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

[unmerged(171774)]

Geez, you are wrong.

Support bdes have no frontage. In 1.2 you can make support divs by merging support bdes, in 1.3 you can build support only divs.

No stacking penalty?

Good luck attacking 4*3 inf province with 100 art sitting in the same place. Good luck defending something with 100 art supporting the attack of 4*3 inf.

 

[Dunbal]

OP:

Hmmm let's see 300,000 men that's 100 brigades or 30 divisions.

Stacking penalty?


I think you will find that in HOI3 - less is more. The stacking penalty is the "Great Equalizer", and it's in place to force us to avoid just the kind of scenario you are reporting. Battles just didn't happen that way (short of some of the WW1 offensives like the Somme). You need to spread your attack out on a broader front.

Personally I never attack a province with more than 5 divisions (and even so I get a slight stacking penalty). If the enemy is too strong there for me to win with 5 divisions THIS IS NOT WHERE TO ATTACK. If you do so, you are conducting your warfare wrong. You have to apply your strengths to the enemy's WEAKNESSES. Attack somewhere else and try to encircle that large enemy stack by taking weaker neighboring provinces and getting behind it, not taking it head on.

Now I agree that HOI3 is less of a historical game than, say, HOI2. My understanding is that this is by design from the developers. HOI2 was rigid, and only allowed you to proceed down the appointed, approved game paths. HOI3 is more flexible. You CAN create a "historical game" if you want - but you are going to have to be very active with respect to diplomacy (and not leave it running by the AI). However the game is "free" enough to permit all sorts of scenarios, like Poland allying with Germany, for example.

 

[Onedreamer]

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 always exploit this game mechanic myself, actually. It's not what you think, but a stack that's engaged on more than one front gets a whopping 50% (!!!) penalty on both fronts. So if you attack the super stack of death with 4 dudes in pajamas, you get a bonus of 50% with both the 4 dudes and the guys in the province you are defending, where it is your real interest to win.

And to the "realism guys", a 50% penalty regardless of the entity of engagement is ridiculous, and it is also ridiculous from a strategic balance pow, which is the only thing that matters.

 

[Charles Louis]

Edit out the stacking penalties for ground troops, they are not needed as there is such a thing as front width now. Game works just fine without stacking penalties for ground combat and most superstack problems go away (including attacking with huge odds)

The stacking penalties reflect the problems of depth not width. As doctrine moved from WWI style crowding, trenches, and over the top tactics to a doctrine of maneuver, flexibility, and avoiding the congested battlefields of WWI and their stalemate, troop densities in both frontage and depth declined and it became possible to move on the battlefield again.

With those huge stacking penalties, it is very hard to reinforce the front, supply the front, send replacements to the front. If you want to fight WWI style battles, you should get WWI style results, measured in yards.

 

[Charles Louis]

You CAN create a "historical game" if you want - but you are going to have to be very active with respect to diplomacy (and not leave it running by the AI). However the game is "free" enough to permit all sorts of scenarios, like Poland allying with Germany, for example.

Poland allying with Germany is not some crazy sandbox scenario. It was Hitler's first strategy. Poland had fought the Soviet Union 1919-21, and was staunchly anti-communist. Hitler wanted Poland in the Anti-Comintern Pact. He also wanted Danzig. Ultimately these two goals were not reconcilable. He could have had Poland as an early ally against Soviet Russia, but would have had to give up Polish claims and forgone Danzig. A reasonable choice I have been making since the early days of HoI2. Hilter's policy changed drastically in late 1938, after the annexation of the Sudetenland. Poland moved from potential anti-communist friend with a serious obstacle to realizing friendship and became Hitler's next target.

Its quite reasonable in the '36 campaign game to seal the deal with Poland before Czecholsovakia, and avoid the two front war.

 

[themousemaster]

Geez, you are wrong.

Support bdes have no frontage. In 1.2 you can make support divs by merging support bdes, in 1.3 you can build support only divs.

No stacking penalty?

Good luck attacking 4*3 inf province with 100 art sitting in the same place. Good luck defending something with 100 art supporting the attack of 4*3 inf.

While I'm not sure "Geez you are wrong" is necessary, this post is still correct.


If you remove stacking penalties for fights because "combat width" is sufficient, then the game will become horribly imbalanced, as a province with 1 5-front division backed by 300 all-support divisions will, literally, kill anything in just a few hours (other than an equally absurd defending support-province).

 

[heteaho]

While I'm not sure "Geez you are wrong" is necessary, this post is still correct.


