Let's talk about recruitment (an idea)

[Pietjepuk_NL]

Since a few weeks I’m getting back into HoI3, and while I was playing another Germany secession I was coming up with ideas which I would like to see in HOI3. I’m aware that chances are small that any of this is getting in the game, but whatever I love to brainstorm.

N.B. any of the numbers I use are just placeholders.

About: Recruitment

While playing I had some Idea's about training of Divisions. In the HOI3 you queue a division and wait till is 100% complete and deploy it at full strength (minus the organization). I think this system could be improved at a way which would allow for more flexibility, and would represent the 'real war' better.

In my idea you can deploy a division before it's fully complete at a cost of experience. This could be handy for example if you are in dire need of reinforcements at a crucial point in the front line, but can't miss troops elsewhere because you don’t have any existing troops to spare. In my idea you could deploy those 90% ready troops at the front for an experience penalty. You have your troops but they are considerable weaker than a fully trained division. This would mirror for example the battle of Stalingrad where the soviets deployed badly trained and ill-equipped troops to slow down the Germans.
HoI3 let's you choose between for example specialist training and minimalist training, but I always felt that this choice was easy, and to rigged you couldn’t really act in crisis situations.
So I would like suggest an idea which I think would improve the current system, and isn't too hard to implement. Instead of a binary system of 100% complete or not complete I would suggest a system which would resemble something like 'mmo-launcher'. You have 3 stages Red, Orange and green. Red means: that you can't do anything with it. Orange means: you can deploy it, but at a cost. Green means: it's done, but you can wait for some extra training ( resembling the specialist training of hoi3) As a player you can set deployment level (percentage of training time) at a Division level at in the division-planner, Marco level for all the units or for individual divisions. There would be also a 'deploy now', which gave you the ability to deploy (some) unites in emergency situations. The same could be implemented for equipment levels, so you could have a situation where you will send ill-equipped and ill-trained divisions to the front, as an emergency measure.

Let's make an example: I recruit an Infantry division (which required to 100 days to complete). In the Red stage the soldiers are called up, organization is set-up, equipment is send to the unit and training is started. This means that you can't do anything to the unit and you have to wait. But let’s say at 50% complete you can choose for deployment of the division. But the troops are very weak and aren't even fully equipped. Causality rates would be high if this division would be send fighting, but it could be hold off the enemy advance for a while. Each unit kind would be have use difference numbers, because a tank division would require more equipment to function than an infantry division. I think this system would be perfect for the new production system, because there is already a clear distinction between manpower (soldiers/personal) and equipment. This system give you more direct control, flexibility and makes you less vulnerable for untimely productions dates. Of course this system only works for land divisions, sending out a ship without an engine would be silly.

What are the drawbacks of deploying a division early? Massive starting experience losses would make the most sense. Let’s say a normal division which would take 100 days to train will have 100 starting experience. A division which only had 50 days of training should take a penalty, let’s say thy only start with 25 starting experience. The same for equipment, but I think there they should the same system as for not fully reinforced units. The other way round, better trained divisions should also a little bonus for the extra training. In HoI3 this was 20% extra training gave you 25 extra experience. I think this is also a nice cap, spending extra time at camp doesn't makes you a veteran. Maybe the badly trained soldiers should have some sort of experience boost, to compensate their high turnover rates. Front line fighting turn you in to a hardened soldier quickly.

TL;DR: there should be ‘Deploy Now’ button which lets you deploy division before they are fully trained, for a massive experience penalty.

 

[Dalwin]

I think it would not be that hard to find historical precedent for units which got deployed before some of their subunits were ready to go, only to have these eventually join up with them in the field.

 

[CarlClausewitz]

I like the idea.

In my opinion units should be formed as organisational units and then be filled with manpower, equipment and vehicles from a different pool.
You have a pool of potential manpower, which is still in your workforce.
Trained manpower - ready to be used in a division.
and a stockpile of weapons and vehicles to supply them.

Recruiting units should also influence your industry and agriculture.
Maybe you also need a manpower cost for your industry and it would be some kind of ressource.

 

[Snozzle91]

I also like the idea! +1

 

[unmerged(430195)]

I don't like the idea mainly because, frankly, this didn't really happen very much. Most nations had set training doctrines that ranged from giving their soldiers a gun and telling them good luck (the USSR...hell, sometimes you didn't even get a gun), to a decent amount of training before sending you into battle (the US), to making damn sure you were as well trained as humanly possible (the Germans, at least at the start of the war). And these were applied on an almost national level (I'm sure there were exceptions, but they would have been relatively few and far in between). Thus I think the laws/policy system is both the more accurate system and the one that makes more sense.

