Varying combat width

[Ketchup & friends]

The problem:

Fixed combat width (40) results a few meta division builds that ARE the best. This means that in every game, every player-controlled country always builds the same divisions, and AI who doesn’t build them is easily defeated.

This results in a predictable and therefore boring game. These OP meta builds are also non-historical. Some hosts ban OP templates, but that’s not a real solution, the game needs to provide a viable alternative.

Our idea how to solve it:

Part I:

Make combat width vary from province to province depending on

• Terrrain (lowest in mountains and jungles, highest in plains)
• Infrastructure (higher infrastructure = more width)

Ideally, this should be combined with moving infrastructure from the state level to the provincial level.

We have proposed (in the comments to @safe-keeper 's Thread) to move infrastructure from the state level to the provincial level. (As it was in HoI III)

(map originally provided by @Fulmen here.)

This would make the infrastructure map much more granular.
This would also make implementing railways easier. A Railway would increase infrastructure only in the provinces through which it passes, not the whole state.

The provincial combat width could vary from 20 (mountain province with 0 infrastructure, e.g. in the Himalaya) to 60 (plain province with max infrastructure, e.g. somewhere in western Europe).

If a fort designer (like the one proposed by @Michael Gladius here) is ever implemented, it should feature an obstacle that decreases combat width.

Part II:

Make division width more flexible. (many ideas, some of them already proposed in various threads)

• Change the default combat width of all battalions that currently have 3 (artillery etc) to 1. That way the maximum unmodified combat width would become 50. (2*25)
• add more things that change unit combat width (currently only the Mass Assault doctrine tree does this): new General traits, support companies, more doctrines.
• introduce more versions of normal battalions with more OR less width (and changed other stats accordingly)
• add a special (strategic) decision: changes width for all divisions in the army by a multiplier. (standard width vs concentrated vs spread thin.)

This will allow any country to customize the army for the terrain they will fight in. A small country like Czechoslovakia or Finland could make divisions that are perfect for their border provinces. Constructing infrastructure in these provinces would allow to adjust width if needed

Big nations that fight on many different fronts would have either make many templates for the different terrain and infrastructure level combos OR have to use divisions that are inferior to the specialized defenders. That would give the small defensive countries a small advantage.


The main downside would be much more micromanagement.

Note:
This is a based on discussions in many other threads.
most relevant ones are
- The darién gap and other places that probably should be impassible
- Barbarossa DLC: a case for a map and railroad overhaul at the example of Fall Blau (Stalingrad)
- 60 Combat Width Base instead of 40
You could read them for more info and alternte proposals.

 

[Archerich]

The other problem is the ai designs divisions that are say strictly above 20 width, and i understand that your number are just an outline, but the ai would have to change its playstyle to be able to actually fight a lot of the time.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The other problem is the ai designs divisions that are say strictly above 20 width, and i understand that your number are just an outline, but the ai would have to change its playstyle to be able to actually fight a lot of the time.

That's true, but any major change requires re-coding the AI to deal with them.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

The real issue isn't combat width, but the exceeding combat width penalty. It causes every unit to lose both attack and defense stats, which is crippling and doesn't make sense. If the penalty is changed to only one division receiving an attack penalty, then other division widths will become competitive without any changes to width itself.

 

[Farquarsen]

The real issue and the problem with the templates is the width of Artillery. Regular artillery battalions have a width of 3. This is a balance issue with the Clausewitz engine. Its designed for face to face combat and not indirect fire or CAS. What you are proposing is an entire rewrite of the land combat engine. Personally I would love to see the Clausewitz engine bite the dust but Paradox is locked into it. It would take many hours of development time to create a new system.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

The real issue and the problem with the templates is the width of Artillery. Regular artillery battalions have a width of 3. This is a balance issue with the Clausewitz engine. Its designed for face to face combat and not indirect fire or CAS. What you are proposing is an entire rewrite of the land combat engine. Personally I would love to see the Clausewitz engine bite the dust but Paradox is locked into it. It would take many hours of development time to create a new system.

It has nothing to do with Clausewitz engine itself. EU3/4 and Vic2 have one unit one width with actual positions on the front, CK2 organizes everything into 3 flanks with soldier-count based bottlenecks, and Stellaris doesn't really have combat width. The HoI4 implementation is unique and not inherent to the engine.

