Too many combat modifiers????

[Alandrin]

Hello Guys,

I always have been worried about modifiers in HOI but yesterday after seeing last WWW and how tactics add even more bonuses I decided to write this post.

First example: You research Superior firepower and all you units will get +20% soft attack. Why? You will have more soft attach if you use more artillery for example but not because you researched a doctrine.
On top of that you gain access to tactic Suppresive Barrage, that adds an extra +20% soft attack (not sure about this number) so at the end you units will have 40% extra soft attack because of ONE doctrine. Isn’t a bit OP???

Second example and the one it concerns me more: You have a General lvl 5 who adds +50% attack and defense !!!! Why??? Are they going to aim better because Guderian is leading them? IMO it would be much realistic to add a small modifier to max entrenchment and planning bonus (reflecting that they will attack or defend more wisely thanks to the skills of his leader) >>> Maybe 5%/lvl?
For leaders is more than enough with bonuses for being winter specialists, etc. and the use of better tactics if they are more skilled than their opponent.
There is also Military Staff that adds bonuses to attack and defense of ALL you divisions and I really do not understand the logic.

Third example: Difference between green soldiers and veterans is 100% (-50% vs + 50%), sorry this is far too much for me; a veteran will not fight 3 times better. At the end all are humans and will be killed if they are shot. >>> Maybe ½ of it will be more realistic?

Then there are tons more like terrain, air superiority, encirclement, forts, lack of supply, night attack…

As a result you end with +200% bonuses that influence so much combats that rest importance to anything else.

I would like to know your opinion and see if more people is concerned about this.

 

[Vidkjaer]

The modifiers does not represent real life combat. Its a game and the modifiers are there to balance and give you strategic decisions to make.

 

[_Sky_]

Hello Guys,

I always have been worried about modifiers in HOI but yesterday after seeing last WWW and how tactics add even more bonuses I decided to write this post.

First example: You research Superior firepower and all you units will get +20% soft attack. Why? You will have more soft attach if you use more artillery for example but not because you researched a doctrine.
On top of that you gain access to tactic Suppresive Barrage, that adds an extra +20% soft attack (not sure about this number) so at the end you units will have 40% extra soft attack because of ONE doctrine. Isn’t a bit OP???

Second example and the one it concerns me more: You have a General lvl 5 who adds +50% attack and defense !!!! Why??? Are they going to aim better because Guderian is leading them? IMO it would be much realistic to add a small modifier to max entrenchment and planning bonus (reflecting that they will attack or defend more wisely thanks to the skills of his leader) >>> Maybe 5%/lvl?
For leaders is more than enough with bonuses for being winter specialists, etc. and the use of better tactics if they are more skilled than their opponent.
There is also Military Staff that adds bonuses to attack and defense of ALL you divisions and I really do not understand the logic.

Third example: Difference between green soldiers and veterans is 100% (-50% vs + 50%), sorry this is far too much for me; a veteran will not fight 100 times better. At the end all are humans and will be killed if they are shot. >>> Maybe ½ of it will be more realistic?

Then there are tons more like terrain, air superiority, encirclement, forts, lack of supply, night attack…

As a result you end with +200% bonuses that influence so much combats that rest importance to anything else.

I would like to know your opinion and see if more people is concerned about this.

I understand your arguments about supperior Fire Power doctrine,, I was also woried about that, but you need to count on other doctrines to counter that. If I am not mistaken Grand battle plan gives you ton of defense options to counter it. Still from what I was able to understand Supperior Fire power doctrine still seems OP simply becouze it's addaptable, you can adjust it to your army compostion much better ,and some part of it give your armies huge bonus (not sure about value) when your units fight in region where you hold air superiority (perfect for USA) Now I would not mind it if it would somehow give you penalties by increasing cost of your units but that does not seem to be a case.

More Firepower= More supplies = Need More IC to produce such demand. (That is my logic)

Sadly it seems to be complete opposite. You even get to put one extra suport brigade in your division template ,what gives you an options enemy player who has chozen diferent doctrine can only dream of. ( You can build super expensive division and add Supply brigade what will give you clear advantige.)



So in the end I think problem might not be so much in OP walues ,its rather that you have so many options/paths to choze from in Superior Firepower doctrine.



Concerning Elite vs Noob trops, I thing diference od 100% preformance is realistic after all enemy ELITE troops are always something you should wory about. I would even give them larger planning bonus (50% larger) ,after all getting division up to ELITE status is not easy.

 

[rutger9]

First example:
The doctrines represent how the firepower is used in this case, you might have two formations with the same equipment but the way that equipment is used is completely essential.
The additional 20% of soft attack would probably represent, as the doctrine name says, that the firepower is highly concentrated to achieve the superior firepower.