 

[Esben_DRK]

I think it would not be that hard to find historical precedent for units which got deployed before some of their subunits were ready to go, only to have these eventually join up with them in the field.

Well, in the case of USSR, until Operation Bagration, this was pretty much their MO. According to A. Beevor in his book The Second World War, this frustrated the Germans to no end, and really damaged the morale of ground troops. Along with the seemingly endless Russian plains, each time they had killed a Russian division, a new one would appear in front of them.

Most nations had set training doctrines that ranged from giving their soldiers a gun and telling them good luck (the USSR...hell, sometimes you didn't even get a gun)

That's actually inaccurate. The Soviet doctrine was not what is popularly portrayed as "gun and good luck", however, in the defense of Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and several other important areas, regular citizens were drafted and employed in whatever way necessary. This was out of desperation, and to imply that there were any Soviet commander who thought it could be used as a basis for a doctrine is laughable.
USSR were in dire straits well into '43, when their armies and commanders were finally free of the detailed political influences, their soldiers had gained crucial (And bloody) experience, and the production and supply of arms, armour and ammunition (Yes, that was a serious problem for USSR) was flowing faster and more reliable.

to making damn sure you were as well trained as humanly possible (the Germans, at least at the start of the war).

That's quite the overstatement of the German armed forces, at whatever point in time you want to look.
And for a German example of massed-but-unready bodies thrown into the war, check out Volksturm and read up on the defense of Germany on the East Front, or the Panzerfaust. If you want a cinematic example, check out Der Untergang, where groups of children and pensioners are armed with these things, trying to defend Berlin from Soviet tanks.
Much of the German plan after they lost in Operation Bagration was to stall the Red Army in Eastern Europe, and (Depending on level of delusion) either push back the allies and bomb London into submission, or negotiate peace with (Or even surrender to) the Allies in form of England and USA. That required an effective stop to the USSR advance, which was attempted through undermanned, underarmed, almost untrained troops sent to the frontlines.

I'm not sure if Nationalist China did anything like this as well, I recall that they did but not any examples.

 

[Mannstien]

On deployment I would still like to see training center's represented as factories if you will for division deployment instead of the ability to make divisions pop-up anywhere on your home territory or territory connected to yours which you control. I think Esben the problem with representing what the soviets were doing for their fortress defenses is that POP isn't represented in each province/region (at least to my knowledge) so somehow you would have to keep militia (which is what I think these soldiers more likely represented) from being able to just form in any province but instead close to production or training centers or near urban provinces (cities).

 

[Esben_DRK]

On deployment I would still like to see training center's represented as factories if you will for division deployment instead of the ability to make divisions pop-up anywhere on your home territory or territory connected to yours which you control.

That would really be awesome, and solve the problem that AI England is incapable of defending India in both HoI2 and HoI3. If Japan looks at it, it falls - because England can't recruit soldiers there. Or English colonies in Africa, of course.

I think Esben the problem with representing what the soviets were doing for their fortress defenses is that POP isn't represented in each province/region (at least to my knowledge) so somehow you would have to keep militia (which is what I think these soldiers more likely represented) from being able to just form in any province but instead close to production or training centers or near urban provinces (cities).

Well, in HoI3 you could upgrade Militia to Infantry and later Motorised/Mechanised etc, so yes, they could be Militia. That doesn't change the central thesis that USSR did conscript anyone (Okay, hyperbole) nearby and if they survived they'd get training and equipment when that was ready.
They did form brigades and divisions this way, that's my point. They weren't ready, but the military situation was not so they could wait for ready.

I'm not a gamedesigner so I don't know what would make for the best game, but to do this historically, it wasn't just USSR lowering their training laws.
(Just as it wasn't with Germany a couple of years later)

 

[unmerged(430195)]

That's actually inaccurate. The Soviet doctrine was not what is popularly portrayed as "gun and good luck", however, in the defense of Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and several other important areas, regular citizens were drafted and employed in whatever way necessary. This was out of desperation, and to imply that there were any Soviet commander who thought it could be used as a basis for a doctrine is laughable. USSR were in dire straits well into '43, when their armies and commanders were finally free of the detailed political influences, their soldiers had gained crucial (And bloody) experience, and the production and supply of arms, armour and ammunition (Yes, that was a serious problem for USSR) was flowing faster and more reliable.

Sorry, I was exaggerating the point to exacerbate the point, not trying to be completely accurate. The point I was trying to make was throughout the war the Red Army was consistently one of the least well organized and worst trained armies of any major (and even many minor) powers.

