Tech tree and Unique Brigades.

[Cavalry Scout]

I was thinking with the DIY Division concept and the tech trees, perhaps an intersting idea that would give tremendous more flexibility and also give a way to represent a better differntiation in doctines to various armies.

What I mean by this is the following. As you develop along a certain tech path, have it unlock different unique brigade with unique ablities that become available via the DIY Division builder. This will allow a simple way to impliment elite status units such as US Rangers, British Commandos, SS formations, and Soviet Guard units. It will also allow you to emphasize aspects such as the difference in the vairous types of amored units (ie, US AT units being dramatically differnt from German ones, also could carry over to even Tank units). Its really simliar to the way HOI2 does it now, but the emphasis should be on going down specific paths to unlock specific brigades, in that if you go one way, you deny yourself the opposite.

Any ideas on how to make this better?

 

[punishment]

I think it can be further improved by not having new brigades but to unlock combinations of general brigades, which becomes unique divisions.
For example putting 4 heavy armor together in a blitzkrieg school makes spearhead divisions for you, putting infantry and artillery together in infiltration school makes infiltration divisions and so on.

 

[Aethis]

I like this idea of units unique to each nation, it was clear the Soviet tanks were less powerful than the Germans but cheaper and I don't think this is represented in the game.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

This will allow a simple way to impliment elite status units such as US Rangers, British Commandos, SS formations, and Soviet Guard units.

Oh god not this again ...

You've opened a can of worms now

edit:

I like this idea of units unique to each nation, it was clear the Soviet tanks were less powerful than the Germans but cheaper and I don't think this is represented in the game.

Yes, becuase the Panzer IV was more powerful then the T34 ... oh no

 

[Alexander Seil]

Yes, let's make HeartsofironCraft. Every faction gets unique units. For example, Germans get to build moonbases.

And don't forget the special abilities of the Soviet Commissar Brigade - all brigades in the same province have their morale doubled, but are eliminated if they attempt to retreat from or into a province containing the commissars.

 

[Cavalry Scout]

Oh god not this again ...

You've opened a can of worms now

Sorry Bro, but you just cant wave a wand and make these units dissapear from history. All of them had enormous contribution to the war. US Rangers were instrumental in the assault on Normandy, SS and Gaurd Units were greatly feared for the quality of their soldiers, and Brit Commandos pulled off amazing feats. If you want realism you just cant ignore these units and wave the wand of abstraction. They should get their dues.

Yes, becuase the Panzer IV was more powerful then the T34 ... oh no

While I agree with your sentiment about the other guys comment on Soviet tanks being glaringly inaccurate (T-34/85 was probably the best tank ever built, all things considered), your comment is hardly constructive or helpful.

Yes, let's make HeartsofironCraft. Every faction gets unique units. For example, Germans get to build moonbases.

And don't forget the special abilities of the Soviet Commissar Brigade - all brigades in the same province have their morale doubled, but are eliminated if they attempt to retreat from or into a province containing the commissars.

Just being a idiot isnt helping anything. Either be helpful or give some constructive criticism, otherwise dont post.

 

[Markusw7]

Johan has already said no to this, also on a strategic level Soviet guards units are just better equipped (newest weapons) and better fighters(from experience) which is already modeled in HOI2 (name your unit guards set them as priority for upgrades).

 

[Khevenhuller]

From memory the Soviet Guard units were effectively veteran units rewarded by being upgraded to Guards. So in that sense you could just rename your veteran Soviet Divisions (and don't forget to rename some as Poles too!)

K

 

[Alexander Seil]

Sorry Bro, but you just cant wave a wand and make these units dissapear from history. All of them had enormous contribution to the war. US Rangers were instrumental in the assault on Normandy, SS and Gaurd Units were greatly feared for the quality of their soldiers, and Brit Commandos pulled off amazing feats. If you want realism you just cant ignore these units and wave the wand of abstraction. They should get their dues.



While I agree with your sentiment about the other guys comment on Soviet tanks being glaringly inaccurate (T-34/85 was probably the best tank ever built, all things considered), your comment is hardly constructive or helpful.



Just being a idiot isnt helping anything. Either be helpful or give some constructive criticism, otherwise dont post.

Here's the deal, "bro," last time I checked personal insults on this forum were considered bad form.