Second example:
These attack and defense stats don't describe how a single soldier can shoot and or aim, these stats describe the ability OF THE DIVISION to function, this means its total organisation, deployment, maneuvers everything, and yes a better leader will control a division better then a shitty leader.

Third example:
I would personally support an organisation bonii to veteran divisions to represent the fact that they have already experienced the horrors of war, but either way, experienced soldiers make a massive difference.

Lastly, all these stats are not definitive yet, the game is not released yet and its probably being changed on a daily basis.

 

[Hagen67483]

In my opinion we need modifiers because especially WW2 showed the importance of doctrine, leadership, experience, terrain, weather... . Just as an example the Tiger units in france where mostly avoided by US Forces, the US just brought them from one bad situation into next, so the Tigers always needed to retreat without the need of the USA to fight them headon. The superior weapon was beaten by superior modifiers. (Sun Zi would be proud).

About the arty example, it is one thing to have equaly strong arty as your enemy and it is another if you know how to use it effectivly while the other guys trys to find out how to avoid hitting his own troops.

And yes 1 elite Soldier (1x150%) can beat 3 armed civilians (3x50%).

The modifiers does not represent real life combat. Its a game and the modifiers are there to balance and give you strategic decisions to make.

Sry mate but I think the modifiers are the representation of real life combat. And I will stick to that until someone has a better way to simulate that Units (soldiers, Tanks, planes, ships...) fight differently under different circumstances.

One last example: one infantry division defends in a swamp on a foggy day vs a attacking Tank divsion who has to cross a river. Without modifiers the Infantry division will lose in a very short time. But with modifiers the Inf will actually have a chance to defend succesfully. Now ask yourself which one is more realistic?

Conclusion: Every meaningfull modifier that is taken from the game makes me cry.

 

[wright1331]

Third example: Difference between green soldiers and veterans is 100% (-50% vs + 50%), sorry this is far too much for me; a veteran will not fight 100 times better. At the end all are humans and will be killed if they are shot. >>> Maybe ½ of it will be more realistic?

I find a few faults with the OP, but this one that stands out the most.
This will only make the Veteran fight 3 time better than the new recruit, which I don't really see a problem with.
As Einstein said "The only source of knowledge is experience", and an experience soldier will have a lot more knowledge of how to react in a given situation.

 

[Gremper]

HOI4 doesn't have a dice roll in the battle mechanics (unlike other paradox games where I swear the AI is TOTALLY cheating and ALWAYS rolls a higher number ), therefore I'm happy about the high number of combat modifiers. If there were less of them, players would probably create an excel spreadsheet allowing them to calculate the outcome of a battle before they attack by entering the appropriate modifiers as parameters.
Some of the values might still need balancing, but there's still some time left until release.

 

[linen]

Does the superior firepower doctrine result in a higher use of supplies or result in a lower organisational level? If not, it sounds rather broken? Or do the other doctrines have qualitatively equal strengths in comparison?

 

[Sun_Killer]

as i have seen it, all doctrines are very strong, this is the reason why in every www so far 1 reserach slot was always occupied by land doctrine until the had completed the whole doctrine.

 

[Alandrin]

I am giving some examples but my point is that in general, there are lots of modifiers so your base value is greatly affected by external factors, much more than in a real war I think.
Superior Firepower was an example, but most probably other doctrines are also OP.

I am NOT against modifiers but for re-balancing some of them.

Second example:
These attack and defense stats don't describe how a single soldier can shoot and or aim, these stats describe the ability OF THE DIVISION to function, this means its total organisation, deployment, maneuvers everything, and yes a better leader will control a division better then a shitty leader.

Then why increase general attack or defense? Will not be better to increase Org or Plan bonus as leader affects to tactical aspects more than base attack or defend?

 

[kviiri]

Third example: Difference between green soldiers and veterans is 100% (-50% vs + 50%), sorry this is far too much for me; a veteran will not fight 100 times better. At the end all are humans and will be killed if they are shot. >>> Maybe ½ of it will be more realistic?

First of all, -50% to 50% means the vets fight three times as well as greens. Learn some basic math to improve your argument.

