There have been some mentioning of a limit to prevent single brigade divisions in a dev diary reply IIRC. But nothing really clear and no final verdict I belive.
-
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.
The devs have stated somewhere a long time ago that there will be a minimum strength for divisions but didn't say what it was yet
I can't provide a source though, that thread is buried deep in the forum, but I'm sure I've read it.
Sure I understand that the exception of organic arty will allow more slots for other support. But if it is the case that all the arty regiments are just pretend, or abstracted, the divisions will be more likely to have 3 or 4 line units and no support, as no one needs to counter enemy arty with their own.
But inversely, with line regiment only units that have abstracted arty, there is only frontage space taken up. That organic abstracted arty takes up frontage, essentially, when it should not.
It seems like most divisions will not use support brigades, just like in HoI2. What is the point really? If arty is abstracted into the regular regiments, why not abstract AC, AT, AA, Eng?Yup, and the original OOB of the German army in the scenarios won't have any AT or AC brigades then. I don't know about any country that used those in large 'support brigades'. The Russians probably had some AT brigades, they liked to put a lot of guns together in formations
And, since it was an artillery REGIMENT that all german divisions had, if they are cutting at that level, it also means germany won't have any SP rocket art, rocket artillery and SP artillery only if they represent stugs. Artillery, AA, ENG and TD were available as brigades.
Unless of course if all types have different levels of abstraction.
Light arty in an infantry unit, or "infantry guns" is a very different thing from heavy arty.
And like zeekater said, the tank units won't have any, under that logic.
As a wrap up, I think that yes, including arty in the division as its own "brigade" is a better way of modeling real divisions. Abstracting it is going against the whole point of making divisions customizable. Though I do understand that it would take away a slot, and leave most divisions very "vanilla" for the large part. However, if you look at real life OOBs, that is generally how it worked. For the majority of the war, western nations used divisions made up of 4 regiments, 3 being manuever units and one being artillery. Eastern nations and Italy generally made their units out of 2 manuever elements and one artillery. Japan used the western style pretty much. There were not divisions very often made up with copious AA or AC or whatever. Most had all the support units, some US divisions had extra Eng and AT. I think that (for HoI3) the western units should have the 5 slot max, and should generally be made up with 3 regiments of line units and one of arty. Then there is another slot for whatever you want. For the Eastern units and Italian units, there would be 2 line regiments and 1 arty, and 1 open slot.
Now of course this is not a mandatory thing, but I think the historical OOB and templates should reflect reality.
I also think their tech-upgrade layout is looking pretty wierd.
If I were making the game all AT or Artillery research would be focused in its own place in the techtree and give bonus to both full support brigades as well as lighter organic assets inside all combat brigades.
Im not arguing against you here. I think some change here would be great but im not so optimisitc we will see it.
What im saying is that with the CURRENT setup its best to not let all divisions have their own artillery brigade. This would kill the game for anyone preffering another brigade as their "standard" support one or a setup without heavy support brigades.
Here are your 150 soviet divisions, have fun building 150 support brigades, swapping out 150 artillery brigades and find some nice place in siberia to park all that artillery. And through all of this you need to keep in mind what ones you have swapped out and which ones you haven't.
No thanks.
If I were making the game all AT or Artillery research would be focused in its own place in the techtree and give bonus to both full support brigades as well as lighter organic assets inside all combat brigades.
Im not arguing against you here. I think some change here would be great but im not so optimisitc we will see it.
What im saying is that with the CURRENT setup its best to not let all divisions have their own artillery brigade. This would kill the game for anyone preffering another brigade as their "standard" support one or a setup without heavy support brigades.
Here are your 150 soviet divisions, have fun building 150 support brigades, swapping out 150 artillery brigades and find some nice place in siberia to park all that artillery. And through all of this you need to keep in mind what ones you have swapped out and which ones you haven't.
No thanks.
Of course they will be abstracted, I meant that the ingame OOB won't have any of those brigades. Only RL brigades of TD, AA, ART, ENG and SPART (if stugs) existed (for Germany), the rest was only available as smaller units, which are abstracted ingame.
So no ingame OOB for Germany will have AC, AT, Rocket ART and SP rocket ART. So all the advantage/disadvantages Germany might have in that field because of research won't matter ingame.
Unless of course they add AC, AT.. brigades in the game unrealistically
Players that hard up for a different OOB could just disband the artillery regiments. But going against another nation would be rough without arty, I see your point of course. But HoI is a wargame, and as the economy and much of the politics and diplomacy is abstracted, why abstract the war part too? Sure the game needs to be playable especially for newbies, but how is it such a terrible thing to show the viability of the most effective weaponry of WW2?
Well, if the techs for each support brigade tree increase the line regiment stats slightly, this would be modeled well, as it was in HoI. If not, there is no abstraction of these units into the line regiments. If that is the case, I would see no point in researching them, much less building them, unless I was a super fan of AA or something. I am not disagreeing with you, I think.Of course they will be abstracted, I meant that the ingame OOB won't have any of those brigades. Only RL brigades of TD, AA, ART, ENG and SPART (if stugs) existed (for Germany), the rest was only available as smaller units, which are abstracted ingame.
