Is XP for division/ship composition good game design?

[Corpse Fool]

When command power was first announced, I had hoped it could have been used to modify your divisions in lieu of army XP.

I have argued before that while yes, as a player needing to pay XP which can be hard to get to modify your divisions to a worthwhile template may be a painful experience, we as players are some sort of spirit-god guiding these nations. We might understand what makes a good template, but the staff officers we have influence over don't. And those lessons are largely only learned through them being tested in battle. As painful as it is to have to deal with, I can't fault the mechanic for being at least loosely based in reality. I don't like mana and definitely think there is room to improve the designer mechanics, but it is just another instance of the game concepts and mechanics being held back by having a "historical" setting.

As for designing ships, I've also argued that the ship designer is roughly the naval equivalent of the division designer. So it makes sense for the ship designer to have similar mechanics. My biggest problem here is that researching a ship does not provide you with an immediately usable model of that ship, you would have to use XP which you may have difficulty sourcing to first modify that hull to be producible. I haven't personally ran into this as a problem, but I have read posts from people who have and I can imagine what sort of absolute confusion and defeat someone might feel when their fun gets interrupted by "stupid bullshit". Some solutions here would be to have each researched hull grant you a fully functional model of the ship with the bare minimum equipment, but also have the hulls branch from the main gun tech like submarines are such that you have all of the basic modules required to create a functional design. And also remove the seemingly arbitrary mandatory module requirements, like some ships requiring an FCS or an AA mount for seemingly no reason.

There are some ideas in this thread that I do find interesting. Perhaps instead of unlocking and inserting individual battalions/companies, as we progress through research, doctrines, or in some special cases national focuses, we could unlock pre-made configurations of regiment which would then contain different assemblies of "battalions". The blocks can have a much greater amount of flexibility in its specific stats offered and equipment consumed, and would allow a much more realistic ORBAT where the regiment can have its own support companies. Players would then be able to assemble these regiment blocks in into divisions however they wish. This would allow us to step away from combat width (more so replace it with something similar, but different enough and actually flexible), bring in the sort of binary/triangle/square divisions that are more historical, and allow doctrines to have greater influence over our division design.

 

[Herr B.]

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.

No, they are not. Just open the game and look: German start armor has 12 width for example, German infantery has 18 width. Just two examples, but I'm quite sure that most nation start with 18 width inf.

 

[bitmode]

No, they are not. Just open the game and look: German start armor has 12 width for example, German infantery has 18 width. Just two examples, but I'm quite sure that most nation start with 18 width inf.

The current templates probably factor in to some extent that countries will be using the division designer. If it was removed, the game designers would need to come to terms with how the combat mechanics don't match their representations of historical templates. They'd need to bend at least one of those to bring them together. This is just hypothetical anyway. I didn't intend for my crazed idea to distract from OP's original question this much.

About the latter: if division design was made completely free, not just the player but also the AI would immediately switch to its target templates. The AI suffers from similar problems as OP described. For instance, it does not "know" it will need to produce artillery until it actually has a template saying so.
In terms of game design the AI would be able to plan ahead much better and not overproduce rifles so much. But logically, all countries in the world would make a sharp turn in January 1936 in how they organize their military. Seems a bit jarring.

 

[CrasherZZ]

The current templates probably factor in to some extent that countries will be using the division designer. If it was removed, the game designers would need to come to terms with how the combat mechanics don't match their representations of historical templates. They'd need to bend at least one of those to bring them together. This is just hypothetical anyway. I didn't intend for my crazed idea to distract from OP's original question this much.

If doing away with the Division Designer also does away with the combat width restrictions that might be a good thing. Personally, because I like the Division Designer, I would prefer a solution that both does away with the Combat Width in it's present form and maintains some form of the Division Designer. It is off-topic but the fact that this issue comes up all the time in many threads, shows how integral it is to so many aspects of the game.

 

[GeorgieBest]

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

I would argue that the research time for the ship components includes the time spent learning if something does or doesn't work. The fact that it also lets you use experience to boost the research speed for certain components is a good design for experience in my opinion.

