Mobilisation or trained soldiers?

[Makeyourownmind]

If a country could demobilize troops and save supplies that would be great. Of course, a big standing army (in comparison to the IC) or a mobilisation could add to beligerence. And if you are a dictatorship, it may be cheaper to pay soldiers than in a democracy.

On the contrary, an army that puts the troops on the mission "training" would spend a lot of supplys extra (like in real battles), but could actually get limited experience for the troops.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yeah I wouldn't mind a vicky approach where you can lower the budget and have your divisions at say 10% manpower during peacetime. (meaning they would also eat only 10% supplies).

But the requirement for this to work is a separation of manpower and equipment so that we don't have to pay reinforcement costs and rebuild all the equipment for those understrenght divisions.

 

[Bullfrog]

Yeah I wouldn't mind a vicky approach where you can lower the budget and have your divisions at say 10% manpower during peacetime. (meaning they would also eat only 10% supplies).

But the requirement for this to work is a separation of manpower and equipment so that we don't have to pay reinforcement costs and rebuild all the equipment for those understrenght divisions.

But reinforcement costs 0.5 the IC of building...so I think that is simulated. But I would like separation of men and equipment regardless. That feature would solve many problems.

 

[Alex_brunius]

But reinforcement costs 0.5 the IC of building...so I think that is simulated.

Yes I know. But having the weapons and equipment you once built ready in a warehouse is almost free.

The last thing you want when someone suddenly declare war is to have to spend 200IC to rebuild (reinforce) you divisions with equipment they never lost in the first place.

 

[Biges]

Yes, Viscky approach is surely unique and should be emulated at least to some extent. This means mobilisation and its effect on the aggregate output of the economy.

 

[GLENN]

This is already modeled in HOI.

Troops do not consume oil when they are not moving.

Supply use goes up during combat. Oil is consumed.

You can use the Logistic Comanders to reduce consumption.

 

[Alex_brunius]

This is already modeled in HOI.

Troops do not consume oil when they are not moving.

Supply use goes up during combat. Oil is consumed.

You can use the Logistic Comanders to reduce consumption.

Mobilisation is not about peacetime use of divisons beeing cheaper than wartime.

Mobilisation is about the gains from only having a core structure in place that you fill out with conscripts called in when you need them.

An unmobilized nation in reality would have very few divisons capable of combat if any at all, that is NOT modeled in HoI2.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

It is all about abstractions, ie. name one country that did not have a mobilization system.

The fact is that had there been no underlying mobilization system, it would take literally years for a nation to construct an infantry division. But since all (relevant) countries did, this is abstracted. And it suits game balance perfectly. Germany starts out with lots of divisions and it is unstoppable when invading Poland, France and whatnot.

HOI isn't about portraying individual parts of reality, but rather constructing a game where you have some sense of realism but only as long as it doesn't get in the way of game balance and players' enjoyment.

 

[Wraith11B]

I'd also like to see an ability to mothball naval ships and aircraft; I always decom almost all of the US battlefleet at the start of a 36 scenario because its just a drain on the resources, and it's outclassed by the time 41 comes around.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Fluffammable: But what we are totally missing in HoI2 is the following simple option:

High mobilisation to be more ready and secure in case of invasion.
Low mobilisation to save resources that can be invested elsewhere.

Is this option too complex and "portraying individual parts of reality" or is it more to "have some sense of realism" ?

We have yet to see how the mobilisation laws work to know for sure.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

Fluffammable: But what we are totally missing in HoI2 is the following simple option:

High mobilisation to be more ready and secure in case of invasion.
Low mobilisation to save resources that can be invested elsewhere.

Is this option too complex and "portraying individual parts of reality" or is it more to "have some sense of realism" ?

We have yet to see how the mobilisation laws work to know for sure.

Well, since most armies at the start of the 1936 scenario are actually garrisons where the conscription system is churning out more cannon fodder for future wars, it seems as if ALL countries are on high mobilization from day one, which is sort of fitting for a world war two game (Consider the size of, say, the Swiss army in 1936 in HOI2). And to top that off, since there is absolutely nothing else to use your IC on except military capacity, all the countries of the world are "gearing up for the war" from 1936.

In games like Victoria and EU3, you have a choice of whether to go to war. In HOI the only choice you (possibly) have is WHEN to go to war. As such an event that makes the distinction of whether or not a war is likely and whether you should act accordingly is, in my opinion, somewhat out of place.

 

[unmerged(136038)]

I'd also like to see an ability to mothball naval ships and aircraft; I always decom almost all of the US battlefleet at the start of a 36 scenario because its just a drain on the resources, and it's outclassed by the time 41 comes around.

Well you can upgrade ships now. Or you can just sell them.