That's quite the overstatement of the German armed forces, at whatever point in time you want to look.

At the start of the war (like I said) that was actually quite true of the Wehrmacht. Granted, this had more to do with how men like Hans von Seeckt had chosen to reform the German army after the end of WWI than it did with Nazi brilliance, but the excellent Weimar-period military tradition and practices were transferred with the Nazis into the Wehrmacht.

Ironically, this was not necessarily true of the SS. In many cases the SS just made very bold and inefficient forward attacks until the enemy broke (especially early war) which frustrated the Wehrmacht commanders to no end because they saw the SS as uncooperative and inefficient loose canons.

And for a German example of massed-but-unready bodies thrown into the war, check out Volksturm and read up on the defense of Germany on the East Front, or the Panzerfaust. If you want a cinematic example, check out Der Untergang, where groups of children and pensioners are armed with these things, trying to defend Berlin from Soviet tanks.

I'm already aware of this. Also, please note how I noted this to be true for the Germans at the start of the war. By the end of the war, the Germans had adopted a desperate system very much similar to what the Soviets had had mid-war.

Also, this brings me back to the original discussion at hand which is: I think policies already cover this well enough. Deploying troops mid-training was never really done, what we saw was something far more similar to the concept of national "training laws" that we already have in HoI3 where training requirements were set almost universally depending on the country's need at the period in time.

 

[Esben_DRK]

Sorry, I was exaggerating the point to exacerbate the point, not trying to be completely accurate. The point I was trying to make was throughout the war the Red Army was consistently one of the least well organized and worst trained armies of any major (and even many minor) powers.

True, although that was also due to the Soviet forces being almost to a man drafted after '43.
It's hard to run an army without trained personnel, even if you're Zhukov.

At the start of the war (like I said) that was actually quite true of the Wehrmacht. Granted, this had more to do with how men like Hans von Seeckt had chosen to reform the German army after the end of WWI than it did with Nazi brilliance, but the excellent Weimar-period military tradition and practices were transferred with the Nazis into the Wehrmacht.

See, the thing I am disputing is not the excellence of several of the Wehrmacht leaders, or indeed several Nazi leaders (Check out Wikipedias list of the IQ of those tried in Nuremberg if you didn't know already), but the state of the German army in '39. It was not the same as in, say, '33. Nothing ruins a nations military capability as ignorant and meddlesome politicians, apparently, and in the German case they were also expanding their forces very fast. The officers were better than the Polish (Or French, English and especially Soviet) by a long shot, but there had simply not been the time to properly train the new German forces as well as humanly possible.

Ironically, this was not necessarily true of the SS. In many cases the SS just made very bold and inefficient forward attacks until the enemy broke (especially early war) which frustrated the Wehrmacht commanders to no end because they saw the SS as uncooperative and inefficient loose canons.

Calling the SS for an elite force (Which I have seen a few documentaries and also HoI3 do) is pretty funny.
You're entirely right; that for the most part, the SS divisions were pretty in uniform, and also made for pretty corpses on the battlefield.

Also, this brings me back to the original discussion at hand which is: I think policies already cover this well enough. Deploying troops mid-training was never really done, what we saw was something far more similar to the concept of national "training laws" that we already have in HoI3 where training requirements were set almost universally depending on the country's need at the period in time.

I would like to agree with you, but sadly, that's not how HoI3 represents it, which is why I agree (Edit: With OP) a change is needed.
In HoI3, as USSR, you click the For the Motherland decision, giving you "rodina" national modifier:

rodina={
	global_ic = 0.2
	global_leadership_modifier = 0.1
	#leader_defence = 0.25
	land_build_speed = -0.25
	tank_build_speed = -0.25
	#combat_movement_speed = -0.1
}

That build speed is to simulate the desperate measures that USSR undertook, at least according to the event description. It was not enough to lower the training laws, although if they are changed to accommodate these desperate measures, I'd agree that a "deploy before ready" is unnecessary.
(A similar decision, Defence, exists for Germany, and IIRC also one for England. The Kamikaze one for Japan isn't the same, if memory serves)

 

[unmerged(430195)]

True, although that was also due to the Soviet forces being almost to a man drafted after '43.
It's hard to run an army without trained personnel, even if you're Zhukov.

The harsh truth of it. The continuous officer purges did very little to help matters as well.

See, the thing I am disputing is not the excellence of several of the Wehrmacht leaders, or indeed several Nazi leaders (Check out Wikipedias list of the IQ of those tried in Nuremberg if you didn't know already), but the state of the German army in '39. It was not the same as in, say, '33. Nothing ruins a nations military capability as ignorant and meddlesome politicians, apparently, and in the German case they were also expanding their forces very fast. The officers were better than the Polish (Or French, English and especially Soviet) by a long shot, but there had simply not been the time to properly train the new German forces as well as humanly possible.