 

[Bki]

The main downside would be much more micromanagement.

This is actually quite massive when the game's intent (even if I will agree the execution was lacking) is to be focused on the strategical and industrial aspects, and that the excessive need for tactical micromanaging brought by the catastrophic implementation of the battle planner isn't already one of the major flaw of the game.

The real issue isn't combat width, but the exceeding combat width penalty. It causes every unit to lose both attack and defense stats, which is crippling and doesn't make sense. If the penalty is changed to only one division receiving an attack penalty, then other division widths will become competitive without any changes to width itself.

I was about to make a similar remark, such a penalty work now because it's easy to never get it.

With varying and incompatible combat width being common though, it would need to be changed. Something like having the last division (or the lowest org, changed at some interval, or some other way, etc.) suffer a stats penalty proportional to the excess combat width, but also suffer damages at a reduced rate.

This would make fitting combat width more a matter of efficiency, which absolutely does matter, but isn't critical except in extreme situations.

Of course that's just the first idea I got. I'm sure you could find a much more cleverer and elegant solution.

The real issue and the problem with the templates is the width of Artillery. Regular artillery battalions have a width of 3. This is a balance issue with the Clausewitz engine. Its designed for face to face combat and not indirect fire or CAS. What you are proposing is an entire rewrite of the land combat engine. Personally I would love to see the Clausewitz engine bite the dust but Paradox is locked into it. It would take many hours of development time to create a new system.

Firstly, the Clausewitz engine has been in use for 13 years now, for games as different as EU, Victoria, CK, Stellaris and HOI, and naturally has been continually updated during that time, and can be updated again as necessary.

Secondly, in the end direct fire or indirect fire or CAS doesn't matter, only how you arrange some dice rolls and various numbers together to produce a "credible" result.

Thirdly even if it mattered, you could just adjust the stats so that 1-width artillery be satisfactory.

 

[Simon_9732495]

I think there should be some disadvantage for huge divisions.
With all the changes above you would still only build the biggest division possible

 

[Hemothep]

I think this is not the solution we need, because it doesn't fix the main problem: The main problem is that big divisions are always better, if you don't incur the excess combat width penalty.

This is because combat is handled as every division in combat shooting at a single enemy division per round. Combat should be ALL the divisions on one side shooting at ALL the divisions on the enemy side. This way combat width doesn't really matter and lots of smaller divisions will make sense.

 

[Harin]

I think there should be some disadvantage for huge divisions.
With all the changes above you would still only build the biggest division possible

I think this is not the solution we need, because it doesn't fix the main problem: The main problem is that big divisions are always better, if you don't incur the excess combat width penalty.

This is because combat is handled as every division in combat shooting at a single enemy division per round. Combat should be ALL the divisions on one side shooting at ALL the divisions on the enemy side. This way combat width doesn't really matter and lots of smaller divisions will make sense.

It is possible you are both correct.

I have always thought all units in combat, should be fighting each other at the same time. I realize their has to be some stacking restriction, but the current system allows for unused combat width to go empty if you or the AI is using templates that are not 10, 20, 40, thus giving an unrealistic advantage to the one using the META combat widths.

Also, since larger divisions can produce better stats than smaller divisions, due to stacking battalions, it is probably necessary for these large divisions to get some penalty so they do not remain the default META. The suggestion of an organization penalty and organization recovery penalty has come up before and makes sense with the historical record, imho. Larger divisions took to long to get in place, supplied, and ready to move, then disorganized faster in combat, reducing their ability to exploit breakthroughs as quickly as the smaller division.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

The problem:

I'd say target selection is still the biggest problem: it forces you to have the largest units possible. Fairly sure that even with varying combat width players will still come up with another "perfect" set of widths that would work more often than not.
While idea is interesting (we have this for CAS, after all), I can only see it forcing players to eat penalties for using templates that are not "perfected" for certain terrain. Unless combat/penalty system itself is reworked to be more forgiving/flexible in that regard, it would only fuel frustration: bridge phases are bad enough as is.

add more things that change unit combat width (currently only the Mass Assault doctrine tree does this): new General traits, support companies, more doctrines.

