Some random thoughts to the truck.

[ctl3]

I feel that truck is underwhelming in this game. First of all, motorized infantry is weaker than foot infantry because of terrain modifier. Motorized infantry generally has 10%-20% attack penalty in complex terrain. As far as I know, motorized infantry is transported to the front line by the trucks, get off the truck and then fight like normal foot infantry. Movement penalty is reasonable to motorized infantry but I don't agree attack capability of motorized infantry should be inferior to foot infantry in complex terrain.

Movement speed of a division is defined by the slowest battalion. I don't like this design because it make division designer inflexible. This design made motorized cannot use artillery in the past and dev had to introduce motorized artillery to solve this problem. Maybe we can introduce a new parameter to represent the transport capability of a division and define movement speed by the ratio of transport capability to division weight. If this is the case, we don't need motorized artillery at all, just add artillery to motorized division. Furthermore, we can try even more combination such as marine + motorized.

Finally there are two things bother me and I don't have good answer to them: 1. movement speed does not do anything in combat aside from small reinforce rate bonus. 2. trucks do not help logistic at all and usually make things worse. Many major countries try to motorized their army during WW2 so I wish the game can make some changes to represent the importance of army motorization and make the trucks great again.

 

[Toybasher]

IIRC the devs said they plan to overhaul logistics eventually with "more player involvement".

I do hope they add a "Supply Line Template" or something (I think HOI3 had HQ divisions which did logistics) so having (or not having) trucks is more of a big deal.

Maybe temperature could have higher effects on infantry and less effect on motorized due to A/C and heaters? (If they even had them. I know air conditioning likely wasn't a standard feature on cars during that era)

Also the AI was forbidden from building motorized templates semi-recently because they didn't know how to use them properly. They still use motorized units for stuff like tanks, they just don't make motorized-only divisions.

EDIT: I just thought of something. IIRC MTG added motorized artillery and LaR added motorized/armored car/tank recon.

What about motorized variants of engineers and maintenance? Engineers could have a Self propelled artillery variant for extra attack vs forts.

 

[FindFloppies]

1. movement speed does not do anything in combat aside from small reinforce rate bonus.

Are you serious? That's all you think is positive about speed?

Speed opens lots of possibilities. Also, those lovely 'Overrun' messages I see on the map don't really show in the stats, but they sure show on the after-action report...

 

[Mousetick]

Are you serious? That's all you think is positive about speed?

Movement speed doesn't provide any benefit in combat per se, aside from reinforcement rate. The OP expressed it clearly and correctly. You just read: "Movement speed does not do anything aside from small reinforce rate bonus". You missed the 'in combat' part.

Also, overruns happen after the combat, not during it

 

[SophieX]

Movement speed doesn't provide any benefit in combat per se, aside from reinforcement rate. The OP expressed it clearly and correctly. You just read: "Movement speed does not do anything aside from small reinforce rate bonus". You missed the 'in combat' part.

Also, overruns happen after the combat, not during it

When you define "combat" only as the phase when "bullets fly" you are right.

In my opinion combat is more than only "shooting". The marching forward into tiles that the enemy was forced to leave a few moments ago, isn't an excursion; it is part of the combat too. Overrunning is combat. Or do you think a retreating enemy will not fire at you anymore?

 

[jpd]

Movement speed of a division is defined by the slowest battalion. I don't like this design because it make division designer inflexible. This design made motorized cannot use artillery in the past and dev had to introduce motorized artillery to solve this problem. Maybe we can introduce a new parameter to represent the transport capability of a division and define movement speed by the ratio of transport capability to division weight. If this is the case, we don't need motorized artillery at all, just add artillery to motorized division. Furthermore, we can try even more combination such as marine + motorized.

I like this suggestion. That's similar to how Pacific General did things.

You had a bunch of leg unit types, like towed artillery or infantry. And that came with an option to select your (non combat) transport mode, which was strictly for movement. Which boiled down to none (use your legs), truck or half track. No combat related unit stats were altered in any way, just the range your unit could move each game turn (which translates to speed in hoi4). Where half tracks made the speed penalty in certain terrain less severe than trucks, while trucks had better speed than half tracks when the unit traveled on a road.

Maybe you should make a suggestion in the suggestions forum.

 

[SophieX]

No combat related unit stats were altered in any way,

For the whole engagement the delivering of speed is an essential factor.
For the moment of direct frontline-fighting I didn't see any reasons why a truck should alter something for the ( dismounted) firing troops.

 

[Mousetick]

In my opinion combat is more than only "shooting". The marching forward into tiles that the enemy was forced to leave a few moments ago, isn't an excursion; it is part of the combat too. Overrunning is combat. Or do you think a retreating enemy will not fire at you anymore?

