Landmines?

[Gethsemani]

I could see a way to use mines.

Let the units dig in to level 9, and then the player can decide if he wants to dig in to level 10 by pressing some kind of button on the unit card. This would cost a fraction of IC and also give the unit som kind of AP value so that if attacked by tanks the attacker would lose more tanks in the attack of a dug in unit at level 10. The IC is not revocable

A better way would simply be to suppose that mines are factored into the daily consumption of supplies. Your idea would add some pointless micromanagement that simply has no place in a grand strategy game. I can't think of a single time when the leader of a nation (Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler etc.) had to specifically order a division or brigade to deploy their mines and field fortifications. The decision to create a minefield is, at its' highest, a decision for a divisional commander, but more likely a battalion or company commander will make the decision to deploy mines. Having the player click a button for each time they want a unit dug in with mines would create an insane clickfest for time when you want to fortify your entire front, such as might happen in 41-43 during Winter on the East Front.

 

[Zoob]

Surely a series of forts and fortifications which add defensive bonuses are assumed to include landmines as well. There are multiple levels of fortifications in HOI3, if we consider 10 to be the maginot line, then 1 would be what? Some fortified positions, wire and land mines?

 

[Hans_Schnitzel]

Surely a series of forts and fortifications which add defensive bonuses are assumed to include landmines as well. There are multiple levels of fortifications in HOI3, if we consider 10 to be the maginot line, then 1 would be what? Some fortified positions, wire and land mines?

I would consider level 1 to include some concrete bunkers and such, it costs IC after all so it's more than just wire, trenches and mines, since that's already normal equippment for any division with a engineering battalion attached to it and thus part of the "supply".

 

[Praetori]

The one thing people truly should remember is that most of losses of RKKA during WW2 was in thirst years of war when army was totally inexperienced, disorganised and used old types of tactics, weapons and equipment. The only thing inexperienced commanders could do is attack with rifles against tanks and massively die to slow enemy a bit.
I understand that the idea of "drunk stupid Ivans massively attacking under commissars machine guns" is easier to accept but try to use your head and logic. If that was true your country wouldn't exist by now, and mine would probably be a huge labor camp or worse.

I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. The 3rd quarter of 1941 saw some appalling Soviet losses but it was about the same as the 3rd quarter of 1943. In general the Soviet losses were between 1-2 million men per quarter throughout the war. The vast bulk of the best trained Soviet troops were actually lost during the first few months in the war through German momentum and Soviet inflexibility. The later drafted troops had less experience and training than the ones lost during 1941 by far (and it also shows in the German casualty figures which were not as high until the last quarters of 1944 with Bagration in full swing).

 

[Xsio]

I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. The 3rd quarter of 1941 saw some appalling Soviet losses but it was about the same as the 3rd quarter of 1943. In general the Soviet losses were between 1-2 million men per quarter throughout the war. The vast bulk of the best trained Soviet troops were actually lost during the first few months in the war through German momentum and Soviet inflexibility. The later drafted troops had less experience and training than the ones lost during 1941 by far (and it also shows in the German casualty figures which were not as high until the last quarters of 1944 with Bagration in full swing).

And you know that from where? Wikipedia?

Here is a data of loses of RKKA by years from statistic study of general-colonel Krivosheev:

Years............period in days...........yearly losses (in thousends)
1941.............193..........................3138
1942.............365..........................3258
1943.............365..........................2312
1944.............365..........................1764
1945.............129...........................801

Not to mention the story from the first hands of my grandfather.

 

[Hans_Schnitzel]

Guys, this is about landmines, not about how many soldiers the SU lost during the war.

 

[Xsio]

My bad, apologies for off topic

 

[Axe99]

A better way would simply be to suppose that mines are factored into the daily consumption of supplies. Your idea would add some pointless micromanagement that simply has no place in a grand strategy game. I can't think of a single time when the leader of a nation (Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler etc.) had to specifically order a division or brigade to deploy their mines and field fortifications. The decision to create a minefield is, at its' highest, a decision for a divisional commander, but more likely a battalion or company commander will make the decision to deploy mines. Having the player click a button for each time they want a unit dug in with mines would create an insane clickfest for time when you want to fortify your entire front, such as might happen in 41-43 during Winter on the East Front.