While doctrines are fine, general skills are just annoying. We had such FM skill already (-10% width): it only forces you to create another set of templates specifically for the commander with the skill, which increases micro rather than diversity.

Diversity would work better if it would come from different set of bonuses: say, GBP would have great infantry, so all its templates would be focused around that, while SF would have to use artillery whenever possible - will still have meta, but at least (with certain amount of balancing) it will have one type for each branch.

 

[FindFloppies]

Obviously, the meta has an impact in MP, as you have to build divisions at least as good as your competitors. Not sure what the solution is there. Probably an org penalty above the <max combat width/4> level. (Some mods change the total width from 80 to 96 or even 120)

If the use of 40-width divisions as a player in SP bothers you, by all means, don't use them. That's what I do. I get enough advantages from being a player that I can win without an extra crutch called 40W divisions.

 

[Farquarsen]

It has nothing to do with Clausewitz engine itself. EU3/4 and Vic2 have one unit one width with actual positions on the front, CK2 organizes everything into 3 flanks with soldier-count based bottlenecks, and Stellaris doesn't really have combat width. The HoI4 implementation is unique and not inherent to the engine.

Firstly, the Clausewitz engine has been in use for 13 years now, for games as different as EU, Victoria, CK, Stellaris and HOI, and naturally has been continually updated during that time, and can be updated again as necessary.

Secondly, in the end direct fire or indirect fire or CAS doesn't matter, only how you arrange some dice rolls and various numbers together to produce a "credible" result.

Thirdly even if it mattered, you could just adjust the stats so that 1-width artillery be satisfactory.

You make my points for me. Clausewitz works with pre-modern combat but fails with modern combat. HOI IV needs three engines: ground with indirect fire; air with CAS, CAP, escort, intercept and recon; naval with earth curvature and time zone calculations in the sea area in question. Clausewitz has no place in modern combat. Forcing it by cutting the foot to fit the shoe does the game no good.

 

[PK_AZ]

HOI IV needs three engines: ground with indirect fire; air with CAS, CAP, escort, intercept and recon; naval with earth curvature and time zone calculations in the sea area in question.

Thats game mechanics, not game engine.
Also, what in Clausewitz makes indirect fire impossible?

 

[Harin]

You make my points for me. Clausewitz works with pre-modern combat but fails with modern combat. HOI IV needs three engines: ground with indirect fire; air with CAS, CAP, escort, intercept and recon; naval with earth curvature and time zone calculations in the sea area in question. Clausewitz has no place in modern combat. Forcing it by cutting the foot to fit the shoe does the game no good.

I do not know how many engines HOI4 requires, but I do believe that the current system does not simulate WW2 land combat very well. In a combat space every division should fight together. There should be no random assignment of attacking divisions to determine what opposing division they are attacking. The entire attack force is attacking the entire defense force. The current system does not model that.

The current system makes the META a specific and truly non-intuitive division template due to the random assignment mechanic. To simulate some form of reality, the META should be a combined arms fight of combat battalions in a deep and wide battle space where indirect fires, direct fires of AT and AA, and speed and maneuver of combat battalions matter.

It can all be simulated behind the scenes, so we can focus on operational and strategic decisions, but when a player decides to add a small armored division/brigade to the fight, it should actually HELP the fight, not hurt it. The engine should reward common sense player decisions like adding artillery, support units, AA, and AT to infantry divisions as nothing but a good thing.

The game tries to run without a manual. I get that. Most games do. But that should mean providing a division builder and combat mechanics that are intuitive to the player. Maybe the best test of any future combat engine for HOI4 will be when a META division starts looking like its historical counterpart.

 

[Farquarsen]

@PK_AZ: To me, a developer, there is no difference between an engine and game mechanics. An engine manages game mechanics. Clausewitz, as Paradox claims, is the engine responsible for game mechanics and combat outcomes. It is good for simple combat in medieval and renaissance era games. It fails in complex modern combat. One engine cannot be all ,end all, in a complex arena of WWII. You asked how does Clausewitz fail to show indirect fire? Why would artillery have combat width when it is 12 to 18 clicks behind the FEBA? Because the engine cannot handle the results of too much soft attack. To get balance in the game, artillery has to add to the width in an attempt to get a correct result. When playing with width, soft attack, hard attack in order to get balance, tells me the engine is being used in a manner not originally intended. it also says to me, its time for a rewrite.

