Three Links on Improving Land Combat for the USSR DLC

[Michael Gladius]

Hello, fellow quarantiners!

I have three posts written on ways to improve land warfare when the new Soviet DLC comes out. Enjoy, comment, and contribute to the discussion!

1. Land combat #1 (minimally invasive): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/upgrades-to-land-doctrine-trees.1189676/
2. Land Combat #2 (MTG-style overhaul): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/land-doctrine-upgrades.1379687/
3. Air Combat: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/fixing-air-combat-and-air-research.1366843/

Bonus posts for niche related topics:

• Introducing Corps: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/corps-design.1339680/
• Binary, Triangle, and Square Divisional templates: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ovement-to-division-design-templates.1304969/
• Self-propelled arty support companies: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/support-self-propelled-guns.1302880/
• Upgraded General traits:https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rearrangement-of-2-generals-traits.1300045/
• More General Traits (not my post): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...roved-general-traits-greater-variety.1189338/
• Using the Army in constructions: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/using-the-army-for-constructions.1231985/
• (Edit) Moving to 10 or 15 support companies: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/10-support-companies-or-15.1430751/
• (Edit) Support/crew-served weaponry separate from individual arms: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/crew-served-weapons.1404173/
• (Edit) Adding options for "Mountain Warfare School," "Jungle Warfare School," etc. to allow units trained in a particular state to have a bonus to mobility and initiative in certain types of terrain.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Some interesting reads, thanks for compiling them. To be honest, don’t necessarily agree with all of them (don’t think we need corps (HOI III flashbacks), armies helping with construction is fine remaining abstracted, and not sure adding altitudes makes too much sense when the game is abstracting thousands of planes), but useful to consider nonetheless.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Some interesting reads, thanks for compiling them. To be honest, don’t necessarily agree with all of them (don’t think we need corps (HOI III flashbacks), armies helping with construction is fine remaining abstracted, and not sure adding altitudes makes too much sense when the game is abstracting thousands of planes), but useful to consider nonetheless.

I'm glad you're in the debate, though. I want to offer the Devs the best possible ideas, so that they can choose whatever they like, without feeling like they have to choose one or the other. An All-you-can-eat-buffet, not a formal dinner with no flexibility.

 

[Vohen]

I have thought about corps for a while, and one common hurdle that keeps eating at me is "but would that actually be an improvement?"
As much as I want to see corps in the game, if all they do is add another level of command, and worse of all, another level for you to micromanage, then it's pointless and actually detracts from the game.
So I thought of two basic things I think are a must for this:

1. Corps must be managed automatically, without necessary player intervention.
Of course, the player can manage it manually, but he won't be required to, so the player will only alter specific points on key corps.
I'd say divisions should be automatically assigned to corps when an army is created (as well as corps commanders), giving the player the option to change it if he feels necessary.
If the player has to assign every division to a corp when creating an army, it'll just be a nightmarish mess (aka HoI3).
Heck, even if you want to add HQs id be ok if they are created and move automatically (unless specified not to), anything that doesn't add micro without meaning.

2. There must specifically be a major mechanic tied to corps.
If they are just another level of command without actual meaning associated with them, then they aren't worth adding.
Honestly, I don't think simply having corps support equipment is enough for this, I feel we need more.
I have thought about a few ways to go about it, from having a corp designer where you can create a Corp to behave like a "super division", with 2-5 divisions attached, to a full land battle overhaul, where you'd see a simplified tactical view (almost like a chess board), where each division would occupy a space (depending on width, and with each Corp being possibly designed with divisions in reserve, for a thicker spearhead, defending the flanks of defense in depth) and tactics would work on two levels, one being with divisions being coordinated to attack/defend within their Corp, and another for the full battle (if multiple corps are involved), coordinating how these corps advance as a whole (keeping in mind the strategic nature of the game, the player wouldn't interact directly with it, I'd see it like the old naval battle system where a battle is happening in real time with units advancing, but your most direct involvement would be in the way of reinforcements).
I might've rambled a bit much on the last point, but anything interesting that adds a meaningful mechanic to the corp level, truly justifying their inclusion, is what I feel we need here.

 

[Michael Gladius]

I have thought about corps for a while, and one common hurdle that keeps eating at me is "but would that actually be an improvement?"
As much as I want to see corps in the game, if all they do is add another level of command, and worse of all, another level for you to micromanage, then it's pointless and actually detracts from the game.
So I thought of two basic things I think are a must for this:

1. Corps must be managed automatically, without necessary player intervention.
Of course, the player can manage it manually, but he won't be required to, so the player will only alter specific points on key corps.
I'd say divisions should be automatically assigned to corps when an army is created (as well as corps commanders), giving the player the option to change it if he feels necessary.
If the player has to assign every division to a corp when creating an army, it'll just be a nightmarish mess (aka HoI3).
Heck, even if you want to add HQs id be ok if they are created and move automatically (unless specified not to), anything that doesn't add micro without meaning.

2. There must specifically be a major mechanic tied to corps.
If they are just another level of command without actual meaning associated with them, then they aren't worth adding.
Honestly, I don't think simply having corps support equipment is enough for this, I feel we need more.
I have thought about a few ways to go about it, from having a corp designer where you can create a Corp to behave like a "super division", with 2-5 divisions attached, to a full land battle overhaul, where you'd see a simplified tactical view (almost like a chess board), where each division would occupy a space (depending on width, and with each Corp being possibly designed with divisions in reserve, for a thicker spearhead, defending the flanks of defense in depth) and tactics would work on two levels, one being with divisions being coordinated to attack/defend within their Corp, and another for the full battle (if multiple corps are involved), coordinating how these corps advance as a whole (keeping in mind the strategic nature of the game, the player wouldn't interact directly with it, I'd see it like the old naval battle system where a battle is happening in real time with units advancing, but your most direct involvement would be in the way of reinforcements).
I might've rambled a bit much on the last point, but anything interesting that adds a meaningful mechanic to the corp level, truly justifying their inclusion, is what I feel we need here.

