Realistic Mobilization

[nwinther]

To follow on Carroarmato-P40's comments, I'm not sure I see the gameplay usefulness here. Mobilization in Victoria was very good and realistic -- when you mobilize, your economy is just devastated! In WW2, the effect would be similar, but the economy would recover far more quickly since modern industrialization allowed women, children, and the elderly to go to work.

In WW2, in some sense you could say every nation "mobilized" at some point to reflect "total war", yet -- for what countries did pre-mobilization versus post-mobilization have a significant military impact? In other words, the aggressors wouldn't really need such a system. The Allies were certainly effected, but isn't this already modeled by IC penalties? Further, look at mods like WIF, that prevent unit building. Why not use those existing approaches, rather than create another layer of complexity?

It would be nice to have it in, but also have an automation-option, where you "ignore" the procedure and just spew out divisions. However, in the smaller campaigns it's funny to redistribute forces from one leg to another. In the Desert-wars I'd love it if I could be able to detach a brigade and reinforce another division with this, when going for a certain target. While I wouldn't do it in the big game (very much) I think I sometimes would like to be able to make very powerful tank-divisions or being able to scatter a garrison over a larger area (rather that "2% potential partisan activity - currently supressing 26%).

Another thing that could be cool with this option is the spreading of units once defeated. Now they retreat in a rather orderly fashion and arrive at the same destination as a (reasonably) coherent division. If the division was made from 2+ brigades, then depending on the assault, these brigades would be scattered into different provinces (sectors). For the division to achieve operability they have to get the "missing" brigades back in line or be permanently understrength (or until a new brigade is attached).

This way, you'd also be able to leave behind garrisons at conquered sectors. "unload" a brigade to garrison, say Tobruk, and the division(s) continue east.

So setting up a division (in my "dream" micromanagement-scenario):

You pick at least one brigade to form a division, but automatically it'll pick three. If you choose two armor-brigades and one motorized infantry (tweaking may occur), you've got an armored division. The division is commanded by a mj. general (or above) and each brigade is commanded by a brigadier or equivalent. You can choose your general but assignment can also happen automatically.
You can then attach a varity (and number) of regiments/brigades.
Tank-brigades: Makes the division stronger (hard), requires more fuel and supply.
Mechanized infantry: Makes the division stronger (hard/soft), requires more fuel and supply.
Motorized infantry: Makes the division stronger (soft), requires more fuel and supply.
Regular infantry: Makes the division stronger (soft), requires more supply, slows down the division.
Cavalry: Makes the division stronger (soft), requires more supply.
HQ: Makes the division better organized. The HQ is commanded by a Lt. General or above and is intended as the lead division in a corps.
Anti-Tank/Art/AAA: Makes the division stronger (hard/defensive), requires more supply, makes the division slower.
SPAT/SPArt/SPAAA: Makes the division stronger (hard/soft/a-air), requires more supply and fuel.
Garrison/MP/Militia/Intel (my invention): Makes the division slightly stronger and/or can percive the enemy more accurately, very handy if you are going for a longer haul, where securing long supply-lines is needed.

Detaching brigades, aside from weakening the division also carries some concequence to the operations of the detached unit. An AT-brigade can't attack (or only very poorly so) and moves very slowly on its own and defends poorly against infantry attacks but good against armor. An Intel-brigade, while being able to "see" the enemy close by, can't attack or defend. A garrison can only make weak attacks, but defends better. HQ can organize units in it's vincinity but can't defend nor attack.

(The intel unit makes you see your enemy in more detail. It also confuses the enemy regarding your size. If you are relatively weak it gives the enemy the impression that you are in fact strong and vice versa. They also, from time to time gives you glimpses far behind the fog of war as they pick up information. If the enemy has more intel's in your vincinity than you, they can misinform your intel giving you the wrong impression despite "good intel". Your number of spies within the enemys nation/administration (as in HOI2 Armageddon) increases both your immideate intel but also your "distant" intel.)

Well, I'm rambling. Sorry.

 

[Sonic]

Oki

It would be nice to have it in, but also have an automation-option, where you "ignore" the procedure and just spew out divisions. However, in the smaller campaigns it's funny to redistribute forces from one leg to another. In the Desert-wars I'd love it if I could be able to detach a brigade and reinforce another division with this, when going for a certain target. While I wouldn't do it in the big game (very much) I think I sometimes would like to be able to make very powerful tank-divisions or being able to scatter a garrison over a larger area (rather that "2% potential partisan activity - currently supressing 26%).

Another thing that could be cool with this option is the spreading of units once defeated. Now they retreat in a rather orderly fashion and arrive at the same destination as a (reasonably) coherent division. If the division was made from 2+ brigades, then depending on the assault, these brigades would be scattered into different provinces (sectors). For the division to achieve operability they have to get the "missing" brigades back in line or be permanently understrength (or until a new brigade is attached).

This way, you'd also be able to leave behind garrisons at conquered sectors. "unload" a brigade to garrison, say Tobruk, and the division(s) continue east.

