Scorched earth tactic

[Viktor_Vertex]

Apologies if we aren't allowed to discuss it(AFAIK rules dont specifically mention it), but i think that this is a valuable military tactic and its effects on civilians can be ignored ingame.

So, scorched earth tactic, you have some captured land, but you can't hold it so you are expecting to retreat. In order to delay the enemy, you destroy railways, roads, ports, shelter, industry, everything of value to the enemy. Ingame this can be represented by lowering infrastructure.
As far as I know, this isn't implemented, right ?
I think it should be possible for us to issue a 'destroy infrastructure' order in occupied territories before retreating, in order to slow the enemy down.
Adding to this, some kind of 'minefields' mechanic would also add depth to the game, increasing attrition until they are removed...

What are your thoughts ?

 

[Red Roo]

I agree that Scorched earth tactics should be present in the game, but minefields should exist to be more of an anti-armour/barrier because they wouldn't be effective at killing large amounts of troop, and instead just consume large amounts of time. What i'd love to see is sea mines; they add a greater possibility for naval strategy and would actually be something that could, in the best case, do serious strength damage to enemy ships, or at worst slow them down/force the to reroute their ships or block access entirely.

 

[Vidkjaer]

I saw some statement from the Dev´s some months ago that you can destroy factories yourself.

 

[Sharp163]

Relevant

 

[CHRIS3169]

Mines would be cool...especially adding a minesweeper to your support column. Seems like there's tons of potential with this idea. Mine sweeping ships, mine laying ships, mine laying/sweeping support units etc

 

[CHRIS3169]

Apologies if we aren't allowed to discuss it(AFAIK rules dont specifically mention it), but i think that this is a valuable military tactic and its effects on civilians can be ignored ingame.

So, scorched earth tactic, you have some captured land, but you can't hold it so you are expecting to retreat. In order to delay the enemy, you destroy railways, roads, ports, shelter, industry, everything of value to the enemy. Ingame this can be represented by lowering infrastructure.
As far as I know, this isn't implemented, right ?
I think it should be possible for us to issue a 'destroy infrastructure' order in occupied territories before retreating, in order to slow the enemy down.
Adding to this, some kind of 'minefields' mechanic would also add depth to the game, increasing attrition until they are removed...

What are your thoughts ?

Being able to blow bridges would be cool too. Maybe by having engineer support units to destroy them, increasing attacking penalties while crossing, as well as slowing them down, and if the enemy has engineers too it'll help them cross rivers with less penalty.

Also, blowing bridges in every province except one or two would allow you to bottleneck invaders into using intact bridges.

Overall it could add a lot more depth than the simple crossing penalties associated with rivers.

 

[Red Roo]

Being able to blow bridges would be cool too. Maybe by having engineer support units to destroy them, increasing attacking penalties while crossing, as well as slowing them down, and if the enemy has engineers too it'll help them cross rivers with less penalty.

Also, blowing bridges in every province except one or two would allow you to bottleneck invaders into using intact bridges.

Overall it could add a lot more depth than the simple crossing penalties associated with rivers.

Yes, yes and yes!

 

[Vidkjaer]

Being able to blow bridges would be cool too. Maybe by having engineer support units to destroy them, increasing attacking penalties while crossing, as well as slowing them down, and if the enemy has engineers too it'll help them cross rivers with less penalty.

Also, blowing bridges in every province except one or two would allow you to bottleneck invaders into using intact bridges.

Overall it could add a lot more depth than the simple crossing penalties associated with rivers.

You mean the river crossing penalty that gets reduced by having engineer support in your battalion? I guess the game simulates you always blow up bridges and the opponent gets the river crossing penalty. It just isnt an option you can choose from.

 

[Number 7]

i assume some scorched earth is "uintentionally simulated" by the loss of infrastructure during fighting in a state. you could imagine that not all infrastructure was lost as a direct result of a battle. but you are getting less supplies to the front because in the retreat the german division blew up the bridge / sabotaged the railway line and it has to be repaired (representing lowered infra)

although certainly nothing large scale that i've seen

 

[CHRIS3169]

You mean the river crossing penalty that gets reduced by having engineer support in your battalion? I guess the game simulates you always blow up bridges and the opponent gets the river crossing penalty. It just isnt an option you can choose from.

