Land Combat Battalions

[Zinegata]

Now you're just picking out an absurd interpretation rather than the obvious one, and missing the point. I didn't mean you could create a separate frontage-less division with your support assets and still be effective, I meant that it doesn't matter which *existing, frontline* division you put them in.

In the case where you have enough assets to distribute to all divisions, just do that! In which case, why even consider them corps assets? They're obviously part of the divisional structure if you have enough for every division. When you don't have enough to go around, just pick one or more divisions, it doesn't matter which because most of the time the whole corps will be fighting in the same province anyways, and the support assets will provide the same combat benefit regardless of which division they're attached to. (Assuming all the divisions are otherwise equal, of course, just to head off any further absurd interpretations. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how to assign such assets in the case where the divisions are different.)

To be fair, while Corps-level assets are usually assigned directly to Divisions (like the aforementioned US Tank and TD battalions), the "core" of most Corps reserves for all sides was really the reserve of artillery formations; which didn't really take the form of individual seperate Divisions (except with the Russians) and were not really assigned to individual Divisions; since your Corps arty reserve can usually sit near the Corps HQ and yet still be capable of supplying support fire to all of its component Divisions due to the range of the guns..

 

[phantomrider]

I'm not entirely sure what your question is, but what I'm getting is: "Will various support battallions provide specific and significant combat benefits to their divisions?" I think the answer to that is almost certainly "yes", and the challenges of designing divisions will be largely similar to that in HoI3: How many front-line combat vs. support batallions do I want, how much hard attack power vs soft attack power do I want, how much IC/manpower/time can I afford to spend building/training/equipping this division given my strategic needs, and how badly is it going to strain my supply lines once it's at the front? We'll also have a new one, which is "how much war experience can I afford to spend on creating a specialty division template for situation XYZ?"

If you're asking what those "specific and significant combat benefits" are in numerical terms, chances are the devs don't even know yet. I expect the balancing of such combat mechanics to be one of the last things to fall into place.

to rephrase the question in terms you mentioned I would ask what does including an anti aircraft battallion in your division do to the hard or soft attack or defense strength of the division in combat? What does adding an engineer battallon do for the same numbers? What other benefit do engineers add (movement across rivers, assault strength against fortified positions both as a PI building {land or seacoast forts) or informal (units digging in as they stay in the same location). HOw will it handle a battallion of tanks vs a full brigade or regiment? Will the combined arms bonuses still be given and how does each battallon type classify (inf, tank, artillery, aa, at, recon, engineer, other support etc)? This will allow you to do the math to see if it is worth it in terms of industrial strength, manpower and experience to put that extra battalion in your divisions or not.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Considering the HoI4 is roughly going to use the same province scale as HoI3, and in HoI3 you're often devoting an entire corps to a single province, I honestly don't see what difference it makes which division of the corps those corps assets are assigned to.

It does because not everyone plays the same way. I hardly ever use an entire corps in a single province. How are you going to capture Soviet Union if all your corps are in a single province, all the time? And if they aren't in a single province all the time, then it does become important where those corps assets are.

Lot of the issues of HoI3 will be fixed just with the possibility of having more than 4/5 brigades in a division but I doubt many nations will have the IC to make historical corps/army level assets part of every division.

 

[jju_57]

Remember, the template system is going to be great in allowing you to update all of your divisional structures at once by using experience to change a template and each division of that template will automatically morph into the new template. However, it will make it difficult to have different division types. INF, INF + AT, INF + TD, INF + Tank Bat., INF + TD + Tank Bat. will each require the expenditure of land combat experience to create their own template.

Doesn't that really depend on the XP cost? If it's cheap then the "so what" is valid. Just make dozens of templates if you so desire. But if it costs a lot then you have a valid point.

 

[Secret Master]

Doesn't that really depend on the XP cost? If it's cheap then the "so what" is valid. Just make dozens of templates if you so desire. But if it costs a lot then you have a valid point.

My assumption is that slightly different templates will probably not cost that much to make. I have no evidence to back up this assumption, but if I were a cat of pods like some Devs, I would set up the system so that small differences between templates don't cost as much as radical departures.

I mean, there's a huge doctrinal difference between an ARM/MECH/AC/SPART division and an INF/INF/ART/ART, but there's far less of a doctrinal difference between ARM/MECH/TD/SPART and ARM/MECH/SPART/SPART. (Using HOI3 nomenclature, which I know isn't applicable.)

