the Pacific

[Secret Master]

Do you think a single 1 battalion division per province feels like a substantial manpower and equipment investment though?

No, but that's why I said this:

Instead of Communist support flipping states, a certain amount of partisan activity flips the state out of Japanese control. Then you re-scale partisan activity so that the heavily populated stated require substantial garrisons (more than now). You could even give China a national spirit to boost partisan strength.

And then you remove the "CAV has double suppression" mechanic so that Japan really has to invest in putting troops in states to prevent flipping. Then I'd also fix the partisan suppression mechanics so that understrength divisions with low XP and 20% of their equipment quota do not receive full benefit of their suppression values.

One battalion wouldn't be enough. And I know manpower isn't the problem for Japan; equipment is. The goal would be to tie down units in the rear that use equipment.

That's why I'm so adamant about the whole "suppression needs to be affected by equipment" thing in this proposal. If you can spit out units with 20% of their equipment and no training and suppress Chinese partisans, then changing it won't matter. But if the states flip control when not suppressed properly, and if Chinese partisans get a national spirit buff, and Japan actually has to put divisions with full equipment quotas in regions to prevent them from flipping, Japan will not be able to bring her full strength to bear (or will have to make more equipment) to defeat China.

That won't solve the "China is pacified by peace conference" problem, but it's a start.

 

[Conscript292]

At the moment, if a state is occupied it's manpower just sits there. Suppression just allows the enemy player to use the factories in that state without having to repair it all the time.

What if, say China could quickly train guerrilla infantry that can be held off screen and deployed both into owned (to reinforce the front line) and/or states that are in revolt, but as a result don't have heavy equipment (tanks and line artillery) like airborne divisions. Japan would have to keep pressure on both the main Chinese army and the guerrilla in it's back lines. Fighting the small guerrilla divisions would damage infrastructure, kill troops and equipment and pose Japanese player with a dilemma: push and get attacked from behind or hold and not put pressure on the Chinese front line and industry.

British player could get a airborne guerrilla unit (SAS/SOE) to do the same in the Balkans and Russian player could grow the partisans units that were a big problem for Germany late 1942-1944. Getting the singleplayer AI to understand and use them might be difficult for Paradox to code. Would make for a nice expansion pack.

 

[Alex_brunius]

One battalion wouldn't be enough.

Wouldn't one battalion in each province automatically flip back control to Japan instantly even if it "flips"?

The only way for it not to happen that I could see ( without changing core game / occupation mechanics ) would be to spawn partisan units strong enough to actually defeat a single battalion division, bringing us back to HoI2/HoI3 partisan whack a mole 100%

That's why I'm so adamant about the whole "suppression needs to be affected by equipment" thing in this proposal.

This I fully agree with. Currently partisans does cause equipment attrition as well, but only vs AI or people who use the garrison order ( which walks units around so they take attrition ).

Partisans could cause equipment attrition for stationary units as well.

 

[Secret Master]

Wouldn't one battalion in each province automatically flip back control to Japan instantly even if it "flips"?

Damn it, you're right. That's the second time I've been wrong about HOI4 in 24 hours.

 

[bERt0r]

This I fully agree with. Currently partisans does cause equipment attrition as well, but only vs AI or people who use the garrison order ( which walks units around so they take attrition ).

Partisans could cause equipment attrition for stationary units as well.

This is one of the major defects of the game. Attrition, not only caused by partisand but also climate and terrain only happens if your units move.

 

[Dalwin]

And then you remove the "CAV has double suppression" mechanic so that Japan really has to invest in putting troops in states to prevent flipping. Then I'd also fix the partisan suppression mechanics so that understrength divisions with low XP and 20% of their equipment quota do not receive full benefit of their suppression values.

I like this plan.

Also one battalion would absolutely not be enough if the unrest resulted in actual Chinese units appearing on top of the garrison. Especially since these would not drop in at 10% org like paratroops. I don't want to see major movement back to the old whack a mole system of occupation so these events would have to be less frequent. The guerrillas would also have to have very low supply requirements essentially not needing an infrastructure to support them in the short term.

 

[Alex_brunius]

This is one of the major defects of the game. Attrition, not only caused by partisand but also climate and terrain only happens if your units move.

