Unit Choices in Hearts of Iron 4 - What do you want to see?
- Thread starter Bane5
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
I like the colonial troops, but don't like desert and jungle. Research should be enough to handle that.
I however did like the light infantry as a catch-all troop type for exotic terrain some mods had. Maybe it could replace the too specialized mountain brigades I rarely used anyway.
I however did like the light infantry as a catch-all troop type for exotic terrain some mods had. Maybe it could replace the too specialized mountain brigades I rarely used anyway.
Some remarks:
Climate specialization - As others have said, this should be linked to equipment, either in sum simply as ´climate equipment´, or diversified as ´winter-´, ´desert-´, ´jungle-´.... equipment. It should not come in form of specialized brigades (or battalions or whatever), but be changable on the fly for each division, even existing ones. When such a change is ordered, the ´climate equipment´ of said unit is sent back to the pool and must be re-filled via reinforcement/supply gradually back from the pool, where the equipment is waiting to be deployed. Each specialization should be exclusive to any other climate specialization (e.g. each unit can be only speciliazed for one climate type). Wether or not units should be able to come of their production lines already being specilialized for one climate or another is merely a matter of the user interface, then. On a sidenote: ´Arctic´ should be the worst form of ´winter´ in HoI4, not an entiely different thing.
Colonial troops: Yes. I was just thinking about this one recently. Albeit under HoI3´s production system. Under it, probably the easiest solution would be to devide colonial territories in broad strokes (e.g. india, burma, syria, algeria, tunesia, marrocco, french west africa, british east africa, egypt...) and then provide an extra tab in the production screen under which each of the territories gets listed instead of unit types and the only unit types being able to build there would be MIL/GAR. So it would list things like:
Burmese Militia
Burmese Garrison
Indian Militia
Indian Garrison
[...]
Needless to say, that each could only be deployed in their respective colony.
Anyways, i find myself in doubt over how much of this would be convertable to HoI4´s prodiction lines.
As for the number of units types: I think HoI3 has rather too many than too few of them, esp. since we´ll have even more slots to fill in HoI4´s division designer. For example: What do you need ´light infantry´ for: Instead of building a division with, say, 3 brigades of light infantry, just build one with 2 brigades of regulars. Plus there already is militia, which, actually, could just be regular INF as well, if we have the option of giving its units second tier equipment, a short training and bad officers.
This sort of parameters should make the choices (and the ability to use out-of-date equipment from the pool or from production lines still producing it at high effeciency). What we need is not more elements, but more properties to each element. ´Climate specialization´, ´colonial´ could be two of those (as is ´reserve´) - others could be ´terrain specialization´ and ´training duration´, each of them being setable when the unit is being ordered and having a signigicant enough effect to specialize your forces without two dozen different basic unit types.
Climate specialization - As others have said, this should be linked to equipment, either in sum simply as ´climate equipment´, or diversified as ´winter-´, ´desert-´, ´jungle-´.... equipment. It should not come in form of specialized brigades (or battalions or whatever), but be changable on the fly for each division, even existing ones. When such a change is ordered, the ´climate equipment´ of said unit is sent back to the pool and must be re-filled via reinforcement/supply gradually back from the pool, where the equipment is waiting to be deployed. Each specialization should be exclusive to any other climate specialization (e.g. each unit can be only speciliazed for one climate type). Wether or not units should be able to come of their production lines already being specilialized for one climate or another is merely a matter of the user interface, then. On a sidenote: ´Arctic´ should be the worst form of ´winter´ in HoI4, not an entiely different thing.
Colonial troops: Yes. I was just thinking about this one recently. Albeit under HoI3´s production system. Under it, probably the easiest solution would be to devide colonial territories in broad strokes (e.g. india, burma, syria, algeria, tunesia, marrocco, french west africa, british east africa, egypt...) and then provide an extra tab in the production screen under which each of the territories gets listed instead of unit types and the only unit types being able to build there would be MIL/GAR. So it would list things like:
Burmese Militia
Burmese Garrison
Indian Militia
Indian Garrison
[...]
Needless to say, that each could only be deployed in their respective colony.
Anyways, i find myself in doubt over how much of this would be convertable to HoI4´s prodiction lines.
As for the number of units types: I think HoI3 has rather too many than too few of them, esp. since we´ll have even more slots to fill in HoI4´s division designer. For example: What do you need ´light infantry´ for: Instead of building a division with, say, 3 brigades of light infantry, just build one with 2 brigades of regulars. Plus there already is militia, which, actually, could just be regular INF as well, if we have the option of giving its units second tier equipment, a short training and bad officers.