I personally really dislike the usage of exp to change division and ship templates. For making plane and tank variants it makes sense because we don't (yet?) have a similar tech tree with components for those. I really don't understand the decision to have naval templates require experience though. The experience should be paid in the research tab, and then from that point on what you decide to put on the hull should entirely be an IC cost consideration.

I also feel that the EXP restriction on division templates and naval templates is one of the biggest problems the AI has in the game, so making it easier for the AI to properly use those systems would be a massive benefit to the game. The reason the AI is completely unable to produce a challenging navy against the player is because they don't know how to use ship templates. Removing the EXP cost should help with that.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever see a change to the current system.

 

[Louella]

HOI4's division designer and doctrine research mechanisms have the issue that unlike historically, nobody adopts doctrinal ideas and force compositions that didn't fulfil their promise.
Same with the ship designs, and any prospective aircraft or tank designer.

HOI4 has distinct mechanics, that favour unit compositions with particular attributes. Which makes it a waste to build designs that do not maximise those attributes.
It's one of the problems with historical tank & aircraft designs for countries vs HOI4s approach of every country producing identical equipment. The question of "why should the player be constrained by the decisions made 80 years ago ?". The issue of having to build bad tanks because that's what were available historically. That sort of thing. Players wouldn't willingly build Panthers with weak gearboxes, that break down before they can exploit breakthroughs. People wouldn't willingly build M3 Lee/Grants, with casemate main guns, that were what could be made available.

However, as a game with distinct mechanics, the division designer, the ship designer, and any potential aircraft or tank designer, have the effective result of removing player freedom, rather than increasing it. The mechanics of the game, since it's possible to optimise things, mean that instead of players having freedom to design things as they prefer, they are constrained, especially in multiplayer games, or harder difficulties.
You build the optimal designs, or you lose.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Just for the sake of argument are there historical examples of how experience (combat, lend-lease, training, volunteers) led directly to different division designs - and not just optimal ones?

For example WW1 trench warfare led to both Panzer divisions and 1940 French Infantry divisions and doctrine. Keep in mind that Guderian wasn't well-respected in the German army until after their successful conquest of France in 1940 and he was actually fired by Hitler after the Germans were defeated in front of Moscow in winter of 1941/1942. The US created armored and mechanized divisions as well as large marine and airborne divisions even without any significant land combat experience prior to 1942.

The British experience from their attack on Taranto and the sinking of the Bismarck did not stop them from sending the Prince of Wales and Repulse to their deaths. The embarrassment of the Red Army in Finland did not save them from being crushed in the summer of 1941 by Barbarossa. Of course, those successes and failures didn't have anything to do with Division/Ship Design but it didn't change or contribute to division/ship design either - or did it?

The main exception would be aircraft design. The Flying Tigers contributed to optimal dog-fighting tactics against the Zero. Combat experience did often contribute directly to improvements in fighter and bomber equipment and design in a relatively rapid manner. Changes to ship design also occurred (AA, Radar, Sonar) but at a slower pace and was due to available technology more than experience. The slowest change occurred in land units, and some of those changes were actually less optimal.

Are there any relevant, specific historical examples?

 

[Harin]

I also feel that the EXP restriction on division templates and naval templates is one of the biggest problems the AI has in the game, so making it easier for the AI to properly use those systems would be a massive benefit to the game. The reason the AI is completely unable to produce a challenging navy against the player is because they don't know how to use ship templates. Removing the EXP cost should help with that.

Trying to relate this with your post and BitMode's.

To help the AI, maybe the game could provide a new infantry division template when certain items are researched. For example, research Infantry 2 equipment gets you a free 10-0 infantry division template. If you have researched Engineer, then the 10-0 infantry template will include an engineer support company. And so on. Research drives free templates. The templates will have to play well with the current game mechanics. The player and the AI get the templates.

Perhaps this way the AI does not have to go from 18w, then 20w, then 22w, etc... It can make clean jumps to 20w, then 20w with support, and eventually the 40w, if it researches far enough.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Perhaps this way the AI does not have to go from 18w, then 20w, then 22w, etc... It can make clean jumps to 20w, then 20w with support, and eventually the 40w, if it researches far enough.