In some situations it does make perfect sense. I mean if your sitting comfortably stationary holding a town far from the frontlines then mud or deep snow won't be as nearly as big of an issue as if your trying to advance into enemy fire dragging heavy equipment along...

In other situations it makes less sense.

 

[Regaccio]

Have no fear, the devs have said quite a few times that the focus of the Cornflakes patch / the accompanying DLC will be on Asia.

When did they say this? Does anyone have a quote? I keep hearing people repeat that the next DLC focuses on Asia/China but as far as I know there isn't a source for it. I have a feeling this might be one of those "keep repeating something and it becomes the truth" situations.

 

[Dalwin]

This is one of the major defects of the game. Attrition, not only caused by partisand but also climate and terrain only happens if your units move.

I don't think this is true. I have seen many situations with constant and severe attrition that have nothing to do with movement. It is mostly the AI that gets into these situations since the game system encourages if not outright forces the player to avoid them.

Most players are good enough at basic logistics to avoid those worst case situations and only suffer from the situational attrition which involves moving in harsh conditions instead of standing still. This also is not a flaw. It is one of the larger weather effects that in a closely contested MP game (instead of curb stomping the hapless AI) might encourage you to halt the offensive during winter and build up planning bonus until spring.

 

[Dalwin]

When did they say this? Does anyone have a quote? I keep hearing people repeat that the next DLC focuses on Asia/China but as far as I know there isn't a source for it. I have a feeling this might be one of those "keep repeating something and it becomes the truth" situations.

No, the devs have not said that several times. They will be doing things that focus on Asia at some point and it is relatively high priority, but not only has nothing revealed about Cornflakes specifically said Asia, they are getting to where they have revealed enough other things that if pieces of Asia or the Pacific do not start showing up in the next 1 or 2 DDs you can right this off as more wishful thinking.

 

[Axe99]

Sure the garrison command works at suppressing current partisan mechanics, but what SM suggested was that all provinces would need to be guarded and those that are not guarded need to be taken back. I'm not so sure the garrison command either guards empty non-vp provinces or takes them back if they "flip".

I use garrison a bit, and when I'm silly enough to forget to move the order back when I'm losing ground, I'll see garrison divisions try and re-take land that's been taken by normal forces, so it probably would be able to cope with this now, if there were sufficient troops in the garrison order. It would probably do it better with a nip-and-a-tuck to the AI to perhaps make garrison troops focus better, but I have seen garrison re-take land before (I can't remember the exact example, but I can remember that feeling of looking at the map and seeing my troops had advanced, and being perplexed as to why (as I hadn't thought I'd told them to) then realised it was the garrison order).

Oh, and if you're wondering how weak garrison troops do when forgotten about and attacking enemy frontline divisions, answer is not terribly well .

In some situations it does make perfect sense. I mean if your sitting comfortably stationary holding a town far from the frontlines then mud or deep snow won't be as nearly as big of an issue as if your trying to advance into enemy fire dragging heavy equipment along...

In other situations it makes less sense.

I'm not sure if there's any situation where there'd be no attrition at all though - even a ship in reserve needs hull maintenance (example I'm most comfortable with - but I'd imagine vehicles and equipment would need maintenance even if the unit was just sleeping and lounging around all day and not actually doing anything - which would be fairly unlikely (and result in a loss of capability)) I'd think (but don't know - by all means correct me )).

 

[bERt0r]

I don't think this is true. I have seen many situations with constant and severe attrition that have nothing to do with movement. It is mostly the AI that gets into these situations since the game system encourages if not outright forces the player to avoid them.

Most players are good enough at basic logistics to avoid those worst case situations and only suffer from the situational attrition which involves moving in harsh conditions instead of standing still. This also is not a flaw. It is one of the larger weather effects that in a closely contested MP game (instead of curb stomping the hapless AI) might encourage you to halt the offensive during winter and build up planning bonus until spring.

The only reason to suffer attrition when not moving is lack of supply. The whole point of why winter warfar was terrible was that it didnt matter if you were dug in somehwere in Russa or if you were runnig through the snow. Even your trucks had to run all the time because once they freeze over they're done for. The same goes for desert combat where the sand gets inside your shiny tanks whether they drive or not. Does anyone think 10000 men defending ditches in harsh jungle terrain won't result in one of them get bitten by some insect/snake/spider/tiger/elephant? (jk about the elephant).