This sort of parameters should make the choices (and the ability to use out-of-date equipment from the pool or from production lines still producing it at high effeciency). What we need is not more elements, but more properties to each element. ´Climate specialization´, ´colonial´ could be two of those (as is ´reserve´) - others could be ´terrain specialization´ and ´training duration´, each of them being setable when the unit is being ordered and having a signigicant enough effect to specialize your forces without two dozen different basic unit types.
I'm 100% with you on the Idea of equipment for different climates.
On colonial troops........... that wont work because troops aren't raised in a certain area they are "produced" centrally then deployed anywhere in your home territory. I don't think they are changing to VIC2 style of raising of armies.
As for light infantry........... will the new equipment system allow us to just produce Infantry then not give them heavy equipment? Or will the equipment system be so inflexible that all Infantry must be equipped the same?
I wonder: Does the OP actually want to add new battalions like a "light infantry battalion"? I don't think that would be necessary.
You could have a light infantry division, a garrison division or a heavy infantry division consisting out of normal infantry battalions, which differ in other support units they have. A light infantry unit would have no artillery support, a garnision unit would lack any motorized elements for fast transport, and a heavy division would have additional artillery and anti tank units.
The new unit designer already gives a lot of freedom which we can use to reduce the number of base units while increasing the overall flexibility.
You could have a light infantry division, a garrison division or a heavy infantry division consisting out of normal infantry battalions, which differ in other support units they have. A light infantry unit would have no artillery support, a garnision unit would lack any motorized elements for fast transport, and a heavy division would have additional artillery and anti tank units.
The new unit designer already gives a lot of freedom which we can use to reduce the number of base units while increasing the overall flexibility.
What do you guys think about having Garrison/Police units province based instead of showing as a counter on the map? So when you click the province, it shows how many Garrison/police units are there.
HOI provinces are too small. Something like 1 unit per region, maaaay be.
I had once the idea for an "off the map" garrision to suppress rebells. You would build a certain member of military police units which will be automatically distributed among the different states. If there are too few of them, you will get more problems in occupied territory - something like loss of supplies or damages to industry and infrastructure. There would be no whole divisions rising up (unless actively stirred up by your enemies combined with a lack of military police). You would not to have build and place a lot of units just to whack the few random rebell stacks - it would all happen on a pure strategic level. Still partisans can become a problem if you don't handle them properly.
I think this would be really cool, I often get confused when I have a lot of units on the map, and having less units to care about, for me, it's nice. But I think they could stay as garrison and then you could use a sortie button like in EU4 so they appear on the map to be controlled by you
What do you think the different types of units are, other than instructions to the game on how to equip the unit? You have a medium armor battalion "ARM" and a light armor battalion "LARM". Those designations tell the computer to send your Pz.II to the LARM and your Pz.IV to your ARM. The same would go for LTD, TD and HTD. Designating a unit as an LTD would tell the computer to send your Marders, instead of your Jagdtigers, to that unit. You are asking for increased micromanagement and confusion by reducing the number of units but adding a requirement to specify the type of equipment sent to each unit, the type of training, and the ratio of officers. That would be a real headache, plus units on the map would be indistinguishable. Is that "infantry" crappy militia or super elite mountaineers? I don't know, you have to click on it, and examine its TOE. No thanks. Give me more unit types so I can see at a glance what I am dealing with.
Last edited:
AT and Art were not in the same batallion, should be separate
Super heavy tanks are just stupid
In the Nordic countries all inf units were really equipped as ski troops, but that is just ski equipment and special training, I think ski tech are a better option and then you can choose to research them or not, and if you wanted to you could make it take a long time so it would be a real choice you make if you want to research it or not.
Eng are one of the more interesting batallions, you could make two different kinds, one more combat oriented, battalion size and one more "logistical" kind, like building bridges as so on. These should be of regiment size and really expensive and maybee even "deployable" so that when you have used them to build som bridges they are out of org and takes time and money to get full organization again for the next bridge to build.
Recon is another unit that should have more impact, and be more expensive, I for one would like recon planes attached to HQ and by that giving modifiers to combat for the units below. If you have air superiority low attrition and vice versa
Super heavy tanks are just stupid
In the Nordic countries all inf units were really equipped as ski troops, but that is just ski equipment and special training, I think ski tech are a better option and then you can choose to research them or not, and if you wanted to you could make it take a long time so it would be a real choice you make if you want to research it or not.
