We need standardized tank numbers per battalion

[DaleDVM]

How would that work with stats that are treated as the average of all battalions, or otherwise something other than a straight up sum, like organization or armor? Other than that, basing stats on the amount of equipment used (IE 10 medium tanks with 5 soft attack each would give a battalion 50 soft attack) is a reasonable alternative to equalizing chassis count per battalion both for tank variants and different sizes. I assume it would be more programming work though.

If equipment is treated as an average, you just reduce that average by the understrength percentage... because the support battalion is smaller than a standard battalion. Any stats that are assessed by adding numbers together wouldn't need to be affected as they already factor in less vehicles. It doesn't seem very complicated to me, but I am not a programmer.

 

[Bremen]

If equipment is treated as an average, you just reduce that average by the understrength percentage... because the support battalion is smaller than a standard battalion. Any stats that are assessed by adding numbers together wouldn't need to be affected as they already factor in less vehicles. It doesn't seem very complicated to me, but I am not a programmer.

This would mess with the numbers a lot more than you seem to think. For example, it would mean that a division with two battalions of 30 light tank destroyers would have about half the armor, piercing, and hardness of a division with one battalion of 60 light tanks, even if they had the exact same stats as the tank destroyers. The two battalions of tank destroyers would also have lower organization if combined with foot/motorized/mechanized infantry because they'd bring the average down more.

All in all I think equalizing the chassis count across all armored battalions is a much simpler and elegant solution, even if it's not a perfect match with how historical armies did it.

 

[DaveyDave]

This is bad, because:

1. You need tons of math or trial and error to find out how much your new tanks is actually going to cost you in terms of outfitting battalions/divisions. This contributes to a steep learning curve for Hoi4 with no discernable benefit.
2. Now that all tanks have the same modules at the same cost, it means that battalions with fewer vehicle get each module much cheaper for the same stats benefit.
3. There are a bunch of hidden modifiers trying to balance it. If you make an AA tank, it will get -100% breakthrough to balance the fact that it's cheap. Flame tanks and recon tanks get huge nerfs to their stats, etc, etc. Those modifiers should IMO go away (with potential exceptions, since support battalions don't cost width and there should be something to compensate). In general, the stats of the tank in the tank designer, should be the stats of the battalion, including cost. This makes sense, and would save huge headaches.

1. The heavier the tank, the more it costs to produce, both in terms of PP (number of factories+time to produce 1 unit) and resources. The numbers per battalion as they are equalize the time it takes given the same resources to produce a battalion which can be deployed. Not a huge math issue, or really any issue.
2. Doesn't make any sense at all.
3. If you make an AA tank, it will get -100% breakthrough for that type of tank, because AA tanks aren't designed as an offensive breakthrough unit. That's not their function on the battlefield. Flame tanks get huge nerfs to their individual stats as an individual tank, because they provide enormous bonuses to the entire unit a flame tank company is attached to. The rest of what is said in item 3 are incomprehensible.

 

[Bremen]

1. The heavier the tank, the more it costs to produce, both in terms of PP (number of factories+time to produce 1 unit) and resources. The numbers per battalion as they are equalize the time it takes given the same resources to produce a battalion which can be deployed. Not a huge math issue, or really any issue.
2. Doesn't make any sense at all.
3. If you make an AA tank, it will get -100% breakthrough for that type of tank, because AA tanks aren't designed as an offensive breakthrough unit. That's not their function on the battlefield. Flame tanks get huge nerfs to their individual stats as an individual tank, because they provide enormous bonuses to the entire unit a flame tank company is attached to. The rest of what is said in item 3 are incomprehensible.

2. makes perfect sense to me; Take a module like, say, the "additional machineguns". It increases the cost by .5, and grants 2 defense and soft attack. Sounds reasonable, right?

But if I put it on my light tank, I'm building 60 light tanks that cost .5 more, for 30 more production, for those 2 defense and soft attack. If I put it on a super heavy, I'm building 15 super heavies for .5 more each, for a total of 7.5 production, for that same 2 defense and soft attack.

Similarly the point with 3 is that if I make an AA tank with exactly the same equipment as a normal tank, it will have different stats just because the designation of being an AA tank has hidden modifiers. I think it makes more sense if the design itself changes the stats and therefor how you would use it - the difference between an AA tank, a tank destroyer, and a normal tank shouldn't be what it's designated as, it's what sort of gun/turret/armor it uses.

 

[DaleDVM]

This would mess with the numbers a lot more than you seem to think. For example, it would mean that a division with two battalions of 30 light tank destroyers would have about half the armor, piercing, and hardness of a division with one battalion of 60 light tanks, even if they had the exact same stats as the tank destroyers. The two battalions of tank destroyers would also have lower organization if combined with foot/motorized/mechanized infantry because they'd bring the average down more.