At Kursk and El Alamein, anti-vehicle mines were laid in their tens and hundreds of thousands, and had a strategic impact. It didn't happen often, but when it did happen, it happened in ways that impacted materially on battles that are seen as turning points in the war. Landmines were in all likelihood more important than Germany's Tigers at Kursk (and far more important than their Ferdinands, which are both modelled in the game). As for Stalin, Churchill et al ordering the deployment, the vast majority of things the player does in HoI wouldn't have been ordered at that level, so that's neither here nor there.

And in terms of landmines, I'm not arguing for player intervention whenever they're used, but rather whenever extensive concentrations of them are used. Landmines would have been used in most defensive situations, but only in a specific number of situations did the defenders 'go large'. These situations should be relatively rare, and also somewhat cost a material amount of supplies (I think it was 400,000 or so landmines at Kursk, although that's off the top of my head, I could be out by a fair factor there).

I agree that there's a decent argument to be made for leaving out an extended dig-in mechanic that would reflect landmines as too onerous for the players (much like divisional commanders and the OOB, although unlike divisional commanders and the OOB, it's not just an immersion thing), but not on the grounds they didn't have a strategic impact, or that they didn't affect different battles to a different degree.

If there weren't landmines, maybe the Axis might have forced a draw instead of a loss at Kursk, and the 8th Army might have got to Tripoli sooner and perhaps even forestalled a lot of the Axis build-up in Tunisia (which, ironically, would have been to the Axis' advantage, not losing nearly a quarter of a million prisoners and all that). Of course, landmines alone didn't turn the conflict, but then no single factor did, not even atomic weapons, so that's no argument for not including them.

 

[Gethsemani]

At Kursk and El Alamein, anti-vehicle mines were laid in their tens and hundreds of thousands, and had a strategic impact. It didn't happen often, but when it did happen, it happened in ways that impacted materially on battles that are seen as turning points in the war. Landmines were in all likelihood more important than Germany's Tigers at Kursk (and far more important than their Ferdinands, which are both modelled in the game). As for Stalin, Churchill et al ordering the deployment, the vast majority of things the player does in HoI wouldn't have been ordered at that level, so that's neither here nor there.

And in both those cases, the "Build Fortifications" option is a viable way to simulate the extra effort taken to reinforce the Kursk Salient or front at El-Alamein. Both did not only involve landmines but also extensive defensive fortifications and defensive preparations, in the case of Kursk apparently to such a degree that civilians were called in to help dig trenches and tank trap. I see your logic and it is sound, I am also not arguing with the importance of landmines as an area denial weapon, I just don't think a good grand strategy game should be clogged down with minute decisions that results in needless busy work for the player.

 

[Axe99]

And in both those cases, the "Build Fortifications" option is a viable way to simulate the extra effort taken to reinforce the Kursk Salient or front at El-Alamein. Both did not only involve landmines but also extensive defensive fortifications and defensive preparations, in the case of Kursk apparently to such a degree that civilians were called in to help dig trenches and tank trap. I see your logic and it is sound, I am also not arguing with the importance of landmines as an area denial weapon, I just don't think a good grand strategy game should be clogged down with minute decisions that results in needless busy work for the player.

Aye - this would work well if lower level fortifications were quicker to build than higher level fortifications - I think the base build time for forts in HoI3 was 180 days, whereas Kursk's fortifications began in late April for a July battle. If fortifications worked like they did in HoI3, it wouldn't be a viable option, but if they were tweaked so that the first 1-3 fort levels took a month or two, say, going up to the six months for the higher levels, then that'd do the job nicely. Not that we have any idea how fort construction works in HoI4 yet, so that's all guesswork.

On the by, I agree that we don't want to bog things down with too much detail (in a couple of my posts now), but having an optional 'dig in +' option (or some other approach) that's only going to be used a few times each game is hardly busywork. The overload factor is more going to be something along the lines of UI clutter and players needing to know a rule that only applies in very specific situations (which I still think is worth avoiding ). Also, I'm not saying the game needs this kind of thing (either quick-build low-level fortifications or dig-in+, or something else that did a similar job) in its mechanics or it'll fail or anything crazy dramatic like that, just that 'it'd be nice if it was there'.

 

[Secret Master]

On the by, I agree that we don't want to bog things down with too much detail (in a couple of my posts now), but having an optional 'dig in +' option (or some other approach) that's only going to be used a few times each game is hardly busywork. The overload factor is more going to be something along the lines of UI clutter and players needing to know a rule that only applies in very specific situations (which I still think is worth avoiding ). Also, I'm not saying the game needs this kind of thing (either quick-build low-level fortifications or dig-in+, or something else that did a similar job) in its mechanics or it'll fail or anything crazy dramatic like that, just that 'it'd be nice if it was there'.