 

[tommylotto]

My assumption is that slightly different templates will probably not cost that much to make. I have no evidence to back up this assumption, but if I were a cat of pods like some Devs, I would set up the system so that small differences between templates don't cost as much as radical departures.

I think that is a good idea, but I am afraid all new templates will cost the same, regardless of the extent of the doctrine modification. If you look at the division designer, it looks like it costs 25 points to save a new template, 5 points to add a battalion to a regiment, and 25 points to open up another regiment. I doubt the cost of saving a template will vary depending on the magnitude of the change. How would the game evaluate how significant a particular change really is?

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I think that is a good idea, but I am afraid all new templates will cost the same, regardless of the extent of the doctrine modification. If you look at the division designer, it looks like it costs 25 points to save a new template, 5 points to add a battalion to a regiment, and 25 points to open up another regiment. I doubt the cost of saving a template will vary depending on the magnitude of the change. How would the game evaluate how significant a particular change really is?

My assumption is that slightly different templates will probably not cost that much to make. I have no evidence to back up this assumption, but if I were a cat of pods like some Devs, I would set up the system so that small differences between templates don't cost as much as radical departures.

I mean, there's a huge doctrinal difference between an ARM/MECH/AC/SPART division and an INF/INF/ART/ART, but there's far less of a doctrinal difference between ARM/MECH/TD/SPART and ARM/MECH/SPART/SPART. (Using HOI3 nomenclature, which I know isn't applicable.)

It's been confirmed that you can duplicate a template and not pay the original cost. An example:
INF-INF-ART template
Duplicate, now to one you add AT and to another you add AA. The only cost would be to add the new divisions or change anything.

As for saving, that is an interesting take on it. I don't know if that question was ever asked/answered. I had assumed that Saving was simply showing the total cost of all the additions from your changes.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

More variety the better! I understand it may be bad idea for vanilla, but i love this kind of unit customization (i would hate if i would have to micro every single division, but this allows me to change just few things to change hundreds!

 

[Cardus]

You might just say "who cares" and just give them all AT and call it a day, and that might be fine for some. However, other would like to see historically accurate OOB's, and I am just pointing out disclosed game mechanics that will make that difficult or impossible.

+1

 

[jju_57]

That's a pre-alpha screen so we have no clue where the cost to save came from, if it is even programmed to work, or if that was just a filler value. We have no idea the costs to remove things or to change from say a light to medium tank. None of this was ever demonstrated so anything to do with saying how much it costs is pure guess work. We simply don't know yet.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

Just curious, since the Light and Medium tanks on that picture were on the same line, does that mean you can specify tech-based units in your deck?

In other words, can I have a Tank-1936 in my deck that shows up with a panzer I icon, then add Tank-40 for Panzer IVs to be added to the deck with the icons?

 

[Henry IX]

The main thing I would like to add is that many of the differences in unit types will disapear if you look at what impact they would have on a strategic level. For example - bicycles and horses both do the sme thing, give infantry some extra mobility (high move), so no need to differentiate them, motorbikes and trucks likewise, both just forms of motorisation. In the same way truck towed and truck mounted artillery amounts to the same thing. The units you need (in the vanilla game) are those that perform in distinctly different ways.

I do tend to agree that having two classes of infantry plus militia makes sense. Many armies classified and used their infantry in this way. In effect we had this with garison infantry in HOI2 and HOI3, but I always found it odd that garisons couldn't run away. A unit with weaker org, morale and penalties on attack would simulate these units well. There is also the need for militia to represent un- or minimally trained units, such as partisans or opolichnya militia.

 

[ikeokp]

I think some of your unit types are also country-specific.. Germany was very creative with their equipment and were smart with re-using old equipment since they were always out-supplied. The Germans had so much variation with their weapons whereas the Russians or Americans really just had standard divisions that all used most of the same equipment.

 

[Zinegata]

I think some of your unit types are also country-specific.. Germany was very creative with their equipment and were smart with re-using old equipment since they were always out-supplied. The Germans had so much variation with their weapons whereas the Russians or Americans really just had standard divisions that all used most of the same equipment.