All in all I think equalizing the chassis count across all armored battalions is a much simpler and elegant solution, even if it's not a perfect match with how historical armies did it.

And since this is a new system trying to correct the flaws in the old system, nothing you said has to be true. But if my support companies have half the unit count then they should only contribute half the armor, and hardness. So what? It could be on the tooltip for the support battalion. "This support battalion only contributes 50% of its hardness and armor to the division" But it could also have this tooltip. "This support battalion contributes all of its piercing because of its TD role."

So now for 2 width you can increase the overall piercing of this division cheaper because you don't need as many vehicles to dill the TD role. The fact that it is cheaper means you don't get 100% of the units armor and hardness.

Modifiers like this are realistic and give specific roles to our support companies. IMHO, I think it is elegant, realistic, and adds tactical/strategic depth.

 

[DaveyDave]

But if I put it on my light tank, I'm building 60 light tanks that cost .5 more, for 30 more production, for those 2 defense and soft attack. If I put it on a super heavy, I'm building 15 super heavies for .5 more each, for a total of 7.5 production, for that same 2 defense and soft attack.

Yes, machineguns do not become more or less powerful because the chassis they are mounted on is bigger or smaller. It's a machine gun regardless of what it is mounted on.

 

[Bremen]

And since this is a new system trying to correct the flaws in the old system, nothing you said has to be true. But if my support companies have half the unit count then they should only contribute half the armor, and hardness. So what? It could be on the tooltip for the support battalion. "This support battalion only contributes 50% of its hardness and armor to the division" But it could also have this tooltip. "This support battalion contributes all of its piercing because of its TD role."

So now for 2 width you can increase the overall piercing of this division cheaper because you don't need as many vehicles to dill the TD role. The fact that it is cheaper means you don't get 100% of the units armor and hardness.

Modifiers like this are realistic and give specific roles to our support companies. IMHO, I think it is elegant, realistic, and adds tactical/strategic depth.

The problem is the math doesn't work like that. Some stats are an average (or weighted average) of all divisions; having two battalions of 50 armor tanks doesn't give a division 100 armor, it gives it 50 armor.

It's not as simple as "this is how it worked in the past, so it has to be true in the future" - it's fundamentally how the divisions in HoI 4 work, and there's no simple way to change it to work like you want. How does "this battalion only contributes 50% of its armor" even work? If I combine that battalion with an unarmored battalion like infantry, how does the armor average out? What if there's two armored battalions and one unarmored? Or a division of nothing but tank destroyers, do they still have 50% of the armor of a tank of the same design? Computer programs don't work on common sense, they work on math. so there has to be a mathematical formula.

 

[PK_AZ]

The problem is the math doesn't work like that. Some stats are an average (or weighted average) of all divisions; having two battalions of 50 armor tanks doesn't give a division 100 armor, it gives it 50 armor.

Actually, according to wiki, it is less than 50.
max_armor is 50
sum_of_armor is 100
num_of_battalions is 2
effective armor = 0.3 * max_armor + 0,7 * sum_of_armor / (num_of_battalions + 1) = 0.3 * 50 + 0.7 * 100 / 3 = 15 + 23,33 = 38.33.
Result here is screwed, as small number of battalions means that "+1" is powerful modifier.

 

[Ossiv]

While I am sure there were historical exceptions, the 40-60 range does indeed seem reasonable to me.

As an additional consideration, why couldn't the player decide the size of an AFV battalion when designing units? A simple small-medium-large option for AFV battalions would render much of this discussion moot.

Regards,
Feltan

Historically, German (full strengt) medium tank tank battalions in 1943-44 could have up to 76-96 tanks, 4 companies of 17-22 tanks each plus 8 in battalion HQ. On the other hand, at the same time Soviet (full strength) tank battalions could have 21-31 tanks, 2-3 companies of 10 tanks each plus 1 for the battalion commander. Both of these were full strength according to their TO&E. A German tank company was roughly equivalent to a Soviet battalion, a German battalion could be larger than a Soviet tank brigade, when both were full strenght and only armor counted.

So, what is a historically reasonable size for a tank battalion? A good question. If it is 50, that is equivalent to 2 Soviet tank battalions, but only about half of a German battalion for 1943 (as an example).

 

[Bremen]

Historically, German (full strengt) medium tank tank battalions in 1943-44 could have up to 76-96 tanks, 4 companies of 17-22 tanks each plus 8 in battalion HQ. On the other hand, at the same time Soviet (full strength) tank battalions could have 21-31 tanks, 2-3 companies of 10 tanks each plus 1 for the battalion commander. Both of these were full strength according to their TO&E. A German tank company was roughly equivalent to a Soviet battalion, a German battalion could be larger than a Soviet tank brigade, when both were full strenght and only armor counted.

So, what is a historically reasonable size for a tank battalion? A good question. If it is 50, that is equivalent to 2 Soviet tank battalions, but only about half of a German battalion for 1943 (as an example).