But if you're in full retreat and don't have troops stationed on the other side of the river, I don't think it slows the army chasing you down anymore than normal. Like if you have engineers, you should be able to enable sabotage/scorched earth where they do everything possible to slowing down the army, including penalties not associated with combat.

 

[kalauer]

This is an option EU4, as most of us probably know. It is abstracted in higher attrition for armies. Problem with this is, that it is instant as far as i remember.

In HoI, you would have to assign some amount of time it takes to demolish a substantial part of an entire region's (!) infrastructure. I would assume that this time would be too long for the average combat actions to effectively use it close behind or on the front lines. So it may only be useful for the SU when they decide to abandon large chunks of their land in the very beginning or so. I guess Russia even is the only example for successfull application of this in a major conflict (Napoleon)?

However, this would be a balance-issue rather than historic accuracy.

 

[Denkt]

In the other HOI infrastructure do get damaged if the enemy take control over a province so that will probably happen in HOI4 as well.

 

[potski]

It probably won't - infrastructure is not based on provinces, but states.

Also, blowing bridges in every province except one or two would allow you to bottleneck invaders into using intact bridges.

Same thing, no province infrastructure. It's based on an entire state of about 10-12 provinces, so that level of detail is not possible.

Although you can't deliberately destroy your own infra, you can destroy your buildings in the shared slots - factories, dockyards, refineries, rocket sites and nuclear reactors.

This would be a difficult process. You have to do it while you still control the state. If control flips to the enemy then you lose the opportunity. If you do it very early then you lose the equipment that could be produced. Of course, if you are retreating and destroy all of the factories, then manage to counter-attack and recapture the state, then they are gone.

Since factories have specific state locations, rather than just having generic IC like HOI3, then you can also make strategic choices like the Soviets and Chinese, and concentrate new building in the interior far away from the front. And that could be done side by side with factory destruction. So you are in effect moving factories from say Kursk to Uralsk.

You can't destroy resources, but you could make the whole of Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Baltic States an industrial wasteland, so the Germans get nothing but pain and hurt from occupying all of that territory. Especially as they have to use their own factories in Germany if they want to quickly repair the infra damage that takes place in combat, in order to maintain supply lines.

 

[Immortal88]

Naval mines are an awesome idea! https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...velopment-diary-12th-of-february-2016.908066/

Both thumbs up.

If you have aerial superiority you could drop them from planes in front of enemy dockyards and thus tie up some enemy dockyard resources to clear them and slow production. Unless your enemy would risk losing the next ship rolling off the line.

 

[potski]

Since they would be naval equipment then they would have options to patrol up to three naval regions, searching for convoys to destroy. They would need a 3D model, which you would see circulating around the regions on the map. You would have to build them in a naval dockyard, and launch them in a naval base. You can add them to a fleet of carriers and battleships, and the mines will take part in a fleet engagement, closing on the enemy on the combat screen. If they get damaged then they can go back to their home base for repairs.

 

[LordOfWar16]

You can destroy factories if you so desire and infrastructure gets damaged and destroyed when there is fighting going on in the state. Landmines are abstracted in the Fortifications, which are basicly everything from sandbags over trenches to bunkers and mines. There is really no reason to make them seperate.

 

[jalapen0]

I'm sure there are exceptions but doesn't ww2 combat scorch the province by default?

Also, mines and stuff is at a tactical level. This game is at a strategic level. I'm happy with it being simulated.

 

[potski]

Sea mines can have a strategic effect, if they are used to block straits. But that is abstracted - you don't need to mod sea mines into the game to control the sea lanes through Gibraltar.

 

[Secret Master]

I dunno.

I felt that HOI3 scorched the earth pretty well even without a deliberate function. How many provinces in high combat areas ended up reduced to practically zero infra and zero structures during a typical play through?

It doesn't cover low combat areas, but you don't have time to do a proper scorch during rapid advances anyway.

 

[Viktor_Vertex]

Infra is lost due to combat yes but that is not the point of scorched earth. The point is to avoid combat while luring the enemy inside the territory, and leaving them no means to sustain themselves logistically. Tank duels in a city damage the building, this is simulated yes. Blowing up railways while avoiding combat altogether isn't.
Destroying factories is fine but it is not a tactical move. It doesn't help defeat the army that is passing through that area, while the option to blow infrastructure does.