As for realism: I've went through the minimum reserve conscript training in my country. Before that, the only gun I'd fired was a BB gun. I didn't know how to operate a rifle: load it, clean it, fire it, fix it, and do those fast and efficient. I didn't know how to use most of my support equipment like my gasmask and tools, how to pack my rucksack efficiently, etc. I knew how to dig a hole using a hoe or a shovel, and how to apply basic first aid, but I didn't have a clue about making a real trench, treating a bullet wound or making makeshift stretchers for an injured comrade. Most importantly I knew nothing about formations, military tactics, or even my teammates. If I had been in a hot situation in that state, I would've had myself killed in no time - or shiverin behind a tree in panic until the battle was over. If anything, tripled efficiency is an understatement. (Edit: and mind you, this was the basic training, -50% to zero. I am not and hope to never become a +50% veteran)

 

[Sun_Killer]

all i say to this topic: We still have 2 months of balance before release and 3 years of balance after release in front of us. So discussing specific values even before release seems quiet useless

 

[CaesarCzech]

all i say to this topic: We still have 2 months of balance before release and 3 years of balance after release in front of us. So discussing specific values even before release seems quite useless

 

[linen]

I'd just like to make one point regarding the main gripes in this thread saying that the modifiers seem to be too much... Just go and look at historical theaters during WW2 to see massive discrepancies on the effectiveness of men, material and command. Notably the Eastern Front, there exist numerous instances of the Werchmart being heavily outnumbered and outgunned defeating their opponents. Moreover, look at the evolution of the Russian military during the same time, by 1944 they were kicking ass and taking names, the complete opposite of 41 even when one negates the disparity in men and material which certain battles exemplified.

 

[rutger9]

I am giving some examples but my point is that in general, there are lots of modifiers so your base value is greatly affected by external factors, much more than in a real war I think.
Superior Firepower was an example, but most probably other doctrines are also OP.

I am NOT against modifiers but for re-balancing some of them.



Then why increase general attack or defense? Will not be better to increase Org or Plan bonus as leader affects to tactical aspects more than base attack or defend?

Because, the organisation doesnt increase the direct combat ability of a division, it merely influences how long it can last and if it actually can fight.
Heres an example, say you have a newly recruited russian officer, fresh, no experience all his superiors too are purged and replaced.
He is facing to use an extreme example, von bock or guderian or hoth.
you have an infantry division and are ordered to hold a forest against a hostile infantry division.
The more experienced german commander would then understand how to optimally carry out the assault to maximize the combat potential of the division, in game terms this would lead to an increased attack.
While the russian commander, inexperienced that he is would most likely use a more standard in line with doctrine deployment of the division which would lead to either less or no modifier.

You have to understand again that these stats dont represent individual unit capability, the attack stat would represent the ability of the division as a whole to attack, so yes the way the attack is carried out difrectly influences its capabilities.

And as sun killer said, nothing, literally no stat, is definitive yet.

 

[_Sky_]

First of all, -50% to 50% means the vets fight three times better than greens. Learn some basic math to improve your argument.

As for realism: I've went through the minimum reserve conscript training in my country. Before that, the only gun I'd fired was a BB gun. I didn't know how to operate a rifle: load it, clean it, fire it, fix it, and do those fast and efficient. I didn't know how to use most of my support equipment like my gasmask and tools, how to pack my rucksack efficiently, etc. I knew how to dig a hole using a hoe or a shovel, and how to apply basic first aid, but I didn't have a clue about making a real trench, treating a bullet wound or making makeshift stretchers for an injured comrade. Most importantly I knew nothing about formations, military tactics, or even my teammates. If I had been in a hot situation in that state, I would've had myself killed in no time - or shiverin behind a tree in panic until the battle was over. If anything, tripled efficiency is an understatement.

I agree with you, difference between ELITE troops and new conscripts is much larger than people think. From my perspective more experienced troops should have higher planing bonus and greater entrenchment cap too.

 

[MrJepson]

How about historical modifiers? The United Kingdom has always fought well when out numbered or facing great odds. Whilst they tend not to do well when they should have the upper hand. Japan could have a bonus when they impliment the harsher policies for control. There could be a generic bonus or modifier for the pther playable factions.

 

[Denkt]

All doctrines have powerful bonuses and all tactics are around a 20% bonus, unlocking more tactics are mainly useful to open more ways to counter the enemy's tactics.
The general and the veterancy bonus allow a battle damaged country to hold its ground from a fresh country who enter the war at a later time.

 

[Typohnename]

Third example: Difference between green soldiers and veterans is 100% (-50% vs + 50%), sorry this is far too much for me; a veteran will not fight 3 times better. At the end all are humans and will be killed if they are shot. >>> Maybe ½ of it will be more realistic?

I dissagree on that one.
To quote All quiet on the western front:
"We recently got alot of new troops on the front, 9 out of 10 of them only die because they are so inexperienced"

 

[Alandrin]

Haha what a beautiful collection of disagrees !

Hope you are right and modifiers will be balanced and reflect realistic impact in combats.