Eng are one of the more interesting batallions, you could make two different kinds, one more combat oriented, battalion size and one more "logistical" kind, like building bridges as so on. These should be of regiment size and really expensive and maybee even "deployable" so that when you have used them to build som bridges they are out of org and takes time and money to get full organization again for the next bridge to build.
Recon is another unit that should have more impact, and be more expensive, I for one would like recon planes attached to HQ and by that giving modifiers to combat for the units below. If you have air superiority low attrition and vice versa
To OP:
First, we should keep the division template picture in front of us before thinking about which unit choices make sense.
Now, we can see that there are combat units and support units, and division composition will directly affect how well will it move and fight in different terrain - we can see forests, urban, desert and rivers (at least hills/mountains are missing, but it is early alpha shot from june so even winter and jungle could have been added in the meantime, amphibious separate or together with rivers?). So what do we really need?
Combat units:
Basic Infantry
Cavalry
Motorised
Mechanized
Light/Medium/Heavy tank/Super heavy tank (Maus was in tech tree, so it will probably be there like it or not)
Support units:
Recon (light cavalry, armored cars)
AT (normal, self-propelled=TD)
Artillery (normal, self-propelled = Infantry support tanks/assault guns)
AA (normal, self-propelled)
Engineers (normal, mechanized)
So, what are we missing? Assuming we can choose high/normal/low priority for equipment and amount of training before division creation:
Militia - basic infantry with no support units, "low priority" for equipment, lowest training
Garrison - basic infantry with basic AT/artillery/AA, but no recon or engineers, "low priority" for equipment, basic training
Light infantry - basic infantry with no support units, normal training
Semi-motorized - motorized that does not have enough equipment from the pool
Airborne - basic infantry with no support units, specialist training
Mountain - basic infantry + light cavalry recon, normal engineers if you want, specialist training
Marines - basic infantry + mechanized engineers (amphibious tanks, flamethrower tanks etc.), specialist training
Winter/desert/mountain/jungle equipment should be just techs, you research them to lower/eliminate (maybe several levels?) special maluses for units in that terrain (attrition, worse combat efficiency), but only when in supply, and the tech increases supply consumption in that terrain type somewhat. You run out of supply, you suffer again even if you have the tech (imagine special cloth/equipment shortages, water shortages etc.). Infantry + winter equipment = ski infantry if you want.
The only thing missing is horse-drawn vs truck-drawn, so we either do it with 3 AT/artillery/AA types (horse-drawn, truck-drawn, self-propelled) or with tech level (assume newer artillery comes with trucks, older with horses), both having their pros and cons.
First, we should keep the division template picture in front of us before thinking about which unit choices make sense.
Now, we can see that there are combat units and support units, and division composition will directly affect how well will it move and fight in different terrain - we can see forests, urban, desert and rivers (at least hills/mountains are missing, but it is early alpha shot from june so even winter and jungle could have been added in the meantime, amphibious separate or together with rivers?). So what do we really need?
Combat units:
Basic Infantry
Cavalry
Motorised
Mechanized
Light/Medium/Heavy tank/Super heavy tank (Maus was in tech tree, so it will probably be there like it or not)
Support units:
Recon (light cavalry, armored cars)
AT (normal, self-propelled=TD)
Artillery (normal, self-propelled = Infantry support tanks/assault guns)
AA (normal, self-propelled)
Engineers (normal, mechanized)
So, what are we missing? Assuming we can choose high/normal/low priority for equipment and amount of training before division creation:
Militia - basic infantry with no support units, "low priority" for equipment, lowest training
Garrison - basic infantry with basic AT/artillery/AA, but no recon or engineers, "low priority" for equipment, basic training
Light infantry - basic infantry with no support units, normal training
Semi-motorized - motorized that does not have enough equipment from the pool
Airborne - basic infantry with no support units, specialist training
Mountain - basic infantry + light cavalry recon, normal engineers if you want, specialist training
Marines - basic infantry + mechanized engineers (amphibious tanks, flamethrower tanks etc.), specialist training
Winter/desert/mountain/jungle equipment should be just techs, you research them to lower/eliminate (maybe several levels?) special maluses for units in that terrain (attrition, worse combat efficiency), but only when in supply, and the tech increases supply consumption in that terrain type somewhat. You run out of supply, you suffer again even if you have the tech (imagine special cloth/equipment shortages, water shortages etc.). Infantry + winter equipment = ski infantry if you want.