So no ingame OOB for Germany will have AC, AT, Rocket ART and SP rocket ART. So all the advantage/disadvantages Germany might have in that field because of research won't matter ingame.
Unless of course they add AC, AT.. brigades in the game unrealistically
I don't see why you're all making a fuss over artillery specifically. Every division fielded by a modern power had artillery, AT, AA, and AC (or at least, recon) components. If we are required to represent all of these in-game, then there's no room for combat brigades, nor is there any reason to include this extra micromanagement when every division has them. Must we also include separate units for logistics, divisional HQ, field hospitals, etc? You must accept that that the new division system is just as abstract as the old system, just with more customization.
But artillery is the "god of war". It makes absolute perfect sense for any nation to field it.
You might as well complain that armor should be abstracted because it will become such a headache for a USSR player that wants to enact an infantry "zerg rush".
Good luck with that .
I agree with customizability,but it should violate military common sense.
YES! Players violating military principles should fail. BADLY . It's called learning the game (and learning some things about real-life and why WWII turned out the way it did, in the process).
Thus,if the devs are reading this : You forgot the Artillery Regiment/Brigade in the 3rd Panzer Div structure.
P.S. : IMHO , it's too much fuss over what might be a perfectly legitimate OOB mistake
Why is everybody getting so worked up?
The devs have stated somewhere a long time ago that there will be a minimum strength for divisions but didn't say what it was yet
I can't provide a source though, that thread is buried deep in the forum, but I'm sure I've read it.
That is what I meant to say, we just don't know what that minimum will be, hopefully we can use 1 brigade divisions.
So your saying Medium & Heavy Artillery in a normal average division took up 1/4:th of all men, material and resources?
Good luck with arguing for THAT
Fine, as long as either: 1) All the various but necessary support brigade techs are required to unlock the next infantry/Mot/Arm/etc. tech(s), so that they are represented. 2) When researching the support brigade techs, they each add some stat increase to the larger brigades to show that they are abstracted into the division. This is the problem that HoI2 had. You could build 45 INF without ever researching even "Great War Heavy Art., or advanced armored divisons without even unlocking "SPart" or "AT guns."
This would have to be remedied before we can comfortably say that these prerequisites are abstracted.
That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Medium and Heavy artillery (100mm+ Howitzers) is exactly what the Artillery divisional "building block" should represent. And it should be represented explicitly ("Xth Art Reg") in the structure of a given division that historically had it.
Just love the counters!
The level of detail in this brigade and command system is soooo nice.
What does the numbers 0-2 mean? That Germany isn't sure how many divisions the army consist of?
What does the numbers 0-2 mean? That Germany isn't sure how many divisions the army consist of?
From yet another thread about the same screenshot:
It is not just medium and heavy divisional artillery that appears missing from the divisions, but the additional support elements that were intrinsic to divisions in the armies of most modern WW2 combatants.
To take the example of the US Army in 1943-45, an infantry division had in its permanent organization:
3 regiments of infantry (each with 9 companies of infantry, 3 heavy weapons companies with 81mm mortars, 1 infantry howitzer company with 4 105mm infantry howitzers (short barreled, lighter versions of the medium 105) and an AT company with 57 mm AT guns)
3 battalions of 105mm medium howitzers
1 battalion of 155 heavy howitzers
1 troop (company) of mechanized cavalry (reconnaissance scout cars and jeeps)
1 battalion of combat engineers
Depending upon circumstances, but often for long periods of time, US infantry divisions on the line and engaged in combat would expect any or all of the following attachments from corps or army assets:
1 or more medium artillery battalions (sometimes SP)
1 AA Automatic weapons battalion with 37 or 40 mm AA and 50 cal quad AA
1 AT battalion of 57mm or 76mm towed guns
1 TD battalion of 76mm or 90mm TD's
1 Tank battalion of 54 M-4 Sherman mediums and 17 M-5 or M-24 light tanks, along with 6 105mm armed Shermans or M-8 75mm GMC.
1 or more additional engineer battalions and/or bridging companies
These attachments would sometimes be broken down and dispersed in the infantry regiments and their battalions, for use in front line combat.
So, clearly, there is much more to a division than we appear to be seeing in the present Paradox vision. What is missing is the divisional HQ with these all these assigned and attached support elements.
Combined, these elements make up a very large "brigade equivalent" that should come AT A ZERO COST AGAINST THE BRIGADE LIMIT FOR THE DIVISION with any US division.
Mind you, I am not claiming every army followed exactly these practices and numbers - but the big players of the Allied and Axis armies did do so for the most part.
The solution, as I see it, is to have the division designer include one each "divisional HQ brigade" (DHQB) to come FREE with the formation of the division...free not from IC or personnel costs, because it should include those, but NOT COUNTING AGAINST THE DIVISIONAL BRIGADE LIMIT.
