Splitting and Merging of Divisions

[Riaelyn]

With the current division structure setup, I'm wondering if divisions can be merged and split.

Scenario 1: Two divisions are really understrength and share the same division template. Can I merge the two to form one division with better manpower?

Scenario 2: One division is full strength. Can I split it in half to form two divisions each with half strength and then reinforce the rest with fresh troops?

I'm assuming that divisions with different templates can't be merged.

Thanks.

 

[womble]

If you look at it through a historical lens, this should be something mediated by doctrines. Does the nation preserve formations and keep feeding them up to strength, or does it disband broken and non-functional formations, dispersing the survivors into other formations, new and old, as cadre? That sort of doctrine had a real effect on the conduct and style of warfare (with the US mostly opting for the former approach, but the Germans opting more for the latter).

 

[Riaelyn]

I'm curious whether gameplay would even allow it or not. I highly doubt that they would put that in the doctrine tree. The doctrine seems to have been rather static for a long time. Further, the doctrine tree only seems to provide bonuses in regards to stats of units and not functionality.

 

[GhengisKhan]

If I remember correctly Podcat stated somewhere you wouldn't be able to do that in HoI4. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

There would be no point in "merging". You would simply disband the division, and the troops and equipment would flow to the divisions requested those. The only thing you would lose is experience on the troops.

Splitting would also be a complicated problem because you now have troops that are Regular, Trained, or higher. If you split a trained unit do they both stay trained? You can end up with some pretty large exploits with such a game mechanic that you now have to program for edge cases.

 

[tommylotto]

I have asked this before, and I do not remember ever seeing a response.

I agree it should be possible. Let's say you are Japan invading Vietnam. You have a square division that you want to fan out and occupy territory. You should be able to split the square division into 2 two regiment brigades and them merge them back together later. That may not work out from a game mechanics standpoint, but I can envision where any division of a predetermined strength, say 75-80% or more, could split into two divisions of the same template with half the strength. Then those two split divisions would reinforce back to full strength (assuming the manpower and equipment were available) or it could change templates from Square Infantry Division to an Infantry Brigade and less reinforcements would be necessary. Then as you suggested two understrength divisions of the same template should be able to merge in the field. So, back to Vietnam: One square division splits to two square divisions. The two square divisions change templates to two brigades to save unnecessary reinforcements. They operate as two independent brigades. When they want to merge back into one division, they change templates to 2 half strength square divisions and merge into one full strength square division. This is obviously too complicated and round about, but that could be the mechanism behind the scene, whereas the split/merge and template changes could be automated by the interface to make it more user friendly.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I have asked this before, and I do not remember ever seeing a response.

I agree it should be possible. Let's say you are Japan invading Vietnam. You have a square division that you want to fan out and occupy territory. You should be able to split the square division into 2 two regiment brigades and them merge them back together later. That may not work out from a game mechanics standpoint, but I can envision where any division of a predetermined strength, say 75-80% or more, could split into two divisions of the same template with half the strength. Then those two split divisions would reinforce back to full strength (assuming the manpower and equipment were available) or it could change templates from Square Infantry Division to an Infantry Brigade and less reinforcements would be necessary. Then as you suggested two understrength divisions of the same template should be able to merge in the field. So, back to Vietnam: One square division splits to two square divisions. The two square divisions change templates to two brigades to save unnecessary reinforcements. They operate as two independent brigades. When they want to merge back into one division, they change templates to 2 half strength square divisions and merge into one full strength square division. This is obviously too complicated and round about, but that could be the mechanism behind the scene, whereas the split/merge and template changes could be automated by the interface to make it more user friendly.

Doing so you would end up with a "free template" simply by splitting because you have now created a template for the split division to stop reinforcement.
Having them both use the same template means both are at half strength and now you end up with a completely different exploit with the skill level of troops, since we can now do Regular, Skilled, Trained, Elite troops. What happens when you split an elite troop in half, do you end up with 2 Elite units?

Too many problems and issues with such mechanics.

 

[Vidkjaer]

I have asked this before, and I do not remember ever seeing a response.

