Task organizing units: not a thing

[billcorr]

Historically, commanders would mix and match units in order to accomplish specific missions.

That is, task organize their units.

This ability to re-organize units can be done in HoI4 by spending Army XP.

But the fluidity with which commanders would historically organize their units is not reflected in HoI4.

Here is an example of a division+ unit organized for The Raj's (UK led) punitive expedition into The Swat Valley in 1935:

For a grand-strategy game, task organizing might not be appropriate.

But HoI4 is a combination of tactical, operational, and strategic gameplay.

Given that the foundational unit in HoI4 is the battalion, task organizing would be appropriate.

IF the foundational unit in HoI4 were to be a larger formation such as Army or Army Group, then task organizing within the game would not be an important aspect. (Armies and Army Groups are self-sufficient behemoths that don't typically need to add or subtract units. Admittedly, one could make the argument that task organizing occurs at any echelon of military organization, given their fractal nature).

What are your thoughts about the lack of ability to task organize in HoI4?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Under what scenarios in HoI4 would you ever want or need to move battalions between divisions, or change templates in the middle of an operation? I certainly can't think of any, especially considering that you're never going to want to break up a meta 20/40 width division into smaller pieces for gameplay/mechanical reasons. The main goal you work towards through the early game is finishing your optimal meta templates and making every single division in your army one of them, then never changing them again, so you don't have to deal with any awkward width or small divisions with bad stats.

There's zero need for something like this from a gameplay standpoint, and using the feature would actively handicap the person using it. Things like the use of ad-hoc formations are represented by land doctrines (see the in-game description of Kampfgruppe). Furthermore, most of the "specialized" units that were frequently moved around historically are easily put as standard in every division e.g. support anti-tank battalions can be in every infantry division, every division has an engineer company, things like that. Armor works better in full divisions than as solo battalions in an infantry division, so support armor isn't really needed or optimal. The combat system works just fine this way, and I see no reason to change it.

 

[brainiac1530]

As far as I can tell, from a mechanical standpoint, battalions only exist in the division designer. Your divisions in the field have stats derived from this, though there are lots of effects that modify this in practice, like strength, mixed equipment types, national ideas, etc. Your divisions don't track strength, equipment availability, or anything else on a battalion basis.

To check myself, I just had a look at one of my save files. It tracks very few things the in-game UI doesn't show. Each division just has a template, total strength, manpower, total equipment, and such.

 

[blahmaster6k]

As far as I can tell, from a mechanical standpoint, battalions only exist in the division designer. Your divisions in the field have stats derived from this, though there are lots of effects that modify this in practice, like strength, mixed equipment types, national ideas, etc. Your divisions don't track strength, equipment availability, or anything else on a battalion basis.

To check myself, I just had a look at one of my save files. It tracks very few things the in-game UI doesn't show. Each division just has a template, total strength, manpower, total equipment, and such.

This is correct.

 

[Arieswolf]

The older versions had regiments which could be moved around.

 

[Sbrubbles]

Under what scenarios in HoI4 would you ever want or need to move battalions between divisions, or change templates in the middle of an operation? I certainly can't think of any, especially considering that you're never going to want to break up a meta 20/40 width division into smaller pieces for gameplay/mechanical reasons. The main goal you work towards through the early game is finishing your optimal meta templates and making every single division in your army one of them, then never changing them again, so you don't have to deal with any awkward width or small divisions with bad stats.

There's zero need for something like this from a gameplay standpoint, and using the feature would actively handicap the person using it. Things like the use of ad-hoc formations are represented by land doctrines (see the in-game description of Kampfgruppe). Furthermore, most of the "specialized" units that were frequently moved around historically are easily put as standard in every division e.g. support anti-tank battalions can be in every infantry division, every division has an engineer company, things like that. Armor works better in full divisions than as solo battalions in an infantry division, so support armor isn't really needed or optimal. The combat system works just fine this way, and I see no reason to change it.

Yeah, the game has excessive micromanagement as it is. Imagine having to move around batalions between divisions in your 100 division front.

 

[Secret Master]

Given how many divisions there are in a typical game as Germany or the Soviets, I like to think that my Task Organizing Units are, in fact, the shells generals command which contain divisions.

 

[Harin]

As long as HOI4 maintains the current combat system constrained by 80/40 combat width and how divisions attack and defend in combat, moving battalions around would probably reduce combat effectiveness. Of course, with you experience, you (@Secret Master) know this much better than I do. So, what did you have in mind and what effect would you hope to achieve? I am interested, because building a force for a specific operation sounds intriguing.

 

[billcorr]

Given how many divisions there are in a typical game as Germany or the Soviets, I like to think that my Task Organizing Units are, in fact, the shells generals command which contain divisions.

That's a good point.

Sure 'nuff.

Field Marshal's 24 division Army/Army Groups can be task-organized.

"Good enough for government work" as we used to say.

 

[Anaraxes]

You're operating at a much higher level. You do organize your units for tasks. It's just that those units are Army Groups and Armies. Smaller units aren't really the problem of grand-strategic top level command.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Shuffling around elite/special battalions was commonplace, but the micro! I would love to use schwere Panzerabteilungen historically,as Independent focus units, but that is not feasible or desirable now and would probably not be much fun If implemented.