Secondly, the reason this won't be in is because the game model works in such a way that there is no difference between a Soviet Guards "unique" unit or simply an experienced division with priority for upgrades.

As for Rangers and any other commando units, they are simply out of scope in a grand operational wargame. In principle, you could build a small of Marines as Britain, and assign them a Commando designation once they've had some experience under their belt (or just use them as a raid force).

 

[Zinegata]

Sorry Bro, but you just cant wave a wand and make these units dissapear from history. All of them had enormous contribution to the war.

From the strategic level... not exactly.

US Rangers were instrumental in the assault on Normandy,

The US Rangers are frankly... a bit overrated in terms of their overall contribution to the war. In Normandy they deployed just two battalions with no heavy equipment at Omaha and Point du Hoc, with the bulk of the troops being provided by the 1st and 29th Divisions. Granted, Point du Hoc was an epic feat of arms, but it wasn't a deal-breaker if the guns weren't silenced.

In fact, it's worth noting that the Rangers had only about half a dozen major battles in the entire war - and in almost every engagement they were annihilated into combat ineffectiveness.

SS and Gaurd Units were greatly feared for the quality of their soldiers,

SS/Guard units can generally be represented as high XP units getting new equipment sooner than everyone else. SS units didn't actually get much special training from the Wermacht - they differentiated themselves only because of their own will to excel.

and Brit Commandos pulled off amazing feats.

Strategically, the British Commandos managed to pull off one operation that did actually decisively change the course of the Naval war - which was the destruction of the Tirpitz's main dock at St Nazaire.

Otherwise, most of their operations were either failures (i.e. plot to kill Rommel), or could be counted as part of partisan operations. Yes, these are pretty impressive feats of arms, but they can be implemented via events or by the partisan system.

While I agree with your sentiment about the other guys comment on Soviet tanks being glaringly inaccurate (T-34/85 was probably the best tank ever built, all things considered), your comment is hardly constructive or helpful.

The T-34/85 isn't the best tank ever made. The T-34/76 in fact is arguably an obsolete tank by 1944, with the T-34/85 merely a stop-gap to extend its shelf life. It's worth noting that for all of the supposed superiority of the T-34, German tankers still notched a much higher kill ratio over their Russian counterparts.

 

[peo]

Johan has already stated there will be no national units. Why beat the dead and buried horse?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Because it's a forum and that's what people do

 

[Cavalry Scout]

Here's the deal, "bro," last time I checked personal insults on this forum were considered bad form.

People in glass houses... better go back an re-read your first insult...err...post.

Secondly, the reason this won't be in is because the game model works in such a way that there is no difference between a Soviet Guards "unique" unit or simply an experienced division with priority for upgrades.

Thank you for finally gracing us with a constructive post. Now thats a fair argument and I can concede that you could very well do that. HOWEVER, Bro, there are still a huge amount of difference between a significant number of units, their equipment and their TOE to warrant the option.

As for Rangers and any other commando units, they are simply out of scope in a grand operational wargame. In principle, you could build a small of Marines as Britain, and assign them a Commando designation once they've had some experience under their belt (or just use them as a raid force).

The thought I was having with the having actual Ranger/Commando/etc type units as BDE to build into divisions was to have them not actually add their combat power to the fight, but perhaps be represented by giving a bonus to certain type of combat events or even recon levels in adjacent provences. I think thats exactly fitting into their scope at the strategic level.

Johan has already stated there will be no national units. Why beat the dead and buried horse?

And that fine, but he should at least think of modders. If you look at the most popluar mods out there, the majority of them have a concept modded into them similar to this. Thats part of what makes them the most popular mods. So, reasoning would suggest that if thats what popular, you should supply what they want. Now, being as we really dont know what they are planning for sure, perhaps they already have this planned. The reason I brought it up (and the reason you say "on noes, not again") is apparently its an item people want.

 

[peo]

I can guarantee you that for every mod user there are about 100 who isn't using mods. This and the fact that only a minute minority actually visits any game forum makes things like claiming what the people want is a bit hard.
None of these things are secrets and Johan knows it quite well. He has said there will be no national units there is no point in dragging it up not to mention that in the grand scheme of things these "special" units hardly influenced the war enough to warrant development time in them.

 

[bz249]

Oh god not this again ...