I agree it should be possible. Let's say you are Japan invading Vietnam. You have a square division that you want to fan out and occupy territory. You should be able to split the square division into 2 two regiment brigades and them merge them back together later. That may not work out from a game mechanics standpoint, but I can envision where any division of a predetermined strength, say 75-80% or more, could split into two divisions of the same template with half the strength. Then those two split divisions would reinforce back to full strength (assuming the manpower and equipment were available) or it could change templates from Square Infantry Division to an Infantry Brigade and less reinforcements would be necessary. Then as you suggested two understrength divisions of the same template should be able to merge in the field. So, back to Vietnam: One square division splits to two square divisions. The two square divisions change templates to two brigades to save unnecessary reinforcements. They operate as two independent brigades. When they want to merge back into one division, they change templates to 2 half strength square divisions and merge into one full strength square division. This is obviously too complicated and round about, but that could be the mechanism behind the scene, whereas the split/merge and template changes could be automated by the interface to make it more user friendly.

Design 2 infantry divisions. One for guarding provinces and one for combat?

 

[tommylotto]

Doing so you would end up with a "free template" simply by splitting because you have now created a template for the split division to stop reinforcement.
Having them both use the same template means both are at half strength and now you end up with a completely different exploit with the skill level of troops, since we can now do Regular, Skilled, Trained, Elite troops. What happens when you split an elite troop in half, do you end up with 2 Elite units?

Too many problems and issues with such mechanics.

Who says you have to give a free template? You should only be able to do a template change if you have the other template available... And I see no exploit with experience. You split an experienced division, and you get 2 half strength experienced divisions. But when you reinforce those experienced divisions with green recruits, then the experience level of the 2 divisions will get watered down, just like when you reinforce an experienced division after battle losses. The mechanic for determining the resulting experience of the reinforced divisions should already be in place.

 

[podcat]

I'm curious whether gameplay would even allow it or not. I highly doubt that they would put that in the doctrine tree. The doctrine seems to have been rather static for a long time. Further, the doctrine tree only seems to provide bonuses in regards to stats of units and not functionality.

I would have to check if it changed, but if you disband one of two understrength divisions in a province the other will get its stuff right away. You cant easily split though but its doable with some hoops:
1. make new template thats smaller
2. make basically empty divisions with template
3. place them in same province as other divisions
4. swap those divisions to new smaller template also
5. should now share equipment without roundtrip needed through reinforcement system

hopefully nobody will do either of above very much although I have removed understrength divisions at times to consolidate where I had no access to reinforcements.

 

[jamesd]

I would have to check if it changed, but if you disband one of two understrength divisions in a province the other will get its stuff right away. You cant easily split though but its doable with some hoops:
1. make new template thats smaller
2. make basically empty divisions with template
3. place them in same province as other divisions
4. swap those divisions to new smaller template also
5. should now share equipment without roundtrip needed through reinforcement system

hopefully nobody will do either of above very much although I have removed understrength divisions at times to consolidate where I had no access to reinforcements.

Talking about new smaller templates, I've been wanting to ask if it will cost experience to copy an existing template or remove battalions from a template. The prime example of this is the German army on the eastern front. Its infantry divisions started with 9 battalions organised in 3 regiments. By the winter of 41/42 many divisions had disbanded a battalion from each regiment due to not receiving enough replacements. For the 1942 summer campaign, selected divisions in the south were reinforced to full strength while the decision was made to keep most of the divisions in the north at their reduced size. It shouldn't just be a matter of manually turning off the ability for the divisions in the north to receive reinforcements, as they still received some so that they didn't disappear, but they were not going to be rebuilt back to 9 battalions. Later on 6 battalions in 3 regiments became the standard structure.

I'd like to see the ability to copy a template for no cost, and the ability to remove components for no cost. In the above situation the player would copy the standard infantry template in January 1942, remove an infantry battalion from each brigade and then choose divisions to assign to this new template. It's something that would appeal to the historian gamers amongst us.

 

[Axe99]

I would have to check if it changed, but if you disband one of two understrength divisions in a province the other will get its stuff right away. You cant easily split though but its doable with some hoops:
1. make new template thats smaller
2. make basically empty divisions with template
3. place them in same province as other divisions
4. swap those divisions to new smaller template also
5. should now share equipment without roundtrip needed through reinforcement system

hopefully nobody will do either of above very much although I have removed understrength divisions at times to consolidate where I had no access to reinforcements.