This is a very interesting idea for the base game.

 

[Louella]

Just for the sake of argument are there historical examples of how experience (combat, lend-lease, training, volunteers) led directly to different division designs - and not just optimal ones?

The UK changed composition of several units during the course of the war. Artillery regiments originally consisted of the HQ battery, plus 2 other batteries, each of 2 troops of 4 guns, so 24 guns in total, but this was changed later to add a third battery, to make 32 guns total for the regiment.

Infantry brigades used to be 4 battalions of infantry, but later became 3 battalions of infantry. Various other units were added to divisions through the course of the war, like machine gun battalions, or anti-aircraft units, that changed to anti-tank units as the Allies gained increasing air superiority.

 

[mursolini]

When command power was first announced, I had hoped it could have been used to modify your divisions in lieu of army XP.

I have argued before that while yes, as a player needing to pay XP which can be hard to get to modify your divisions to a worthwhile template may be a painful experience, we as players are some sort of spirit-god guiding these nations. We might understand what makes a good template, but the staff officers we have influence over don't. And those lessons are largely only learned through them being tested in battle. As painful as it is to have to deal with, I can't fault the mechanic for being at least loosely based in reality. I don't like mana and definitely think there is room to improve the designer mechanics, but it is just another instance of the game concepts and mechanics being held back by having a "historical" setting.

As for designing ships, I've also argued that the ship designer is roughly the naval equivalent of the division designer. So it makes sense for the ship designer to have similar mechanics. My biggest problem here is that researching a ship does not provide you with an immediately usable model of that ship, you would have to use XP which you may have difficulty sourcing to first modify that hull to be producible. I haven't personally ran into this as a problem, but I have read posts from people who have and I can imagine what sort of absolute confusion and defeat someone might feel when their fun gets interrupted by "stupid bullshit". Some solutions here would be to have each researched hull grant you a fully functional model of the ship with the bare minimum equipment, but also have the hulls branch from the main gun tech like submarines are such that you have all of the basic modules required to create a functional design. And also remove the seemingly arbitrary mandatory module requirements, like some ships requiring an FCS or an AA mount for seemingly no reason.

There are some ideas in this thread that I do find interesting. Perhaps instead of unlocking and inserting individual battalions/companies, as we progress through research, doctrines, or in some special cases national focuses, we could unlock pre-made configurations of regiment which would then contain different assemblies of "battalions". The blocks can have a much greater amount of flexibility in its specific stats offered and equipment consumed, and would allow a much more realistic ORBAT where the regiment can have its own support companies. Players would then be able to assemble these regiment blocks in into divisions however they wish. This would allow us to step away from combat width (more so replace it with something similar, but different enough and actually flexible), bring in the sort of binary/triangle/square divisions that are more historical, and allow doctrines to have greater influence over our division design.

You are right, ships, at least in destroyer, sub and cruiser class should come with usable design out of gate.

Naval xp, however is very easy to get once you have a navy to train, so not a huge issue, and somewhat realistic. At least run the ships you already have somewhat, before designing upgrades.

If doing away with the Division Designer also does away with the combat width restrictions that might be a good thing. Personally, because I like the Division Designer, I would prefer a solution that both does away with the Combat Width in it's present form and maintains some form of the Division Designer. It is off-topic but the fact that this issue comes up all the time in many threads, shows how integral it is to so many aspects of the game.

There will always be some sort of combat width or equivalent. Simply because WW2 had very wide fronts, and most of the time there was an upper limit on the amount of troops that could operate in an area, both from logistics standpoint, and from dispersing from enemy fire point.

Issue is, Paradox current implementation is bad. 80 is far too little for hastorical operations infantry's concentration of 3-8:1, divisions that fit exactly 20 or 40 have a hefty advantage, and large divisions are by far favourite of mechanics. If they charge limit to something more sensable, and combat mechanics of defense/breakthrough as well, it will work out.

