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

[Stolen Rutters]

Our multiplayer game lasted about 2 years longer than it would have, and Russia was just impossible to push through due to the exhaustion of the Axis players in slogging through tile after tile of 20width+engineers pure infantry mass mobilization

Humorously people were complaining that infantry divisions composed entirely of special forces were unrealistic. But the meta is going to shift to divisions composed almost entirely of artillery

I was wondering about that. I have so much infantry equipment I was thinking I could build 4Inf+4Art instead of the old 7-2.

 

[onlysane1]

4 Divisions in today's Corps, not 3.

That's right, I forgot about the reservists

 

[Forster]

I believe it's a difference between "arbitrary" and "sandbox". Sandbox games still have some rules, questions is about "what are we trying to achieve placing this rules".
For special forces we know a reason:

For whom was it a balance problem? I am willing to bet it was for multi-player. Again, as I said, they set rules and parameters for the game before it starts and can easily place limits on different types of units. Why force everyone to play by mp restrictions?

 

[aono]

For whom was it a balance problem?

For me, for instance. It's bad design when basic infantry isn't used in primary metas, because special forces are better in cost-effect ratio. Also I don't like being obliged to build shore fortresses defended by 5-6 divisions to be protected from one marine division - because I feel it counterhistorical and non-fun as a hell. Naval invasions should be hard. I never played MP, but I definitely understand

And as you can notice, developers didn't enforced another typical mp restrictions (like stratbombers), so I would like to know why you actually believe this is mp restriction. Did mp metas actually forbid armies of marines?

 

[Karaya 1]

For me, for instance. It's bad design when basic infantry isn't used in primary metas, because special forces are better in cost-effect ratio. Also I don't like being obliged to build shore fortresses defended by 5-6 divisions to be protected from one marine division - because I feel it counterhistorical and non-fun as a hell. Naval invasions should be hard. I never played MP, but I definitely understand

Im sorry you had to do what now to defend against a single marines division ? Thats just ridiculous, what kind of divisions were you using ?

 

[aono]

Im sorry you had to do what now to defend against a single marines division ? Thats just ridiculous, what kind of divisions were you using ?

You see, you're haggling already. Question is what's ok. Actually, I play China, and it's crap divisions.
That's balance question - how many marines reasonable army should have to prevent it being ridiculous.

 

[Karaya 1]

You see, you're haggling already. Question is what's ok. Actually, I play China, and it's crap divisions.
That's balance question - how many marines reasonable army should have to prevent it being ridiculous.

But thats the whole point. If youre using sub par divisions, and your enemy is not because he has better equipment and all that, it really wouldnt matter if he had infantry or marines, because chinas divisions suck for a looong time.

If im the US and want a sizable marine corps to have good success agaisnt a well defended island with a few infantry divisions (and i mean real ones) on it. then i cant bring 6 divisions of 4 marines plus arty and support or even 3 divisions of 8 each plus arty and support. Because the defense is always superior unless you have superior numbers.

 

[aono]

If im the US and want a sizable marine corps to have good success agaisnt a well defended island with a few infantry divisions (and i mean real ones) on it. then i cant bring 6 divisions of 4 marines plus arty and support or even 3 divisions of 8 each plus arty and support. Because the defense is always superior unless you have superior numbers.

Yes. You need half a million to take Okinawa defended with hundred thousand. 1:5. With total air and sea superiority, blockade of island and actually with quality superiority. If you have three real divisions on defense, take fifteen divisions on attack. Including marines. If you can make all your divisions marines, you can do it far more simple (and actually as normal infantry division would be at least 7/2, and taking "few" as three, you'll have 9*3=27 battalions), unrealistic and too effective. It the wish every player would have, and therefore it should be fixed, until we don't believe it's ok to take seashores so effectively as it was with upgraded marines.

 

[davidc929]

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.


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.

I'd say when you look at the training the DDay landing troops had it was probably as good or better than most nations dedicated marine infantry, if not the USMC.

