RIP Special Forces. 2016-2018. You will be missed.

[Zwirbaum]

One change I would probably make is that Commando Expert in MIL high command should increase the %cap slightly. Like 2.5%-5% So countries with specialty in it should get a little bit of boni there. Or make how it counts slightly different. But in general I do find current cap pretty ok/good, and it's nice to have them treated as actual elites (or trying to) instead of just making entire armies of marines/mtn etc.

 

[erwinrommel85]

I'm sure that there will be mods tweaking or removing the restrictions to special forces. Just use one of those or make your own. l'd rather have the default be closer to historical than marines/paratroopers/mountain used as rank and file infantry.

 

[erwinrommel85]

I would actually argue the SF stats be buffed a little from current since they are now limited in number.

Of course I was a paratrooper, so I might be a little biased...

 

[Meglok]

One change I would probably make is that Commando Expert in MIL high command should increase the %cap slightly. Like 2.5%-5% So countries with specialty in it should get a little bit of boni there. Or make how it counts slightly different. But in general I do find current cap pretty ok/good, and it's nice to have them treated as actual elites (or trying to) instead of just making entire armies of marines/mtn etc.

Damn good idea for a hot fix suggestion post.

 

[Denkt]

I would actually argue the SF stats be buffered a little from current since they are now limited in number.

Would not special forces be something like veteran infantry in terms of combat ability given the training and recruitment process for such units?

 

[Lord of Beer]

I'm sure that there will be mods tweaking or removing the restrictions to special forces. Just use one of those or make your own. l'd rather have the default be closer to historical than marines/paratroopers/mountain used as rank and file infantry.

The problem with mods is that they kill multiplayer. You need to host on the vanilla version to get players into your lobby (particularly when you are playing some of the awesome 30-40 player games). Switching to a mod requires everyone to download it, restart the game, and come back. You inevitably lose a few people and it takes a lot of time. Then, you learn to play a certain meta based on that mod, and your skills are not transferrable to SP or other communities.

1.4.2 worked perfectly welll without mods, if you had a good host and good rules.

 

[Karaya 1]

you know, its possible to enjoy MP without knowing the exact meta and min/maxing to the extreme.

But i do agree that we should have to resort to having stuff modded just so its remotely balanced.

 

[fabius]

I'm not so sure. I think they were designated "special" due to their training and skill set not the uniqueness of them. I could be incorrect however.

Contrary to modern-day snowflake ideas not everybody can do their training, live and fight their style. Great sense of humour is so important to those units.

Can you actually explained how its better balanced? ....!

Devs have said that one of their design philo's is to have meaningful decisions. Having specials rarer does just that. As Germany I really like and need Moutain, but now I can't have countless divisions so now I have to choose size, how many and where to send them. Adds a whole new layer

One change I would probably make is that Commando Expert in MIL high command should increase the %cap slightly. Like 2.5%-5% So countries with specialty in it should get a little bit of boni there. Or make how it counts slightly different. But in general I do find current cap pretty ok/good, and it's nice to have them treated as actual elites (or trying to) instead of just making entire armies of marines/mtn etc.

Nice idea

I would actually argue the SF stats be buffed a little from current since they are now limited in number.

Of course I was a paratrooper, so I might be a little biased...

You earned that bias Yet, I wouldn't give them too much if any pure combat stats buff. Paras, Marines, Mountain etc are essentially light infantry that are highly trained and motivated make up for lack of heavy weapons.
I'd give them more supply grace, faster walk speed, higher Org, better terrain modifiers, and maybe start veteran level.

 

[Kumicho]

Personally I would have gone a different route, and made them more expensive somehow (men? equipment? training time?) other than a hard cap. If you're a small nation and want to focus on an elite core of Marines (say, Canada if you go the National Steel Car route) you should be able to do so. Obviously time will tell, but the current cap is a bit of a disappointment so far in the couple games I've played around with.

 

[aono]

But historically you could take a big island with a couple divisions if even that, or land like 5 divisions and call it the DDay invasion (the beach landing itself, not the whole invasion).

Actually as far as I know D-Day didn't include any marines historically. It was infantry landing supported with airbone assault.
By the way, Allies were triple against Germans (on Utah beach, for instance, there were 4 allies divisions against one bad German one), they had total sea and air superiority, not to mention sabotage, deceptions, German plans to defeat invasion after main beachheads could be localized. Still casualities were comparable.

Edit: How am i supposed to have a real pacific war with that. Seriously.

Historically.
Battle for Iwa Jima had 110K US troops against 20K Japanese. Casualties - 26K for US, about 19K for Japanese.
Battle of Wake. First landing attempt was canceled. Second one had 1500 japanese marines with overhelming naval and air superiority, not to mention sailors, against 450 americans.
Battle of Tarawa. US forces - something about 50K (just 18K were marines) with great support, Jap forces - something about 5K (and about half of this number were conscripted workers). US casualties and Jap casualities again in same book - about 5K both sides.
Battle of Guam, as opposite, was better - 60K US forces against about 19K Japs. Result - about 8K US casualities against full Jap force destroyed.
Okinawa - half a million US troops against about one hundred thousand Japs. Militray casualities - about 70K US casualities against about full japs army (one hundred).

That's how Pacific War was fared. That's why US leaders prefered to use nuclear bombs, not amphibious attack against Japan heartland.
Not "hey, I have magical Marine Division, that just chew out every fortified position with ease". Actually, in WW2 full USMC was 6 divisions in the end of war.