That's not actually a good thing, because without standardized equipment you have the Germans moving around "Divisions" and expecting them to behave as such when in reality the formation may be down to just a few old men with Italian rifles, supported by captured Soviet artillery that had been wrongly issued with ammunition that the guns can't use.

 

[GarfunkeL]

The main thing I would like to add is that many of the differences in unit types will disapear if you look at what impact they would have on a strategic level. For example - bicycles and horses both do the sme thing, give infantry some extra mobility (high move), so no need to differentiate them, motorbikes and trucks likewise, both just forms of motorisation. In the same way truck towed and truck mounted artillery amounts to the same thing. The units you need (in the vanilla game) are those that perform in distinctly different ways.

Bicycles require vastly less supply than horses but are completely useless in snow while horses are always useful. Motorbikes provide significantly less carrying capacity than trucks but are both faster and have better off-road ability (especially in WW2 context). Field artillery was never successfully mounted on trucks, though AAA were.

 

[tommylotto]

It's been confirmed that you can duplicate a template and not pay the original cost. An example:
INF-INF-ART template
Duplicate, now to one you add AT and to another you add AA. The only cost would be to add the new divisions or change anything.

As for saving, that is an interesting take on it. I don't know if that question was ever asked/answered. I had assumed that Saving was simply showing the total cost of all the additions from your changes.

You might be right. Those parenthesis around the number in the save button make it look like the number might be a sum of the changes made to the template.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Maybe there will finally be a distinction between light, medium, heavy and siege artillery, since we're operating on a battalion level.

 

[Mattias]

To be fair, while Corps-level assets are usually assigned directly to Divisions (like the aforementioned US Tank and TD battalions), the "core" of most Corps reserves for all sides was really the reserve of artillery formations; which didn't really take the form of individual seperate Divisions (except with the Russians) and were not really assigned to individual Divisions; since your Corps arty reserve can usually sit near the Corps HQ and yet still be capable of supplying support fire to all of its component Divisions due to the range of the guns..

IMHO the reason to have corps level assets IRL is to give the corps-commander the ability to reinforce the attack(s) of particularly difficult or important targets - due to terrain, the nature of the local defences, infrastructure etc. (But they still had to be attached to "local" commanders to be integrated in the proper command-chain, i.e. know what to aim at.)

In game this isn't really simulated because the map is a bit less detailed than reality. With this in mind, as a player, it might be a good enough solution to make some "reinforced" divisions especially useful as either "fire brigades" or to simply add "break-through" firepower. /M

 

[unmerged(143216)]

Does no one else see the problem with this much bloat? There are several.
1. Realism: These are battalions, and while that offers much more versatility and for more numerous unit types there are still limits. Flame tanks didn't fight as entire battalions, and I don't think any countries did or do field mortars in entire battalions which are better represented as organic infantry assets or simply as artillery.

2. Obvious superiority of certain units: When two units fill the same role odds are one is going to be clearly superior, it is a fact of life, perfect balance is impossible. This leads to the issue of certain units being effectively useless. Do ski mountain infantry fight as well as mountain infantry but better in the snow for only a tiny increase in IC? Then why ever use regular mountain infantry unless you are playing as Saudi Arabia? Do bicycle infantry have the same stats as cavalry for the most part with lower supply consumption rates (don't need to feed horses)? Then why ever use regular cavalry?

3. If everyone is elite than nobody is elite: Put simply commandos and "nation specific units" simply ruin immersion as it results in either A. never using them if they are inferior, or B. everyone is elite until I hit my cap at which point I have a hard number of elite units. It invalidates the idea of true special forces and elite units. Beyond that the SS weren't super soldiers and weren't better than the regular army, same thing with Soviet Guard Divisions and Rangers vs. other nations' light infantry. What made these units great was combat experience, equipment, and morale, all of which is better portrayed through unit settings (reinforcements and new equipment priority), sending them to the front all the time where the fighting is fiercest, and perhaps the ability to promote certain units to Guard or SS divisions, with an increase in supply consumption in exchange for a morale bonus.

4. Adds unnecessary complication to research and unit design. Lets ignore the fact that no nation ever made the distinction between light, medium, heavy, and super heavy TDs. So you have four paths to follow on your research tree. Which do you choose? Backtracking would be inefficient and a pain in the ass so you should either choose one extreme depending on how you foresee the future developing, or air on the side of caution and choosing the middle ground. Either way if you chose wrong (you choose light TDs because you imagine the war will be very mobile only to get bogged down where your mobility becomes useless, or you chose heavy and end up slowing your advance because of your slow TDs) you are out of luck unless you wanna backtrack your research and then completely reorganize your army to get rid of your slow TDs or unarmoured TDs. It could simply be better represented through a single TD line and using variants to decide the specifics of your equipment. Germany might slowly start fielding heavier TDs until they end up with the jagdtiger.