 

[PrussianTiger]

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

I tend to use Paratroopers(Now, never used them much before) to represent guard or elite infantry such as in an empire/monarchist country have 6 or so paratroopers in a division as a Guards division is something I do. I wasn't personally impressed with Paratroopers being dropped into combat so have adjusted my use of them.

 

[fabius]

I'd say when you look at the training the DDay landing troops had it was probably as good or better than most nations dedicated marine infantry, if not the USMC.

Exactly. Very specialised training for those front divisions.

Re what are special forces. I'm go with the today's definition of smaller units.

But the term is used more broadly by some. The special part comes from 'Special task' forces.
As such, marines, paras, and mountain do fit that, and did more so back then. Moreover, these forces usually have a smaller section or cadre of even more rigorous training and knowledge for even more special tasks within their remit.
eg. Arctic warfare within mountain- (and UK marines)
scaling cliffs and beach recon (marines)
Pathfinder recon, airstrip seizing (Para)

 

[onlysane1]

I'd say when you look at the training the DDay landing troops had it was probably as good or better than most nations dedicated marine infantry, if not the USMC.

It's important to understand that not all Marines in the USMC are, or in this case, were, trained for amphibious assaults. Sure, a lot of the infantry were, but the tank crewmen weren't, the air crews weren't, the motor transport operators weren't. Even within the Pacific theater, USMC divisions performing normal operations can be represented as standard infantry or armored units, while what the game shows as "marine" divisions are the infantry units devoted to naval invasions.

Likewise, the D-day invasion forces would certainly be 'marines' in HOI4's use of the word, specially trained to perform a naval invasion, even though they aren't specially part of the "Marine Corps".

 

[Denkt]

I have not played the expansion yet but I think we should also consider how command Powers can affect stuff such as naval landings and other operations.

 

[fabius]

I tend to use Paratroopers(Now, never used them much before) to represent guard or elite infantry such as in an empire/monarchist country have 6 or so paratroopers in a division as a Guards division is something I do. I wasn't personally impressed with Paratroopers being dropped into combat so have adjusted my use of them.

Similar here, I'm much more attracted to investing in Paras now.
Also had been scratching head whether to go for more specials or their buff research.

 

[PrussianTiger]

Similar here, I'm much more attracted to investing in Paras now.
Also had been scratching head whether to go for more specials or their buff research.

For me it'd be dependent upon who I'm playing as, a smaller nation probably more numerous SF, a bigger country probably better SF.

 

[fabius]

For me it'd be dependent upon who I'm playing as, a smaller nation probably more numerous SF, a bigger country probably better SF.

Thing is bigger nation can be more responsibilities. More needs for decent mountain and marine coverage. Plus nice paras

 

[stl3l9n]

I support the change, but the amount of mountainiers you can field should be different than the amount of paratroopers and marines. Armies like the Swiss army should be able to support 70-100% mountainiers in their army, while Saudi Arabia should only be able to have a small amount (possibly dependant on the amount of mountains in your land). For most countries, they should be able to support 10-15% mountainiers, 5-8% marines and 3-5% paratroopers in their army with 1940 special forces tech.

 

[Uniform764]

For most countries, they should be able to support 10-15% mountainiers, 5-8% marines and 3-5% paratroopers in their army with 1940 special forces tech.

Yeah I'd be ok with seperate limits for the three branches.

 

[Karaya 1]

Yeah I'd be ok with seperate limits for the three branches.

That would probably make the most sense TBH. Instead of luping them all in the same limit so you cant have any of them in sufficient numbers.

 

[RedBarron]

I like this idea too, as just upping the cap would mean you could go all in on 1 branch of special forces (leading to the a-historical 24 divisions of Marines that I always abused as Japan in my previous games). This would also allow for expanding certain branch caps by country. Say Switzerland allowing something like 80-90% Mountaineers for example.