maybe Command Power (or whatever this is called in english) would be the better way for the Division Designer / Ship-Designer.


XP should speed-up research and improve moduls (as somehow implemented for planes and tanks) and unlock additional tech-options.


An "automatic" nation-specific basic-tech-tree in which the player can make strategic decisions and add HOI2-like research-teams and/or invest XP to...

• speed-up basic techs
• improve basic techs
• invent optional techs

...would perfectly fit to that concept. All nations will get their basic historical techs "in time + X" - X could get slightly negative, if you add a research team or XP.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Another idea could be to have Division-Template-Experience

You can make any Division Template you want for free, but it will have reduce stats, due to low Division-Template-Experience
If you fight with a Division using the Template the Division-Template-Experience for only this template will rise.
Changing a division template will significnatly lower it's Division-Template-Experience.
Combined with lower gaining of XP when the template isnt full equipped (like lower training) it will have the following effects:

• You can change around your templates anytime you want, but changing it comes at a cost.
• If you fight early with your late game template you will have trouble equipping it and have bad stats and gain Division-Template-Experience very low.
• Maybe even make newer equipment reduce Division-Template-Experience because the soldiers have to learn to fight with it.
• State modifiers (like the german "general staff") or Advisors or doctrines could make gaining Division-Template-Experience for countries different.

That would fix:

• The issue that there is no realistic reason why you cant change divisions templates, but it would still come at a cost
• It would represent the new situation for soldiers fighting in a new structure or with new equipment when you change the template of an existing division
• It would be possible to make the same template stronger for one country and weaker for another

 

[bitmode]

For me, the XP requirement is more limiting for game fun, after all. I think, I'm not the only one who would like to design the army at the start of the game. Think of the possible tasks the divisions could be assigned to, and assign equitment and men accordingly.

Controversial opinion: I would like to not design divisions at all. Raising division of different kinds (marines, tanks, etc.) in planned numbers for intended tasks can be accomplished without designing them. Practical military experience (square to triangular divisions, combined arms, etc.) and theoretical doctrine progress (human wave attack, integrated support, etc.) may have an effect on division structure but in my opinion it is not something the player should be directly concerned with.
WW2 was not about division design.

 

[demon72]

Controversial opinion: I would like to not design divisions at all. Raising division of different kinds (marines, tanks, etc.) in planned numbers for intended tasks can be accomplished without designing them. Practical military experience (square to triangular divisions, combined arms, etc.) and theoretical doctrine progress (human wave attack, integrated support, etc.) may have an effect on division structure but in my opinion it is not something the player should be directly concerned with.
WW2 was not about division design.

Agreed, you don't need the Division-Designer - besides the fact that it is fun to design own divisions.

 

[Herr B.]

Look at this way. Anyone can cook up a new idea (from scratch, inspired by someone else, whatever) and come up with a new piece of equipment. Mark 0 if you will. But only in the crucible of combat you find out if your idea works or not. And only combat will show you how to improve upon your original idea. Mark 1, 2, 3, etc.

Well yeah... that why we improve our tanks/airplanes with XP. This is precisly what the mechanic wants to represent.

Assigning equitment tho... I doubt that.

Controversial opinion: I would like to not design divisions at all. Raising division of different kinds (marines, tanks, etc.) in planned numbers for intended tasks can be accomplished without designing them. Practical military experience (square to triangular divisions, combined arms, etc.) and theoretical doctrine progress (human wave attack, integrated support, etc.) may have an effect on division structure but in my opinion it is not something the player should be directly concerned with.
WW2 was not about division design.

WW2 was not. HOI4 is.

In a more serious manner: Yes, in a real front line, this whole "division" thinking is a more flexible thing. People are not moving around in fixed groups of 10.000 men. However, in a strategy game (not a tactical game), you need to represent units through something fixed. And so the only way to influence which equitment goes where is by designing and then directing equitment.

 

[bitmode]

In a more serious manner: Yes, in a real front line, this whole "division" thinking is a more flexible thing. People are not moving around in fixed groups of 10.000 men. However, in a strategy game (not a tactical game), you need to represent units through something fixed. And so the only way to influence which equitment goes where is by designing and then directing equitment.

Agreed, in a WW2 strategy game divisions need to be represented on the field. You also have to direct your industry to equip those divisions. They have to be composed of something. But design - as a player activity - is not the only way to get there. All countries already start with division templates. With 0 XP invested I have a functional army. More templates can be unlocked through focuses. The reason those (more or less) historical divisions are seen as largely unacceptable is the very existence of the division designer and the Pandora's box it opens.
My roster of division templates could slightly update and expand as my technology and doctrine progresses. Would solve a ton of AI and balance problems(?)

In short I think building an army form the player's perspective can and should work like building a fleet without MtG. You research stuff, produce it, and field it. Clean and simple. Not going to happen of course.

WW2 was not. HOI4 is.

Point taken. Okay, so in the scope of OP's question I take the position that the army XP cost of division design should be kept and increased hundred fold

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

I sort of like the system. Maybe some costs could be lowerd a support company costing 8 vs 10 or a battalion costing 4 instead of 5.

Though one thing, as a minor nation you often don't have either great amount of manpower or great options to obtain XP. So instead of having a small specialies army of many different types of divisions. You'll have to resort to a jack of all trades division.