 

[jpd]

Swapping battalions around to suit a specific task is for something like: take and hold the Nijmegen Bridge in operation Market Garden. But, in a game that operates on the scale Hoi4 does, you don't just take the bridge. You take the whole (province) area. Bridges, villages, cities, marshes, forests, pastures, the lot. That's something you throw an army corpse at, not a few battalions.

On that scale, one or two battalions don't matter anymore.

 

[Secret Master]

Swapping battalions around to suit a specific task is for something like: take and hold the Nijmegen Bridge in operation Market Garden.

You also can't go "a bridge too far" since you can only fight in one bridge combat phase per hour anyway.

"We have to reach Gene Hackman and his Polish paratroopers! Push ahead and take the bridge!"

"Settle down, sir. They aren't even in combat right now, because Sean Connery won't let anyone reinforce to width. The Poles aren't even next to reinforce, and every German division is fighting us here at this bridge."

"Oh, well, alright then. Anyone for tea? I tell you what, let's invite Michael Caine and Anthony Hopkins over for a little cricket. We'll be here awhile."

 

[Harin]

I understand how the scale works against task oriented divisions and such, but this thread does make me wish for more than just engaging the entire area a province represents. Provinces, being the size they are, make it difficult to make those desperate last stands as the defense in depth gets pushed, or set up a second defense line. I know we can do it on some fronts, but in many places losing one province can unhinge a front, instead of leading to an exciting, nail biting reinforcement and defense in depth. Oh well, another type game I guess.

 

[goodcigar]

does this post mean to break off pieces of divisions for temporary? i remember my uncle historian telling me they did that in real life.

 

[Zauberelefant]

does this post mean to break off pieces of divisions for temporary? i remember my uncle historian telling me they did that in real life.

And the scale of the game apparently is beyond single battalions, regardless of their impact.

I Accept the Arguments for that, but think that there were enough times when Units considerably smaller than Divisions had a major impact.
Villiers-Bocage saw basically half an armour Division mauled by half a battalion, market Garden saw heavy tank/TD battalions critically hold up or maul Division/Corps sized forces, many times stationary rear guard small units of AA found themselves in active combat etc.
So, I would say, why not leave it to the Player?
To me, the main Problem is that combat mechanics disadvantage single battalions or regiments too harshly. Generals apparently do not attach corps assets to support roles in hoi4

 

[Sbrubbles]

Now that I think about it, one way to do this without mucking up the game too much is to have support batallion be determined outside of the division designer, on the main map.

Right now, if you have your division set up and you're in a situation where you need more AA, you have to go back to the designer, create a new template and change your units to this template, and every new template stacked together with old ones clutters up the map more.

Imagine if, instead, you just create your base template then on the unit selection UI side you can add and remove support batalions of the selected units (like the aircraft mission selection, for example). It wouldn't be exactly what OP was talking about (it would need to be only for support batallions), but it would make life a lot easier.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Right now, if you have your division set up and you're in a situation where you need more AA, you have to go back to the designer, create a new template and change your units to this template, and every new template stacked together with old ones clutters up the map more.

Um, no? You just edit the existing template. No one actually creates new templates for every little upgrade to a template unless they're diverging to create two different end-goal divisions. Even if you did create a new template, you can delete the old one so this is a non-issue.

 

[Fulmen]

HoI has never been good with TOE shenanigans. HoI3 came the closest, but even there purposefully using stuff like corps- or army-level assets meant you were playing sub-optimally. Think for example how IRL the US shifted its TD units from division to division, them being corps or higher level assets that would only be temporarily attached to a division (though sometimes for a long time). Technically you could kind of do that in HoI3, but it would not be efficient and it also wouldn't be fun as it'd be a ton of micro.

EDIT: I think in a perfect world these kinds of things should be simulated, but that'd require a very smart AI to handle most of the busywork for the player, and that's a very tall order. Currently the AI can't even properly comprehend frontlines on a single continent (it keeps sending units back and forth from point A to B continuously), let alone on multiple continents. Now try adding hierarchical military assets into the mix... The AI would have to understand where and when to deploy e.g. corps-level assets, and things like that. PDX is far away from an AI capable of handling that.

EDIT2: Also, currently the AI doesn't even understand how to change templates according to the situation it's in, like if it's fighting in low supply regions or facing a lot of tanks or CAS. Indeed it doesn't even know how to change the templates of its existing units, or how to use paratroopers, etc.

 

[Secret Master]

To add to Fulmen's thoughts on the subject, the only way I'd think it would work to implement corps and army level assets would be to have something akin to "support companies" except at the Field Marshal or General level.

You could have slots for your 24 division groups and for your 5 army groups. You could tell the game to add, say, a battalion of TDs or whatever to one of these special slots. These TDs would provide some kind of either command ability or army wide buff to all those divisions.

I don't know if it would be very fun, and I'm sure that AI would screw it up. But it would let you simulate higher level assets.