Power of armored divisions

[Jorgen_CAB]

The thing which I have noticed are that armored forces have way too little penalties in difficult terrain (at least it seems so). When you factor in things as combined arms bonuses which will almost cancel out the negative modifiers for most terrain (except mountain and marches).

Here is one example...

2xInfantry-Divisions (3xInf), 1941 who defend in a Forest aginst...
1xArmored-Divisiosn (3xArm, 1xAC), 1941.

The armored divisions are most likely led by a panzer leader which make the CA bonus 30%. The Infantry are dug in which increases their defense and attack efficiency by 20%. I otherwise assume leader skill and traits to be even.
The Armored-Division will get a total penalty in the forest by -20% that is a regular penalty and -35% for the formation. This equals a total penalty of -25% on attack efficiency while the infantry get 100% efficiency.

This will result in that both sides actually will get of an equal number of shots against each other every combat round, which is about 15. The infantry will probably win a marginal victory due to having more brigades in combat and that they can take greater combat loss.

In my opinion two equally technological forces like this and the armored forces should not be that powerful in that kind of terrain. Even a single infantry division should be able to hold against such an armor heavy (very little infantry support) formation attacking when dug in. The infantry division will currently be completely destroyed if it was alone.

Using AT brigades are way too situational and still cost 100 officers (and take up space in the division), so they will never be used since they are pathetic on anything but low softness divisions who there usually are not that many of and those that are there can quite easy avoid infantry equipped with it.

Sure, there will probably be a mod out there to correct things like this and I certainly will see what I can do in my game. But I would like to have a small discussion with you here, what do you think about these probabilities?

Note:
A 1941 Artillery brigade will do 3.3 hits on a 33% softness divisions while an AT will do 4.3 hits. Where are the point in using AT when the effect are so small?
The higher the softness after this and the artillery will just become better and better and will beat the AT pretty soon. Artillery are more useful around 43-44%.

 

[pnt]

Good point!

For convenience, I put some of the division data on the wiki.
http://www.paradoxian.org/hoi3wiki/Support_units

 

[unmerged(139985)]

The other thing I noticed about armor was it's low penalties for movement in unfavorable terrain. If I read the penalties correctly armored divs. in mountains could move faster than mountain troops, or marines in marsh/swamp. I think that combined with the armors attack capabilities these units are far too powerful in adverse conditions. Perhaps an increase in terrain penalties (or bonuses for foot soldiers) is in order to maintain the usefullness of the basic infantry types.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

One problem of the combat system as it stands right now are that if you fight on a plain there are no attack penalties at all. This means that no matter how high your defense ratings become it is allays your attack value that will be the most important. The reason for this is that excess defense points are useless. A unit with a higher attack value will always win a war of attrition against units with a lower attack value no matter what defense bonuses that you get.

It doesn't matter if you have a defense of 10 or 20 when the enemy get to shoot you eight times. If you can only shoot back four times, the enemy will win the fight.
In my opinion every terrain should at least give a slight attack penalty, such as 10% in plains to show that two equal forces and the defender should clearly win. (disregarding experience, and leader skills and traits).

I also think that one needs to look at the impact of skill and experience, they might also impact efficiency just a tad much in my opinion. But this is all a balance issue of course. Skill and experience seem to have snowball effect for majors against minors, since terrain penalties are a little too small in my opinion. Minors already have worse technology and inferior troops. We could take one example...

Two minor nation divisions (3xInf), 1918, no leader and no skill. Each divisions will have a SA:6, Defense:16
The major nation attack with one (3xInf), 1939, Experience 20, Skill 3 and offensive trait which is not that unlikely. SA:11.4, Toughness:14.4

The minor nation will defend in a forest and are dug in (will increase attack efficiency it seems after a test I did).

Lets say the minor nation get a 10% dug in efficiency bonus.
The major nation get +10% for offensive leader, +15% for leader skill, +20% for experience and -20% for attacking into a forest.

In total...
Major nation will fire 14.25 shots each round
Minor nation will fire 13.2 shots each round

Neither side will ever get overloaded from attacks since defense and toughness are above the attack values.

minor nation should get a very slight win, but it will be close. In my opinion the impact of skill, traits and leadership have a profound snowball effect on the outcome of combat compared to defense. Maybe I'm not correct in assuming that the minor nation should be able to hold the forest, but I really think that the odds in reality would be quite different.

 

[hendriks]

Totally agree with the above, there is no general attack modifier, an attack of totally equal forces should be, devoid of ALL other circumstances like surprise/terrain/weather/etc, always be in the minor against ANY defender.