While this is weird in the first place, having a whopping 40% attrition when moving through "mountain provinces" is way exaggerated. You can't move up a mountain with tanks and trucks but you don't have to because there are valleys between the mountains where you can move just fine. Especially in developed regions there would be roads. This would suggest a reduction of combat width, definitly reduced movement speed but attrition? How do your infantrymen's rifles break when they walk from Muinch to Innsbruck? How do your trucks or tanks suffer harder than elsewhere? It would make sense if infrastructure would be a factor here. Apart from the supply situation, moving through the Alps should be easier than moving through the Himalayas.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Does anyone think 10000 men defending ditches in harsh jungle terrain won't result in one of them get bitten by some insect/snake/spider/tiger/elephant? (jk about the elephant).

This isn't what HoI4 attrition does ( as long as insect/snake & spider bites don't destroy your equipment ).

 

[bERt0r]

This isn't what HoI4 attrition does ( as long as insect/snake & spider bites don't destroy your equipment ).

Thank you for pointing out the one line where i made a joke but the humid air in jungle terrain would probably damage WW2 rifles and vehicles.

 

[Secret Master]

This isn't what HoI4 attrition does ( as long as insect/snake & spider bites don't destroy your equipment ).

Spiders that might cause attrition damage to equipment:

The appropriate reaction as your divisions start to die off:

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Read the last two posts linked to in my sig.

The first problem is infrastructure ...

The second problem is the lack of occupation necessity and the problem of simulating the difficulty of partisan suppression in low infra areas.

Great analysis of the differences in China vs the European Theater.

While not an ideal solution, couldn't we simply increase the level of partisan activity in China?

What if, say China could quickly train guerrilla infantry that can be held off screen and deployed both into owned (to reinforce the front line) and/or states that are in revolt, but as a result don't have heavy equipment (tanks and line artillery) like airborne divisions. Japan would have to keep pressure on both the main Chinese army and the guerrilla in it's back lines. Fighting the small guerrilla divisions would damage infrastructure, kill troops and equipment and pose Japanese player with a dilemma: push and get attacked from behind or hold and not put pressure on the Chinese front line and industry.

Isn't this just a different way of asking to "lend-lease" to partisans?

 

[Tempestra]

I'm just spitballing here, but I was wondering if the stalemate in China could be represented by an entirely new occupation system. Maybe the mechanics gamers have been using for years to represent province control (since the old Avalon Hill games of yore) are out of date..

This is really the crux of the matter. The situation in China was extremely fluid and the opposing forces tended to blur into one another over time, with local ceasefires that restricted offensives - no way to represent this. The communists would pop division sized formations behind enemy lines and cause havoc - in the HoI mechanic, that leads to them getting immediately out of supply and slaughtered.

The whole "move your army into a province - if there's an enemy there, you fight them, if not, you occupy it" model doesn't really work in low intensity conflicts in high population areas, which is what the Chinese theatre was for most of WW2 (Operation Ichigo aside).

 

[Porkman]

Great analysis of the differences in China vs the European Theater.

While not an ideal solution, couldn't we simply increase the level of partisan activity in China?

Isn't this just a different way of asking to "lend-lease" to partisans?

Wouldn't work as this is just the "Whack a mole" problem all over again.

 

[Abadon777]

The problem with garrisoning in HOI4 is the A.I. it doesn't know how to use them or have a proper formula for placing and keeping them in or on Islands or states(not provinces). In the game E.T.O. by Koei if you attacked a city you would come up against a generated permanent city garrisons . A formula for HOI4 should have been implicated for states. States with 20 VP points to 16 VP 200,000 to 100,000 troop level subtracted from the country man pool for an A.I. garrison template that will only create Divisions up to those number. For 15 to 11 VP points 75,000 to 50,000 troop levels from a 2nd template for those numbers. For 10 to 6 VP, 25,000 to 15,000 troop level from a 3rd garrison templet, 5 to 1 VP 10,000 to 6000 for a 4th
template and finally for a state with 0 VP would generate 3000 to 0 troops.

 

[bERt0r]

Lol yor numbers are insanely high.