You've opened a can of worms now

edit:


Yes, becuase the Panzer IV was more powerful then the T34 ... oh no

Well since Panzer IVs knocked out more T34s than vica versa... they at least seems to be more powerful.

 

[Zwiback]

Well since Panzer IVs knocked out more T34s than vica versa... they at least seems to be more powerful.

Maybe it had to do with doctrine and leadership?

 

[bz249]

Maybe it had to do with doctrine and leadership?

But whatever leadership you have you can not beat an M1-A2 Abrams using a bronze spear

Indeed the Sherman, the PzIV (from F2 and above) and the T-34 could knock each other in any combination from any reasonable distance (<1000m). From that it was really the doctrine, the leadership and the individual soldiers skill that mattered.

Anyway the PzIV offered some advantages, it had the best optics for example, so the chance of the first hit (which was the last one also) was much larger.

 

[Zinegata]

Early in the war the T-34 was definitely superior to the Mark IV in just about all respects - The T-34 had better armor, gun power, and mobility. The Mk IV, in fact, wasn't even designed to face enemy tanks - it was meant to be an infantry support tank.

However, by 1942/43 the Mk IV had been upgraded to the point that it's superior to the original T-34 in gunpower, an edge it more or less maintains throughout the war (even with the T-34's 85mm gun upgrade). Its armor and speed, even upgraded, falls behind the T-34, but with its gunpower and optics it can very often pick off enemy T-34s at long ranged before they can bring their weaker guns to bear, resulting in much higher Russian casualties.

Not to mention that the T-34 was frankly... an ergonomics nightmare.

Personally, I think the T-34's reputation as the "best tank ever" is a bit undeserved. It was definitely hands-down better than anything else the Germans fielded in 1941, but it quickly lags behind and becomes the Soviet's equivalent of the Sherman - a cheap, reliable, and solid tank that can overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers. And not a lot of people are arguing that the Sherman is the best tank ever. This is despite the fact that post-war Shermans had a far better record than post-war T-34s. Unupgraded Indian Shermans performed very well against Pakistani Pattons (which are descended from Pershing Heavy Tanks), while upgraded Israeli Shermans were regularly defeating T-55s or even T-62s.

 

[daemonbone]

Doctrine and technical features

Russian tanks rarely had radios below the company level, so even in 1945 company commanders were communicating by signal flags to direct their sub units.
Russian recruits were less likely to have been exposed to mechanized society before being drafted, unlike their German counterparts who could be relied on to be be literate and understand basic mechanics.
German optics were superior to the Russians allowing the Germans to try for first round hits. Keep in mind that in WWII the chance of a first round hit at 1,000 yards was less then 25% even for a German tank.
The technical skills of the recruits and the availability of radios and optics drove the Russians to use the T34 the way they did, not the actual tank.
Change the optics out and add Radios and recruits who came from mechanized agriculture or factories and the T34 story would have been very different.

Also, compare a 1941 T34 to a Mark IVd for a true comparison. The Mark IVf was built much later. The Germans faced the Russian T34/76 in 1941 with mostly Chec T38's and Mark III's, both good tanks but no match for a T34/76.
By the time the Mark IV F, F2 J and H rolled out the Russians were producing JS 1 and JS II tanks in greater quantity then the combined Mark IV and Mark V production, add another 7 T34's to each Mark IV and V produced from 1942 on.
Don't blame the Russian tank design for the Russians compensating mass production for the lack of a pool of literate and mechanically skilled recruits, the Russians made do with what they had.

In the measure of a good tank, a balance between firepower, mobility and armor must be found, and the T34 was an excellent balance of those three properties. The Sherman, despite its failing also was an excellent balance of those three properties. Keep in mind that 95% of all shells fired by Shermans after D-Day were HE, not AP, and most Russian tanks carried a higher ratio of HE then AP in the standard load as well.
Tanks find and exploit the enemies weakness, infantry find and fix the enemy and hold ground, and Artillery is the God of War. If you go into battle attempting to pit your tanks against the enemy, you will suffer the same fate the British did repeatedly when the Germans would lure them onto the anti tanks guns.

 

[WarDog]

IMO this has no place in a strategic level game. The arguments that has been raised in this thread is as far as I can see solid.

And if Johan has already said no - why bother?


And on a side note: This is what many of the mods love to deal with. There will be plenty of SS and Guards units in the mods with new dramatic icons.