Please Consider: Weapon Variants

[warith1000]

I'm a gun nut IRL and having weapons variants would be nice. Like what was said previously it gives a connection to the weaponry (which I can attest is very much real as I own some relatively obsolescent firearms) which has a historical awe to it. (Also small arms mod please!)

 

[Orlunu]

(Also small arms mod please!)

Shouldn't be too hard. Use the system used for requiring "infantry supplies" and "support supplies", add more supply types, make each type a specific small arms type, integrate small arms into the variant system... Art will be the biggest problem (again).

Would love for someone to do that. On to the big list of required mods it goes!

 

[Jongmaster]

Variants add a unique dimension to the HOI franchise, and are an important tool for allowing players to express their creative and strategic personalities into the game.

Players want to imprint their stamp onto the choices in the game. The Division Designer and Variants System are nods to this by PDS. Weapon Variants would further allow people to express their need to design their version of their army.

I think this is an excellent idea, I hope they add this before release

 

[Secret Master]

I am not sure how I feel about any of this.

I understand why there are no variants from a game design perspective. I also understand the arguments for having variants. More control of equipment has great potential for players to just have fun.

Perhaps after I play the actual game, I might have a stronger opinion either way. Perhaps there is a better path forward beyond "no variants" and "variants FTW"

 

[208]

No no- the idea is to use the vaient to change the infantry toe- no need to build mg34 and mg 42 any different than is.

Just changing the organisation (eg two machine guns in a squad instead of 1 like Germans did) changes the stats; and maybe how much supply and production needs.

To enact that change in real life, "all" you would need to do is build some extra MGs and distribute them (ignoring training/etc). In the OP's proposal, you would need to build whole new infantry equipment packages (which include MGs, rifles, SMGs, mortars, socks, canteens, etc), which is a lot more expensive in terms of industry use than it should be.

If you really want to do this kind of variation, what you'd need is to create variants of the infantry battalion itself (which changes the amount of infantry equipment it uses - the equipment can remain abstract), not the infantry equipment. That way, a small change in ToE means a small impact in equipment production, not total replacement.

(As with any abstraction, there are absurdities either way if you think too literally about them in real-life terms, so it's best not to. In the first case, if you only have the single-MG infantry equipment in stock, you can't replace your broken rifle unless you also trade in one of your squad's MGs to go back to the old ToE. In the second, you can just equip all your squads with a second MG by handing out your stockpile of spare socks. Absurdities like these aren't really a good argument either way.)

 

[mursolini]

I follow, but still disagree. Not every country replaced their basic infantry rifle, but many did. The Inf weapons tech only has about 3 levels , dated 1918, 1940 and 1942. This represents the addition of Semi Automatic Rifles, upgraded machine gun variants, handheld AT weapons such as Bazookas / PIATs, and Assault Rifles among other changes in small arms technology such as improved mines, improved grenades etc. I would prefer it to be broken down into smaller techs for pure realism's sake, but as an abstraction it's still, at least, representing a genuine upgrade of significant quantities of the small arms of a given division. It's fuzzy at the edges, I agree, but still significantly less problematic than this example because you're not replacing all of the equipment for a side-grade.

Many? Remind us whom exactly, besides USA. Many tried, but US is the only example that managed to follow through, as far as I`m aware.

I think you dont have any kind of knowledge of the doctrines used by different countries in ww2 apart from what you can see in history channel if you say that. OP pretend to simulate even better the differences of squad compostion and doctrines between countries than you can currently. Right now you get bonuses there and there in an abstract 4 way doctrine tree that doesnt impact ic consumption.

This way also you can give to your assault units certain equipment better suited to its job at lower IC cost or increased reliability. For example, you want marine divisions with better than average assault weapons and reliability at the expense of anti tank weapons or paradropers with increased support weapons to capture and hold while the main troops get there.

you can also model the MG squad level of german doctrine or the semiautomatic M1 Garand of the american doctrine... etc.

This will likely be a mod so if you are not interested in this, you are not forced to get it. There is no reason to keep something simple if you can improve the gameplay and make the strategic potential even deeper.

Explain, why does squad composition meter in a game, where the smallest unit is division. (how is game play affected? Why would Germany want to change it`s infantry squad makeup?)

The difference in overall armament of divisions tended to be very small. Most divisions had up to a hundred of various MGs, up to 150 mortars, up to 100 cannons, and variations were more among the structure of attached support.

 

[Orlunu]

Many? Remind us whom exactly, besides USA. Many tried, but US is the only example that managed to follow through, as far as I`m aware.