Eh, I think this is best set up with a dig-in bonus that is affected by the presence of engineers that fires automatically.

That's kind of a half-way between "press the button for mines" and "vague dig-in bonus that doesn't cost anything." I wouldn't want to have to press the button every time I want to deploy anti-vehicle minefields, but there's a difference between "dudes digging foxholes" and "engineers just laid a nice minefield in front of a trench network." And the difference is in expertise and materials. Giving engineers a special dig-in bonus and a higher supply cost negates the need for pressing the button and models these differences.

EDIT:

Because let's be honest, ENG in HOI3 could be underwhelming at times.

 

[Axe99]

Eh, I think this is best set up with a dig-in bonus that is affected by the presence of engineers that fires automatically.

That's kind of a half-way between "press the button for mines" and "vague dig-in bonus that doesn't cost anything." I wouldn't want to have to press the button every time I want to deploy anti-vehicle minefields, but there's a difference between "dudes digging foxholes" and "engineers just laid a nice minefield in front of a trench network." And the difference is in expertise and materials. Giving engineers a special dig-in bonus and a higher supply cost negates the need for pressing the button and models these differences.

EDIT:

Because let's be honest, ENG in HOI3 could be underwhelming at times.

Haha, aye, I tended to build engineers more for role-playing purposes than because I felt I desparately needed them in my divs, although they were very handy when attacking across rivers.

In terms of micro though, wouldn't something like Gethsemani's suggestion, of being able to use fortifications (so being able to build low-level forts quick enough to respond to discovering an enemy battle-plan) be a less fiddly answer to the issue? Having to remember to have engineers around (remembering that we can't just switch brigades between divisions, so we'd need tailored 'fortification divisions' or something where we wanted to defend strongpoints) or to build them in advance is, if anything, more work than just selecting 'press button for advanced dig-in' or building and deploying forts (I'm warming to the 'quick forts' option m'self - say you could build a level 1 fort in four weeks, but you have to build in-province, instead of in a build queue and then deploy, players are only likely to do it in places where they think they've got time for the for to be built or they could lose a lot of wasted IC on overrun half-built forts). That, and engineers would be a constant drain on supplies, rather than just costing the player/AI when they wanted to develop the deeper levels of defence that we're talking about. If I was trying to replicate what happened at Kursk, having to make sure I had enough engineers on hand is more fiddly than just choosing to low-level fortify the area, and I wouldn't need to pay for the supplies for those engineers when they weren't fortifying.

Note that I'm not talking about 'standard defences', but more the deep defenses built for battles like El Alamein and Kursk, which were put together faster than you can build forts in HoI3, but felt like they represented a good deal more than just being well dug-in. It's not something a player would be doing all the time except in fairly unusual circumstances.

 

[Secret Master]

Having to remember to have engineers around (remembering that we can't just switch brigades between divisions, so we'd need tailored 'fortification divisions' or something where we wanted to defend strongpoints)

Or, if engineers are a support battalion, and you can unlock 5 total support slots (I think?), then you just decide that engineers are something all divisions (except maybe partisan suppression forces) get.

 

[Axe99]

Or, if engineers are a support battalion, and you can unlock 5 total support slots (I think?), then you just decide that engineers are something all divisions (except maybe partisan suppression forces) get.

Haha, but then the average spelling and grammar capability of the armed forces would plummet . Not sure if you're serious, but if engineers were the trigger for 'deeper dig-in - ie Kursk/El Alamein-style fortifications that don't quite meet the criterion for built forts in HoI3 (if only because they can't be built in the time available), and every division had one, then every unit that sat around for three months would be dug-in to the level of Kursk, which might mess with the flow of gameplay (I could imagine the Brits/French wanting to get engineers in their divs early, for example, to turn the French border into a mess of minefields all the way to the channel).

 

[Secret Master]

I could imagine the Brits/French wanting to get engineers in their divs early, for example, to turn the French border into a mess of minefields all the way to the channel).

Which would then also mean that engineers on the offensive would negate some of this based on relative tech levels, perhaps? Meaning that hard choices would have to be made and you would need some intel on what the enemy was doing.

Or you just fly over the minefields and bomb the dug-in divisions.

 

[Tekore]

Would it be workable to have provinces with fortifications cause a temporary attrition increase to all non-engineer equipped units conquering the province whether or not an enemy unit is occupying the province?