Cheers for the response Herr Oberkommando . Am a big fan of troops/equipment not needing to make the round-trip back if there are other units in the same province that can use the same gear. Any thoughts on maybe expanding that to the same state or the like, to cut down on shuffling units around so everyone's in the same province together (note - I haven't thought this through - if thar be silly exploits that this would enable, just ignore my crazytalk)?

In terms of the workaround, how easy is it at the moment to get an 'empty template' into that same province - so say as a US player I've got a full-strength marine division on a Pacific Island somewhere, and I want to split it into two weaker-strength formations to cover more ground, is it quick and easy, or do I need to ship a blank template from the US?

 

[tommylotto]

That's cool.

So, a TD battalion could kinda sorta be shifted from one infantry division to another. If two divisions are in one province: one of the INF template, and one of the INF+TD template, they could switch templates and the TD's would just go from one division to another.

I would still suggest a split and merge button upon selecting the division(s), and upon selecting the split function a drop down list of the other templates that they could split into could show up. So, the act of splitting and changing templates could be done in one step.

 

[outis]

Who says you have to give a free template? You should only be able to do a template change if you have the other template available... And I see no exploit with experience. You split an experienced division, and you get 2 half strength experienced divisions. But when you reinforce those experienced divisions with green recruits, then the experience level of the 2 divisions will get watered down, just like when you reinforce an experienced division after battle losses. The mechanic for determining the resulting experience of the reinforced divisions should already be in place.

That's really how Germany build up the army before the war -- each division is split in 3 evenly, and each of the new divisions are filled up with recruits. This is also how Russian Shadow divisions worked -- each division split in two, one with half the officers and all the soldiers, while the other one with half the officers NO soldiers (to be fill with recruits).

Talking about replacement -- I don't think Russian send any replacements. When a division becomes combat ineffective due to losses, it is simply withdrawn from front line and reformed.
US system is feeding raw recruits to units, while German send replacements after the unit is pulled from combat to rest and recover.

 

[henzington]

France was used for many of the German units to reform.

 

[Veer]

Talking about new smaller templates, I've been wanting to ask if it will cost experience to copy an existing template or remove battalions from a template. The prime example of this is the German army on the eastern front. Its infantry divisions started with 9 battalions organised in 3 regiments. By the winter of 41/42 many divisions had disbanded a battalion from each regiment due to not receiving enough replacements. For the 1942 summer campaign, selected divisions in the south were reinforced to full strength while the decision was made to keep most of the divisions in the north at their reduced size. It shouldn't just be a matter of manually turning off the ability for the divisions in the north to receive reinforcements, as they still received some so that they didn't disappear, but they were not going to be rebuilt back to 9 battalions. Later on 6 battalions in 3 regiments became the standard structure.

I'd like to see the ability to copy a template for no cost, and the ability to remove components for no cost. In the above situation the player would copy the standard infantry template in January 1942, remove an infantry battalion from each brigade and then choose divisions to assign to this new template. It's something that would appeal to the historian gamers amongst us.

Creating a new (copied) template shoulds till cost experience points. It's not like the German Army in early 1942 lacked battlefield experience in anycase.

 

[jamesd]

Creating a new (copied) template shoulds till cost experience points. It's not like the German Army in early 1942 lacked battlefield experience in anycase.

To me, the concept of spending experience points to change a template is about improving it through combat lessons learned. The German decision to reduce the size of their infantry divisions (also effectively done by the Russians) was about manpower constraints, not about fielding a more potent division. That's why I don't think that removing components from a division template should cost experience.

Similarly I don't want to spend points just to copy an existing template. If you think about upgrading divisions, a new production line may only allow a slow upgrade. It makes sense to create a new template (no cost because it is identical), add a battalion to that template (which does cost) and then reassign a division to that new template, with additional divisions added as production ramps up. Otherwise if you just change the original template you'll have a trickle of the new equipment going to all divisions and it could take years until any of them are fully equipped - unless you manually go and prioritise certain divisions, but then once they're all done you may need to go and find them and turn the prioritisation off.

Lets think about British infantry divisions. They started off comparatively small and lacking in supporting arms, but by 1944 the divisions in combat had added thousands of men and tons of equipment.