A suggested -10% for ANY attack, as above void of any other circumstances, should be implemented for all land combat.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Totally agree with the above, there is no general attack modifier, an attack of totally equal forces should be, devoid of ALL other circumstances like surprise/terrain/weather/etc, always be in the minor against ANY defender.

A suggested -10% for ANY attack, as above void of any other circumstances, should be implemented for all land combat.

It is possible by just raising the attack penalty of all terrain by, say 10%... it would have the same effect.

Which incidentally I have in my game...

But I still feel that it is too easy to attack and beat the opponent silly with just a slight advantage. In reality you usually need a substantial advantage (be it manpower, equipment or experience) to break an opponent. So I'm thinking of raising it even more to reflect this. Or I might just raise the Dug-In efficiency bonus slightly instead. This is currently at 2% per level so 3% should make dug-in units much stronger, it might also offset armor puchs into forested areas a little more, though it will effect everyone, so I will have to test and see how it works.

If your panzer Corp happens to find three infantry divisions completely dug-in in a Forrest or in some mountainous hills, you would be a fool to attack them without some serious backup (like air-power or additional artillery and infantry)

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I have done some more probability tests after modifications...

I have raised the dug-in factor to 5% per level, raised the attack penalty into all terrain by 10% (15% for woods) and increased the penalties for armor in difficult terrain by another 10%. Here are my results...

Example 1

A: 2xInfantry-Divisions (2xInf), 1918, no leader and no experience
Defends in forest against...
B: 1xInfantry (3xInf), 1939, Leader skill 3, offensive trait, 20% experience

A: 50% dug-in bonus
B: -30% forest penalty, 15% leadership bonus, 10% offensive bonus and 20% experience bonus.

A: Will fire 12 shots a round
B: Will fire 13 shots a round

Conclusions: Side A will win since they have 120 total morale while the attacker has 90 moral, though it will be a long slow defense. This seem to work much better than before.



Example 2

A: 1xInfantry Divisions (3xInf), 1939, no leader, no experience
Defends in a forest against...
B: 1xArmored-Divisiosn (3xArm, 1xAC) 1939, Leader skill 3, Ofensive and panzer trait, experience 20%

A: 50% dug-in bonus
B: -65% forest penalty, 15% leadership bonus, 10% offensive bonus and 20% experience bonus, 30% combined arms bonus.

A: Will fire 11 shots per hour
B: Will fire 18 shots per hour

Conclusiosn: The infantry has lower ORG and shoot fewer shots per hour and so will be routed and defeated. The armor will take approximately 2/3 of its ORG in loss.


Example 3

A: 1xInfantry Divisions (3xInf), 1939, no leader, no experience
Defends in a forest against...
B: 1xArmored-Divisiosn (3xArm, 1xAC) 1939, Panzer Leader, no experience

A: 50% dug-in bonus
B: -65% forest penalty, 30% combined arms bonus

A: Will fire 11 shots per hour
B: Will fire 11 shots per hour

Conclusiosn: The infantry has lower ORG but now will fire same number of shots. The armor will still win, but will be almost completely drained of ORG.

Armor are still too efficient in my opinion, any suggestions?!?

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

This example are even worse and unbalanced and are done using the standard rules.

Example 4

A: 1xMountain-Divisions (3xMountain), 1939, leader skill 1, no experience
Defends in a Mountain against...
B: 1xArmored-Divisiosn (3xArm, 1xAC) 1939, leader skill 1, panzer leader, no experience

A: 20% dug-in bonus, 10% unit bonus.
B: -80% mountain penalty, 30% combined arms bonus

A: Will fire 7 shots per hour
B: Will fire 8 shots per hour

Conclusiosn: The mountain divisions has lower ORG and will fire same number of shots. The armor will still win, but will be almost completely drained of ORG.

 

[Premu]

Well, you take a rather strange build for armor units: 3 Arm + 1 AC. Compare the IC costs of such a unit with the IC cost of an infantry division.

The traditional build would be 1 or 2 Arm + 1 or 2 Mot/Mec.

Besides, the 3 Arm + AC template is a little bit cheesy if you use it against the AI, so against the AI I only use quite common designs. (Like 1 Arm, 2 Mots, 1 SP Art)

My general solution would be, that formations like 3 Arm + AC should not recieve a combined arms bonus. Perhaps for Combined Arms only combat brigades should count, not support brigades.

 

[jowe01]

It is possible by just raising the attack penalty of all terrain by, say 10%... it would have the same effect.