That's a perfectly valid opinion, shared by many I would assume, when speaking in general terms about combat in real life.

However, when speaking about specific game features, it helps to use the game's terminology and concepts, even if they are abstract and detached from reality, so we can understand each other better. Marching forward after winning a battle, in game terms, is not combat - it's movement. Retreating units, in game terms, don't shoot back - they just move while being invulnerable. Combat and movement are two very distinct actions for ground units, each with their own rules and mechanics. This is why, for instance, there are two separate terrain penalties in the game: one for attack/defense (i.e. combat), and one for movement.

Sorry for derailing the conversation, please carry on...

 

[grommile]

Movement speed of a division is defined by the slowest battalion

Yes.

This is a simple, easy to understand, easy to reason about rule which provides results that, if not ideal, are certainly acceptable.

No arguing about how divisional motor pools should be allocated, no endless flamewars about what the movement penalty for a motor pool shortfall should be, just a nice, straightforward rule: if you want mobile divisions, build them out of mobile regiments.

 

[Gort11]

I'd say motorised units should get more bonuses in combat. Being able to quickly bring your forces to bear is a serious advantage.

Another thing I'd like to see is the concept of motorising your entire army gradually. Like the US Army in WW2 didn't have any motorised divisions, they effectively motorised all their divisions as and when required. It'd be cool if you could put trucks into a "motor pool", and that would grant a movement bonus to all leg-mobile units, maxing out at 12 kph when you've got 50 trucks per leg-mobile battalion. Battalions that are already motorised (EG: Heavy tanks) would still limit their divisions down to their speed as normal.

 

[grommile]

Realistically, the falloff curve for a unit with an under-strength motor pool would tend to be flat from full strength down to some acceptable overloading factor, then basically vertical.

 

[Gort11]

Realistically, the falloff curve for a unit with an under-strength motor pool would tend to be flat from full strength down to some acceptable overloading factor, then basically vertical.

Sounds reasonable to me. I do think it's a bit of a shame that all armies in the game have to follow the German model of hard motorised/not-motorised cutoffs.

 

[Bergermeister]

They add hardness. Remember all the like a rock commercials from the 90s?

 

[Secret Master]

I feel that truck is underwhelming in this game. First of all, motorized infantry is weaker than foot infantry because of terrain modifier. Motorized infantry generally has 10%-20% attack penalty in complex terrain.

If you are using MOT to attack into bad terrain, and you are counting on that MOT to do the heavy lifting in combat, then we need to have a long talk about appropriate divisions to use in various situations.

You shouldn't be using MOT in bad terrain in most situations. It should be used by and large in open terrain where the speed matters and you can create breakthroughs and encirclements. And in these cases, I'm also advocating that we don't use MOT by itself, either, but in divisions with various types of tanks (which have bad modifiers in bad terrain anyway).

1. movement speed does not do anything in combat aside from small reinforce rate bonus

Well, that's not when speed matters.

When you create breakthroughs and overrun retreating enemies or complete encirclements, that's when speed matters. And if you don't think speed matters in those situations, I direct your attention to this thread. Read the whole thing, and see just how powerful speed can be.

The short version, though, is summarized by my statement in that thread: speed kills.

 

[ctl3]

If you are using MOT to attack into bad terrain, and you are counting on that MOT to do the heavy lifting in combat, then we need to have a long talk about appropriate divisions to use in various situations.

You shouldn't be using MOT in bad terrain in most situations. It should be used by and large in open terrain where the speed matters and you can create breakthroughs and encirclements. And in these cases, I'm also advocating that we don't use MOT by itself, either, but in divisions with various types of tanks (which have bad modifiers in bad terrain anyway).

No, I do not use motorized infantry in complex terrain and how we should use motorized infantry in the game is not the point I want to discuss. I want to talk about the rationality of attack penalty to motorized infantry. In the history, how did motorized infantry fight in complex terrain? Is attack penalty reasonable to represent the deficiency of motorized infantry in complex terrain?

Well, that's not when speed matters.

When you create breakthroughs and overrun retreating enemies or complete encirclements, that's when speed matters. And if you don't think speed matters in those situations, I direct your attention to this thread. Read the whole thing, and see just how powerful speed can be.

The short version, though, is summarized by my statement in that thread: speed kills.

Yet again, I understand the importance of movement speed in strategy level, but this is not I want to talk about. We should focus on whether movement speed should effect combat more or not. By the way, one of the thing that convince me the movement speed should do something more to the combat is: in game terms breakthrough and encirclement occur in combat as tactics.