In 1936 we have infantry divisions with 9 infantry battalions, 4 artillery battalions (48 guns) and an engineer battalion
By 1939 the top of the line divisions had added 2 artillery battalions, 2 AT battalions (75 guns) and a recon battalion, but some divisions were effectively still on the 1936 template and others were in between.
By 1944 they've added a strong AA component, a MG battalion and even more AT guns, but there are still some divisions in Britain that are on a reduced establishment that is similar to the 1936 template (4 art bns, 1 AT bn and weak engineer and recon elements).

Variants on the standard templates were legion in certain armies in WW2, which is why I don't want to have to pay to copy or downgrade existing templates. It allows historical detail for players who want it without impacting other players who think its too much micro management.

 

[Big Nev]

I would have to check if it changed, but if you disband one of two understrength divisions in a province the other will get its stuff right away. You cant easily split though but its doable with some hoops:
1. make new template thats smaller
2. make basically empty divisions with template
3. place them in same province as other divisions
4. swap those divisions to new smaller template also
5. should now share equipment without roundtrip needed through reinforcement system

hopefully nobody will do either of above very much although I have removed understrength divisions at times to consolidate where I had no access to reinforcements.

Thanks podcat, this is excellent news (well it's news to me anyway) that troops made "redundant" by template change can immediately (?) be absorbed in to divisions with templates that require them due to losses or template change. The "reinforcement" round-trip was pretty-much the only thing I didn't like about the new template system.

I am very very happy with this information.

Cheers for the response Herr Oberkommando . Am a big fan of troops/equipment not needing to make the round-trip back if there are other units in the same province that can use the same gear. Any thoughts on maybe expanding that to the same state or the like, to cut down on shuffling units around so everyone's in the same province together (note - I haven't thought this through - if thar be silly exploits that this would enable, just ignore my crazytalk)?

In terms of the workaround, how easy is it at the moment to get an 'empty template' into that same province - so say as a US player I've got a full-strength marine division on a Pacific Island somewhere, and I want to split it into two weaker-strength formations to cover more ground, is it quick and easy, or do I need to ship a blank template from the US?

Well of course there will be silly exploits that this will enable. Splitting a division in to two, as with your marine division on a Pacific Island somewhere. So long as you have enough of the right templates, say, marine division templates with two, three & four regiments (HoI 3 speak) you create a new division, of two regiments, on the island and re-define the old four-regiment division as a two regiment division & PRESTO! two half strength divisions.

Is this an exploit?

I think not.

Shifting TDs from a MAR division to a MTN division (one of my favourites) could be done in exactly the same way provided you have the divisional templates designed.

It will cost you in experience to create lots of "spare" divisional templates in order to give you (me) the level of flexibility you (I) need (want) to do these things but their is a cost. In HoI 3 there wasn't. I think this is better.

Very happy

 

[Veer]

Similarly I don't want to spend points just to copy an existing template. If you think about upgrading divisions, a new production line may only allow a slow upgrade. It makes sense to create a new template (no cost because it is identical), add a battalion to that template (which does cost) and then reassign a division to that new template, with additional divisions added as production ramps up.

Won't this depend on how much experience points you gain? If you have plenty of experience points from over a year of brutal combat on the eastern front you might have more than enough to make new templates.

Another way to look at it is why have exp points to create new templates in the first place? Why not just make it free? The idea is the division planner is a mini-game : you have to make some choices, and for those choices to be meaningful there has to be some trade off. If its too easy to create new divisions and new templates at will then you might as well do away with the entire concept of exp points and make it free to change.

 

[Axe99]

Well of course there will be silly exploits that this will enable. Splitting a division in to two, as with your marine division on a Pacific Island somewhere. So long as you have enough of the right templates, say, marine division templates with two, three & four regiments (HoI 3 speak) you create a new division, of two regiments, on the island and re-define the old four-regiment division as a two regiment division & PRESTO! two half strength divisions.

Is this an exploit?

I think not.

Sorry, my exploit comment was in reference to widening the scope of equipment not going back into the pool before redeployment to the state, rather than the province. Apologies for not writing clearly. Say, for example, you have five divisions in a state, but they've all been beaten and battered a bit. If yu could disband one and have the reinforcements spread between the divisions in the state rather than the province, it could cut down on potentially finickity micro by having to move all the divisions involved in the disband/redeployment to the same province. I just couldn't think if expanding the scope from province to state would add in exploits (like teleporting reinforcing troops into a cut-off pocket, or something like that).