The couple hundred artillery pireces, 500+ machine guns, couple hundred cars, trucks, and 10k+ rafiles and submachine guns that infantry divisions had do require industry to produce.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes, producing supplies costs IC. In this case infantry would cost IC indirectly. But you could also be supported with those weapons by another country. So you haven't waste your own IC for producing weapons if you would import them (partially). That was the case e.g. for Nationalist China and USSR in WW2 and Ottoman Empire in WW1.
Btw, I doubt that Communist China had common distribution of infantry equipment (artillery, MGs) or had had the industry for that.
Last edited:
In case of Germany, the USSR or the UK it is true. However, in case of China and many minor countries which imported weapons from the majors - not really.
Which is why most chinese divisions are better represented as militia.
Yes and no.
The "professional" Chinese Red Army originally was supplied through defections from the NRA (CHI Army) and stealing supplies during the interwar period. Food, clothing, housing was often provided by the local populace (which unlike the NRA, the CRA did not steal from the population in order to feed the troops). in most combat battles, CRA would have it's rank swell from temporary local militia that were given weapons by the CRA. Hit and run was the primary doctrine of choice (after the disastrous southern strategy failed), with stolen Japanese equipment commonly used by the CRA (I would wager over half of working weapons used by the ERA were stolen from killed Japanese soldiers or given by deserting/fake collaborationist divisions).
In this regard, the standing Infantry Army of the CRA is very small. Most battles by the CRA should contain militia that are rapidly mobilized/disbanded during the second Sino-Japanese War (100 divisions offensive decision is an example from 1936 CCIP).
Post-war however, the CRA changed significantly. One of the reasons Jiang Jieshi did not want Japan to surrender so soon was because he had no troops in position to accept Japanese surrender. A majority of Japanese superior weaponry was surrendered to local communist militia or soviet troops, who gave it to the CRA. This enabled over 450.000 experienced and battle hardened Eighth Route Army militia to "upgrade" to infantry (assuming some of the divisions weren't already infantry due to the accumulation of stolen weapons) and is one of the reasons why CHC did not immediately fold after the war.
IC wasn't a major issue for CHC, nor was manpower, supplies were. If supplies were the cost for Infantry instead of IC, CHC would still not be able to field many units since historically, SOV supported CHI much more than CHC (one could say they barely supported CHC) until after WWII ended.
Currently in game, it is very hard for CHC with ~3IC of production to produce/maintain 60 divisions without events. If supplies were the requirement, then it'd be much easier (although there is no abstraction of captured supplies in game, but that can be done via event).
As for the other factions,
CHI was focused on INF and later switched to MOT during the civil war.
CGX was an industrial heartland for CHI during the second Sino-Japanese war and provided some of the best hometrained divisions, so they should be INF.
Edit: The Chinese Wiki OOB page for ERA in 1945 has a cited link of 1,028,893 soldiers in the Eighth Route Army, which is different than the uncited quote above from English Wiki, so I guess I need to re-research the OOB once I get to 1936. I don't think it is remotely possible for CHC to get 103 divisions ingame with its starting IC. Here's an image of captured artillery:
Also, a gold mine of CHC leaders here.
Last edited:
Personally, I doubt that the Sino-Japanese War can be represented properly without a more advanced logistical/economic system. China was NOT like USSR - it's a common misconception, probably a result of the fact that we humans love patterns and simplifications so much. While the SU was a poor country by western standards, its NOMINAL power was significant and its production output was huge. The country was heavily centralised, which was perfect for the purposes of total war. Also, Soviet technology was actually good, even though they had tons of obsolete equipment, too (but so did the Germans). None of this apply to China in the 1937-1945 period. Chinese economy was agrarian and its industrial potential was small. The country was de facto decentralised and disunited and its technology was very poor. It was only similar to the USSR in the way that it had a huge MP reserve, but even this was not so simple, because agrarian economy and lack of access to modern technology meant that moving people from the fields to the frontline could have disastrous effects on the country's capability to provide supplies to its troops.
I think the main problem with the USSR is its inability to quickly produce the infantry it needs, this is actually a problem with all of the western countries. When you enact conscirption, the one year of training shouldn't be just thrown away for the arbitrary purpose of adding MP to your pool, your MP should not be affected by mobilization policies, it should be representative of the able-bodied men in your country. The quality of your MP should be affected by the mobilization slider, the longer the mandatory term, the shorter it takes to complete the training segment of infantry training. The Guns and Butter still need to be produced, and these should be the determinant of IC cost, while the training time should be shortened since they are only going through a refresher course.
