New ideas to reduce AI divisions spam?

[Vlad123]

But supply is represented by... infrastructure, which is not a flux value but more like a cap, so the day-to-day supply need (and thus munition) effectively come of of thin air

Please, not open the thread on horribile supply system...exist a exaustive thread in forum...but the problem are add a thing can prevent (logically, not only a higer attrition) the division spam

 

[Leinad965]

I would do the following:
1. Limit number of divisions a general can command relative to level(lvl 1- 4 div, lvl 2-8 div, lvl 3 - 12 div etc.

2. Limit number of divisions to the capacity of generals. No more ai using as many armies as it has divisions without a general. You need a general!

3. Limit generals to the amount of field marshalls. You want 6 generals? Promote another field marshall.

Increase pp cost for every new general created.

So in your game, there will be France with few divisions (a few generals, severely limited political power), Italy with not enough divisions and lot of 4 division armies (and Italian divisions are smaller than other countries), Japan with big 36 division armies (trained lvl 9 generals from China), every one will use 40 width (to save PP for generals/mashals), AI will perform worse (since HOI3 AI has issues with general/HQ management; AI need lot of divisions to proper garrisons and not be encircled).

 

[karimjebari]

I can recommend trying my mod, that explicitly seeks to address this issue and some other problematic balancing problems.

Steam Workshop::Late War Balance

steamcommunity.com

Unit upkeep attrition 0.01 #Constant attrition value applied to armies #defines

Attrition from terrain: #terrain

forest & hills: 0.1 (from 0)
plains & urban: 0.1 (from 0)
jungle 0.4 (from 0.3)
desert 0.3 (from 0.2)

manpower for INF & CAV 1200 (from 1000)
manpower for MOT & MECH 1500 (from 1200)

Reduced reliability for equipment

Inf equip: 1939 0.8 (from 0.9)
Inf equip: 1942 0.7 (from 0.9)

Economy and manpower laws: the idea behind these changes is to make it more costly to militarize society. War economy may require measures to improve stability, such as improving working conditions. Conscription laws reduce war support, so will require propaganda efforts. This enhances realism and prevents some PP bloat.

Mobilized economy now hurts stability and costs political power (PP) #economic_ideas
Partial: stability: -5%, -0.05 PP
War economy: stability: -10%, -0.1 PP
Total mob: stability: -20%, -0.2 PP

Conscription laws reduce war support (WS), cost political power (PP), and reduce factory output and construction speed. Less manpower from the last two laws. #manpower
Extensive conscription: WS: -10%, PP: -0.1, factory output: -10%, construction speed: -10% (from 0%/0%)
Service by requirement: WS: -20%, PP: -0.2, factory output: -20%, construction speed: -20% (from -10%/-10%)
All adults serve: manpower: 15% (from 20%) WS: -30%, PP: -0.3
Scraping the barrel: manpower: 20% (from 25%) WS: -40%, PP:-0.4

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Please, not open the thread on horribile supply system...exist a exaustive thread in forum...but the problem are add a thing can prevent (logically, not only a higer attrition) the division spam

Why did you disagree with my post? I agree with you that supply should *not* come out of thin air by pointing out the issue of Bunnytob's analysis

 

[seattle]

a more realistic are the following :
Money: taxes from people and trade or exportation. Withouth money soldiers fougth worse
Ammo: withouth ammo your army is useless.
Food : withouth food your soldiers die.

I also love Vicky 2!

 

[Vlad123]

I also love Vicky 2!

are various ideas teorically need only 1 for Balance spamming

 

[Diakonen]

So in your game, there will be France with few divisions (a few generals, severely limited political power), Italy with not enough divisions and lot of 4 division armies (and Italian divisions are smaller than other countries), Japan with big 36 division armies (trained lvl 9 generals from China), every one will use 40 width (to save PP for generals/mashals), AI will perform worse (since HOI3 AI has issues with general/HQ management; AI need lot of divisions to proper garrisons and not be encircled).

True, but it would be fewer divisions maybe I did not think it through..

Worth pointing out is the lvl 1 having 4 divisions was just an arbitary number. Surely it would need to be balanced.

Also that the AI has problem with garrisons and encirclement should not be an argument. This would alsp have to be fixed. Maybe if the AI stopped shuffling units all over it would not need as many divisions.

My proposal is based on that we should use the chain of command that is used in game.

 

[DukofDeth]

The problem comes from how the AI perceives its needs. The AI for each nation needs to have a focus on a few key areas, with the rest being left alone for a lack of resources. Even the British with their global interests only had so much they could do, which was partly how the Japanese were able to conquer so much so quickly - the Europeans had stripped their Asian possessions to defend themselves at home. Manpower laws should be locked behind desperate need, as well as not be a doubling of the last percentage. The AI also needs to ensure it reseves enough manpower for its other arms [navy & air force].

 

[Vlad123]

The problem comes from how the AI perceives its needs. The AI for each nation needs to have a focus on a few key areas, with the rest being left alone for a lack of resources. Even the British with their global interests only had so much they could do, which was partly how the Japanese were able to conquer so much so quickly - the Europeans had stripped their Asian possessions to defend themselves at home. Manpower laws should be locked behind desperate need, as well as not be a doubling of the last percentage. The AI also needs to ensure it reseves enough manpower for its other arms [navy & air force].

Exactly! Training units, having manpower ... it's okay a "bottleneck" but the problem must be maintaining them. A soldier is not a robot with an atomic battery that advances nonstop. The soldier needs food, ammunition ... if the petrol problem were real (ie that planes, ships, wagons, trucks etc DO NOT MOVE not that they have malus) it would also be good and would partially solve the problem. But whether the limiter is called food, ammunition or money, it matters little. The important thing is to put on! A game failed because the creator (oh well, there was only one programmer who also had to do another job to support himself, but the problem was there) did not set an "army limit" that is, you were spamming troops as if there were none one tomorrow; then small states were created that had armies, which realistically, they could not maintain. That is, I don't see him [insert any minor state here] with an army of 100 divisions when realistically he could have maintained yes and no 10 or 20.
I can understand the USA, Germany or the USSR, which can even put 200-300 divisions ... but that Switzerland will send me 100 divisions towards the end of the game, all on mountain provinces ...As I said, a resource would be needed to recruit and maintain troops. Once the troop consumption in the field equals the stolen production / resources, the recruitment stops. Or do you want to recruit again? Draw on your reserves: however, if you reach 0 you have heavy malus (as in some paradox games) that are always heavier until you go into "default" forcing you to surrender or similar. War is a considerable effort, if you can keep it away from your borders it is better (I remember that up to 43-44 the standard of living in Germany was quite high despite being at war and up to 44/45 Hitler paid 20k Reichsmark monthly repayments of MEFOs, if I'm not mistaken since 39).
War, as I repeat: Cost! If you manage to win it, you make up for it at the expense of the loser, if you lose: collapse (see germany after ww1 and 2, also italy and japan ... ok italy in ww1 even if it was a winner it had only had the crumbs of the losers)