The only thing missing is horse-drawn vs truck-drawn, so we either do it with 3 AT/artillery/AA types (horse-drawn, truck-drawn, self-propelled) or with tech level (assume newer artillery comes with trucks, older with horses), both having their pros and cons.
Some thoughts on the two alternative methods suggested for climate equipment by some people:
1). Make climate equipment a tech
--In HoI3, each climate equipment tech increased the IC*day cost of each division I built. The inability to undo this option always bugged me. If I had to temporarily fight a few desert battles, I was forever penalized afterwards in my production and supply use. The capability to produce and the actual production needs to be seperated imo.
2). Separate equipment kits
--Some people envision a system with a handful of unit types and all variances being set by equipment kits; however, I think this would actually lead down a path of very heavy micromanagement--much more so than HoI3. If climate kits for example are separate, it only serves to penalize people who didn't make their math add up correctly. We will end up with gameplay where people have to pull out the calculator all the time and tally up how many kits are exactly needed for their 5 TD, 20 Inf, 5 ART, and 3 Light Tank brigades that they plan to produce next month and again for the various numbers the month after that.
--Indeed Paradox seems to realize this and is going for a more simplistic approach. From what has been talked about is that there will just be a generic Infantry equipment and brigades like motorized will simply cost higher amounts of inf equipment rather than a separate resource--assuming their design decision hasn't changed since.
----------------------------------------------------------
which brings me to the 3rd option as I originally mentioned:
3). a Checkbox on production/upgrade
--In my opinion this is the simplest system. You don't have to add up and tally separate equipment pools ahead of time. You just tell the game I want these divisions ready for winter or jungle warfare and it will do that for you. It also lets you avoid the penalties and possible malus to researching climate equipment techs in previous HoI3 games. I also think this gives the countries who did decide to invest in it ahead of time an advantage since it will take other nations some time to upgrade/produce divisions to have the necessary climate equipment.
--Imagine a German player who tried to re-arm quickly for the invasion of France and skipped producing divisions with winter specialization so he or she could quickly get large armies out fast. Now fast forward later and the SU player invades during winter as the German player is trying to upgrade for winter. With a smaller army, the SU player could for a short time cause a lot of damage. It allows for tactical decision making.
1). Make climate equipment a tech
--In HoI3, each climate equipment tech increased the IC*day cost of each division I built. The inability to undo this option always bugged me. If I had to temporarily fight a few desert battles, I was forever penalized afterwards in my production and supply use. The capability to produce and the actual production needs to be seperated imo.
2). Separate equipment kits
--Some people envision a system with a handful of unit types and all variances being set by equipment kits; however, I think this would actually lead down a path of very heavy micromanagement--much more so than HoI3. If climate kits for example are separate, it only serves to penalize people who didn't make their math add up correctly. We will end up with gameplay where people have to pull out the calculator all the time and tally up how many kits are exactly needed for their 5 TD, 20 Inf, 5 ART, and 3 Light Tank brigades that they plan to produce next month and again for the various numbers the month after that.
--Indeed Paradox seems to realize this and is going for a more simplistic approach. From what has been talked about is that there will just be a generic Infantry equipment and brigades like motorized will simply cost higher amounts of inf equipment rather than a separate resource--assuming their design decision hasn't changed since.
----------------------------------------------------------
which brings me to the 3rd option as I originally mentioned:
3). a Checkbox on production/upgrade
--In my opinion this is the simplest system. You don't have to add up and tally separate equipment pools ahead of time. You just tell the game I want these divisions ready for winter or jungle warfare and it will do that for you. It also lets you avoid the penalties and possible malus to researching climate equipment techs in previous HoI3 games. I also think this gives the countries who did decide to invest in it ahead of time an advantage since it will take other nations some time to upgrade/produce divisions to have the necessary climate equipment.
--Imagine a German player who tried to re-arm quickly for the invasion of France and skipped producing divisions with winter specialization so he or she could quickly get large armies out fast. Now fast forward later and the SU player invades during winter as the German player is trying to upgrade for winter. With a smaller army, the SU player could for a short time cause a lot of damage. It allows for tactical decision making.
Last edited:
This sounds good - you could further keep it nice and abstract by making the upgrade dependent on having a higher number of generic 'infantry kits', and then either have it as a threshold (you need 20% extra infantry kits once you've ticked the 'desert' box for the desert bonus to kick in) or as a proportionate bonus (if you're only half-way to having the required number of kits, you only get half the bonus). Only allow one specialty per division, then if specialties are changed drop the number of infantry kits back to 100% (cycling the no-longer needed desert gear back into the equipment pool) and build up for whatever new situation the division is in.