I think this is probably a good reason why trying to match numbers with historical formations is a losing battle. If, say, the game just modeled 30 chassis per battalion then a player could use one battalion for the Soviets or 3 battalions for the Germans and just call it "one battalion." For game purposes it's just a number used to organize things, and really matters for balance more than anything.

While I think it might be interesting if you could just assign x number of tanks and y artillery pieces or whatever, and the stats were calculated on the fly from the equipment, that would be such a major shift maybe it's an idea for an eventual Hearts of Iron 5 if then.

 

[schuyguy]

Yes, machineguns do not become more or less powerful because the chassis they are mounted on is bigger or smaller. It's a machine gun regardless of what it is mounted on.

The stats you see on the designer are per battalion. So for super heavy tanks, 15 machine guns give a combined total of 2 soft attack. For light tanks, it takes 60 of those same machine guns to get a combined 2 soft attack. The way the game currently works, one machine gun is 4 times as powerful if it's on a super heavy tank than if it were on a light tank.

 

[DaveyDave]

The stats you see on the designer are per battalion. So for super heavy tanks, 15 machine guns give a combined total of 2 soft attack. For light tanks, it takes 60 of those same machine guns to get a combined 2 soft attack. The way the game currently works, one machine gun is 4 times as powerful if it's on a super heavy tank than if it were on a light tank.

Yes, I understand now. It doesn't really make sense if we look at it this way - which is the way it is.

 

[Gyrvendal]

3. If you make an AA tank, it will get -100% breakthrough for that type of tank, because AA tanks aren't designed as an offensive breakthrough unit. That's not their function on the battlefield. Flame tanks get huge nerfs to their individual stats as an individual tank, because they provide enormous bonuses to the entire unit a flame tank company is attached to. The rest of what is said in item 3 are incomprehensible.

In real life, there is no reason why an AA tank or a tank destroyer should have "-100% breakthrough". Most tank destroyers IRL carried a small number of high explosive shells, some tank destroyers had rotating turrets, etc. So IRL the distinction between a tank and a tank destroyer was pretty blurry and it was more a question of what the tank was "best" at rather than it being 100% specialized. Even AA tanks had powerful autocannons on rotating turrets and therefore could be used to support a ground combat.
The tank designer is supposed to give you freedom to design vehicles, but that freedom is hampered by weird modifiers that are applied at the battalion level and invisible in the tank designer. Whether it's number of vehicles, width, terrain modifiers, effect of doctrines, etc... It would be so much better if the designations were equivalent in gameplay terms and just used by the player to sort his vehicles into appropriate battalions.
Even if modifiers exist in some cases, they should be applied directly in the tank designer when you set your designation. Building a tank with X stats, then realizing the stats in the division are completely different just feels terrible....

 

[DaleDVM]

In real life, there is no reason why an AA tank or a tank destroyer should have "-100% breakthrough". Most tank destroyers IRL carried a small number of high explosive shells, some tank destroyers had rotating turrets, etc. So IRL the distinction between a tank and a tank destroyer was pretty blurry and it was more a question of what the tank was "best" at rather than it being 100% specialized. Even AA tanks had powerful autocannons on rotating turrets and therefore could be used to support a ground combat.
The tank designer is supposed to give you freedom to design vehicles, but that freedom is hampered by weird modifiers that are applied at the battalion level and invisible in the tank designer. Whether it's number of vehicles, width, terrain modifiers, effect of doctrines, etc... It would be so much better if the designations were equivalent in gameplay terms and just used by the player to sort his vehicles into appropriate battalions.
Even if modifiers exist in some cases, they should be applied directly in the tank designer when you set your designation. Building a tank with X stats, then realizing the stats in the division are completely different just feels terrible....

They don't have that -100% modifier because the vehicles don't have the abilities. It is because of the role in the division those vehicles take. You can assign tanks to the role of artillery but then those tanks are not on the front contributing to breakthrough. Instead they are in the rear firing HE shells in support of the other battalions. That is why their stats change. Do I agree with the -100%? Hell no. But this thread has people comparing apples to oranges.

 

[shadowpho]

Have the SH TD been fixed as the cheapest thing to make yet? Or is it still the best?

 

[Bremen]

It looks like the numbers in the OP are wrong (or else it was a recent change), but the chassis counts for tanks are 60/50/40 for light/medium/heavy. That's close enough that it probably doesn't have huge balance effects until you get to superheavies, which are pretty late in the tech tree and don't see a lot of play because of it. I'll experiment more with them when I get a game that goes late enough. I still like the idea of standardizing the numbers but at least this makes it less of a balance concern.

I also do like the idea of standardizing the numbers for variants/etc and instead of giving hidden maluses to things like breakthrough, just give the designer components so someone can design a self-propelled antiaircraft chassis that's cheaper with lower breakthrough or similar if they like.