What the hell.... (combat issue's)

[Macroeconomics]

I have NEVER complained in a forum about a game, and it is very likely that I am playing this game wrong, but this game appears to have no semblance of realism.

I started as France in 1936, I built up Infantry, AT, and AA tech as long as a few of the doctrines.

When Germany attacks Poland we have Holland and Belgium also in the Allies.

Despite not having much in the way of offensive units, I attack near Saar. With 300,000 men, thinking even if they had butter knives I can take them out.

300,000 men vs 8,000 and the German units are easily able to hold for days on end. The burn is not only do I not win, but no one is dying. 300,000 men and there should be more than 4,000 dead after 10 days of fighting.

It happens everywhere. I'll attack with hysterical odds, the computer will attack that group of 300,000 from another province with again... 8K INF, and the whole offensive will be smashed.

I'm no war historian, but if 8,000 men attacked a prepared and well supplied army, even in a flanking maneuver, they'd be going home in body bags.

So now that I've ranted my extreme disappointment. Honest questions.

1. Why aren't way more soldiers dying? These combat logs of 4,000 soldiers dying in MASSIVE conflicts is a joke.

2. Why are groups of 8,000 soldiers able to do so much so effectively?

3. Does Germany have an EXTREME bonus so that the game plays out historically?

4. Shouldn't there be an overrun, or reasonability check? If you are outnumbered 300 - 1, you're screwed?

5. What's with the I attack you and you attack my flank with 4 dudes in pajamas every time. It reminds me of the old paradox games where you could stop attacks by attacking a huge stack over and over again and resetting their movement.

I'm very forgiving with games, and Victoria is by far my favorite game of all time. So I'm very patient, but this does not seem to function.

Any suggestions to make this game fun would be appreciated. I don't think I want the response "you need tanks" because it doesn't address the extreme odds disparity, the effectiveness of 8,000 men, or the constant flank crap with 8k. The computer didn't need tanks to clobber my men with Inf.

I'm so sorry about the complaint thread, I know how annoying they can be, but I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I play this game.

 

[sam73]

I think it would help to know what land doctrine technologies you have developed and to what level, compared to Germany. Also the kind of terrain and weather, and what is the effective frontage.

 

[jedi72it]

I will give you my 2 cents about the first part,

if you read well the game manual, it says that even if you attack with gazillions of soldiers, actually only few will occupy the battlefront, which is limited (very limited in some cases of rough terrain), so only 4-5 divisions can fight....and if you stack too many in the same province you get a paralyzing combat penalty...that's why no combat occur if the AI makes (and unluckily it does way too often....) superstacks.

 

[unmerged(174591)]

The numbers in the combat logs are wrong. I think its logged as a bug.

As for the 400k vs 8 , I don't exactly know.

There are stacking penalties which can reduce your 400k by v large amounts.

 

[nwinther]

While I agree, your situation seems extreme, there are examples of very minor forces beating and even annihillating much larger forces. Operation Compass was one of those.

 

[notger.heinz]

1. Read the manual. Read the part about combat mechanics, esp. combat frontage.

2. Bringing in 150 divisions will give you a stacking penalty that nullifies everything. Check the tool tip in the battle report.

HOI3 is different from HOI2 in that super-stacks don't work here. Not at all. Which is a great thing, in my opinion.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

Also, the number of wounded, which I suppose is abstracted into organization loss, is typically double the number killed which has a great effect on the ability of a unit to keep fighting.

 

[unmerged(141851)]

Combat frontage. You can only have so many troops fighting in a restricted area, otherwise there will be friendly fire, loss of unit cohesion, conflicting chains of command, supply screw-ups, and just total paralysis. While abstracted for the game, this is a very real military concept and something very necessary in wargames so you don't just build Risk-like uberstacks.

Try cycling your attacks....or, in military terms, attack with a suitable number of troops (say, 3 or 4-to-1), and keep the others in strategic reserve (not the tactical reserve when a battle is taking place). If needed, pull some of those units back and add others to the battle. You'll be fighting through hills and forests, and it's possible the computer has increased the fortifications as well. You might need more artillery and air support as well.

 

[loki100]

one of the ways this is very different to HOI2 is that adding more is not better - you can pull off a successful attack at about 1.5:1 (depends a bit on terrain and what you've researched) adding more just ties those troops down. In the main, don't attack with more than 4 divs from a given province.

 

[unmerged(91248)]

When there's an attack in progress, you can select it via the black box on the right hand side of the screen (the attack will be listed at the top). When you select the battle, more information is available to you on the left hand side of the screen, this will include the frontage (# of brigades that can participate int he attack, based on the number of provinces being attacked from) and a graphical representation of the the main factor affecting the battle. If you hover the cursor over each element of the screen (including the divisions participating in the attack) you'll soon be able to see what's going on. For more info you can refer to the manual and strategy guide (which are both very good).

 

[Macroeconomics]

Interesting, thank you all for the suggestions.

I get the impression I was on the very wrong end of a game mechanic. The mechanic, does seem a bit unrealistic, but I can adapt. Hammering 300,000 soldiers through these areas was not a problem in WW1, or to a lesser extent WW2, but I'll play ball.

Also doesn't this concept somewhat deter what made the blitzkrieg so effective, intense concentration on a single point for a breakthrough?

So do stacking penalties start getting nasty after 4 divisions?

When I attack and check the battle, I see my leader is some no name, instead of the HQ leader. Should I attack with an HQ as well?

Would you all say that France is completely playable?

I will continue to give this game a chance. Thanks everyone.

 

[unmerged(141851)]

Interesting, thank you all for the suggestions.