And for those who were saying the Soviets only issued 1 rifle for every 2 men, that was the Tsars, not the Communist. The Red Army of 1941 was much better equipped in terms of small arms and artillery (artillery caused the most German casualties on the Eastern Front) than the Imperial army of 1914 which had extreme shortages of supplies and weapons.
Japan v China could be helped by giving CHC the ability to "Launch Offensive" which would create an arbitrary (4 to 1, 5 to 1?) amount of militia versus their standing infantry forces. This could also be the case for defending against a Japanese or CHI offensive. Perhaps something better (just thought of it now) would be to trigger an event which creates a 2 or 3 militia div. for every inf division you have, and the it locks them until you use a watered down offensive chit. The units could then be permanently upgraded to regular infantry after the defeat of Japan, should the Russians choose to help you.
And for those who were saying the Soviets only issued 1 rifle for every 2 men, that was the Tsars, not the Communist. The Red Army of 1941 was much better equipped in terms of small arms and artillery (artillery caused the most German casualties on the Eastern Front) than the Imperial army of 1914 which had extreme shortages of supplies and weapons.
Japan v China could be helped by giving CHC the ability to "Launch Offensive" which would create an arbitrary (4 to 1, 5 to 1?) amount of militia versus their standing infantry forces. This could also be the case for defending against a Japanese or CHI offensive. Perhaps something better (just thought of it now) would be to trigger an event which creates a 2 or 3 militia div. for every inf division you have, and the it locks them until you use a watered down offensive chit. The units could then be permanently upgraded to regular infantry after the defeat of Japan, should the Russians choose to help you.
I think 5:1 isn't a good number, seeing the sheer amount of local militia that took part in battles such as the one shown in this video dramatization of a battle that took place in Ping'An, Shanxi. More like 20+:1 (one brigade consisted of like 10-40 people they said in an earlier episode, and they still called it a brigade, then they got together around 10,000 locals from around the area for the fight). I think given the three all policy of the time by the Japanese, any and all able bodied fighters (and some unable bodied) from local areas were drafted/volunteered/forced to fight during battles. What year would you say the troops of the various factions shown in the video should be?
An toggelable offensive decision that has a supply malus would probably be the best way to abstract this ingame, although I wouldn't know how to tell the ai when to use it and when not to.
Also, I like your idea of shorter training times for more mobilization Hashoosh.
An toggelable offensive decision that has a supply malus would probably be the best way to abstract this ingame, although I wouldn't know how to tell the ai when to use it and when not to.
Also, I like your idea of shorter training times for more mobilization Hashoosh.
Last edited:
i dont think the problem lies on reducing the training time. honestly, i have never looked at the production values of equipping a ww2 infantry division, so i dont know what kind of industrial capacity and supply requirements it would take. however, depending on wether you want to have a professional army or a drafted army, there should be faster production times for drafted armies. as it stands, basically every DH player goes over to standing army, as they know the gearing bonuses are quite negligible. drafted armies are not as well trained or trained as long as professional armies, even if their equipment is the same.
as daunting as the US industrial capacity was back in 44-45, they were never able to produce a good army. their basic concept was swarming, winning by sheer industrial weight. their army units, save for the specialists perhaps, were usually sub par when compared to fully trained german soldiers. the US marines at the outset of guadalcanal were mostly undertrained and equipped with the nigh obsolete springfield bolt action rifles. the US paratroopers had a period of 2 years to train themselves, and performed admirably under the worst possible conditions.
the solution, in my opinion, would be to give a production bonus to drafted armies. they already suffer from a lower org, rather than low morale rating. this however would come into conflict with the russian game´s standing army for closed autoritarian societies.
as daunting as the US industrial capacity was back in 44-45, they were never able to produce a good army. their basic concept was swarming, winning by sheer industrial weight. their army units, save for the specialists perhaps, were usually sub par when compared to fully trained german soldiers. the US marines at the outset of guadalcanal were mostly undertrained and equipped with the nigh obsolete springfield bolt action rifles. the US paratroopers had a period of 2 years to train themselves, and performed admirably under the worst possible conditions.
the solution, in my opinion, would be to give a production bonus to drafted armies. they already suffer from a lower org, rather than low morale rating. this however would come into conflict with the russian game´s standing army for closed autoritarian societies.
The Drafted v Standing army slider is actually gone from DH, its now Mobilization vs Demobilization.
The Devs stated in a diary that the vast majority of production times is devoted to training, something along the lines of 17 weeks basic + some more for specialized training. (the production diary).