That would be the case if the terrain "attack" and "defense" modifications would be applied depending on the role of one or the other combattant, i.e. a terrain "attack" modifier would be applied to both combat values (attack and toughness) of the attacker while a terrain "defense" modifier would be applied to both combat values (attack and defense) of the defender.

I was under the impressiion that this is not the case but that the terrain modifiers are applied to both combattants, i.e. the terrain "attack" modifier to the attacker's AND the defender's attack value and the terrain "defense" modifier to the attacker's toughness and to the defender's defense value.

Am I wrong?

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Well, you take a rather strange build for armor units: 3 Arm + 1 AC. Compare the IC costs of such a unit with the IC cost of an infantry division.

The traditional build would be 1 or 2 Arm + 1 or 2 Mot/Mec.

Besides, the 3 Arm + AC template is a little bit cheesy if you use it against the AI, so against the AI I only use quite common designs. (Like 1 Arm, 2 Mots, 1 SP Art)

My general solution would be, that formations like 3 Arm + AC should not recieve a combined arms bonus. Perhaps for Combined Arms only combat brigades should count, not support brigades.

I know that it seems out of place to use it, but still... if we were to extrapolate this into reality. A division with that composition needs to get serious terrain penalties in Forest, Mountains, Jungles and Marches. Currently they will walk right over everyone. Building these units are easy since IC are very easy to come by as any major nation while manpower and officers are not. You will see these kinds of builds mentioned in several places.

The problem are that units in general have such a low hard attack value which make this unit so über in all situations. Every unit need to at least perform in relation to what they did historically.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

That would be the case if the terrain "attack" and "defense" modifications would be applied depending on the role of one or the other combattant, i.e. a terrain "attack" modifier would be applied to both combat values (attack and toughness) of the attacker while a terrain "defense" modifier would be applied to both combat values (attack and defense) of the defender.

I was under the impressiion that this is not the case but that the terrain modifiers are applied to both combattants, i.e. the terrain "attack" modifier to the attacker's AND the defender's attack value and the terrain "defense" modifier to the attacker's toughness and to the defender's defense value.

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong, terrain penalties only applied to the attackers attack efficiency. It would be pretty pointless if it modified both actually.

Dug-In bonus is a total efficiency bones, or so it seems. So this effects both the defenders attack and defense efficiency.

 

[Premu]

I know that it seems out of place to use it, but still... if we were to extrapolate this into reality. A division with that composition needs to get serious terrain penalties in Forest, Mountains, Jungles and Marches. Currently they will walk right over everyone. Building these units are easy since IC are very easy to come by as any major nation while manpower and officers are not. You will see these kinds of builds mentioned in several places.

The problem are that units in general have such a low hard attack value which make this unit so über in all situations. Every unit need to at least perform in relation to what they did historically.

I know, in reality such a unit would be total senseless. Building such units is an exploit. To handle exploits, there is an easy solutions for singleplayer:

Simply don't use the exploit! It's the same like paradropping to all victory points or use lots of single AC-brigades to snatch provinces. The AI won't use it either, so you should be able to play without it, too.

It works even for multiplayer, if you enact some housrules forbidding certain things which are considered as heavy exploits.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I know, in reality such a unit would be total senseless. Building such units is an exploit. To handle exploits, there is an easy solutions for singleplayer:

Simply don't use the exploit! It's the same like paradropping to all victory points or use lots of single AC-brigades to snatch provinces. The AI won't use it either, so you should be able to play without it, too.

It works even for multiplayer, if you enact some housrules forbidding certain things which are considered as heavy exploits.

Yes, I agree... I would not build units like that, infact I never Min/Max but do what feels right and such. But still... it irritates me it is possible and think that it could be fixed.

There is also a glaring problem between regular infantry units which I also showed above. In my opinion it is just too easy to attack and to hard to defend. The AI will probably even play better if defending were easier in general, and combat losses were greater in respect of both strength and ORG.

 

[Rommel 459]

Yes you are wrong, terrain penalties only applied to the attackers attack efficiency. It would be pretty pointless if it modified both actually.

are you sure about this? if you're right they've either reversed it since hoi2 or i'm remembering things wrong...

Edit : and after reading all your testing i have to question the validity of giving the attacker a leader with both skill and unit specific bonuses while not giving the defender a leader at all,,

was the AI reassigning the defending leader that you had given to that division?

idk maybe i just misunderstood what you were testing, your first post seems to say that your only testing the armored divisions against difficult terrain, but then you go on to test infantry against infantry later and say it's too easy to attack in general... which is why i'm asking about this, because the lack of leader bonuses/skill/etc on the defenders side in essence puts him at a disadvantage and skews the results in favor of the attacker

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

are you sure about this? if you're right they've either reversed it since hoi2 or i'm remembering things wrong...

