Spanish Civil War length adjustment

[Clueless636]

Kind of building off whats been said, in regards to other nations getting involved in the SCW, I think the UK and France and maybe even Portugal should get options to send weapons or an expeditionary force or a full blown intervention as well as the SU, Germany and Italy. You could see Mussolini with his stupidity (maybe not the best word but you know what i mean) thinking to himself "Ha now is time to seize the Balearic's or Spanish colony's" or even Britain or France if they are feeling crafty enough (maybe in return for helping the republicans?) and imagine how inflammatory it would be if French and German troops were exchanging fire and Air forces dog fighting in Spain and how quickly that could escalate into that being on the true German-French border. Basically what I'm saying is I hope that the SCW is more dynamic than in previous HOI games where its normally as the original poster said something you just watch out the corner of your eye.

 

[FOARP]

There's a whole load of things that need to be implemented properly for wars to last as long as they ought to - not just the SCW but WW2 as a whole. Off the top of my head:

- Better manpower mechanics. None of the axis powers lost because they physically ran out of people they could put into uniform (case in point: the ration-strength of the German armed forces peaked in 1944) so the manpower exhaustion of countries that normally causes them to lose early in HOI3 is ahistorical.

- Logistics. Offensives should require stockpiles of ammunition and supplies to first be built up and then expended, but in HOI3 you can pretty much be continually on the offensive without having to worry too much.

- Lines of communication. Armies in WW2 did not advance across country as if it were unvaried, but instead had to advance via main roads, along railways, and over bridges, which of course gave the defence an advantage.

- Semi-permanent fortifications. Military units on the front lines of WW2 would dig their own fortifications wherever they stopped, fortifications that could then be handed over to other units, and which could become reasonably formidable if they had months to prepare them. In HOI3 this did not happen - instead you got a dig-in bonus that maxed-out after ten days and was fairly useless, which could not be transferred to other units, and which would disappear once the unit moved.

The above factors meant that in HOI3, once the AI began to advance against defending AI, the defending AI would very quickly collapse since it was impossible for it to fall back to better defensive lines along line of fortifications and rivers (as the Republic did along the Ebro and the ABC line in the SCW), meaning the war would finish quickly.

 

[208]

One thing HOI3 is really bad at modeling is stalemates. It isn't just Spain. In every iteration of HOI3, either China defeats Japan in two years, or Japan conquers China in two years.

Indeed, if I had to single out the worst aspect of HoI3's land combat model, it's the lack of stalemate, most especially in the USSR (as that has the largest impact on the course of the game) but in other places around the globe as well.

As far as assisting one side or the other in the SCW goes, I hope they move away from the event-driven or decision-driven methods of previous HoIs and instead tie it to the expeditionary force mechanism (and possibly lend-lease as well): at-peace nations providing exp. forces (and/or lend-lease) to a foreign power at war could gain some fraction of combat experience. That would also (assuming the exp. force and lend-lease mechanisms are sensibly restricted) help a country like the USA accelerate their peace-time research during the early parts of WW2 without allowing them to progress too quickly in the pre-war period.

 

[Secret Master]

- Better manpower mechanics. None of the axis powers lost because they physically ran out of people they could put into uniform (case in point: the ration-strength of the German armed forces peaked in 1944) so the manpower exhaustion of countries that normally causes them to lose early in HOI3 is ahistorical.

Is this a function of manpower mechanics, or reinforcement mechanics and reinforcement costs?

Think about how easy it is to reinforce depleted units. Everyone, not the just Axis, burns manpower at prodigious rates, but it's not because of manpower. It's because I have no problem actually getting that manpower to the units in question. The costs are too low in relation to historical costs (and the actual unit costs). And I can easily replace thousands of casualties with minimal effort as long as I can keep rotating divisions out of combat.

To put it in a different way: manpower exhaustion sets in so quickly because everyone can actually "spend" that manpower far faster than they could historically. It's not like the Axis can't generate enough manpower (or the Allies for that matter).

