One thing than needs to be present for the unit builds to be less random and more realistic is a split "strength" into "men" and " heavy equipment". Retreating units should conserve their men but lose some equipment. Divisions low on fuel (i.e. breaking out of encirclement) and supplies may lose all their equipment very fast. Things like the "Panzer army" without Panzers would become possible.
Support battalions or regiments instead of support brigades
- Thread starter Nicolas I
- 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.
One thing than needs to be present for the unit builds to be less random and more realistic is a split "strength" into "men" and " heavy equipment". Retreating units should conserve their men but lose some equipment. Divisions low on fuel (i.e. breaking out of encirclement) and supplies may lose all their equipment very fast. Things like the "Panzer army" without Panzers would become possible.
I definitely agree with this. It would make evacuations much more costly and would be invaluable for simulating equipment loss over long campaigns. There could even be equipment breakdown penalties applied for moving in deep mud or in extremely cold weather.
Now that we know individual equipment will be in HOI4, I'm at least hopeful we'll see something like this.
With the material thing (I think it's this name) I Hope this works, because choose between AT or ART is just absurd.
The core mod for HoI2 (or one of them) had decision you could make whether to go for larger divisions but less of them or smaller divisions but more of them. Some of those systems are great for Germans vs Russians. And historically not all unit sizes where the same and each nation had a different approach.
It would be nice if there was a break-down of what was actually in a division. This should be (somewhat) specific.
We know that the new production system isn't about building units, but building materials, weapons, vehicles, etc. So, theoretically, it should be possible to say "I want an engineer (unit) within each (command rank)."
As a mitigating element, I would add that this should be controlled by doctrines. If you want your armies to be stuffed-full of every kind of support attachment, separate from the brigades, then that should be a doctrinal decision. Inversely, if you want Heinz 57 divisions, that's also doctrines.
Either way, I don't see the value in customizing every division for every army corp in every army. That might be fun for some, but it is a bit much from an administrative perspective. It would be better to define "Standard Infantry Division" - "Standard Motorized Division" - (etc,...)
We know that the new production system isn't about building units, but building materials, weapons, vehicles, etc. So, theoretically, it should be possible to say "I want an engineer (unit) within each (command rank)."
As a mitigating element, I would add that this should be controlled by doctrines. If you want your armies to be stuffed-full of every kind of support attachment, separate from the brigades, then that should be a doctrinal decision. Inversely, if you want Heinz 57 divisions, that's also doctrines.
Either way, I don't see the value in customizing every division for every army corp in every army. That might be fun for some, but it is a bit much from an administrative perspective. It would be better to define "Standard Infantry Division" - "Standard Motorized Division" - (etc,...)
It's funny, when I made a similiar kinda suggestion in the HoI 3 section a couple months back, you said "OMG this is too much micro!!!" and aggressively engaged me in a totally nonsensical argument. Now here you are talking about realistic unit sizes and equipment.
Now I understand why old timers in the forum mostly refrain from posting nowadays. Too many unstable guys here.