Explain, why does squad composition meter in a game, where the smallest unit is division. (how is game play affected? Why would Germany want to change it`s infantry squad makeup?)

I'll have you know that the UK went into the war with the Rifle No.1 Mk.III and came out of it with the Rifle No.4 Mk.I, thank you very much.

Squad composition matters in that it effects the proportion of different weapons. Trebling the machinegun use of a division, for instance, is a change made at squad level with very much division level impact.

To enact that change in real life, "all" you would need to do is build some extra MGs and distribute them (ignoring training/etc). In the OP's proposal, you would need to build whole new infantry equipment packages (which include MGs, rifles, SMGs, mortars, socks, canteens, etc), which is a lot more expensive in terms of industry use than it should be.

Which is why we need the small arms mod to break it down to individual types of small arms, rather than just "infantry supplies". *planning too much work intensifies*

 

[mursolini]

I'll have you know that the UK went into the war with the Rifle No.1 Mk.III and came out of it with the Rifle No.4 Mk.I, thank you very much.

Why do you count slightly optimized for mass production rifle similar to migration from Springfield 1903 to M1 Garand?
If anything, it is handled pretty well by production system already, as production becomes more efficient.

Squad composition matters in that it effects the proportion of different weapons. Trebling the machinegun use of a division, for instance, is a change made at squad level with very much division level impact.

Can you pinpoint how exactly much impact did it have, and what kind of strategy is the player supposed to employ regarding this?
Under what circumstances is the player supposed to change that composition, and for what purpose?

It doesn`t seem like a necessary option, at all, considering we are supposed to add more expensive stuff like tanks, the player will simply always go for the maximum practical amount of MGs.

 

[Orlunu]

Can you pinpoint how exactly much impact did it have, and what kind of strategy is the player supposed to employ regarding this?
Under what circumstances is the player supposed to change that composition, and for what purpose?

Well, gee, I guess you might want lots of anti-tank weapons if you're expecting to go up against lots of tanks, and not so many if you're expecting to face none. Lots of SMGs and possibly even body armour for getting up close and personal, longer range marksman rifles &c if you're expecting more open terrain. Go to the expense of sidearms for every soldier, or only for rear echelon troops and give them no long arm? Each type of weapon would have its advantages and disadvantages, and you would weigh those against your situation to arrive at deciding what mix you want.

Ofc, it's more micro-y, so probably best as a DLC or mod, but it brings literally no disadvantage if the troops just default to the standard equipment load and the default production set of equipment is the standard too. Only mess around with it if you want to.

 

[mursolini]

Well, gee, I guess you might want lots of anti-tank weapons if you're expecting to go up against lots of tanks, and not so many if you're expecting to face none. Lots of SMGs and possibly even body armour for getting up close and personal, longer range marksman rifles &c if you're expecting more open terrain. Go to the expense of sidearms for every soldier, or only for rear echelon troops and give them no long arm? Each type of weapon would have its advantages and disadvantages, and you would weigh those against your situation to arrive at deciding what mix you want.

If you expect to see tanks, AT battalions are far more valuable than customising infantry gear. If you`re in open terrain, get more heavy artillery. Engineers for close combat.

I don`t see what this option adds, infantry equipment variation will almost always have negligible impact compared to adding/removing battalions of special stuff from division.

Ofc, it's more micro-y, so probably best as a DLC or mod, but it brings literally no disadvantage if the troops just default to the standard equipment load and the default production set of equipment is the standard too. Only mess around with it if you want to.

There is, it consumes valuable combat experience, thus it has to be powerful. Thus, it introduces all range of problems.

 

[Orlunu]

I don`t see what this option adds, infantry equipment variation will almost always have negligible impact compared to adding/removing battalions of special stuff from division.

Being able to change particular divisions, not having to make a different template for each minorly different role? Quicker response than having to start up AT gun / heavy artillery production? Not being as expensive, for countries who are choking for IC? Not having to cart around and supply such heavy duty gear? Speed, reliability, if you've got infantry buffs but not arty buffs &c &c &c. Sure, a few bazookas will never match the tank-killing power of a TD battalion, but there's plenty of cases where it may be the more sensible thing to build.

it consumes valuable combat experience

Even if you aren't modifying it? Weird, I've totally misunderstood the variant system.

 

[ArcandSpark]

Even if you modify your equipment, it won't have a huge impact (it could I don't know) or it could have a small one. If it's a small impact then it can use less combat experience than using the varient system for tanks or planes.

