WWW: The German player does not use artillery
- Thread starter alkomon
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well 3 out of 4 casualties came from artillery in world war II, but its for the most part been useless in HOI as it has never had much bang for the buck. Which means that the firepower doctrine will probably be something no one uses.
- 2
Not true, dedicated FO/FAC did exist and worked well even in `39 ... not with the sophisticated equipment nowadays ofc but using contemporary radio.
- 1
Its not my point.
Sometimes we like to read and quote only the part or reality we like, or support our opinion....
Than we can receive answers with no questions, and no answers when question are asked.
The description was made by game designers not me, than dev team is the target of this answers.
I really don't want to argue about vague decriptions of the game. Game will be a historical based game, but that doesn't mean everything will be historically accurate. Devs have stated several times that gameplay will be prioritized over that stuff. As an other user said HOI4 will be rather a historical fiction then a historical simulation. I think that expression summarizes the game perfectly, that's why I wrote that Denkt answered him, and that's why I didn't write anything else.
- 2
- 1
Then allow me to re-phrase; there is a conflict how between PI's description of the game on Steam and what they say on the forum ( sandbox v. simulation ).
My opinion on the subject: Artillery should have very bad defense statsso it's vulnerable to air-superiority, whereas it's soft-attack should definitely be one of the highest in-game. That's bout it
There is no dedicated air defense stat in the game (only air attack by the looks of it), and artillery unit adds large bonus to soft target attack, so the game implements what you'd want to see about as well as it can, under its current mechanics.
re: game description on Steam page, I wouldn't read too much into it. That's marketing blurb, and these are inaccurate sets of buzzwords pretty much by default.
- 1
- 1
Game should give bonuses to the players for each different brigade in his divisions.
So if you have only infantry brigades you should have 100% efficiency, if you have infantry and artillery you should get 110% , infantry, artillery and tanks 120% and so on.
Other option to punish divisions without artillery or other support brigades.
But now it's really strange that players can use only infantry brigades and be effective in modern industrial war. Why Taliban isn't so effective? They also used 99.99% infantry. But in game mechanics Taliban would win.
Divisions with many different brigades should be much more effective than those that don't have such brigades (and even experience should not help divisions without artillery and other support brigades).
So if you have only infantry brigades you should have 100% efficiency, if you have infantry and artillery you should get 110% , infantry, artillery and tanks 120% and so on.
Other option to punish divisions without artillery or other support brigades.
But now it's really strange that players can use only infantry brigades and be effective in modern industrial war. Why Taliban isn't so effective? They also used 99.99% infantry. But in game mechanics Taliban would win.
Divisions with many different brigades should be much more effective than those that don't have such brigades (and even experience should not help divisions without artillery and other support brigades).
If they soft-attack bonus is biig, I am happy. I love the division-cration as it's in BlackIce, so there should be tons of boni for combined arms.
Not really. The wiki article referenced earlier on these pages gave a good description of the early to mid WWII history of CAS. It was better than I thought but to say it worked "well" is grossly overstating the results and certainly not in 1939 for anyone. Much of what I think this forum thinks is CAS was really "battlefield interdiction" of dive bombers and fighter bombers do area sweeps of where they thought the enemy was without any coordination with their friends on the ground.
Maybe are inaccurate sets of buzzwords, but who will buy the game and spends money will read specifically this.
You wouldn't read those becasue u are just well informed about all game aspect reading DD and hundreds of forum pages. No surprices for you.
But all others expect that this is the truthful description of the product.
Or you pretend every user will read before 1500 page of forum?
- 1
"who cares about historical facts" is agreeable but it's not a reason to make tanks good in assaulting cities.
- 1
- 1
In situations where you don't get extra information from the forums etc, do you honestly believe what the marketing blurbs tell you about the product, merely because that's the only bit of info you read about it, and expect them to be accurate and truthful? I really don't think many people do, and that's why ability to see reviews from other players/users of the product has gained so much popularity in the recent years.
- 1
It should be noted that those kinds of light infantry formations, while relatively numerous, were not exactly the norm for Finns. They were also generally fielded as independent battalions and many of their actions were in-province level in HoI terms. I think the elite light infantry battalions in BICE captured them pretty well.
Regular Finnish infantry was typical for the era and was just as heavily equipped as feasible with Finland's resources. That meant it was at least partially reliant on roads but this issue should not be exaggerated since the whole theatre was ultimately reliant on roads. The important thing is to not become completely road bound. That was a mistake Soviets did during Winter War, and also problem Allies had in Burma.
Artillery wasn't just limited to Karelian Isthmus (which too is heavily forested) but served all over the place, at least in the southern areas. Good example would be the Finnish attack on town of Medvezhyegorsk/Karhumäki north of lake Onega (infra 4 forest in HoI3), which was relatively heavily supported by artillery and most of the Finnish armour was also committed (the latter was, of course, not much). For completeness' sake it should also be noted that those light infantry formations also served in south and on the Isthmus, not just in the north.
Last edited:
- 1
Depends how you define "buck". If you define "buck" as either per battle or per manpower artillery always was king in both HoI2 and especially so HoI3 when you could stack 1 Infantry + 4 Artillery and totally pummel your enemy with soft attacks.
Per industrial cost it was pretty effective too, much more firepower per industry then tanks ever had for example.
Wrong. 3 out 4 casulties came form this that explode
. like grenades, bombs from planes, motars, artillery, tanks etc. But not only artillery.- 3
- 1
We had this point raised before. I do not know the correct terms, so please feel free to improve the wording, but people who do claimed that dedicated (divisional?) artillery (what support companies try to represent) is not to be compared with light artillery integrated in infantery brigade equipment.
This is about heavy artillery. The things that make "boom", not "peng"
.- 2
One of the key components of modern warfare (including going back to WWII) is the balance of armor, infantry and artillery. In real life the "sweet spot" seems to be 1 artillery regiment per 2 or mostly 3 infantry regiments/brigades. Whether the game simulator reflects this or not I am not sure. On the other hand in HOI3 if you have 1 infantry and 4 artillery in a division you have a "frontage" of 1 compared to a mostly normal division (say 3 infantry and 1 artillery) of 3 and I am not sure a 1 frontage division would last very long vs a 3 frontage division given how the combat simulator works (I have not done the experiment however).
- 1
Artillery shouldn't give a larger ORG hit to the unit that has it than what it can quickly inflict on an opponent. Combats in HOI are decided mainly by ORG, not by STR, so if ART costs twice the IC and doesn't inflict enough ORG damage to more than make up for its own lower ORG, PLUS what another INF brigade in its place would inflict, why would you build it instead of INF? On the other hand, it shouldn't be so overpowered that you build divisions with one line brigade to provide frontage, and the rest ART.
Artillery is best used as a "force multiplier", which means that it should provide a percentage boost to the line units. To put it another way, a multiplier isn't effective unless you have something to multiply. Using a brigade of heavy ART to boost the effectiveness of your INF brigades is realistic, using a brigade of INF merely to screen your massive wave of ART is not.
Last edited:
- 4
I guess we'll only really know how good artillery is once the game releases and we've got people crunching the numbers on optimal division compositions.
From a pure balance point of view, an army which has spent its production only on infantry divisions should be defeated by one who has spent its production on infantry divisions tricked out with all the support companies it can get, if only because the first army only has to research infantry tech, while the second army needs to research infantry tech as well as five support companies.
From a pure balance point of view, an army which has spent its production only on infantry divisions should be defeated by one who has spent its production on infantry divisions tricked out with all the support companies it can get, if only because the first army only has to research infantry tech, while the second army needs to research infantry tech as well as five support companies.