Shouldn't Mechanized be cheaper?
- Thread starter Pyramid_Head
- Start date
-
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.
MECH increases division hardness. IMIO MECH are too slow, and too expensive, so I don't build them. The only exception I have made to that is in my present Soviet game where I conquered all the Axis balkan minors, Germany, and Italy before the end of '41. In that game I'm building them because I can.
Early mechanised look slow compared to motorised, but they suffer from much less reduction in speed when travelling across difficult terrain.
Plus, if you were doing "motorised are just the earliest version of mechanised" you could just make the speeds more similar.
Plus, if you were doing "motorised are just the earliest version of mechanised" you could just make the speeds more similar.
IMO, Mech would best be suited as a researchable variant for Light Tanks. Should provide some/most of the LTank breakthrough and hardness while also supplying infantry HP. As it is it's kind of a joke that you get no breakthrough with MECH and that they are effectively considered defensive weapons. What, are you supposed to just spread them across a wide defensive line and use them as immobile bunkers? That's silly.
Paradox also needs to add some kind of mechanism for migrating divisions from one equipment type to another, so that you can smoothly phase out MOT in favor of MECH rather than researching MECH and immediately having a deficit of thousands if you edit your divisions. It's otherwise always really messy to handle and discourages any switch of divisional equipment type.
Paradox also needs to add some kind of mechanism for migrating divisions from one equipment type to another, so that you can smoothly phase out MOT in favor of MECH rather than researching MECH and immediately having a deficit of thousands if you edit your divisions. It's otherwise always really messy to handle and discourages any switch of divisional equipment type.
Infantry is a defensive weapon primary yes. Both historically and in the game.
Tanks is an offensive weapon and very different beasts from APCs or Mechanized Infantry... They have vastly different roles and weapons.
Already in. It's calling switching one division or battalion at a time instead of everything at once, and it's called planning ahead so you build up a stockpile first and edit your templates after you have enough.
Mechanized infantry is not a defensive weapon. Nations would not be constructing expensive armored vehicles only to use them as glorified pillboxes. They are intended to be able to go on the offensive, either on their own or with tanks. There are examples like the Kangaroo which are literally armor variants. Many modern IFVs are also basically light tanks that carry their own infantry support into battle with them, so conceptually they are similar enough even if IFVs are outside the time period.
My suggestion still has the MECH lacking any meaningful armor/armor piercing/Hard Attack, which differentiates their roles fairly I think.
As I said, really messy to handle and discourages any switch of divisional equipment type.
Today, mech is only useful for one thing: Make motorized better. That's why I always research mech.
I never actually build mech because they are unbelievably expensive and TOO SLOW!
I find it unbelievably that putting mech in an armored division makes it slow as a tortuous.
I never actually build mech because they are unbelievably expensive and TOO SLOW!
I find it unbelievably that putting mech in an armored division makes it slow as a tortuous.
Yes they are. The doctrine at the time was that the infantry dismounts when fighting begins except for perhaps gunner(s), meaning for the most part they fight just as normal infantry = defensively. The APCs main job is to protect them while on the road away from the front from air, artillery, shrapnel and ambushes.
If you think the mechanized was meant to drive right up to an enemy position while it was still fully loaded with troops all of them firing guns blazing then you have seen too many Hollywood movies or played too many action games. The APC/Mechanized in itself is a defensive tool since none of the carried soldiers can effectively fire their weapons or fight at all when seated in most models, especially not when the vehicle was moving.
What IFVs are today or became 70 years after the war ended really doesn't hold any meaningful relevance.
No. You said you always end up with deficit of thousands, which isn't the case at all... You never need to go into any deficit at all when swapping in new equipment in a division template, and most of the time I never do so if any of the divisions are actively fighting anywhere.
And it's not messy at all, just require a bit of patience. Simply start production and note in the template how much total stockpile you need from the tooltip. Once stockpile has reached that surplus, then check again and if OK just commit the template change. Like magic, new equipment in divisions with zero shortage.
Last edited:
Advancing into enemy territory and taking up defensive positions = attacking, from the strategic standpoint of HoI.
Infantry doesn't like to be shot at (citation needed). On defense, it avoids this by hiding behind cover. When it isn't in cover (offense), it is more vulnerable. Motorized is still vulnerable since it is not designed to provide protection, just to move quicker. Mechanized is designed to resist small arms fire/shrapnel and fill in the gap so that infantry can get to a strong position without being a bullet pincushion. From that position it is tactically on the defense, but can still be on offense from a strategic standpoint and cause the enemy to retreat.
I said you end up with a deficit of thousands unless you switched divisions individually. Note the "otherwise its messy to handle" part for individually swapping divisions one by one.
Constantly checking every week to see how many divisions can be switched is pretty messy. MOT and MECH have conceptually fairly similar roles and it just makes sense that divisions that use MECH should fall back to MOT rather than fight with no infantry element at all. Similar to how if you specify that you want your infantry to use T2 rifles, but run short, your troops fall back to T1 rifles rather than charge the enemy with their fists.
^^^^^ this is correct 100%. That is why mech is so useful on the offensive. No we don't expect them to all chill in the mech and d-day style rush out when the doors open. They are dismounted and they slowly advance while the Mech covers them. The MECH when fight pure INF from a distance (400-2000m) is a de facto tank no small arms can hurt it and it spits out mg42 fire. You need at least multi shots from an Russian ptrd rifle or 1 shot from a AT1 style 47mm. They also outfitted many mech with the short barrel 75mm low velocity assault gun which at that point makes it a pseudo tank.