@Harin Agreed. The template does not allow for mixing infantry and armor in the same brigade. It is based on a regimental system. The US army did not use a regimental system in Armored Divisions in WWII, they used combat teams, CCA, CCB, CCR(CCC) later calling these teams brigades after 1954. You cannot create a modern combined arms brigade using the template tool in HOI IV. Battalions have to be all the same type in the regimental column.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The real issue and the problem with the templates is the width of Artillery. Regular artillery battalions have a width of 3.

Thirdly even if it mattered, you could just adjust the stats so that 1-width artillery be satisfactory.

Our first post adresses this.

hange the default combat width of all battalions that currently have 3 (artillery etc) to 1.

And we've already proposed this in some other threads.

This is actually quite massive when the game's intent (even if I will agree the execution was lacking) is to be focused on the strategical and industrial aspects, and that the excessive need for tactical micromanaging brought by the catastrophic implementation of the battle planner isn't already one of the major flaw of the game.

Note that every major patch introduced more micromanagement.

A possible solution for those don't like this could be a division auto-builder. The player would state the desired combat width and purpose (tank, INF, para etc) and just hit a button to get a division (The AI could use the same mechanism).

The main problem is that big divisions are always better, if you don't incur the excess combat width penalty.

Unless combat/penalty system itself is reworked to be more forgiving/flexible in that regard, it would only fuel frustration: bridge phases are bad enough as is.

The disadvantage would be that the division optimzed for plains would become too big in the mountains or forests.
Currently, divisions with width over 40 are not better than W40 but they could get a niche role if certain terrain and infrastructure allowed greater width.

But your points on excess combat width penalty is good, it needs to be fixed as well.

The current system makes the META a specific and truly non-intuitive division template due to the random assignment mechanic. To simulate some form of reality, the META should be a combined arms fight of combat battalions in a deep and wide battle space where indirect fires, direct fires of AT and AA, and speed and maneuver of combat battalions matter.

A good idea, but HOW would you achieve this?

 

[SchwarzKatze]

To me, a developer, there is no difference between an engine and game mechanics. An engine manages game mechanics.

...What?

Cities: Skylines uses the Unity engine
Rimworld uses the Unity engine
Yandere Sim uses the Unity engine

If you developed a game on an engine where the engine and the mechanics are one and the same, it most likely won't be called an engine as you can't really make another game with it.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

I feel like people are confused what a game engine is. It is a suite of tools and frameworks that helps developing games. Examples being renderer, physics, collision, input, sound etc. Shared components.

Implementation of game specific mechanics are usually done separate. There is nothing in HoIs mechanics that are tied to the engine, it's how the mechanics are implemented. One could do a GSG in Unity, Unreal or any other engine for example.

Take the different games coming out from Unity for example, you don't see RPG only games coming out from Unity because "it is only what Unity can do", Unity as an engine provides a framework for making many different games

 

[ladner]

The following are from an old book, published in 1986, "Knights of the Black Cross Hitler's Panzerwaffe and Its Leaders" by Bryan Perrett

A Soviet Tank Corps (this becomes misleading since it is effectively a division sized unit) in July of 1942

Three tank brigades, one motor rifle brigade, guards mortar battalion, mortar battery, motor cycle battalion, armored car battalion, engineer company, supply, and repair company

Armored Fighting Vehicles 98 T-34, 70 T-70

A Soviet Tank Army (note Soviet Army roughly Corps sized)

Two to three tank corps, 1-3 rifle/cavalry divisions, one separate tank brigade, light artillery regiment, guards mortar regiment, antiaircraft battalion: 350 - 500 tanks

A 'standard' 40W 13/7 medium tank "division" has on the order of 650 tanks, which is a problem, since this has no historical bearing

From http://www.niehorster.org/012_ussr/42_organ/42_corps_tank/brig-mot.html

So for the 1942 Soviet Tank Corps: using niehorster for the motor rifle brigade in 1942 three motorized battalions and one motorized mortar battalion, for arguments sake width of 9, using just the tank numbers, 2 medium tank battalions, and 1 light 6 width, mortar battalion 3 width, motor cycle motorized inf 2 width, armored car 2 width, so roughly 22 width.