WWW: The German player does not use artillery

[Denkt]

I wonder if the German player had only produced artillery and wen't with artillery only divisions if he had been as successful?

Anyway I expect the game to punish people that build monotone armies like masses of only infantry divisions or only artillery divisions. I expect the game to be a bit deeper then that. At the same time I expect the game to be balanced without any overpowered or underpowered units, everything should be situational to some degree and it is up to the player to adopt to the changing climate of the game (and then I don't mean stuff like carriers and submarines getting overpowered in late game because they should not, nor be underpowered early on). I mean adopt to what the enemy does, like if he build alot of tanks you should build many anti tank guns and so on.

In the game what I have heard and seen is that artillery have very powerful soft attack and have good defensive ability (rocket artillery is better on offence). Artillery is good at draining opponents manpower for low manpower cost yourself. They have their place but they are not ment to be overpowered either.

Yes Podcat have said it is a game they are developing not a history simulator.

 

[phantomrider]

I wonder if the German player had only produced artillery and wen't with artillery only divisions if he had been as successful?

Anyway I expect the game to punish people that build monotone armies like masses of only infantry divisions or only artillery divisions. I expect the game to be a bit deeper then that. At the same time I expect the game to be balanced without any overpowered or underpowered units, everything should be situational to some degree and it is up to the player to adopt to the changing climate of the game (and then I don't mean stuff like carriers and submarines getting overpowered in late game because they should not, nor be underpowered early on). I mean adopt to what the enemy does, like if he build alot of tanks you should build many anti tank guns and so on.

In the game what I have heard and seen is that artillery have very powerful soft attack and have good defensive ability (rocket artillery is better on offence). Artillery is good at draining opponents manpower for low manpower cost yourself. They have their place but they are not ment to be overpowered either.

Yes Podcat have said it is a game they are developing not a history simulator.

The secret to success on the battlefield in the WWII era to the present is a combination of arms (infantry, artillery and armor along with appropriate AT, AA, communications to keep everything coordinated). Tanks alone don't do well, infantry alone gets slaughtered by infantry, tanks and artillery and artillery alone can't defend itself from infantry. (rocks, paper, scissors).

While HOI4 is a game it is set in a well known historical era and if it "deviates" too far from real history in illogical or a highly improbable manner (including ahistorical combat results) I believe the game will have much less appeal. For example, if a feudal knight army with pikemen and archers in support starts beating panzer divisions very few of us would take the game seriously enough to play it for very long (my opinion obviously).

 

[Surimi]

Okay, so each division has a maximum of five support slots. We know there are more possible options for support companies than there are slots.

From a game standpoint, if there is ever a point at which it is mandatory to take a particular support company, then what is the point in representing it in game at all? It is not a choice, at that point, it's just a straight no-brainer upgrade which is frankly not worth the players time or mental energy. Just automate the process of getting better artillery, and leave the slots for things which are actually choices.

Ultimately a game has to have gameplay, and if something isn't working as gameplay it shouldn't be in a game.

Note: I'm not being entirely serious here, obviously it's a problem if a particular support company is actually detrimental just as it's a problem if it is necessary, although at this point speculating about the balance of a game in early beta is pretty pointless. But the point, I think, stands.. You cannot simultaneously want choice and then demand it be impossible to make any variant or alternative choice for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Denkt]

Yes that is why nobrainers are bad for the game. It is a grand strategy game and if there is only a few choices that works and everything is inferior it is not a strategy game because strategy is about creative choices not about being from the start forced into a path.

That said mass infantry is not particular creative and I did say my dislike against monotone armies. The british armies seemed as uninspired as the german ones, mass motorised. The game can be so much more then massed infantry armies dominates the land and massed carriers dominate at the seas.

We are making a game, not a historical simulation

 

[Sabotage13]

HoI has always favored masses of plain infantry over any sort of customized build in that category.
Good to see that the new version marches boldly in the footsteps of its predecessors.

 

[Axe99]

Okay, so each division has a maximum of five support slots. We know there are more possible options for support companies than there are slots.

From a game standpoint, if there is ever a point at which it is mandatory to take a particular support company, then what is the point in representing it in game at all? It is not a choice, at that point, it's just a straight no-brainer upgrade which is frankly not worth the players time or mental energy. Just automate the process of getting better artillery, and leave the slots for things which are actually choices.

Ultimately a game has to have gameplay, and if something isn't working as gameplay it shouldn't be in a game.

Note: I'm not being entirely serious here, obviously it's a problem if a particular support company is actually detrimental just as it's a problem if it is necessary, although at this point speculating about the balance of a game in early beta is pretty pointless. But the point, I think, stands.. You cannot simultaneously want choice and then demand it be impossible to make any variant or alternative choice for any reason whatsoever.