CLARIFICATION: I'm not trying to say current Pacific Theatre is something good. But being not able just to grab everything you want on beachhead with hordes of Marines is an improvement, not opposing way.

 

[Faulty]

Nothing else is on historical levels strictly speaking

Every little helps

 

[Alex_brunius]

Special Forces are now useless.

Is it the dislikes you want to break some kind of record with or do you just want to be over-dramatic and refuse to adapt and change your playstyle?

Special forces are more powerful now, but to balance it you can't have as many, which makes them feel unique and you know... special. It's as simple as that.

Events like DDay are hugely satisfying when they work, but the reality is they rely on masses of marines. Now, most attacks will just flounder at the sea unless backed up by an insane amount of CAS.

Artillery has been nerfed, special forces nerfed, yet planes remain completely OP. This will just encourage people to abuse planes even more - now thats unbalanced!

If only there was a way for Special Forces Leaders to counter the overpowered air and CAS...

Oh wait... What's this new Trait ( unlocked by commando = special forces ) do?

 

[aono]

Events like DDay are hugely satisfying when they work, but the reality is they rely on masses of marines. Now, most attacks will just flounder at the sea unless backed up by an insane amount of CAS.

Oh wait, I missed this.
Let me understand, please. You believe that a situation where big naval invasions require astonishing air support, naval control, nice planning bonuses is worse that situation when you just point your marines any sea province and click "execute"?

In my opinion, "the reality is they rely on masses of marines" is a bad thing, that should be corrected. Not sure hardcap on special forces is the best way, but hell, it is a way.

 

[Noble713]

i played a US game yesterday. I had 6 divisions of 4 marines each. That can barely break a single normal infantry on a built up island. What the hell.
Edit: How am i supposed to have a real pacific war with that. Seriously.

4 Marine battalions per "division"? A real-world Marine REGIMENT is 3 battalions. A division is 3 regiments of 3 battalions, so 9 battalions, plus tanks/artillery. You attacked with the equivalent of ~2 reinforced divisions against a single division of defenders (force ratio 2:1)? When the "baseline" force ratio for a successful attack is 3:1.......

So you shouldn't be surprised.

 

[WJLIII3]

My only concern is with Mountaineers specifically, in the matter of nations like Afghanistan, Iran, and....well, all of Central Asia, including about half the Chinese states. They're 100% mountains. How can any soldier trained in Tibet not meet the standard of a mountaineer? I've seen what passes for a road in Tibet. Its a mountain. Some nations I've always played with MTN for ground infantry, for RP purposes, and it seems strange to me that Himalayan nations would be forced to raise soldiers who don't know how to survive in their entire nation.

 

[aono]

How can any soldier trained in Tibet not meet the standard of a mountaineer?

Actually I believe such nations should have Focus, giving them bonus in mountains. Maybe not so powerful as "real" mountaineer, but still noticable, and stacking with mountaineer (so if you have Tibetian mountaineers, they're very good in mountains).

 

[Meglok]

My only concern is with Mountaineers specifically, in the matter of nations like Afghanistan, Iran, and....well, all of Central Asia, including about half the Chinese states. They're 100% mountains. How can any soldier trained in Tibet not meet the standard of a mountaineer? I've seen what passes for a road in Tibet. Its a mountain. Some nations I've always played with MTN for ground infantry, for RP purposes, and it seems strange to me that Himalayan nations would be forced to raise soldiers who don't know how to survive in their entire nation.

Umm, have you seen the modern Afghan army? They are hardly trained mountaineers and we throw millions at them for training. None of the nations you list are 100% mountain terrain and have never trained their armies as mountaineers because they didn't have the doctrine, equipment, or funds to do so.

I will agree that with the game mechanics certain nations might could use a decision to allow a slightly higher % of SF types. That would probably be a good idea for a suggestion submission. But there already is tech that boosts your SF %.

 

[Mztr44]

Not sure what all the fuss is about. I'm missing a whopping 15 hp, 2.7 breakthrough and some ~12% mountain attack with a 4mnt/3inf/2art mix compared to a 7mnt/2art division. It certainly hasn't stopped them from bulldozing their way through the mountains in Yugoslavia and I haven't even gotten the Infantry & Commando advisors yet as Romania. Special Forces were a bit unbalanced before. You've obviously never seen the carnage that 40 divisions of 8/2 mountaineers could wreak in the Caucasus Mountains before against the Soviets. Hell, a lot of times people weren't building Marines for d-day type invasions, they were building them for busting across all of the rivers. You do not NEED any sort of critical mass for marines to work. You need signal companies, so that your reserve troops in an invasion reinforce before the initial landing troops get repelled completely.

Also, changes like this help keep the game fresh by generating new META's instead of encountering the same old stale tactics over and over again.

 

[safe-keeper]

I suport the change. As was pointed out, they are called special forces for a reason.

 

[Karaya 1]

4 Marine battalions per "division"? A real-world Marine REGIMENT is 3 battalions. A division is 3 regiments of 3 battalions, so 9 battalions, plus tanks/artillery. You attacked with the equivalent of ~2 reinforced divisions against a single division of defenders (force ratio 2:1)? When the "baseline" force ratio for a successful attack is 3:1.......

So you shouldn't be surprised.

I was only allowed 24 regiments. I meant regiments i think, not batallions. in the division builder thing. 4 marines.