Combine this with some other issues, and you end up with a WWII that's running at hyper speed.

 

[Midden]

FOARP you have raised some good comments.

 

[Opanashc]

Maybe make the reinforcement more expensive/provide less men per day, with initial mobilization giving much bigger boost than +100%? 5.5 million men joined the ranks of the Red Army in the first week of Barbarossa.

 

[apfelstrudel]

In the latest trailer they mentioned the Spanish civil war and said how "useful" it can be for other countries.

which trailer are you talking about? if true this will be exciting!

 

[Victor Cortez]

which trailer are you talking about? if true this will be exciting!

http://youtu.be/OCeEy1IFyX4

 

[Beagá]

Whenever I play Hearts of Iron III, I watch the progress of the Spanish Civil War out of the corner of my eye. In over a dozen games I have never once seen the war last more than a year. Sometimes the nationalists win, sometimes the republicans, but it always seems to end very quickly. Are there plans to address this issue in Hearts of Iron IV?

Lots of stuff HOI 3 did were crap. This was just another of them.

I really believe there will be more options for ahistorical intervention, selling of equipment - and escalation possibilities.

There's a whole load of things that need to be implemented properly for wars to last as long as they ought to - not just the SCW but WW2 as a whole. Off the top of my head:

- Better manpower mechanics. None of the axis powers lost because they physically ran out of people they could put into uniform (case in point: the ration-strength of the German armed forces peaked in 1944) so the manpower exhaustion of countries that normally causes them to lose early in HOI3 is ahistorical.

Wrong. Only thing that kept German production going was the grotesque use of foreign labor. If they didn´t use it, it was either keeping production levels, or removing men from factories and watch it collapse.

Manpower model of HOI 3 was stupid because it didn´t have the distinction of manpower allocated to work versus army.

 

[DEY123]

I think a few important changes would help.

1 - Have units suffer an organization loss when they take a new territory (something like 5 or 10 points).
2 - Increase the minimum organization required to make an attack
3 - Reinforcement rates should be less if the unit is in occupied territory and another minus if overseas from your capital (so maybe two multiplicative 50% reductions for a possible total of only reinforcing at 25% of the rate you can in your home country if on foreign soil and overseas.
4 - Total reinforcements that can be sent out at one time should be limited to something 1.2 times how much Manpower you gain each day. So if you have a huge number of damaged units you can't reinforce all of them
5 - I can't remember if this is in HOI3, but whenever provinces get occupied the country losing them should temporarily lose an appropriate amount of manpower from their pool (which they can get back if they retake the territory).


Basically the first 2 items stop an attacker from continually blitzing forward through provinces which I don't think is historically accurate as you need to stop and actually capture / set up supply lines etc.

The second 2 changes would help with manpower being too quickly depleted and potentially force more combat of depleted units which would be a reason to rotate units off the line.

All of these factors could be influenced by doctrines / tech etc...Maybe even your max reinforcements should be set at 100% of your manpower gains unless you take specific actions / approach. Keeping in mind that you can always use your extra manpower to field more units.

 

[Kovax]

In my opinion, the whole idea of a manpower "pool" is flawed. You accept volunteers or draft recruits, and then train them. At that point, they're "in" the army, whether or not you deploy them somewhere else. There should be a rate at which you gain and train recruits, and your replacements are directly limited by that and the ability to move them.

Beyond that, the Allies generally sent new replacements to the units in the field, while German units often continued fighting with their existing manpower until "depleted", and were then withdrawn to "rebuild" and integrate a large group of new recruits in a short time.

 

[PanH]

3 - Reinforcement rates should be less if the unit is in occupied territory and another minus if overseas from your capital (so maybe two multiplicative 50% reductions for a possible total of only reinforcing at 25% of the rate you can in your home country if on foreign soil and overseas.