I would argue that the research time for the ship components includes the time spent learning if something does or doesn't work. The fact that it also lets you use experience to boost the research speed for certain components is a good design for experience in my opinion.

I personally really dislike the usage of exp to change division and ship templates. For making plane and tank variants it makes sense because we don't (yet?) have a similar tech tree with components for those. I really don't understand the decision to have naval templates require experience though. The experience should be paid in the research tab, and then from that point on what you decide to put on the hull should entirely be an IC cost consideration.

I also feel that the EXP restriction on division templates and naval templates is one of the biggest problems the AI has in the game, so making it easier for the AI to properly use those systems would be a massive benefit to the game. The reason the AI is completely unable to produce a challenging navy against the player is because they don't know how to use ship templates. Removing the EXP cost should help with that.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever see a change to the current system.

AI is just buggy/poorly made. Including production AI, which is atrocious.

HOI4's division designer and doctrine research mechanisms have the issue that unlike historically, nobody adopts doctrinal ideas and force compositions that didn't fulfil their promise.
Same with the ship designs, and any prospective aircraft or tank designer.

HOI4 has distinct mechanics, that favour unit compositions with particular attributes. Which makes it a waste to build designs that do not maximise those attributes.
It's one of the problems with historical tank & aircraft designs for countries vs HOI4s approach of every country producing identical equipment. The question of "why should the player be constrained by the decisions made 80 years ago ?". The issue of having to build bad tanks because that's what were available historically. That sort of thing. Players wouldn't willingly build Panthers with weak gearboxes, that break down before they can exploit breakthroughs. People wouldn't willingly build M3 Lee/Grants, with casemate main guns, that were what could be made available.

However, as a game with distinct mechanics, the division designer, the ship designer, and any potential aircraft or tank designer, have the effective result of removing player freedom, rather than increasing it. The mechanics of the game, since it's possible to optimise things, mean that instead of players having freedom to design things as they prefer, they are constrained, especially in multiplayer games, or harder difficulties.
You build the optimal designs, or you lose.

Well, this is reality of war, is it not? Everyone had their own idea on armored warfare pre-war, but as war went on, everyone converged on similar armor division. With planes, same issue. Everyone learned that speed, climb rate and ceiling are king, and optimized for it, while pre-war many believed manuverability was more important.

Yes, there were industrial limitations, but you don't chose those, you work around them.

 

[demon72]

just a spontaneous and maybe stupid idea:

if there are several different factors that have positive and negative multiplier effects on width

• terrain
• number of adjactent territories
• infra
• weather
• ?

there wouldn't be a fix number or fixed jumps by 20 for width!

Without a fix number, there it's not necessary to go with only w20 or w40 designs...

...and smaller division sizes would have some advantage, as they better fit in permanent changing numbers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Civ does not make constructing units cost research points. Civ does not tether the culture of a city to the number of tile improvements directly, but rather what is constructed using the yields.

In contrast, for some reason HOI 4 does make the currency for creating a better tank variant the same currency used to reorganize your troops. That's bizarre on its face.

XP availability varies significantly by nation too. In the context of making good tank/plane/ship variants or researching more quickly, this variability makes sense. In the context of deciding how many dudes operate under another dude, it does not.

If you believe that every division design would look the same as a result of this change, that is an indictment of the design of division combat width interactions. It is not a viable reason to make division designs cost military XP any more than it makes sense to build a wonder using extra spice resources.

 

[CrasherZZ]

just a spontaneous and maybe stupid idea:

if there are several different factors that have positive and negative multiplier effects on width

• terrain
• number of adjactent territories
• infra
• weather
• ?

there wouldn't be a fix number or fixed jumps by 20 for width!

Without a fix number, there it's not necessary to go with only w20 or w40 designs...

...and smaller division sizes would have some advantage, as they better fit in permanent changing numbers.

It's not a stupid idea at all. It may have already been suggested in the "Varying Combat Width" thread. I support anything that would free the Division Designer from the shackles of width being a factor of 80. I also support making the base width max a prime number with no factors since it would have a similar effect. Modifiers to width make a lot of sense.