So setting up a division (in my "dream" micromanagement-scenario):

You pick at least one brigade to form a division, but automatically it'll pick three. If you choose two armor-brigades and one motorized infantry (tweaking may occur), you've got an armored division. The division is commanded by a mj. general (or above) and each brigade is commanded by a brigadier or equivalent. You can choose your general but assignment can also happen automatically.
You can then attach a varity (and number) of regiments/brigades.
Tank-brigades: Makes the division stronger (hard), requires more fuel and supply.
Mechanized infantry: Makes the division stronger (hard/soft), requires more fuel and supply.
Motorized infantry: Makes the division stronger (soft), requires more fuel and supply.
Regular infantry: Makes the division stronger (soft), requires more supply, slows down the division.
Cavalry: Makes the division stronger (soft), requires more supply.
HQ: Makes the division better organized. The HQ is commanded by a Lt. General or above and is intended as the lead division in a corps.
Anti-Tank/Art/AAA: Makes the division stronger (hard/defensive), requires more supply, makes the division slower.
SPAT/SPArt/SPAAA: Makes the division stronger (hard/soft/a-air), requires more supply and fuel.
Garrison/MP/Militia/Intel (my invention): Makes the division slightly stronger and/or can percive the enemy more accurately, very handy if you are going for a longer haul, where securing long supply-lines is needed.

Detaching brigades, aside from weakening the division also carries some concequence to the operations of the detached unit. An AT-brigade can't attack (or only very poorly so) and moves very slowly on its own and defends poorly against infantry attacks but good against armor. An Intel-brigade, while being able to "see" the enemy close by, can't attack or defend. A garrison can only make weak attacks, but defends better. HQ can organize units in it's vincinity but can't defend nor attack.

(The intel unit makes you see your enemy in more detail. It also confuses the enemy regarding your size. If you are relatively weak it gives the enemy the impression that you are in fact strong and vice versa. They also, from time to time gives you glimpses far behind the fog of war as they pick up information. If the enemy has more intel's in your vincinity than you, they can misinform your intel giving you the wrong impression despite "good intel". Your number of spies within the enemys nation/administration (as in HOI2 Armageddon) increases both your immideate intel but also your "distant" intel.)

Well, I'm rambling. Sorry.

I had something similar in mind. Production runs for brigades as well as for divisions.

Something like this: Every division you build has up to 5 brigade slots depending on doctrine, which in term you can fill in directly through the production screen (less micromanagement). Say you wann build a "normal" Inf Division you'll choose division with 3 Inf brigades. For Tanks you choose 2 tank brigades and 1 mot or mech brigade.

Or on the other hand, just build skelleton Division, which consist of a HQ, Arillery and other combat support troops and only one brigade, which you can either enlarge or deplete, to fill in where it's needed. Something like it is already in HOI2 brigade system.

But you should also be able to build independent brigades, which you can augument to Divisions, to make them larger and more powerful on the battlefield. Let's say you've got a Inf division, and you'll augument it with a light tank brigade or anything along these lines.

To cut a bit the micromanagement I'd like to see that the Division structure (skelleton) has already a HQ, artillery, and maybe a AT platoon or regiment. Well something along these lines.

What could happen is that you build Divisions with only one brigade in it, to fool your opponent (as it would be still showing as a full Division). This would reflect the historical size of Divisions, thus it would be for newbies easy, as they can choose to build fully equipped Divisionss in the first place.

Hope that makes sense, I didn't think it really through.

Cheers,

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I like it. In IC and MP terms, you should make the HQ more expensive than the consituent units. That's not because they have more equipment or people (they don't), but rather the specialized equipment and personnel, as well as the trained senior staffs that exist at that level.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

Something like this: Every division you build has up to 5 brigade slots depending on doctrine, which in term you can fill in directly through the production screen (less micromanagement). Say you wann build a "normal" Inf Division you'll choose division with 3 Inf brigades. For Tanks you choose 2 tank brigades and 1 mot or mech brigade.

5 regiments, or brigades with HQ and services is the best model.
But perhaps the possibity to add a 6th regiment for creating heavy but versatiles divisions.
For example an armoured division with 2 armour regiment, 1 mechanized regiment, 1 artillery regiment, 1 bridge building regiment and a 1 logistical regiment for having a good supplies efficiency.

And too creating army corps units. A sort of HQ division, but with more artillery and AA units.

What could happen is that you build Divisions with only one brigade in it, to fool your opponent (as it would be still showing as a full Division). This would reflect the historical size of Divisions, thus it would be for newbies easy, as they can choose to build fully equipped Divisionss in the first place.

And "models divisions" with its HQ , services and 5 regiments.
After new players will choose to create their divisions.

 

[nwinther]

5 regiments, or brigades with HQ and services is the best model.
But perhaps the possibity to add a 6th regiment for creating heavy but versatiles divisions.
For example an armoured division with 2 armour regiment, 1 mechanized regiment, 1 artillery regiment, 1 bridge building regiment and a 1 logistical regiment for having a good supplies efficiency.

And too creating army corps units. A sort of HQ division, but with more artillery and AA units.



And "models divisions" with its HQ , services and 5 regiments.
After new players will choose to create their divisions.

Sort of like a spearhead-division that can break through and hold a sector against seemingly superiour forces until reinforcements arrive?

 

[unmerged(78582)]

HOI 3 should include an expanded mobilization system on infantry divisions. Instead of producing normal infantry divisions, their should be an option to produce a skeleton division which is similar in strength to a HQ, but can quickly draw manpower (similar to how reinforcing works) when you order it to.

Prior to war, armies did not have all of their divisions at full alert. Maybe when war seems more likely the player can choose to build up their skeleton divisions. But why use supplies when there is no war. And when you need full strength infantry divisions, you can just reinforce them to a certain level.

sound like a good idea! but when other countries start to mobilize in close by region you can start partly mobilize. and if your political/diplomatic relations whit your naighbor get bad you should also partly be able to get "ready" for war.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

Sort of like a spearhead-division that can break through and hold a sector against seemingly superiour forces until reinforcements arrive?

Exactly.
It's a second way to reinforce a division with the HoI2 Offensive status.