There should be bonuses for fully motorizing your army like America did
- Thread starter Spelaren
- 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.
It wasn't just motorization as much as logistical wizardry.
Wasn't as if the others didn't have cars and trucks. They all did.
Probably not in the abundance that the US had.
Plus there was afaik an abundance of horses everywhere. The German reliance on horses probably made sense. Just as the American use of motorized made sense (easier to ship trucks than horses).
Wasn't as if the others didn't have cars and trucks. They all did.
Probably not in the abundance that the US had.
Plus there was afaik an abundance of horses everywhere. The German reliance on horses probably made sense. Just as the American use of motorized made sense (easier to ship trucks than horses).
- 1
- 1
- 1
There was a lack of horses in the German army after 1942, if I recall correctly.
- 2
You already have motorized divisions in the game that have the same stats as leg infantry but consume fuel and require more supplies. You also have the logistic divisions which requires trucks and somewhat represent the advantage using of motorization in having the army supplied.
It was motorization, only the United States and the United Kingdom had a fully motorized armies (at the start of the war at least), while other powers such as the USSR and Germany only achieved partial motorization. Because as you said the amount of trucks productions and more important than that the production of spare parts was much smaller.
In the case of Germany what motorization it had was critical for the fast movements during the battle of France, but later when you invade the USSR with more than 3.000.000 men, the soviets sabotage all the railways and on top of that you don't have the spare parts to replace what limited motorized equipment you had the supply train has to rely on horses.
The same can be said for the Soviet Union, although they had more access to the railways and thanks to the Lend Lease could maintain their motorized units in a more functional status
- 1
I don't agree. You already get a "speed bonus" through higher division speed, plus there are bonuses in the MW doctrine tree. And why should you get a lower fuel consumption by increasing motorization?
- 2
I can answer that last bit. If you have more trucks/experience with motorizing your army, you can adjust your carburetors/loading methods/optimize tiny things like that all over the place because you know all the things like that you can do. It would save a heck of a lot of gas overall, even if it would only be tiny amounts incrementally.
- 2
There's no logical reason why you couldn't do the same with less than 100% motorization, right?
- 4
One of the bigger issues is that there's no real drawback to forgoing mass motorization. It's pretty much unfeasible for even countries like the United States in the game to have a fully motorized army although they actually did in real life.
Since the game's logistical side of things is so bare, the advantages of motorization are much less than what they should be.
Since the game's logistical side of things is so bare, the advantages of motorization are much less than what they should be.
- 3
Yes, if they were to include such a mechanic it would have to scale based on how much of your army is motorized.
I think "Motorized" should be buffed but not in this way. In doctrines, there should be more buffs for Motorized than for Leg Infantry. Right now it is the other way around, specially combined with those Advisors which give bonuses for Leg Infantry but not Motorized. This is absurd, it is as if you give your soldiers trucks they get lazy and fight significantly worse
While the experience was the opposite. Some extra +5% S. Attack and +10% Breakthrough for Motorized would also be advisable.- 4
So maybe what is needed is to change the buffs so that Motorized get the same as Infantry, not additional buffs for motorized.
USA already has Patton and Hodges as Panzer leaders, and Ike as a Logistics Wizard, so Paradox agreed with you a few years ago and already implemented it.
The US Army could bound across the countryside after the enemy had shot their bolt and had nothing left. But when they ran into serious opposition breaking through was a painful affair for everyone involved, including the enemy. USA already has enormous production and research potential, several available combat bonuses, and good starting land and naval doctrines. I could see buffing AI USA against a player but playing USA the world is yours for the taking.
Are you sure on this ? I can only see 1 doctrine in each of 3 of the doctrine trees, that boost things for leg infantry but not Motorised/Mechanised.
And the only advisers that I can see that apply bonuses differently to leg & mounted infantry, are the Army cavalry high command, who boost motorised/mechanised/cavalry, but not leg infantry.
