Should hospitals be abstracted into passive tech?

[vermicious knid]

Not sure why you're saying that, there are plenty of technologies that affect the armed forces as a whole. Check out land doctrines.

I'm saying that because there are a finite number of hard-coded modifiers with varying scopes that you can use, and trickleback/experience loss are not available as things you can apply to divisions or the entire army.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I tried it every way I could think of.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is just on me, not an opinion on the actual stats, but I feel morally bad, if I don't add field hospitals. Like, I could've expended less manpower to achieve the same results, if I did.

This assumes the marginal savings in manpower are greater than the increased capability of using a different support company in its place, or (if you're industry starved) equipping more men so you don't get out-width'd and suffer more damage.

I think even in the strict sense of "minimize casualties taken", it might be difficult to make a case for them.

They would have to do something extra, or have their impact on XP gain/retention drastically improved, to become actually viable as a support company option in their present form.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

and field hospitals should probably use a similar mechanism, as they were behind-the-lines corps assets.

that seems unpleasantly micro-intensive.

 

[Harin]

Abstracting the hospital support company, or any of the other companies, would probably be something to do if PDX has completely given up on making all support companies a useful addition to a division. Personally, I hope that is not the case. There are many ideas on the forums on how to make the hospital, recon, signals, and others useful enough to include in more than a handful of divisions. I suppose that the work to put such ideas into the game is to great at the moment, which gives rise to suggestions like the OPs.

 

[Myrmidon]

I like the idea of it being a passive tech very much. This is an image of a part of the tech tree from an earlier Hearts of Iron game. Given how much of an issue manpower is for smaller countries I think revisiting this is a good idea. Improving agriculture increased manpower too, if I recall correctly.
View attachment 805762

Ah yes. Thank you for this "flashback" to a simpler and in many ways, just as fun game. Memories.

 

[Louella]

that seems unpleasantly micro-intensive.

How so ?

I had another thought, where it might be possible to do something like... assign equipment to a general, representing the corps assets.

Think of something like the commander traits - except they require the general to be supplied with equipment for the bonuses to be fully active.

Very little micromanagement required, after a general is assigned to lead a group of divisions.

Use of specialist forces, such as urban assault troops, could be done via a similar thing to the command abilities. Or a button in the battle view, to do things on a provincial level.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I had another thought, where it might be possible to do something like... assign equipment to a general, representing the corps assets.

Think of something like the commander traits - except they require the general to be supplied with equipment for the bonuses to be fully active.

Very little micromanagement required, after a general is assigned to lead a group of divisions.

on average i'd say i swap units between armies ~20 times over the course of the war (i.e. after set up/build up is finished). i'm sure it could be made to work, but not if it were set up like railway guns currently are.

 

[Kanitatlan]

I think it is easy to make the case that medical facilities varied between different armed forces in WW2 and that there were good strategic and technical reasons why this was so. The biggest problem with the existing hospital company as that it is all or nothing and if you decide to have them progressive technology simply makes them better and better. The initial cost of the unit makes divisions bigger and hence increases casualties. This downgrades the initial value of 1936 hospitals. I think 1945 hospital companies are well worth having but it is kind of irrelevant by that stage.

I would have suggested one of the following would be a better implementation.

Two possible approaches which are roughly similar.

Have a reduced cost for hospital companies and then have each tech increase the cost (more manpower, support equipment, trucks). This smooths out the initial bump.

OR

Just factor them into divisions and have the tech apply to all units AND add costs to all units. Base medical provision might be something like add 2% to all unit manpower, for example. This would be harder as it isn't obvious how to factor in the equipment.

For further consideration, on a 10,000 man division hospitals and the techs have interesting effects

Initial add reduces casualties by 15% and exp loss by 10%

Success techs are loss reduction of 15%, 12.5%, 14.2%, 16.6% - these values differ from the %age listed in tech because I am expressing the multiplicative effect and the tech is additive. There are similar escalating numbers for exp retention, each successive 10% is more valuable than the previous one.

 

[bERt0r]

On a slightly off topic historical note I want to mention that WW2 saw the first combat use of penicilin which drastically reduced casualties. While it was invented or rather discovered in the 20s, it took until the 40s to develop it into an applicable drug. Possibly the biggest technological contribution of the UK in WW2. I mentioned that because there is historical precedence for a drastic improvement of medicine during the war (upgrades).

Penicillin: Wonder Drug of World War II

How mold in a petri dish became the soldiers’ lifesaver. In December 1943 British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was homeward bound across North Africa

www.historynet.com

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

I also like field hospitals, because they don't need any additional equipment. The artilleries and flame tanks all need their own type to be produced, and I can't be bothered to calculate how many factories I should put on just support company reinforcements.

 

[Gort11]

I'm saying that because there are a finite number of hard-coded modifiers with varying scopes that you can use, and trickleback/experience loss are not available as things you can apply to divisions or the entire army.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I tried it every way I could think of.

Okay, but nobody's asking you to make the change. I'm coming at this from the angle of Paradox doing so.

 

[vermicious knid]

Okay, but nobody's asking you to make the change. I'm coming at this from the angle of Paradox doing so.

Ah. I have so given up on the idea of pdx adding little tweaks to make things more immersive for players who have spent way too much time playing that I wasn't even thinking in those terms.

I could be wrong, but I get the sense that they mostly leave it to modders to add that sort of immersive content.