It's about one and a half years before I wrote the my last wall of text about land warefare and among the discussion about the soft attack nerf I thought I could give it another try. I'm happy that paradox did solve some of the issues I had, for example units under attack no longer being locked down, able to move or counterattack. However some issues still remain:
1. Division size matters
Bigger divisions still deal more damage and take less casualties than smaller ones. On the flipside, many small divisions have more organisation. While that tradeoff is IMHO still in favor of big divisions, with air superiority, CAS and fortresses spamming 10 width divisions actually became a valid strategy to if not win at least delay a war.
In comes the tiger. I have not given this in depth testing but the force attack/last stand mechanic essentially gives your big divisions infinite ORG. Yes you take more strength damage but the upside of big divisions is having lots of HP and defense thus being able to take a hit.
The fix would actually be easy: big divisions are better because every hour, one division always targets only one other division in a fight and I don't know why the devs made it that way. Wouldn't it be much easier to add up all the attack scores of the divisions then randomly distribute them over the enemy divisions? The current system is not more realistic, with each division shifting their attack to another enemy every hour.
2. Fortresses
Pretty much every HOI 4 player will agree that attacking a level 10 fortress is one of the least favourite things they do in the game. Virtually all MP lobbies restrict fortresses to level 5, level 7 at most. Why do people think forts are OP? Because instead of giving bonuses to the defender they give maluses to the attacker.
The reason for this is, the following: once your defense is higher than your enemy's attack, you take the same amount of damage. It does not matter if you have the same defense as your enemy's attack, twice or ten times as much.
Forts nerfing the attackers attack values therefore makes sense to a certain degree, however they also nerf the breakthrough values, making it very costly to attack a fort. On the flipside, forts get damaged quite easily by prolonged combat or strategic bombing which is something I also find quite strange - I don't think the Maginot line was that prone to airstrikes but I might be wrong here.
I think it would be better if forts didn't give maluses to enemy units, instead they should provide the defenders with a fortress bonus similar to the armor bonus. After all sitting in a bunker makes you at least as much of a hard target as sitting in a tank. Stugs and other assault guns being effective against forts (having piercing) would just fit right in here.
3. Retreating and overrunning units
It is kind of weird how all divisions retreat from a province when all units on the frontline retreat at the same time. IMHO in WW2 massive routs did not happen. If a division's morale breaks, that division retreats. Another division in the same province stationed as the next layer of defense does not go into full panic mode because the first layer broke. AFAIK this is how the soviets stopped the Germans in front of Moscow. The mechanic reminds me more of the compact and open battles that might happen in EU4 rather than WW2 warfare.
To simulate the negative impact of divisions retreating, each retreating division could put a temporary combat malus on all other divisions currently on the frontline. That means, if you decide to spam low width divisions and the first few retreat, that malus could stack up and manufactor a real rout.
On the other hand, beating the frontline while there are still divisions in reserve should not end the battle. If there are no defending divisions on the frontline and an attacking division reaches the target province, that division would be outflanking the defenders. This would mean that the unit managed to capture a strategic point in the province before the reserves managed to intercept. Outflanking the defenders could create several advantages:
The rate at which organisation recovers especially when low is too high and it creates all kinds of problem. This mechanic in particular is what gives the incentive for making divisions with as much soft attack as possible while max ORG is considered a useless stat.
It is also quite unrealistic if you ask me: I'd imagine it would take a lot more time for a division that scattered to reform itself into a proper combat unit than a division that took a few hits while fighting a winning battle to get back to 100% operational readyness. Right now, the opposite is the case.
I also don't think it is good that units that break (0 ORG) regain org at the normal high rate while low on ORG as they are retreating from their battle, makes no sense imho. They should only start regaining ORG when they finished their retreat.
1. Division size matters
Bigger divisions still deal more damage and take less casualties than smaller ones. On the flipside, many small divisions have more organisation. While that tradeoff is IMHO still in favor of big divisions, with air superiority, CAS and fortresses spamming 10 width divisions actually became a valid strategy to if not win at least delay a war.
In comes the tiger. I have not given this in depth testing but the force attack/last stand mechanic essentially gives your big divisions infinite ORG. Yes you take more strength damage but the upside of big divisions is having lots of HP and defense thus being able to take a hit.
The fix would actually be easy: big divisions are better because every hour, one division always targets only one other division in a fight and I don't know why the devs made it that way. Wouldn't it be much easier to add up all the attack scores of the divisions then randomly distribute them over the enemy divisions? The current system is not more realistic, with each division shifting their attack to another enemy every hour.
2. Fortresses
Pretty much every HOI 4 player will agree that attacking a level 10 fortress is one of the least favourite things they do in the game. Virtually all MP lobbies restrict fortresses to level 5, level 7 at most. Why do people think forts are OP? Because instead of giving bonuses to the defender they give maluses to the attacker.
The reason for this is, the following: once your defense is higher than your enemy's attack, you take the same amount of damage. It does not matter if you have the same defense as your enemy's attack, twice or ten times as much.
Forts nerfing the attackers attack values therefore makes sense to a certain degree, however they also nerf the breakthrough values, making it very costly to attack a fort. On the flipside, forts get damaged quite easily by prolonged combat or strategic bombing which is something I also find quite strange - I don't think the Maginot line was that prone to airstrikes but I might be wrong here.
I think it would be better if forts didn't give maluses to enemy units, instead they should provide the defenders with a fortress bonus similar to the armor bonus. After all sitting in a bunker makes you at least as much of a hard target as sitting in a tank. Stugs and other assault guns being effective against forts (having piercing) would just fit right in here.
3. Retreating and overrunning units
It is kind of weird how all divisions retreat from a province when all units on the frontline retreat at the same time. IMHO in WW2 massive routs did not happen. If a division's morale breaks, that division retreats. Another division in the same province stationed as the next layer of defense does not go into full panic mode because the first layer broke. AFAIK this is how the soviets stopped the Germans in front of Moscow. The mechanic reminds me more of the compact and open battles that might happen in EU4 rather than WW2 warfare.
To simulate the negative impact of divisions retreating, each retreating division could put a temporary combat malus on all other divisions currently on the frontline. That means, if you decide to spam low width divisions and the first few retreat, that malus could stack up and manufactor a real rout.
On the other hand, beating the frontline while there are still divisions in reserve should not end the battle. If there are no defending divisions on the frontline and an attacking division reaches the target province, that division would be outflanking the defenders. This would mean that the unit managed to capture a strategic point in the province before the reserves managed to intercept. Outflanking the defenders could create several advantages:
- Increased combat width
- Increased recon stats for the battle: should give advantage in picking favourable comat tactics
- The division could get the combat multipliers for defenders instead of attackers.
- The province changes sides as in the current game, but the reinforcements tie up the outflanking divisions in a battle. You would have a similar battle as if you land paradroppers directly ontop of an enemy division.
- The unit would be able to continue its assault into another province, risking the -50% combat malus if tied up in multiple fights due to fighting the lingering reserve units in it's province.
The rate at which organisation recovers especially when low is too high and it creates all kinds of problem. This mechanic in particular is what gives the incentive for making divisions with as much soft attack as possible while max ORG is considered a useless stat.
It is also quite unrealistic if you ask me: I'd imagine it would take a lot more time for a division that scattered to reform itself into a proper combat unit than a division that took a few hits while fighting a winning battle to get back to 100% operational readyness. Right now, the opposite is the case.
I also don't think it is good that units that break (0 ORG) regain org at the normal high rate while low on ORG as they are retreating from their battle, makes no sense imho. They should only start regaining ORG when they finished their retreat.
Last edited:
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