- 1
I don't see what's supposed to be so special about a fully motorized army. This "the Germans and Soviets never managed it" talk is absolutely useless. Of course they didn't manage it, they ran with 300+ divisions stretched out over thousands of kilometers of frontline, not even mentioning the depth of the battlefield for them. Neither Britain nor the US had nearly as many active divisions, nor did they have to run such an extremely wide front. No nation, not even the US with all its industrial might, could have run such a large number of units over such a vast territory at full motorization. They never would have been able to supply all units, especially not in an area so devoid of good infrastructure as the Soviet Union.
Not that the US was even fully motorized. They temporarily assigned trucks to move infantry divisions when necessary, but they didn't have all divisions motorized all the time.
Not that the US was even fully motorized. They temporarily assigned trucks to move infantry divisions when necessary, but they didn't have all divisions motorized all the time.
- 2
Afaik, the UK did this as well for many of their infantry divisions. When an infantry division was to be moved by road, then motor transport from the Royal Army Service Corps, would be allocated as necessary.
Though I think some divisions had their own integrated motor transport.
- 1
For the buildup to D-Day, the US found that there was not enough shipping to bring over everything that they wanted. For that reason, they took the trucks out of all the infantry divisions that were used for transporting infantry. Even so, the US infantry divisions still had more trucks, jeeps, and other things with a motor, than most other countries' infantry divisions. To make sure there were enough trucks to transport divisions behind the lines, a great number of truck transportation units were assigned to Corps and Army commands. Some of these trucks became the Red Ball Express during 1944.
The main point is that the US decided not to make its infantry divisions motorized. They had the trucks for it, but there was not enough shipping capacity available to bring those trucks over the Atlantic. The estimated amount of ammunition, bombs, fuel, and other supplies was so great, that every ship was needed for logistics. (I guess the Americans knew that their Allies would send all their divisions to their beachhead and us all their supplies, so they planned on bringing an abundance. Eisenhower must have played HOI 0.1 and understood this mechanic well.)
The main point is that the US decided not to make its infantry divisions motorized. They had the trucks for it, but there was not enough shipping capacity available to bring those trucks over the Atlantic. The estimated amount of ammunition, bombs, fuel, and other supplies was so great, that every ship was needed for logistics. (I guess the Americans knew that their Allies would send all their divisions to their beachhead and us all their supplies, so they planned on bringing an abundance. Eisenhower must have played HOI 0.1 and understood this mechanic well.)
- 2
- 1
The reasoning you stated is correct. But I would contend that they were motorized in game terms, since we don't have Corp or higher level formations to attach/detach units from. Same reasoning that they should eventually have an tank destroyer and armor battalion attached.
- 1
I think that is a good point. The US was very capable of moving infantry around behind the lines as fast as necessary. Even during the Battle of the Bulge, an unprepared and surprised US command was able to truck in the 101st Airborne to Bastogne. That shows the command structure and availability of trucks allowed such quick movements, even under duress.
- 1
Isn't the potential "bonus" for full motorization having infantry divisions that can move at 12 kph, and every division having a LOG company to make the supply situation better?
What more do you need than that? Those are substantial advantages.
What more do you need than that? Those are substantial advantages.
- 3
Over the years, my INF XXs do get support units :
1] Engineers FIRST ! ;
2] Flak (AA) - for Bozo's air {ya never know who ya fight} ;
3] Logistics - as XP and templates allow ;
4] Others - as needed .
Starting templates [infantry, armor] are just that; you'll build better followup templates, as you can afford them !!, just be careful in doing so .
As an early [1.3.? era] Soviet, I'd just finished a new, SHINY toy; and like an idiot, I gave my 40W Grunt XXs that new SHINY toy ... to all 263 XXs !
That serious goof took 2 1/2 YEARS to overcome .
1] Engineers FIRST ! ;
2] Flak (AA) - for Bozo's air {ya never know who ya fight} ;
3] Logistics - as XP and templates allow ;
4] Others - as needed .
Starting templates [infantry, armor] are just that; you'll build better followup templates, as you can afford them !!, just be careful in doing so .
As an early [1.3.? era] Soviet, I'd just finished a new, SHINY toy; and like an idiot, I gave my 40W Grunt XXs that new SHINY toy ... to all 263 XXs !
That serious goof took 2 1/2 YEARS to overcome .
Last edited:
- 1