I get the impression I was on the very wrong end of a game mechanic. The mechanic, does seem a bit unrealistic, but I can adapt. Hammering 300,000 soldiers through these areas was not a problem in WW1, or to a lesser extent WW2, but I'll play ball.

Also doesn't this concept somewhat deter what made the blitzkrieg so effective, intense concentration on a single point for a breakthrough?

So do stacking penalties start getting nasty after 4 divisions?

When I attack and check the battle, I see my leader is some no name, instead of the HQ leader. Should I attack with an HQ as well?

Would you all say that France is completely playable?

I will continue to give this game a chance. Thanks everyone.

Even WWI armies, which saw more mass attacks on a tactical level, were restricted in what could actually be brought to bear at any given moment in a battle. While some went over the top, lots more troops would stay in the rear trenches as a reserve, sometimes miles behind the lines. Also, there is a level of abstraction here, so don't get too fixated on the numbers of troops (especially casualties, the displayed numbers are totally whacked, though supposedly the underlying numbers are okay). So you can push 300k soldiers through, but there's no way to get them all actually fighting all at the exact same time in one great big long line; they would be shuffled back and forth.

The blitzkrieg concentration was all about hammering one spot with everything you had, then exploiting the breakthrough with tanks and dive bombers as aerial artillery. You can do that, though the attack delay makes it frustrating, but again, it wasn't about having 300,000 guys all stand up at the same time and shoot their rifles at the same time; some battalions would be on the line, others in reserve, behind them would be divisions held in reserve, behind them whole armies in reserve, and so on.

In a straight up fight, you are limited to about 4 divisions. There are ways to get around this with planning. Attacking from different provinces increases the available frontage, and you can double, triple or whatever the number of units actually attacking at that moment. Using support brigades (e.g. artillery) also increases your punch without taking up frontage space. Stacking penalties can be lessened by good leaders, too.

I like to support with my HQs, not actually attack, but I don't know if that's best. I just do it for RP reasons.

I imagine France is quite backwards and has to do more work to catch up, but I haven't played them or even paid much attention, so I can't say.

 

[Charles Louis]

Also doesn't this concept somewhat deter what made the blitzkrieg so effective, intense concentration on a single point for a breakthrough?

There is a specific doctrine, for armored spearheads that makes armor count for one mile of frontage instead of two, this makes just such a concentration easier to achieve. Normally you'll get a breakthrough because he has one division or two and you are attacking with eight or so.

So do stacking penalties start getting nasty after 4 divisions?

It bigger than four for the nastiness. A province normally can support a frontage of 10. You want 10 combat brigades there. Since divisions are either in or not, most people favor four divisions of three combat brigades. That would put 12 combat brigades into a province front. You can do this from multiple provinces with no penalty, indeed at three provinces, you get the flanking bonus. Support brigades are more costly and more fragile, but they don't consume frontage. Adding them to a full front is a way around the frontage limits. If the front is not full (10 brigades) they are not as cost efficient as infantry, though circumstances can still make them worth while. The stacking penalty starts off light but get troublesome around eight. Its better to keep four divisions in rotation (let your organization climb outside of combat) than to stick too many divisions into combat.

When I attack and check the battle, I see my leader is some no name, instead of the HQ leader. Should I attack with an HQ as well?

No, the leader named means nothing. The division commander commands his division, the corps commander his corps, army army and so on. They are always providing their bonus as long as they are in radio range. If Manstein is an army group commander, he provides his bonus to his army group within 600 miles. There is no need to put an HQ into combat.

As mentioned regarding frontage above, you have two kinds of troop density. The front is full, or its not. In France, the front should always be full. You should always have 10 brigades in combat per province with Germany. If you need militia to get there, its better than empty frontage. In Africa, and other extra-European theaters, you may have one division per province and may even be using two brigades per division. Here HQ's might be useful in a combat situation. You can use them on their own or in such circumstances you can pair their with a combat brigade or two.

Would you all say that France is completely playable?

I have defeated Germany with France. Twice.
Here is my AAR:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428731

 

[unmerged(124603)]

It took me four month to win the war as France in 1.1. I started an 1.3 game recently and it is much harder, but still playable. If you concentrate on doctrines, tanks and infantry equipment, you'll get a decent modern army by 1939. No time for air units, though.

 

[Macroeconomics]

Again excellent comments, thank you.

 

[themousemaster]

I'm at work, and therefore don't have the game-map handy, but...

Is Saar one of the provinces that is (in-game) part of the Maginot line, with a high level Landfort in it?

 

[Charles Louis]

I would go with Infantry and Air and ignore tanks.

 

[Harfang28]

I think the worst is having a huge army stacked in a province, totally pin-down by a single attacking brigade. Thanks to the new frontage concept. It happened to me a few times, when my army was moving through a province occupied by a huge stack of divisions from an allied AI. We were attacked by a single goddamn german brigade and we were stuck there for weeks!!!! almost 300K men with supply against 2000. And it took weeks!!! During this time, of course, you can't do shit! You're stuck until the battle resolve! Of course, you could retreat. But who would retreat when the odds are massively on your side??! And when the battle resolved, they had suffered ridiculous casualties (like 100 soldiers) and we were attacked by another single Slovakia brigade. And here we go again for a week of useless fighting.

Something's not right with that concept.

 

[Charles Louis]

Is Saar one of the provinces that is (in-game) part of the Maginot line, with a high level Landfort in it?

Saar is in Germany, and starts with a level 1 fort, and the AI sometimes kicks it up to 2. Its across the Rhine river.

 

[unmerged(124603)]

I would go with Infantry and Air and ignore tanks.

Well, you might be right - 1.3 AI is much better at stopping breakthroughs. I just like the idea of French S-40 blitzkrieg.