And in vanilla the gearing bonus was the bonus to drafted armies, although the distinction between drafted and standing is weird, because standing armies can be created through conscription (every army in WW2/WW1 by the end of those wars). It is supposed to be representative of a quality vs quantity slider, but the quantity is as you stated Eugenioso quantity has the terrible gearing bonus and a penalty to everything else.
@Limith the 5:1 was just a guess, I'm really not very knowledgeable on the civil war/Sino-Japanese war, the idea was based on what I'd read above. Judging by the small arms they have (the game represents as 1939 having mortars, SMGs and an early semi-auto rifle no?) I'd put them at either a 36 inf or maybe 39.
The Devs stated in a diary that the vast majority of production times is devoted to training, something along the lines of 17 weeks basic + some more for specialized training. (the production diary).
And in vanilla the gearing bonus was the bonus to drafted armies, although the distinction between drafted and standing is weird, because standing armies can be created through conscription (every army in WW2/WW1 by the end of those wars). It is supposed to be representative of a quality vs quantity slider, but the quantity is as you stated Eugenioso quantity has the terrible gearing bonus and a penalty to everything else.
@Limith the 5:1 was just a guess, I'm really not very knowledgeable on the civil war/Sino-Japanese war, the idea was based on what I'd read above. Judging by the small arms they have (the game represents as 1939 having mortars, SMGs and an early semi-auto rifle no?) I'd put them at either a 36 inf or maybe 39.
I have not read this entire topic but i agree with this first post.
USSR never recovers despite there enormous IC and manpower.
Where are the Siberian troops when you reach the region of Moskou in the late '41 ???
Even if i dont attack further in the winter (to make the game more fun) and so give them the time te recover, they hardly do anything.
Many players transfer all the Russian troops from the east to the west long before the war starts. If you don't transfer any troops they will still be there off in Siberia.
The AIs trouble with the Germans is that it doesn't handle encirclements very well.
AI Germany set a new record for me. Attacked Soviet Union in May 1941, bitter peace in September.
Some damn quick action. They had barely taken half of European Russia, just strived for Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad vanquishing the Red Army in the process.
Impressive, but disappointing a bit. In my Japan games I enjoy having to fear Soviet invasion from North. Keeps me busy in late war years....
Some damn quick action. They had barely taken half of European Russia, just strived for Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad vanquishing the Red Army in the process.
Impressive, but disappointing a bit. In my Japan games I enjoy having to fear Soviet invasion from North. Keeps me busy in late war years....
In my current game as Hungary, I'm finding that the Soviets are too strong initially, especially since they don't demobilise between the Winter War and Barbarossa. Also, I have never seen a country demobilise. Ever. I think that's one of the reasons why Finland does so poorly in Barbarossa, since they are still mobilised and haven't replenished their manpower.
Regarding the supply cost, isn't it enough as a temporary solution to do this:
in misc.txt?
Old value is 0.6 as well, and from Dichromate's post I gathered that this is about the kind of needed modifier.
Code:
# Reinforce cost
[b]30[/b] # 0.6in misc.txt?
Old value is 0.6 as well, and from Dichromate's post I gathered that this is about the kind of needed modifier.
I hope this fix gets somehow included in the next patch. Armies are too often full strength, and reinforce is dirt cheap.
What does changing that value from 60 to 30 do? Halve the speed of reinforcement? Double the cost?
Default value is 0.6. So changing it to 30 multiplies the cost by 50, without changing the time
Detailed explanation by Dichromate are here : Link.
Summary : Reinforcing one strength of an infantry div is 22.5 times cheaper (in IC days) than building one strength of new infantry. Kind if explains why it's so easy to always keep your units full strength.
Original data (in misc.txt)
So if i want to increase reinforcement cost in IC days by 22.5 times linearly, i guess we should multiply each component by sqrt(22.5) = 4.75
Proposed data (in misc.txt)
Gonna try playing like this.
Detailed explanation by Dichromate are here : Link.
Summary : Reinforcing one strength of an infantry div is 22.5 times cheaper (in IC days) than building one strength of new infantry. Kind if explains why it's so easy to always keep your units full strength.
Original data (in misc.txt)
Code:
# Reinforce cost
0.6 # 0.6
# Reinforce time
0.4 # 0.35So if i want to increase reinforcement cost in IC days by 22.5 times linearly, i guess we should multiply each component by sqrt(22.5) = 4.75
Proposed data (in misc.txt)
Code:
# Reinforce cost
2.85 #0.6 # 0.6
# Reinforce time
1.9 # 0.4 # 0.35Gonna try playing like this.
I really still think that AI USSR just needs some sort of event which replenishes their troops/adds a lot of new militia or outdated infantry divisions.