Yeah, not really. US managed to reinforce its troops just as fast. It could cost more (though that could be represented by the use of convoys to transport reinforcements) but there's no reason for it to be slower.

About 5, it wasn't in any previous Hoi, and that was really missing. You could have an opm Urrs still having a manpower pull such that they have more soldiers than population. You should lose some manpower, but not all (territorial, reservists, etc), like half of what the province gave you before.

 

[FOARP]

Wrong. Only thing that kept German production going was the grotesque use of foreign labor. If they didn´t use it, it was either keeping production levels, or removing men from factories and watch it collapse.

Manpower model of HOI 3 was stupid because it didn´t have the distinction of manpower allocated to work versus army.

You say my view (supported by the strength figures for the German military and war industries) that the German manpower collapse you see in ever game where Germany loses is ahistorical since that's not what actually happened is "wrong", but then admit that historically German manpower didn't collapse. Thing is, we basically don't disagree - the game isn't going to simulate war crimes, but manpower from occupied territories is going to be in, there just needs to be an acknowledgement of the manpower requirements of industry in-game.

The traditional 'people-crops' model for manpower, whilst simple, is wrong. A model equally as simple (a general manpower pool, some of which is needed for industry) would do a much better job of showing how things really were.

 

[Smileyou]

Spanish "civil" war should last as long as those financing both sides continue. With a "crisis meter" in effect as in
Victoria2.

On one side Fascist Germany,Italy commit basically a coup d'eta in Spain thus civil war emerges, on other UK,France,
US on paper democracies in realities overlook Spain getting attacked by Germany,ITaly. ..USSR fighting it alone thus
increasing USSR doubt about west as anti-fascist bloc, which comes into play when USSR&West fail to form anti-Hitler
coalition,or even adding to this doubt with the 1938 Munich debacle..

So it shouldn't be just to get some war experience, machine examination/planes,tanks, but also political progression we
need to get the WW2 moving..

its really a shame political and diplomacy aspect is so disregarded and we just clash with divisions and that is that..

p.s.:the longer any side (fascist or communist) keep adding arms,money to their benefactor in Spain the more "threatening"
they become to the world..so you can play as USSR that increases the help to such a degree Communist win in Spain but that
might trigger US,UK,France and Axis forces to form a anti-USSR coalition.. or withdraw after getting some military exp. and let
axis win and get their threat levels up on the scale..
This mechanism of "crisis" from Victoria could very well be used to prolong historic conflict to last "proper" amount of time.

In China as well, why didn't Japanese take over, well US and USSR helped with material, how much material needed? if you give
not enough China could be overrun, if too much China could over-take too easily while you are not in position to demand stuff
from them afterwards.. again, politics, diplomacy.. not just military aspect.

 

[Chukada]

Spanish "civil" war should last as long as those financing both sides continue. With a "crisis meter" in effect as in
Victoria2.

On one side Fascist Germany,Italy commit basically a coup d'eta in Spain thus civil war emerges, on other UK,France,
US on paper democracies in realities overlook Spain getting attacked by Germany,ITaly. ..USSR fighting it alone thus
increasing USSR doubt about west as anti-fascist bloc, which comes into play when USSR&West fail to form anti-Hitler
coalition,or even adding to this doubt with the 1938 Munich debacle..

So it shouldn't be just to get some war experience, machine examination/planes,tanks, but also political progression we
need to get the WW2 moving..

its really a shame political and diplomacy aspect is so disregarded and we just clash with divisions and that is that..

p.s.:the longer any side (fascist or communist) keep adding arms,money to their benefactor in Spain the more "threatening"
they become to the world..so you can play as USSR that increases the help to such a degree Communist win in Spain but that
might trigger US,UK,France and Axis forces to form a anti-USSR coalition.. or withdraw after getting some military exp. and let
axis win and get their threat levels up on the scale..
This mechanism of "crisis" from Victoria could very well be used to prolong historic conflict to last "proper" amount of time.