But the concept is unless the enemy have some type of basic AT weaponry 47mm AT gun or PTRD rfiles the mech is king and the inf just bounce from cover to cover with big pappa mech covering all its babies. Oh and if you spot the 47mm or inft with PTRD you back off slowly call in an ART strike then continue advancing. Easy as pie.
Obviously mech at CQB cities fighting it is kinda useless just for the same reasons tanks are not good in cities. They do not fair well engaging inft at <200m
Prices in a totalitarian state with a command and control economy for military equipment have as much to do with the fundamental cost of producing that kit as butter has to do with rockets.
This and the fact that I want to focus all my mech into a few units rather than spreading them across my entire mobile force. Having them as a direct upgrade path of motorized would be terrible and would greatly diminish what little value they have,
Mechs are good to have in a few special tank units as spearheads. Done properly these can be hard to resist.
i always build mech? the hardness is essential to making medium tank divisions that are built to focus on combat and not exploitation work well, especially if you are going superior firepower and not mobile warfare. mech divsions take almost no damage. they are a little too expensive to use in any sort of infanty capacity though. and in multiplayer, the 1940 unlock makes they almost useless, unless you are playing a very balanced game as not-france(and i am a france player...). if you dont like the stats of the mech divison, you are underestimating how valuable hardness is. especially in a game dominated by the 7/2 meta with superior firepower.
i think they need a higher breakthrough, alongside mot getting a very slightly higher breakthrough as well. also, the cost should get cut down very slightly. maybe to .8(80%) of the current cost, and the tech gets pushed back to 1938. no resource changes, mech needs to be an investment in some capacity and reducing the rubber or oil cost would just bone france completely.
i think they need a higher breakthrough, alongside mot getting a very slightly higher breakthrough as well. also, the cost should get cut down very slightly. maybe to .8(80%) of the current cost, and the tech gets pushed back to 1938. no resource changes, mech needs to be an investment in some capacity and reducing the rubber or oil cost would just bone france completely.
What? The relative cost between the PzIV and the half-track seems awfully similar to the bren carrier vs british tank cost comparison.
No, it shouldn't be cheaper. Mech were in short supply the entire war. Panzer divisions had 2 battalions out of 6 mechanized. Panzergrenadier divisions had no mechanized battalions.
Yes it should be available in the mid 30s. Everyone had halftracks/lightly armored transports in the mid 30s
Mechs, historically speaking, should not fill out any divisions except the most elite units like Grossdeutschland. HOWEVER, I recall hearing the American divisions tended to be much more heavily mechanized than other nations because, well, America and stuff. I can't find a source on how thoroughly meched American divisions were though.
Yes it should be available in the mid 30s. Everyone had halftracks/lightly armored transports in the mid 30s
Mechs, historically speaking, should not fill out any divisions except the most elite units like Grossdeutschland. HOWEVER, I recall hearing the American divisions tended to be much more heavily mechanized than other nations because, well, America and stuff. I can't find a source on how thoroughly meched American divisions were though.
Last edited:
I think reasonable people can disagree about the cost of mechanized units. What I can't stand is that the slow your army down. All of the half-tracked vehicles of the major powers were as fast and generally faster than comparable light or medium tanks. They were faster than trucks for anything but pure road movement. So once you start to engage the enemy half tracks are faster than trucks and generally much faster than tanks.
MECH is quite expansive, but that's mostly due to the fact that they are also incredibly powerful.
A fully mechanized tank division becomes extremely fearsome due to the hardness increase, to the point where even INF with enough pierce won't stand much of chance against them.
Also don't forget that MOT gets a significant hardness boost from unlocking MECH I, so you have sort of an abstracted way to model the advancement of the early mechanized and semi-mechanized equipment.
A fully mechanized tank division becomes extremely fearsome due to the hardness increase, to the point where even INF with enough pierce won't stand much of chance against them.
Also don't forget that MOT gets a significant hardness boost from unlocking MECH I, so you have sort of an abstracted way to model the advancement of the early mechanized and semi-mechanized equipment.
The infantry battalions in US armored divisions were all equipped with halftracks. The armored engineers were partially so. The recon still used Jeeps in contrast to the (at least supposedly) highly kitted out German armored recon.
However one major complaint about the US armored divisions (the light one) was that they did not have enough infantry. Hence they could occasionally snatch an extra regiment of infantry from infantry division which would not have been on halftracks.
Last edited:
If you give mechanized high breakthrough, and make them cheaper then tanks, then there is very little reason to ever build tanks though.
The Armor>Piercing bonus isn't big on it's own and is easy to counter in a mechanized division by a single TD or two.
From a gamebalance perspective it therefor make sense to keep the roles (and stats) of Mechanized and tanks separate so that you want to mix them in an optimal offensive division. If mechanized gives you both high breakthrough and highest defense in the game they would be OP and replace tanks.
And? Tooze and numerous other historians make very clear than prices in Nazi Germany have zero relationship to effort involved in production. A much more useful and meaningful metric would be worker hours to produce.
Neither claim is particularly important for answering the game design question of whether or not mech should be cheaper.