units idea...

[unmerged(30623)]

well i have been thinking lately due to the screens released on this forum and here they are:

1.i realy like the victoria aproch to units, that means that a units strength will be indicated by the historycal nomber of troops in the unit i hope that it in the new hoi2

2.i'm prety shure that a russian divions in ww2 where bigger then other contrys exaple: a contry as big as russia could assemble 100000 men (i dont realy know just gessing) but a country like holland or belgium could not assemble a 100000 men to it, maby 20 or 50 or 10 i have no idea , and even smaller states could not even make 1 divison so they will have brigads etc...

3.i think that meny of as playing hoi have had all kinds of frily days, for exaple russia having t-34 in 1940, i'm shure that there are other cases but i cant think of any right now(you get the idea, i dont like when that happens) wich brings me to the idea is it posible to correct this? maby tech trees will be modified for each contry?

4.this is another victoria idea, i hope the all contrys with colonial power will be able to have troops with in colonial sections but only for those sections for exaple: briton will have the abilety to creat a bormis division in burma but will be able to diploy this division only in burma but a british division will be abled to be diployed every where, (or in anther way to say it troops from difrent coltchers)

sorry for sp, and i hope i'm not repeating an idea.........

 

[Sir Humphrey]

1 Avoid vicky idea like the plauge, it was a novel idea, but left much to be desired. Havign a unit as 100 strength, as it's high capaicty avaoids having individual country unit stats, and grossly over complicating the the nice systme that was used in HoI.

2 It's more game balancing than anythign else, other wise it wouldn't be sporting.

3 The first units of the T-34 were off the production line in 1940, and so what if things aren't 100% historical?

4 Do you mean like in Vicky, where each unit has a hoem province?

 

[unmerged(23946)]

1. That's an O.K. idea, it allowed the game to keep track of casualties in the savefile and added more flavor.
2. Actually I believe the Russians had smaller divisions then the rest of the Allies and Germany.
3. Are you saying each country should get its own individual tech tree? I really think that's a bad idea.
4. Seeing as you can't exploit colonial manpower like in Vicky, I don't think this will be included anyway.

 

[unmerged(33169)]

2.i'm prety shure that a russian divions in ww2 where bigger then other contrys exaple: a contry as big as russia could assemble 100000 men (i dont realy know just gessing) but a country like holland or belgium could not assemble a 100000 men to it, maby 20 or 50 or 10 i have no idea , and even smaller states could not even make 1 divison so they will have brigads etc...

Actually Russian divisions in WWII were smaller than German divisions. Division size is not dependent on how many men can a country mobilize. It is rather question of doctrine. I.e. British divisions consisted of brigades (3 brigades = division). This system was supposed to be very flexible one.

Russians and Germans on the other hand used regiment system, and organic parts of divs (HQ, artillery, logistics and other support elements) and regiments were much less independent. Later in war Germans used concept of kampfgruppe. Concept was initially Rommel's and he used divs as sort of pool, and drew units according to he needs of planned op.
IIRC Russians used their divs as complete formations, but their divisions were smaller than German divs by half (IIRC).
Largest divs were American. Full complement numbered over 30.000 people IIRC. Of course combat complement was somewhere around 1/3 of this number the rest was support. Helps explain why americans had the best logistics. And truth is amateurs discuss tactics, proffessionals discuss logistics.

 

[unmerged(30623)]

thanx for the replays, idea 1 is like said befor me, is also for casulties and keeping track of them, i realy like that if hoi 2 would have a casultie counter that will show how many casulties a contry had

idea 2 i ment by genral not russian division vs german but german vs luxsemburg or small factions

idea 3 is not so good (only saw it now)

idea 4 is that contrys will have the ability to train colonial troops acording to the culture thos contrys control

i hope that idea 1 is most importent , i dont know about you guys but i loved victorias aproch to units strenght

 

[Sir Humphrey]

The Kampfgruppen were one of the most flexible and versitile units on the battlefield. I think it was Napoleon who said "It's the economy stupid"(Supplies and logistics))

 

[unmerged(33169)]

thanx for the replays,
idea 2 i ment by genral not russian division vs german but german vs luxsemburg or small factions

Well, number of soldiers in division is not so varied among the countries. As I pointed out in the previos post, it more depends on the doctrine, than on manpower potential of any single country. So even smaller countries were able to field divisions 10.000 people strong. They only fielded fewer divisions..

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Actually Russian divisions in WWII were smaller than German divisions. Division size is not dependent on how many men can a country mobilize. It is rather question of doctrine. I.e. British divisions consisted of brigades (3 brigades = division). This system was supposed to be very flexible one.

Russians and Germans on the other hand used regiment system, and organic parts of divs (HQ, artillery, logistics and other support elements) and regiments were much less independent. Later in war Germans used concept of kampfgruppe. Concept was initially Rommel's and he used divs as sort of pool, and drew units according to he needs of planned op.
IIRC Russians used their divs as complete formations, but their divisions were smaller than German divs by half (IIRC).
Largest divs were American. Full complement numbered over 30.000 people IIRC. Of course combat complement was somewhere around 1/3 of this number the rest was support. Helps explain why americans had the best logistics. And truth is amateurs discuss tactics, proffessionals discuss logistics.

Most of the time brigade served as a mere synonym to regiment during WW2. Eg. the "brigades" on the British infantry divisions were made up of battallions, just like regiments. Rarely was the "correct" organization chain used (ie. regiments make up brigades which make up divisions). The same holds true for Soviets, another major brigade user - Their tank corps', which were divisions sized fromations, were made up of motorized and tank brigades which were made up of battallions. Even when brigades were made up of regiments the regiments were usually battallion sized (as in British and Japanese armour organization).

American infantry divisions had bit under 15.000 personell. Armoured divisions had a bit over 10.000.