Honestly I would prefer a fairly simple route for unit types.

Infantry
Militia
Garrison
Infantry
Cavalry (bike or horse cavalry)
Motorized (ride in trucks or on motorcycles)
Mechanized
Light Infantry (mountain infantry and infantry specializing in rough terrain like jungles or dense forests)
Marines
Airborne

Armour
Light Armour
Medium Armour
Heavy Armour
Super Heavy Armour (eg. Lowe, Maus, E 100, TOG II, KV-4)
Tank Destroyers
Assault Guns
Super Heavy Assault Guns (eg. T28 and Tortoise)
Armoured Cars

Support
Artillery
Light Artillery (to support light infantry, marines, airborne infantry, or for the early war, cavalry)
Self Propelled Artillery
Rocket Artillery
Light Rocket Artillery (to support light infantry, marines, airborne infantry, or for the early war, cavalry)
Self Propelled Rocket Artillery
Anti-Air
Self Propelled Anti-Air
Anti-Tank
Light Anti-Tank (to support light infantry, marines, airborne infantry, or for the early war, cavalry)

Non-Combat
Engineers
Mechanized Engineers
Armoured Engineers

 

[tommylotto]

stuff already discussed in this thread

That is a big wall of text for someone who did not make it to the second page of this thread. If you had gotten that far, you would have seen where I provided links to military organizational charts showing motorcycle battalions, bicycle battalions (from Sweden no less!), Mortar battalions, and even flame tank battalions, which believe it or not, were part of every Soviet tank regiment at the start of Barbarossa.

Motorcycle Battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/41_organ/41_div-corazzata.html

Bicycle Battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/41_organ/41_div-cav.html
http://niehorster.orbat.com/037_czechoslovakia/organ/div_fast.htm
http://niehorster.orbat.com/081_sweden/1943-organ/_43_inf-div.html (and a regiment!)

AA battalion, AT battalion, ART Battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain/42_org/42_inf-div_arty.html

Mortar battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/41_organ/41_div-inf.html

Armored Engineer battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/44_org/div-arm/_armd-div.html

Armored Car Battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/44_org/div-arm/ad_cav__sqdn.html
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41_organ/40_tank-div.html

Machine Gun battalion
http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain/42_org/_42_inf-div_me.html
http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/40_organ/div_autotrans_40as.html

Flame Tank Battalion (I have to add this one!!!!)
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41_organ/40_tank-div_tank-rgt.html

As far as nation specific units are concerned, I stated in the first post that they were optional for immersion purposes only. The Waffen unit in Hoi3 may have been buffed, but not the SS units in my mod. The SS units are identical to regular units with just a slight boost to suppression for being evil, but they fight exactly the same. If you want your SS to become elite, you would need to give them combat experience and prioritize them for upgrades and reinforcements -- just as you suggest. Also, many of the historical SS divisions would be characterized as SS-militia and would end up fighting much worse that a regular army division. For immersion, they would get a distinctive counter so that they pop out on the map. When playing the allies, you see that distinctive black counter coming at you and get to fight the SS. How cool is that?

As far as balance is concerned, try my mod or Black ICE or any of the other mods that added bunches of unit types without throwing the game out of balance. Ski battalions could be the same as mountain with a speed and combat bonus in arctic conditions. They could be limited in number and take very long to train, too long to make them worthwhile, but give a bunch to Finland at game start. Bicycle infantry, don't get me started, there is a thread on the subject that lasted about 10 pages. The conclusion, they were in wide spread use at the start of the war and proved decisive in the Malayan campaign.

Oh, and don't tell podcat, but this whole thread is just a bunch of psychological bargaining theory. If we ask for every conceivable type of battalion ever known to Dr. Niehorster, maybe he will give us a bit more variety than was found in Hoi3. Just between you and me, I could live without the flame tank battalion, but again, don't tell podcat, I'm trying to convince him to give us assault guns and light infantry.