In China as well, why didn't Japanese take over, well US and USSR helped with material, how much material needed? if you give
not enough China could be overrun, if too much China could over-take too easily while you are not in position to demand stuff
from them afterwards.. again, politics, diplomacy.. not just military aspect.

I can assure you. The amount of material that was "given" to China was not the reason Japan didn't take over China. Not even close.

 

[Secret Master]

I can assure you. The amount of material that was "given" to China was not the reason Japan didn't take over China. Not even close.

Was China even receiving materially significant foreign military aid at all prior to Japan attacking the US? I don't recall them giving enormous aid to China (some, but not a lot) prior to the opening of hostilities with the Japan. And the British and US were at various points still trading critical resources with Japan until FDR demanded they leave Indochina in July of 41.

 

[Darkath]

Was China even receiving materially significant foreign military aid at all prior to Japan attacking the US? I don't recall them giving enormous aid to China (some, but not a lot) prior to the opening of hostilities with the Japan. And the British and US were at various points still trading critical resources with Japan until FDR demanded they leave Indochina in July of 41.

Germany had advisors and some military partnership going on with Chiang Kai Check. The USSR also helped the Kuomingtang in the early stage of the civil war, before they shifted their support to the CPC.

But by 1937 all of this is quite marginal already.

 

[Opanashc]

Was China even receiving materially significant foreign military aid at all prior to Japan attacking the US? I don't recall them giving enormous aid to China (some, but not a lot) prior to the opening of hostilities with the Japan. And the British and US were at various points still trading critical resources with Japan until FDR demanded they leave Indochina in July of 41.

German aid before Marco Polo, Soviet aid, British Burma road.
Of course, the amount was nowhere near the scale of Lend-Lease or Cash-and-Carry, but the intent was there.

 

[scroggin]

I think a few important changes would help.

1 - Have units suffer an organization loss when they take a new territory (something like 5 or 10 points).
2 - Increase the minimum organization required to make an attack
3 - Reinforcement rates should be less if the unit is in occupied territory and another minus if overseas from your capital (so maybe two multiplicative 50% reductions for a possible total of only reinforcing at 25% of the rate you can in your home country if on foreign soil and overseas.
4 - Total reinforcements that can be sent out at one time should be limited to something 1.2 times how much Manpower you gain each day. So if you have a huge number of damaged units you can't reinforce all of them
5 - I can't remember if this is in HOI3, but whenever provinces get occupied the country losing them should temporarily lose an appropriate amount of manpower from their pool (which they can get back if they retake the territory).


Basically the first 2 items stop an attacker from continually blitzing forward through provinces which I don't think is historically accurate as you need to stop and actually capture / set up supply lines etc.

The second 2 changes would help with manpower being too quickly depleted and potentially force more combat of depleted units which would be a reason to rotate units off the line.

All of these factors could be influenced by doctrines / tech etc...Maybe even your max reinforcements should be set at 100% of your manpower gains unless you take specific actions / approach. Keeping in mind that you can always use your extra manpower to field more units.

These ideas would certainly drag the Spanish civil war out but they would have major effects on wars elsewhere. A historically quick victory in Poland and france would be impossible. Encirclements would be very rare and blitzkrieg wouldn't happen. We would basically have a WWI style stalemate in europe .
Im not sure what the answer is. Perhaps we could have these effects as a default with the ability to research "blitzkrieg" giving far quicker advances. It certainly wouldn't be good to wreck the battle of france or barbarosa in order to fix the Spanish civil war.

 

[FOARP]

Germany had advisors and some military partnership going on with Chiang Kai Check. The USSR also helped the Kuomingtang in the early stage of the civil war, before they shifted their support to the CPC.

But by 1937 all of this is quite marginal already.

China produced zero aircraft and little in the way of artillery - all the aircraft and the majority of the artillery it fielded was of foreign origin.