So, it seems we all agree on that then. The question seems to be, what these ´climate kits´ actually are in game terms: Are they just generic supplies? Or do they come seperate as an actual item to be pooled like, say, tanks. If so, should we have seperate kits for each climate (desert, jungle...)?
BTW, i dont think that a situation where a player can screw on up on this must be avoided. After all, it did happen, that troops froze and offensives died because of lack of climate equipment. I dont think i´d pull a calculator out to do any math - i´d just try to produce enough to be on the save side and use any surplus on the next occassion or as replacement. OTOH, it´s not like all your troops fail automatically if you dont provide enough for them all - a shortage would (sometimes) be a gradual penalty spread over whole fronts. HoI4 will presumably be full of this potential number-crunching anways: How many factories do we need to dedicate to equipment X? How many fighters will i lose per month in the battle of britain?
BTW, i dont think that a situation where a player can screw on up on this must be avoided. After all, it did happen, that troops froze and offensives died because of lack of climate equipment. I dont think i´d pull a calculator out to do any math - i´d just try to produce enough to be on the save side and use any surplus on the next occassion or as replacement. OTOH, it´s not like all your troops fail automatically if you dont provide enough for them all - a shortage would (sometimes) be a gradual penalty spread over whole fronts. HoI4 will presumably be full of this potential number-crunching anways: How many factories do we need to dedicate to equipment X? How many fighters will i lose per month in the battle of britain?
Only units that do not fight should be off map. If police units do nothing but suppress partisans and dont engage in battle in any way, they can be off map. If Garrisons should be usable in say port defences against enemy invasions, they should be on map.
It makes zero sense to have separate climate equipment when there are no separate trucks and other more important things. Its just general supplies. It can be really simple, just check if troops are in special terrain and then three options:
You dont research special equipment, your troops suffer.
You suffer supply shortages = your troops suffer.
You have the tech and ample supply = your troops are OK.
Zero micromanagement, no nonsense stuff like building divisions with winter equipment which they keep lugging around during summer offensive just because winter will eventually come (or several divisions lugging around desert equipment in Russia during winter just because they were capturing Suez several months ago). Clean, elegant, makes the right impact and makes sense. The Germans did not have great problems in Russian winter because they did not research winter equipment - they had great problems because they were struggling to supply their army even during summer and sending ammo and tanks was apparently higher priority for High command than winter clothes or antifreeze...
You dont research special equipment, your troops suffer.
You suffer supply shortages = your troops suffer.
You have the tech and ample supply = your troops are OK.
Zero micromanagement, no nonsense stuff like building divisions with winter equipment which they keep lugging around during summer offensive just because winter will eventually come (or several divisions lugging around desert equipment in Russia during winter just because they were capturing Suez several months ago). Clean, elegant, makes the right impact and makes sense. The Germans did not have great problems in Russian winter because they did not research winter equipment - they had great problems because they were struggling to supply their army even during summer and sending ammo and tanks was apparently higher priority for High command than winter clothes or antifreeze...
Last edited:
Just for the sake of argument: The fact that there are no seperate trucks and other more important things could also be viewed as the very reason why seperate climate equipment makes a lot of sense, namely to abstract the absence of those more important things into one item. As in: The special fitting of trucks for a specific climate comes in the form of seperate climate equipment types (sand-filters for the desert, anti-frost-addidives for engine fuel for the winter, removable tracks -whatdoiknow?- for the jungle).
I am really on the fence about this: On the one side the simplicity of the ´its just supplies´-model is appealing, sure. On the other, it makes your whole army jack of all trades if you just have enough supplies in store (can those still be stored?), and did a little bit of teching. There wouldnt be a situation, in which a unit has enough ammo, but not enough coats, to put it simple. You could overcome issues caused by russian winter by skimping on supplying your troops in france on the fly. That´s hard to imagine in reality, unless you send the entire occupation force to take a naked bath for a couple of months to send their uniforms east.
---
No, i think i am against that simpistic model. You would not really need to prepare. You´d just send any divs to africa (as germany) and take the supply hit. There´d be nothing special about them. Much more fun (in my book at least), to realize, yeah, i should send a corps to africa maybe. Handpick them. Then ask myself weather i shouldnt give them desert equipment before i ship them - and this part would be missing if we just use the just-supply-model - or if urgency does not allow for it and i better gradually equip them with desert gear once they got there and stabilized the front somehow without.
