The units of things (and stuff)

[Luka]

Is anyone aware of whether we are going to have realistic units this time or more arbitrary things. For example, manpower is measured in 'points', supplies, raw materials, etc are just generic units and I believe it should be in tons. Divisions should have a number of soldiers in them. All adds to the realism and enables me to be sucked into the experience even more.
It'll be easier to balance economies and things too, as you'll have historical production figures and populations to work with.

 

[Dievs]

Showing the number of men in divisions instead of strength points would be a nice thing - although that does bring some interesting questions regarding panzer divisions - when half of the tanks being incapacitated doesn't nearly mean half of the men being lost.

 

[unmerged(26642)]

Showing the number of men in divisions instead of strength points would be a nice thing - although that does bring some interesting questions regarding panzer divisions - when half of the tanks being incapacitated doesn't nearly mean half of the men being lost.

I think this is discussed a lot of time. But you are right: to have also tanks in the statistics would be very interresting.
Imagine there would be an after battle report with: "1. Panzer Division with 10.000 man and 200 tanks and 100 guns lost in an one week fight 2.109 men and 163 tanks but captured the Kreml in Moskva...."(sorry red bears )

 

[unmerged(8735)]

Showing the number of men in divisions instead of strength points would be a nice thing - although that does bring some interesting questions regarding panzer divisions - when half of the tanks being incapacitated doesn't nearly mean half of the men being lost.

Having an accurate number of men in a division illustrates the problem of having accurate units in a game of this scale. If you have exact numbers, you would have to diffreentiate between supply and combat troops and if you really get pedantic you would have to get detailed numbers of different kinds of weaponry too to accurately model the fighting power of a division at that level of detail. Just using the number of men and then doign everything else on a more abstract level is just not going to work.

 

[unmerged(24077)]

Having the number of men and equipment in a division instead of strength points wouldn’t work. A division is not a universally recognised numerical standard, the size and equipment of a Div from Country X will not be the same as the Div from Country Y.

Also theory and actuality don’t always meet, most Div’s never operated at anything like full TO&E.

 

[Luka]

Having an accurate number of men in a division illustrates the problem of having accurate units in a game of this scale. If you have exact numbers, you would have to diffreentiate between supply and combat troops and if you really get pedantic you would have to get detailed numbers of different kinds of weaponry too to accurately model the fighting power of a division at that level of detail. Just using the number of men and then doign everything else on a more abstract level is just not going to work.

Yeah, I see where you are coing from, but it would still be a nice addition. In fact, I was one of the ones lobbying for units to have their components represented. It wouldn't have to be too complex, for example, a division would be broken down into:

Men
Small arms
Supplies (tons)
Fuel (tons)
Tanks (tanks destroyers, SP Guns, etc)
Transport vehicles (1 ton truck, 5 ton truck and so on)
Artillery pieces

I know that this seems overly complex, but bear with me. The system as it currently stands would simply have strength. If a division is in battle and looses 5% strength, then a little subroutine would work out that we have lost ;

~500 casualties
~500 small arms
~15 tanks, TD or SP guns

maybe some losses of items such as fuel, artillery pieces & transport vehicles depending perhaps on the org level upon retreat (i.e. a rout implies more of the support elements of a division cannot get away quickly enough and are overrun)
This would then be reported in a lovely ledger that would show you all these losses. It makes me feel all warm inside just thinking about it

Having the number of men and equipment in a division instead of strength points wouldn’t work. A division is not a universally recognised numerical standard...[snip]

I know, however, there could just be size scales of divisions. For example, a German division may contain ~9000 soldiers, whereas a Russian could contain ~12000 (Just random guesses here), again, just put some small randomness into the number when the unit is produced and bingo.
Ooo, an idea! A slider would be great here actually. One slider in the unit production screen saying to produce units either understrength (to the left), normal (centre) or oversize (to the right), with all the variations of manpower and equipment that goes with that variation.
This would allow you to act out as Hitler and be obsessed with continuously raising new understrength divisions rather than choosing to reinforce the ones currently in theatre.

 

[Dievs]

Having the number of men and equipment in a division instead of strength points wouldn’t work. A division is not a universally recognised numerical standard, the size and equipment of a Div from Country X will not be the same as the Div from Country Y.

Also theory and actuality don’t always meet, most Div’s never operated at anything like full TO&E.

They are in HoI 1.
a full strength division is considered to be 15,000 men, if that country had smaller divisions, then in game there were less divisions than IRL. In HoI all divisions from any country are of the same size.