Edit : and after reading all your testing i have to question the validity of giving the attacker a leader with both skill and unit specific bonuses while not giving the defender a leader at all,,

was the AI reassigning the defending leader that you had given to that division?

idk maybe i just misunderstood what you were testing, your first post seems to say that your only testing the armored divisions against difficult terrain, but then you go on to test infantry against infantry later and say it's too easy to attack in general... which is why i'm asking about this, because the lack of leader bonuses/skill/etc on the defenders side in essence puts him at a disadvantage and skews the results in favor of the attacker

Yes, the terrain modifier effect the attacker only, I just rechecked that. It actually modifies both attack and defense efficiency.

If you read I actually did test with both leader and without to show the difference. One of my questions were if leader skill, traits and experience were impacting combat a little too much, and maybe it does, I'm not sure of that yet.

To give but one easy example of how experience impact a battle...

30% experience will make a 1941 infantry stronger than a 1944 infantry with zero experience. I'm not directly saying it shouldn't be like that, I'm just pointing out the fact about it and let others decide if that is too much.

It will become a snowball effect for majors against minors.

EDIT...

My example number one was just to show that after my modification the 1918 divisions could defeat the 1939 division with a good leader and experienced troops when they were entrenched in a forest. But just slightly, any form of air-power and they would loose.

 

[Markus Rabe]

Reading your posts above I have the impression you misunderstood some aspects of the combat system ... have you heard of defense and thoughness values?

It doesn't matter if you have a defense of 10 or 20 when the enemy get to shoot you eight times. If you can only shoot back four times, the enemy will win the fight.

I don't agree.

It's very important to consider also the defense and toughness values here. Without that your comparisons of how many shots the divisions have doesn't say anything. Before you make such claims you should test them .

I agree however in one point: Terrain should have a little more effect, especially on movement speed of motorised units. When it comes to skill and experience I think they cannot be overrated. It's a great difference between having fought some battles or not.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Reading your posts above I have the impression you misunderstood some aspects of the combat system ... have you heard of defense and thoughness values?



I don't agree.

It's very important to consider also the defense and toughness values here. Without that your comparisons of how many shots the divisions have doesn't say anything. Before you make such claims you should test them .

I agree however in one point: Terrain should have a little more effect, especially on movement speed of motorised units. When it comes to skill and experience I think they cannot be overrated. It's a great difference between having fought some battles or not.

Well, it don't... it seems that you don't know how it works.

If you have a divisions that dish out 10 attacks (10 soft attack value) at 100% attack efficiency (at a 100% soft target). Any defense above 10 does not do anything. It will only come into play if that same divisions are attacked by another division in the same round (hour). I have omitted the toughness and defense values above because in all cases they have been way higher than the attack values, thus of no interest to us.

 

[unmerged(157014)]

Totally agree with the above, there is no general attack modifier, an attack of totally equal forces should be, devoid of ALL other circumstances like surprise/terrain/weather/etc, always be in the minor against ANY defender.

A suggested -10% for ANY attack, as above void of any other circumstances, should be implemented for all land combat.

There's already a specific game mechanic in place to achieve this without mangling the terrain modifiers, i.e. defensiveness & toughness. Obviously I agree with the sentiment that, if all else is equal then the odds should be in favour of the defender. However, if that's not being observed to be the case, then it's the defensivenes & toughness values that need to be adjusted, not something like the terrain modifiers. Tweaking other variables to try and achieve an effect they're not designed for could result in undesirable side-effects...

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

There's already a specific game mechanic in place to achieve this without mangling the terrain modifiers, i.e. defensiveness & toughness. Obviously I agree with the sentiment that, if all else is equal then the odds should be in favour of the defender. However, if that's not being observed to be the case, then it's the defensivenes & toughness values that need to be adjusted, not something like the terrain modifiers. Tweaking other variables to try and achieve an effect they're not designed for could result in undesirable side-effects...

That is not true, please re-read my above posts... but i give you a short explanation here as well.

Most units already have a defense value greater than attack value. Two equal forces will in almost all circumstances have a greater defense value than attack value. Therefore changing them will not change the outcome of that particular battle. Only changing the terrain penalties for the attacker will do that.
Attack values are way more important in general than defense values. The defense value pretty much tell you how long a battle will last (it's a little more complicated, but not much)