Again, I think you are reading too much into my comment, lol. As with the Soviet comment, it was just meant to signify that the German army was very highly trained compared to many of its contemporaries. You could even argue that the German Army was the best trained army at the beginning of the war.

Calling the SS for an elite force (Which I have seen a few documentaries and also HoI3 do) is pretty funny.
You're entirely right; that for the most part, the SS divisions were pretty in uniform, and also made for pretty corpses on the battlefield.

Yeah, the SS were generally pretty shitty fighters. There were certainly a few units that weren't terrible, but all-in-all they were better at sucking up manpower than anything else.

I would like to agree with you, but sadly, that's not how HoI3 represents it, which is why I agree (Edit: With OP) a change is needed.
In HoI3, as USSR, you click the For the Motherland decision, giving you "rodina" national modifier:

rodina={
	global_ic = 0.2
	global_leadership_modifier = 0.1
	#leader_defence = 0.25
	land_build_speed = -0.25
	tank_build_speed = -0.25
	#combat_movement_speed = -0.1
}

That build speed is to simulate the desperate measures that USSR undertook, at least according to the event description. It was not enough to lower the training laws, although if they are changed to accommodate these desperate measures, I'd agree that a "deploy before ready" is unnecessary.
(A similar decision, Defence, exists for Germany, and IIRC also one for England. The Kamikaze one for Japan isn't the same, if memory serves)

I would agree that we need a training law below the minimum of what is currently given. That is one that starts your units off with negative experience at the cost of much improved building speed. Then again, I think the whole recruitment laws system needs an overhaul, which I may make a post about at some point.

All in all, however, while do think that there are problems that need to be fixed, I do not think that the method described here is a good way to do it at all.

 

[Esben_DRK]

Again, I think you are reading too much into my comment, lol. As with the Soviet comment, it was just meant to signify that the German army was very highly trained compared to many of its contemporaries.

So we're discussing minutia semantics? My speciality!:laugh:
Alright, fair enough. I'm sorry for taking you literally - I blame the internet for that particular habit.

Yeah, the SS were generally pretty shitty fighters. There were certainly a few units that weren't terrible, but all-in-all they were better at sucking up manpower than anything else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Not baddies as bad guys, just bad as they are literally bad at warfare.
It's pretty funny, give That Mitchell and Webb Look a... eh, look.

I would agree that we need a training law below the minimum of what is currently given. That is one that starts your units off with negative experience at the cost of much improved building speed. Then again, I think the whole recruitment laws system needs an overhaul, which I may make a post about at some point.

All in all, however, while do think that there are problems that need to be fixed, I do not think that the method described here is a good way to do it at all.

So all in all, we do agree on the general problem, we do agree on how the solution should look, and we can disagree on implementation.
It has been a pleasure, my dear sir, I can't even dislike you.

 

[Mannstien]

What I meant was that if you were to be able to conscript militia forces than it should be restricted around urban provinces, industrial centers, etc. otherwise players could exploit the heck out of it if their country has the manpower to stop or slowdown exploitation through plains or jam them up in bad terrain. Ideally I would rather my new divisions just deploy in the training centers province and to represent milita type units forming there could be some sort of mechanic after losing so many of your VP's you can activate xx number of militia in your remaining cities or near the training centers per month and it deducts their arms from you stockpile plus manpower.

BICE represents these with events which really isn't much different but I guess my main point was just to make sure they weren't easily exploitable.

 

[unmerged(430195)]

So we're discussing minutia semantics? My speciality!:laugh:
Alright, fair enough. I'm sorry for taking you literally - I blame the internet for that particular habit.

I know the feeling, brother. I am used to dealing with Young Earth Creationists and some times take things way too literally, because I've learned to be overly cautious, lol. In your place I probably would have done the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Not baddies as bad guys, just bad as they are literally bad at warfare.
It's pretty funny, give That Mitchell and Webb Look a... eh, look.

Yeah, that's what I meant. They were shitty fighters. They sucked up manpower like no tomorrow because they tended to do absurd charges that wound up suffering huge casualties. They were extremely inefficient, to the point where they fought more like Russians than Germans, lol.

So all in all, we do agree on the general problem, we do agree on how the solution should look, and we can disagree on implementation.
It has been a pleasure, my dear sir, I can't even dislike you.

The pleasure is mine, 'ol boy. I can respect your position.