EDIT: I mean, okay, it can be supplies, but the ´check on terrain´ part is flawed. It must be a player decision wether and for what climate to specialize a unit. And if he decides to do it, there needs to be some sort of bar filling up each day the unit meets the expanded supply-requirements, which shows by how much the approriate climate effect is now mitigated for the unit. It should take a couple of weeks to fill up completely. To keep it reaaaly simple, this bar could be the ORG bar, getting cut by a lot when the player decided to (re-)specialize a unit.
I am really on the fence about this: On the one side the simplicity of the ´its just supplies´-model is appealing, sure. On the other, it makes your whole army jack of all trades if you just have enough supplies in store (can those still be stored?), and did a little bit of teching. There wouldnt be a situation, in which a unit has enough ammo, but not enough coats, to put it simple. You could overcome issues caused by russian winter by skimping on supplying your troops in france on the fly. That´s hard to imagine in reality, unless you send the entire occupation force to take a naked bath for a couple of months to send their uniforms east.
---
No, i think i am against that simpistic model. You would not really need to prepare. You´d just send any divs to africa (as germany) and take the supply hit. There´d be nothing special about them. Much more fun (in my book at least), to realize, yeah, i should send a corps to africa maybe. Handpick them. Then ask myself weather i shouldnt give them desert equipment before i ship them - and this part would be missing if we just use the just-supply-model - or if urgency does not allow for it and i better gradually equip them with desert gear once they got there and stabilized the front somehow without.
EDIT: I mean, okay, it can be supplies, but the ´check on terrain´ part is flawed. It must be a player decision wether and for what climate to specialize a unit. And if he decides to do it, there needs to be some sort of bar filling up each day the unit meets the expanded supply-requirements, which shows by how much the approriate climate effect is now mitigated for the unit. It should take a couple of weeks to fill up completely. To keep it reaaaly simple, this bar could be the ORG bar, getting cut by a lot when the player decided to (re-)specialize a unit.
Last edited:
If something like this were implemented I would like it to be in a theater of occupation type setup and not single province based. Example, say as Germany you take Poland, France, etc. It will (i presume it hasn't changed from HoI 3) be occupied territory, you could then have a political tab similar as collaborator gov, exploitation etc that show every occupied territory, so occupied Poland, France etc show as different, and from there you can delegate production and manpower, so say the larger the area of occupation the more production and manpower you need to add to have it secure, say Poland require 10.000 manpower and X production to be kept relatively secure and functioning. Then you could spend production to place that force there, then it could slowly dwindle over a large portion of time depending on the situation there, say if the enemy start to retake area then perhaps the supplies in the territory go down faster as partisans increase sabotage and attacks to help the liberation army. (Assuming they are there to liberate)
On the other hand, if you go below that line the production, resources, manpower etc will lower and unrest will be more frequent. If on the other hand you place more equipments and manpower in the occupied zone production etc increase as you have a stronger hold on the area, drawback could be that the revolts would happen less frequently since you have more troops to keep it secure but when the revolt do trigger its stronger and better equipped since they have more places to scavenge weapons from your suppression troops, and you will have less equipment and manpower for your armed forces.
So it becomes a mater of how much resources you are willing to tie down in occupied areas, Its basically built on the same system as we had in HoI3 since you had to build garrison troops, but in this way it would directly affect parameters inside the occupied zone and keep them away from the map in the way you propose, simplifies it while still going deeper and adding to the occupied territory dynamic of the game.
Im all for region and climate specific equipment pools that units draw from during those situations, HoI3´s system of just researching tech to lessen attrition seemed to shallow, after all, large part of German problem in the winter 41 and soviet problems in the winter war where due to lack of winter equipment. It would also be interesting to have to consider if its worth sending troops into winter areas during winter, or if you are able perhaps you should just hold your armies south, and if you want or need to go north, with how large an army? Perhaps it would be worth sending a smaller force that will drain your winter supplies slower? A small holding force perhaps to just hold the line while you wait for spring? You could even make it so that if a unit stay in the same place it draw supplies slower to represent the building of emplacements that units built to shield themself from the weather, then you would be faced with the decision of continuing your advance but be forced to increase supply demand or stay put until warmer weather comes. And should you really advance so far into Russia in autumn? After all... winter is coming...
Last edited:
It is way to easy to just represent specalized equipment as techs only, you should be forces to producera them like you produce tank destroyers and such.