 

[Emren]

A system that emulates the eXPerience of combat to improve your organization or aircraft/ship design is very desirable. Is the current incarnation perfect and balanced properly - probably not, but in an iterative game design process like HOI4 is, we should expect it to be improved and refined over time. With player eXPerience, that is.

Nothing like trial by fire, or like giving a GSG to a bunch of grognards, to find the holes in the armor.

Okay, enough puns, I've made my points.

 

[DicRoNero]

Controversial opinion: I would like to not design divisions at all.

This.

HoI4 already greatly skews attention to land war to the point which is completely ahistorical. What in fact was a matter of researching, producing and delievering modern arms to the field in sufficient numbers (whether by Liberties or Liberators), in this game is rendered as human meat grinding itself to ashes, dust and crap - apparently following the Soviet and post-Soviet propaganda that the WW2 was 'decided' at the East (on the basis that the Germans lost their infantry mostly there).

It's just amazing that a division to be trained and fielded takes a whole lot of various components, small or large but each having its impact, while Navy and Air are 'produced' like sand castles at your backyard.

 

[Herr B.]

I sort of like the system. Maybe some costs could be lowerd a support company costing 8 vs 10 or a battalion costing 4 instead of 5.

Though one thing, as a minor nation you often don't have either great amount of manpower or great options to obtain XP. So instead of having a small specialies army of many different types of divisions. You'll have to resort to a jack of all trades division.

The mere reduction of costs would not solve the structural issues.

Even as a major nation (played GER yesterday) I only can get 2 types 40-width division designs ready before WW2 (and I participated strongly in the SCW).

Agreed, in a WW2 strategy game divisions need to be represented on the field. You also have to direct your industry to equip those divisions. They have to be composed of something. But design - as a player activity - is not the only way to get there. All countries already start with division templates. With 0 XP invested I have a functional army. More templates can be unlocked through focuses. The reason those (more or less) historical divisions are seen as largely unacceptable is the very existence of the division designer and the Pandora's box it opens.
My roster of division templates could slightly update and expand as my technology and doctrine progresses. Would solve a ton of AI and balance problems(?)

In short I think building an army form the player's perspective can and should work like building a fleet without MtG. You research stuff, produce it, and field it. Clean and simple. Not going to happen of course.

I can see your point now, but I still disagree. Some nations would be stuck with stupid designs (like an infantery with no sup artillery). A solution would be to rework the fighting system as well, but I can't quite figure out how this would go.

Also, there would be even less individuality involved: Today, probably most people design one inf and one tank division (or maybe 2-3 tank divsions) and that's it. However, how you set up your division indiviually differs sligthly from person to person.

HOI4 has quite a complitaed battle system - without the designer there would be no incentive anymore to even try to understand it.

 

[cursorhiker]

I agree with bitmode. The primary "division design" changes during the time period were relatively minor with the exception of some countries switching from square divisions to triangular divisions (like Japan after 1938, though not all were switched). All the current designer does is validate crazy ahistorical divisions like 15-5s.

 

[mursolini]

WW2 has seen pretty crazy variety of division strength and design especially once you get outside US, UK and Germany.

Countries could also change their mainline divisions several times during a war.

While Square divisions -> triangular were mentioned, less mentioned was distribution of armor that varried wildly pre-war, German armor division reorganisation after Polish campaign, Soviets going for de-facto binary divisions in 1941-1942, Soviet armor core reorganisation, ex.

Also great variety of artillery, AA and AT equipment was present outside Europe.

The need for xp may be debated, however things like seniority for commanders, political connections, and overall need for change in army structure and struggle to overcome it should be represented.

As for ideal templates, it is mostly a game design flaw. Paradox didn't make equipment levels anything more than just "same, but more powerful", which is why there is no need to adjust template during war, pluss rigidity of 20/40 width.

 

[demon72]

...as mentioned already somewhere before:

...the cost for just changing the "vehicle" are much to high right now.


I am not in favour of it being completely free of charge, but XP seems to me the wrong "currency" for this issue - maybe command power would fit better.

And Support-Companies should be one-time-cost - you should only "pay" for the initial use - means after you added ART-support to the first Division, ART-support is free for all other templates.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Agreed, in a WW2 strategy game divisions need to be represented on the field. You also have to direct your industry to equip those divisions. They have to be composed of something. But design - as a player activity - is not the only way to get there. All countries already start with division templates. With 0 XP invested I have a functional army. More templates can be unlocked through focuses. The reason those (more or less) historical divisions are seen as largely unacceptable is the very existence of the division designer and the Pandora's box it opens.
My roster of division templates could slightly update and expand as my technology and doctrine progresses. Would solve a ton of AI and balance problems(?)

In short I think building an army form the player's perspective can and should work like building a fleet without MtG. You research stuff, produce it, and field it. Clean and simple. Not going to happen of course.

Point taken. Okay, so in the scope of OP's question I take the position that the army XP cost of division design should be kept and increased hundred fold

The pre-designated templates are an interesting idea, although I rather like the Division Designer, but would these templates have Widths that are factors of 80? If not it could be big disadvantage to some countries that have less than ideal templates.