 

[mursolini]

Being able to change particular divisions, not having to make a different template for each minorly different role? Quicker response than having to start up AT gun / heavy artillery production? Not being as expensive, for countries who are choking for IC? Not having to cart around and supply such heavy duty gear? Speed, reliability, if you've got infantry buffs but not arty buffs &c &c &c. Sure, a few bazookas will never match the tank-killing power of a TD battalion, but there's plenty of cases where it may be the more sensible thing to build.

The whole point of division templates, is that you don`t have to micro the individual division composition, and search for highly specialized division among the mass of others. The game doesn`t allow you to modify individual divisions equipment priority, only that of template(AFAIK).

The game requires you to plan ahead, having to suffer the consequences is not necessarily bad. Also, it`s not like new enemy equipment will hit the front lines over night.

I`m still at loss, as to why do you think infantry gear made notable impact in either soft attack of unit, or unit anti-armor capability. The best RPGs managed to achieve was less than 20% of enemy loses of tanks for urban warfare (Soviet casualty statistic) and around 5% on plains. Soldier casualty statistic, again, shows that explosives and shrapnel being overwhelming leader, with small arms being rather small factor. Even if your "infantry equipment variant" would be 20-30% more efficient than basic one in some area, it would provide impact so minor, it is not worthy of efforts.

Even if you aren't modifying it? Weird, I've totally misunderstood the variant system.

Resources in game are subject to opportunity cost. I suggest you cut down on patronizing and think it thrugh.

 

[Denkt]

The closest to infantry variants the game have is that infantry actually get techs such as support equipment and anti tank weapons, all equipments that do have variants get no other techs then the ones that unlock the equipment.

So if infantry equipment do get variants they should remove all techs but the weapon tech line.

 

[Orlunu]

I`m still at loss, as to why do you think infantry gear made notable impact in either soft attack of unit, or unit anti-armor capability. The best RPGs managed to achieve was less than 20% of enemy loses of tanks for urban warfare (Soviet casualty statistic) and around 5% on plains. Soldier casualty statistic, again, shows that explosives and shrapnel being overwhelming leader, with small arms being rather small factor. Even if your "infantry equipment variant" would be 20-30% more efficient than basic one in some area, it would provide impact so minor, it is not worthy of efforts.


Resources in game are subject to opportunity cost. I suggest you cut down on patronizing and think it thrugh.

Mostly because my main historical attention is on the Pacific theatre, where differences in such armament had enormous effects, not on the Soviets. There, too, explosions and shrapnel were the biggest killers. This came mostly from infantry mortars and grenades, which were infantry weapons themselves and were very much dependant on personal and squad level firearms to suppress the enemy and so on. "Most kills were from explosives" != "firearms differences were unimportant".

Opportunity cost is the loss of options you get when you pick one out of a mutually exclusive set. You are not losing options in this setup. This does not apply.

Patronizing is fun, thinking things thrugh is boring.

 

[Wilbry]

Woah guys, ease up on the hostility.

To address some of the bigger issues people have with the idea:

1. sending back 100 rifles to get back 90 of the same rifles and 10 submachineguns - this is not an issue of infantry weapons and their package format. It is exactly the same as replacing a PzIV with a PzIV +schurzen - Why do I have to send back a perfectly good tank to get the same model tank from the factory but with armoured skirts pre-bolted? It is an artefact of the variant system and applies to all variants.
2. giving attention to infantry weapons is a waste of time because they do not contribute to battle statistics - infantry have general upgrade techs and there is no raging against that idea. Also, the claim that how infantry was equipped made no difference is puzzling...especially where you can have a tank variant that goes 2km/hr faster than another - yet no complaining about how tank speed did not account for 30% of all casualties and is therefore pointless.
3. too much micro - it had no further level of complexity than already exists. It simply gives infantry the same treatment as armour and aircraft. I would be surprised if a player spent any more than 4 minutes of their 8 hour game on ALL variants combined...and if they did spend a lot of time on it...isn't that awesome? doesn't that mean they are enjoying spending time on that section? Is not the ENTIRE game about delving into the strategy aspects of the era?

The idea behind Infantry equipment variants was:

1. to ease the burden on division design. People have a need to express their individuality on a game. The forum is full of posts on "how are you going to design your divisions". If people are allowed to express that differentiation through equipment as well as battalion assignment, they will get a more complete sense of creation.
2. to soak up army experience. Currently the only thing the army learns to do is build better tanks and modify the size of its divisions. I think a third vector would help make the decisions more meaningful.

As far as making variants for everything...."variants FTW" - I thought about it but there are not a lot of other equipments that are appropriate, perhaps artillery (but even that could probably be better handled with just having light and heavy battalion types).
I agree it can get too excessive which is probably why the devs stuck with the most iconic and easy for players to get.