If you remove stacking penalties for fights because "combat width" is sufficient, then the game will become horribly imbalanced, as a province with 1 5-front division backed by 300 all-support divisions will, literally, kill anything in just a few hours (other than an equally absurd defending support-province).

Well, if you insist on being gamey... However, the AI will not use such nonsense divisions, so as long as the player only uses "normal" divisions there is no problem.

Yes, its a workaround, but it works really well (3 full games worth so far, haven't seen any problems)

 

[X_MasterDave_X]

If you remove stacking penalties for fights because "combat width" is sufficient, then the game will become horribly imbalanced, as a province with 1 5-front division backed by 300 all-support divisions will, literally, kill anything in just a few hours (other than an equally absurd defending support-province).

As heteaho said....this is a workaround for Player against AI Games...not for MultiPlayer Games.

But apart from that...is it true...that the current combat mechanics alows it that hundreds of "pure Support" Divisions can fight in a battle, because they dont count against Frontage With ? Is it even possible to create "support only" Divisions ? I was not aware of that.

 

[unmerged(129069)]

While I'm not sure "Geez you are wrong" is necessary, this post is still correct.


If you remove stacking penalties for fights because "combat width" is sufficient, then the game will become horribly imbalanced, as a province with 1 5-front division backed by 300 all-support divisions will, literally, kill anything in just a few hours (other than an equally absurd defending support-province).

Putting a stacking penalty on supports only would seem like a logical choice then.

 

[AlanC9]

If you remove stacking penalties for fights because "combat width" is sufficient, then the game will become horribly imbalanced, as a province with 1 5-front division backed by 300 all-support divisions will, literally, kill anything in just a few hours (other than an equally absurd defending support-province).

Have you actually tested that?

If it works, there's a simple answer. Don't build all-support divisions. The AI won't, and if someone does in MP, he's cheating.

Also note that with stacking penalties you can build a defensive stack that can hold on forever -- you can rotate units out of the front line faster than they can be damaged.

 

[loki100]

Poland allying with Germany is not some crazy sandbox scenario. It was Hitler's first strategy. Poland had fought the Soviet Union 1919-21, and was staunchly anti-communist. Hitler wanted Poland in the Anti-Comintern Pact. He also wanted Danzig. Ultimately these two goals were not reconcilable. He could have had Poland as an early ally against Soviet Russia, but would have had to give up Polish claims and forgone Danzig. A reasonable choice I have been making since the early days of HoI2. Hilter's policy changed drastically in late 1938, after the annexation of the Sudetenland. Poland moved from potential anti-communist friend with a serious obstacle to realizing friendship and became Hitler's next target.

Its quite reasonable in the '36 campaign game to seal the deal with Poland before Czecholsovakia, and avoid the two front war.

add to which Poland was a beneficiary to the carve up of Czechoslavakia, so was not inherently anti-German - its certainly more realistic to see a German-Polish alliance than Ireland cheerfully joining the Allies

 

[unmerged(56084)]

add to which Poland was a beneficiary to the carve up of Czechoslavakia, so was not inherently anti-German - its certainly more realistic to see a German-Polish alliance than Ireland cheerfully joining the Allies

It is interesting to note that even though the Irish government remained neutral in the war.....100k Irish nationals walked accross the border and served in GB during the conflict. Strange that they did this given the centuries of hostility on both sides...it would seem that the Third Reich promoted aberrant behavior.

 

[unmerged(172501)]

My advice to the OP is this:

1. Read several of the after action reports in the AAR forum (Myth especially is good at being methodical in his explanations, loki001 is also very good, but most of the regularly updated ones will garner you tips)

2. Load up and play the 44 era game as Russia, as Germany, and as the US or UK. This will let you get directly into fights with prepositioned troops. Take not of the fight progress (using the interface on the top right, look for the + circle and expand it, a lot of people miss it at first) and how weather, terrain, leadership ect are all having effects. Play for a while as each faction and see how the fight gos, then switch to the other side and see how they attack/defend against you.

3. Read everything you can on the forums, in the Hoi3wiki and the pdfs. This is a very dense game and eacvh tidbit of info will help your war effort.

4. Don't be afraid to get smashed, it's not a death in real life, learn via mistakes and have fun.

 

[unmerged(171517)]

If you remove stacking penalties for fights because "combat width" is sufficient, then the game will become horribly imbalanced, as a province with 1 5-front division backed by 300 all-support divisions will, literally, kill anything in just a few hours (other than an equally absurd defending support-province).

I will need to test this, but the issue with all support divisions is when they take a hit. I think they fall apart pretty quickly in that case, however if they never take a hit its not an issue.