Furthermore, although there are combat elements in the DHQB, I would argue that the DHQB have a frontage of zero (0) to reflect the fact it did not form part of the combat frontage of the division, never being required to go "on the line" but rather performing its functions in the division rear area.
Clearly, these DHQB's will vary from division to division (armored and para divisions had different ones) but also from country to country and from time to time based upon technology, research and doctrinal advances.
As your research into the applicable weapons and doctrines proceeds, these DHQB's will grow stronger (or perhaps weaker) but in any event they will evolve and their corresponding strengths will evolve.
Now, if this is not included in the vanilla game (and I would strongly argue that it should, to represent historical reality), it should at least be one of the first and most important things to be modded into the game.
To take the example of the US Army in 1943-45, an infantry division had in its permanent organization:
3 regiments of infantry (each with 9 companies of infantry, 3 heavy weapons companies with 81mm mortars, 1 infantry howitzer company with 4 105mm infantry howitzers (short barreled, lighter versions of the medium 105) and an AT company with 57 mm AT guns)
3 battalions of 105mm medium howitzers
1 battalion of 155 heavy howitzers
1 troop (company) of mechanized cavalry (reconnaissance scout cars and jeeps)
1 battalion of combat engineers
Depending upon circumstances, but often for long periods of time, US infantry divisions on the line and engaged in combat would expect any or all of the following attachments from corps or army assets:
1 or more medium artillery battalions (sometimes SP)
1 AA Automatic weapons battalion with 37 or 40 mm AA and 50 cal quad AA
1 AT battalion of 57mm or 76mm towed guns
1 TD battalion of 76mm or 90mm TD's
1 Tank battalion of 54 M-4 Sherman mediums and 17 M-5 or M-24 light tanks, along with 6 105mm armed Shermans or M-8 75mm GMC.
1 or more additional engineer battalions and/or bridging companies
These attachments would sometimes be broken down and dispersed in the infantry regiments and their battalions, for use in front line combat.
So, clearly, there is much more to a division than we appear to be seeing in the present Paradox vision. What is missing is the divisional HQ with these all these assigned and attached support elements.
Combined, these elements make up a very large "brigade equivalent" that should come AT A ZERO COST AGAINST THE BRIGADE LIMIT FOR THE DIVISION with any US division.
Mind you, I am not claiming every army followed exactly these practices and numbers - but the big players of the Allied and Axis armies did do so for the most part.
The solution, as I see it, is to have the division designer include one each "divisional HQ brigade" (DHQB) to come FREE with the formation of the division...free not from IC or personnel costs, because it should include those, but NOT COUNTING AGAINST THE DIVISIONAL BRIGADE LIMIT.
Furthermore, although there are combat elements in the DHQB, I would argue that the DHQB have a frontage of zero (0) to reflect the fact it did not form part of the combat frontage of the division, never being required to go "on the line" but rather performing its functions in the division rear area.
Clearly, these DHQB's will vary from division to division (armored and para divisions had different ones) but also from country to country and from time to time based upon technology, research and doctrinal advances.
As your research into the applicable weapons and doctrines proceeds, these DHQB's will grow stronger (or perhaps weaker) but in any event they will evolve and their corresponding strengths will evolve.
Now, if this is not included in the vanilla game (and I would strongly argue that it should, to represent historical reality), it should at least be one of the first and most important things to be modded into the game.
Yes, the 3000 bde includes an abstracted arty bn. 3 arty bns attached to three line bdes in a vanilla division. If every division has to have an arty bde that fills a fourth slot and leaves only one to play around with for variation. I suppose you could argue that this would help make smaller two bde units more like bdes than divisions and so appease those who want to go 'smaller' but it would make every oob bulky.
I am well aware of the fact that every self respecting division had a divisional arty group that was bde sized. But since in practice most bde commanders wanted arty support all the time, they were usually connected to a regt or bn of arty "in direct support". Now often as well the DAG did operate as a unit supporting a single bde for certain operations, but how is this a problem for HOI3 since the whole division fights as a single entity anyway?
All that having the arty unabstracted would mean is to reduce your support bde options. And if you are committed to arty everywhere, that is fine, build a DAG for every div and then just play with the fifth bde slot for variation. You can still name the bdes historically, and enjoy that aspect, while those who want more flexibility can be thankful for the abstraction.
Here Bullfrog, I have to agree with you. If arty is abstracted into the line bdes, then new techs should require arty research etc. Although I suppose a case could be made for saying that the inf research includes organic arty, and that the arty research for arty bdes is about heavy guns of 5inch +. I think that there should be some more corequisites in the tech tree across arms to reflect the CA nature of the war. Particularly as time goes on.
Johan mentioned in another thread that the engine will be able to build stuff which are not in the build screen.
"ehh.. we use it because you can't build HQ brigades on its own, but through the unit-hierarchy interface."
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=397526&page=3
Since we can't build 1 brigade units, I am guessing that the minimum number of Brigades in a Division will be 2.