I get that but the same thing happens if you put too many large divisions in a region. Must like Daniel did in China in WWW.
- 1
It seems strange that artillery takes up combat width.
- Thread starter Finski
- 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.
I get that but the same thing happens if you put too many large divisions in a region. Must like Daniel did in China in WWW.
Not really - you can tell how many divisions worth of supply a place has before you send the troops.
With your system the game might tell you there are ten divisions worth of supply, but because artillery use tons more supply once battle is joined there might only actually be enough supply for six divisions who are fighting. Hence the "trap".
With your system the game might tell you there are ten divisions worth of supply, but because artillery use tons more supply once battle is joined there might only actually be enough supply for six divisions who are fighting. Hence the "trap".
- 1
It wouldn't be too hard to show a 'resting' and 'fighting' supply consumption for each unit and for all the units in a province. Green supply areas are ones where all the units can fight, yellow are ones where you will start to gradually get supply penalties if you have an extended battle there. Red areas are ones that will incur increasing supply penalties even without fighting. Even now, fighting can change the supply capacity of a region, so the "trap" already exists to some extent.
You could also cut down on the extra fighting supply consumption as supply penalties start to kick in, to simulate increasing conservation of ammo. That would further smooth out the effect.
You could have it that they have the same level of supply cap, but a greater rate of attrition (that's clearly flagged to players before they build them, and during gameplay) - that'd be one way of doing it. Not saying it's the way I'd go for (I want to see the proposed implementation first, because it could work, and then I'd probably start with a combat width and a support width), but I think it'd be feasible approach within the gameplay system we've seen so far.
Have you read the post I was responding to or are you doing this on purpose?
The Art takes up width if you put it on the front lines but takes up no width if put in the support section.
This is the difference between Indirect fire and Direct fire arty. in WW2 a lot of armies lacked skilled arty crews, think about what direct fire (short range) arty fire would mean, quick relaying of hit reports back to the crew, short range meant less adjustments for humidity and wind and a generally easier time for the crew. if your target is 2KM away you are going to hit the target pretty consistently even if you struggled to hit targets 7km away. 2km however is seriously close to the battlefield (almost within rifle range, certainly within mortar range) thus the higher damage output but cost of combat width.
This is the difference between Indirect fire and Direct fire arty. in WW2 a lot of armies lacked skilled arty crews, think about what direct fire (short range) arty fire would mean, quick relaying of hit reports back to the crew, short range meant less adjustments for humidity and wind and a generally easier time for the crew. if your target is 2KM away you are going to hit the target pretty consistently even if you struggled to hit targets 7km away. 2km however is seriously close to the battlefield (almost within rifle range, certainly within mortar range) thus the higher damage output but cost of combat width.
- 1
A gun doesn't take so much width not in the front line nor in the second line.
If you don't like that artillery take up width you can mod it away.
Podcat have said why artillery do take up width and it have little to do with realism, HOI4 is foremost designed as a grand strategy game and that is something they have said since the beginning.
Podcat have said why artillery do take up width and it have little to do with realism, HOI4 is foremost designed as a grand strategy game and that is something they have said since the beginning.
- 4
- 3
Direct fire for any noteworthy number of guns means no obstructions. I don't agree with a combat width of 3 but remember it take up no combat with as a support unit so perhaps the direct fire option is being given with deliberate penalties for game balance reasons. Im just giving a justification for it taking up any combat width at all.
- 2
I'm thinking the main problem is the terminology. People hear "combat width" and in conjunction with what it meant in previous games it sounds like HoI4 is saying artillery take up a load of your front line. Maybe "inertia" or "unwieldiness" (these words suck, it would be better if it was a positive stat rather than a negative, then you could call it "mobility") or something like that would represent what it actually does better.
- 2
Words are important and they shouldn't be thrown away. To mean a cat it would be better to say "cat" not "width".
- 2
I kind of wish the new version of width was called "combat footprint" or something like that.
It would make more sense with how they are setting up brigades. Artillery may have no combat width in the HOI3 sense, but they would still have a combat footprint in terms of having a place on the battlefield in a province. Sure, you can store 15,000 howitzers in Stalingrad, but might not be able to field them all effectively due to limitations in HQ placement and FO's and logistics SNAFUs (gotta be able to move ammunition around effectively) and radio channels and chain of command issues and a whole list of other things that are below the game's level of abstraction.
- 6
Oh, certainly, certainly. Do you have any suggestions for what "combat width" could be renamed to?
- 1