The other issue is the stacking modifier
"The Stacking Penalty is approximately 1% per brigade, even if it is not in combat (reserve), and there will be a 1% reduction for every skill level of the Theatre Commander. As a result of this Penalty, an army comprised mostly of Support-heavy Divisions (i.e. only one Combat Brigade) may face problems with coordination.".
If you ram 300 divisions of 5 support brigades in an attack - your penalty will be 1500%. This means your efficiency will be 0.000031 - so an Soft Attack value of 20.65 (all artillery division) will be reduced to 0.001 - which means it will never fire.

If the stacking modifers also applies to a divisions toughness, then these divisions will have no ability to defend against enemy shots - which means if these divisions fall apart quickly when they take hits expect a horde of divisions to start retreating or shattering - even if they are faced by an Italian militia brigade.

I find its best to have almost no reserves - you want every division in the fight and you want to keep the number of brigades down to the minimum. An optimal maximum attack across one-hexside) is 4 divisions of 5 brigades. The stacking Penalty is 20% - if you have some good leaders you can negate this. This can be reduced based on the defender. If the defender has 1 infantry division in the open, you only need 2 divisions. You may want to ramp this up to 3 divisions if you think the enemy can reinforce the defender. You also need to note the AI normally fields 3 or a maximum 4 brigade divisions - so take this into account.

 

[AlanC9]

The other issue is the stacking modifier
"The Stacking Penalty is approximately 1% per brigade, even if it is not in combat (reserve), and there will be a 1% reduction for every skill level of the Theatre Commander.

You really need to read threads before posting in them. The topic here is the possible effect of setting the stacking penalty to zero.

 

[unmerged(91248)]

You really need to read threads before posting in them. The topic here is the possible effect of setting the stacking penalty to zero.

WTF? No, go read post #1.

Model was discusing the stacking penalty, which is exactly the issue that the the OP was referring to.

 

[womble]

The other issue is the stacking modifier
"The Stacking Penalty is approximately 1% per brigade, even if it is not in combat (reserve), and there will be a 1% reduction for every skill level of the Theatre Commander. As a result of this Penalty, an army comprised mostly of Support-heavy Divisions (i.e. only one Combat Brigade) may face problems with coordination.".

While this is, indeed, what the manual says, there's some evidence to show that the stacking penalty is actually based on the number of Divisions... Someone did a reasonable statistical analysis of a good number of battles.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

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.

Just an point of order here, but you are really talking about WWI French and English doctrine here. "Elan". This probably had as much to do with the strategic concept of victory through "attrition". The focus was not on achieving tactical advantage in order to gain positional leverage so as to discomfit the enemy from his position toward the aim of achieving an operational objective, but on reducing the enemies strength. The mass attack against enemy position as a wholesale charge was not a universal practice. The Germans were already beginning to apply and teach "stormtrooper" concepts of small unit fire and movement tactics as early as 1915. Notably they won most of the actual battles.

On topic, I'd have to say that the idea that defenders have intrinsic superiority over attackers is a big step up form vanilla HOI II, where attacks en masse had intrinsic advantage over defenders is a real step forward for the game system. Kudos for trying. Sounds like it might need tweaking, but that's ok.

The whole idea of frontage is excellent.

 

[themousemaster]

Perhaps I should elaborate.

If you want to mod your OWN game to remove the stacking penalty, and then impose your OWN restrictions on what you build to "not abuse unlimited support", then be my guest; last I checked, it's hard to anger an AI.

However, as this thread wears on, I get the impression that people think that Paradox should do away with the stacking penalty themselves. THIS is where the problem lies.

Basic Video game creation theory states that if you put something into a video game, it is expected that people will use it. So while the individuals who are willing to self-impose restrictions to support-only divisions will not be affected, everyone who plays this game "as it is intended" will be thoroughly disappointed by the total lack of balance that support units provide.

The entire game would, therefore, have to be rebalanced by Paradox to account for the new utilization of Support.

Which would be a massive undertaking for them in a game this complex, and I believe, a poor utilization of time.



So in closing, if YOU want to mod YOUR game, then by all means, go for it. But I stand by my assertion that Paradox should not change the base game for this purpose.

 

[unmerged(157088)]

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?

This may sound as stupid question, but does your divisions have leaders in command? Usually best possible leader is leading whole battle(at least I think so..) and if your best possible leader is someone with no name, this maybe because there are no leaders in any of your divisions involved in combat. And if this is the case then you can end up losing against some high skilled enemy commander even without stacking penalty. (ok, commanders are not miracle makers but they do add good bonus)

HQ commanders do add some small bonus to your combat performance but if they are not involved physicaly in combat then the leader of combat is some of your division commanders.