Very good points. I'll answer them based on my ideas, and I invite others to put forward their own ideas.

1. Corps would group together certain divisions along an army's frontage. So if I have mountains on my left flank and plains on the right, then the Army right now will definitely put the mountain divisions on the right and tanks on the left. By having Corps arranged from left to right in the order they were produced, I can put my tanks into the last corps and the mountain divisions into the first, to ensure my divisions don't aimlessly wander or shuffle around the front. I also like the idea of having boundary lines between corps/armies, so that I can control their lateral movements (suggested here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...s-reserves-and-toggleable-boundaries.1284855/). Would you consider this a user-friendly improvement?

2. I like the naval battle inspiration, could you perhaps illustrate?. My original idea was that corps would add a lot of extra organization, since they are a critical level of command in continental warfare, and extra support companies. Concurrently, I'd want the divisional designer to be modified so that 40w divisions are as unwieldy in-game as they were in actual history. The result: smaller,more historically-sized divisions/brigades, and corps to group them together at a macro level.

 

[Vohen]

1. Corps would group together certain divisions along an army's frontage. So if I have mountains on my left flank and plains on the right, then the Army right now will definitely put the mountain divisions on the right and tanks on the left. By having Corps arranged from left to right in the order they were produced, I can put my tanks into the last corps and the mountain divisions into the first, to ensure my divisions don't aimlessly wander or shuffle around the front. I also like the idea of having boundary lines between corps/armies, so that I can control their lateral movements (suggested here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...s-reserves-and-toggleable-boundaries.1284855/). Would you consider this a user-friendly improvement?

Anything that doesn't require the player to micromanage his corps besides key and strategic ones are ok imo.

2. I like the naval battle inspiration, could you perhaps illustrate?. My original idea was that corps would add a lot of extra organization, since they are a critical level of command in continental warfare, and extra support companies. Concurrently, I'd want the divisional designer to be modified so that 40w divisions are as unwieldy in-game as they were in actual history. The result: smaller,more historically-sized divisions/brigades, and corps to group them together at a macro level.

It was just a quick thought exercise, but here's a dirty illustration:

Here's a 80cw battle, where red is attacking and blue is defending.
Each rectangle there is a division (using 20w ones just to illustrate).
Each corp would there be deployed and operate independently, depending on the tactics of his commander (so the breakthrough tactic has tanks concentrated on the center, with anything else protecting the flanks, many tactics could have unique and interesting set ups).
Units move on this gird with full freedom, advancing forward and backwards depending on tactics and how the battle is going, and even rotating to flank and/or encircle when appropriate.
Terrain and weather all contribute to speed and attack/defense values, of course.
Damage is dealt between divisions when they get into contact, and as a division starts to lose more org than the opponent, they is pushed back in the grid.
The battle ends for a division when it exits the grid.

Again, this is just a quick dirty brainstorm, the real point is that corps would need a proper mechanic to justify their inclusion (in this case, giving granularity and dynamicity to this reimagined combat).

 

[Michael Gladius]

Anything that doesn't require the player to micromanage his corps besides key and strategic ones are ok imo.


It was just a quick thought exercise, but here's a dirty illustration:
View attachment 573645
Here's a 80cw battle, where red is attacking and blue is defending.
Each rectangle there is a division (using 20w ones just to illustrate).
Each corp would there be deployed and operate independently, depending on the tactics of his commander (so the breakthrough tactic has tanks concentrated on the center, with anything else protecting the flanks, many tactics could have unique and interesting set ups).
Units move on this gird with full freedom, advancing forward and backwards depending on tactics and how the battle is going, and even rotating to flank and/or encircle when appropriate.
Terrain and weather all contribute to speed and attack/defense values, of course.
Damage is dealt between divisions when they get into contact, and as a division starts to lose more org than the opponent, they is pushed back in the grid.
The battle ends for a division when it exits the grid.

Again, this is just a quick dirty brainstorm, the real point is that corps would need a proper mechanic to justify their inclusion (in this case, giving granularity and dynamicity to this reimagined combat).

Me like.

 

[Vohen]

Me like.

I don't know if that counts as a proper deep thought, but to anyone who is so inclined, feel free to make a full suggestion thread to refine this idea.
I probably won't be doing it myself, as I feel this is kind of raw as it is for that.
Just be kind and tag me so I can keep up with the discussion.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Oh,and I also think super-heavy tanks would be suitable for support companies as well.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Bumped for new DLC announcement.

 

[Iskulya]

Oh,and I also think super-heavy tanks would be suitable for support companies as well.

I like this idea in theory, but not in practice.

As it already stands five support company slots is already too few and precious for a major country. I can tell you outright I would literally never use a super heavy support company while restricted to 5 support. Support engineers, artillery, rocket art, logistics, anti-air, maintenance, and field hospitals are all far superior choices to this. That's 7, and you could arguably throw in recon companies, making it 8. All of those would be superior picks to a super heavy tank company.

 

[Michael Gladius]

I like this idea in theory, but not in practice.

As it already stands five support company slots is already too few and precious for a major country. I can tell you outright I would literally never use a super heavy support company while restricted to 5 support. Support engineers, artillery, rocket art, logistics, anti-air, maintenance, and field hospitals are all far superior choices to this. That's 7, and you could arguably throw in recon companies, making it 8. All of those would be superior picks to a super heavy tank company.

See this post: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/10-support-companies-or-15.1430751/

Also added to OP.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Bumped for crew-served weapons

 

[Had a dad]

Bumped for crew-served weapons

dont bump your own threads