Arty isn't just a support company, but you can have arty battalions in the main divisional structure as well - so it's both a choice of where to have it (just support, or main battalions) and how much (how many battalions). A division with just an artillery support company would be at a disadvantage to another divisions that was the same but also had three battalions of arty in it (but that division would also cost more to build and supply). There's plenty of complexity to building divisions if just looking at the balance between infantry and arty, before we starting working in the various support companies, AT, AA and the like.

 

[dadiman260]

Arty isn't just a support company, but you can have arty battalions in the main divisional structure as well - so it's both a choice of where to have it (just support, or main battalions) and how much (how many battalions). A division with just an artillery support company would be at a disadvantage to another divisions that was the same but also had three battalions of arty in it (but that division would also cost more to build and supply). There's plenty of complexity to building divisions if just looking at the balance between infantry and arty, before we starting working in the various support companies, AT, AA and the like.

Also it dosnt need to be balanced my makeing it watered down/weak like i said earlier just porovide counters for it like there were in real life. The reason ww2 wasnt like ww1 was because tanks were able to cross the fields of artillery barrage and machinegun fire and/or planes were advanced enough to allow targeting of artillery batteries. I really dont think adding a mssive % buff for planes and tanks against arty is a massive problem

 

[dadiman260]

HoI has always favored masses of plain infantry over any sort of customized build in that category.
Good to see that the new version marches boldly in the footsteps of its predecessors.

thats because how it was irl :| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht for example 20,000,000 men servered in it through the war only 50k tanks were used thats just the example of desparity between how many men fought in ww2 and other units

 

[Axe99]

Also it dosnt need to be balanced my makeing it watered down/weak like i said earlier just porovide counters for it like there were in real life. The reason ww2 wasnt like ww1 was because tanks were able to cross the fields of artillery barrage and machinegun fire and/or planes were advanced enough to allow targeting of artillery batteries. I really dont think adding a mssive % buff for planes and tanks against arty is a massive problem

Aye, absolutely - it should only be one part of a combination of elements that make up an effective combat force. My earlier posts were more arguing that without arty, an army would be missing one of the key elements of said effective combat force.

 

[agentgb]

A bulk of any army would be made up of infantry without a doubt (with small arms artillery/ AT weapons), but i can point to many historical examples were if one side held the initiative in dedicated artillery, they would most likely win if not countered by counter barrage, airforce, or armour/human waves to punch through a defence to get under the range of artillery.

Sometimes i think EU4/Victoria 2 focus on artillery being overly vital to a composition success (which historically is somewhat true although not entirely) may somewhat lead us to believe that every division should be sporting an artillery brigade, when in reality the advantage could pass from artillery to the pure infantry divisions depending on use of terrian, weather & the ability to use combined arms. Airforce cannot be used in bad weather, during that period infantry divisions would not be able to rely on such support, artillery being less effective in muddy terrain along with tanks to some degree, and has we saw in the winter war the many failed attacks against the finnish line which had there artillery zeroed and pre targeted that the russians just couldn't close the range. We also saw how finnish infantry herded russian tank divisions & infantry divisions into motti and wiped them out pretty effectively with no more then molotov cocktails.

Has i've suggested earlier, artillery is best deployed on narrow fronts or choke points or were you have proper infantry coverage, artillery would do most of there damage on cities anyway, were most likely fulling rubble, fumes caused by incendiary rounds and shrapnel from the terrain of cities were more likely to kill you.

 

[Beagá]

HoI has always favored masses of plain infantry over any sort of customized build in that category.
Good to see that the new version marches boldly in the footsteps of its predecessors.

Only HOI3 allowed customization of a higher degree (and probably not as well as it could - not having light or heavy artillery, and all artilery brigades always becoming 150/155mm as research goes on being the biggest culprit, but not only one). If it´s worth it or not to put ART in all INF divisions is something Secret Master could talk more as it´s been a loooong time since I´ve played vanilla HOI3.

If it was worthy or not to put artillery brigade always in INF in HOI2 derivatives depended totally on the overall balance, with almost all mods making brigades a nice thing instead of pure militia/infantry spam, due to stacking penalties.

 

[Acaios]

i can't understand why some people are writing what they are writing...

the point is not that artillery should be better than other support units or something like that.
the point here is that an army without artillery (or anyone of the combined arms) should ALWAYS loose vs an equivalent but more balanced army. And this does not mean that a focused heavy tank division without arty or other supports should always loose vs a division with arty fighting in a plain, BUT that having the entire eastern front without a single piece of heavy arty should always lead you to defeat.

WW2 is about combined arms, not spam of single units and the game should represent this.
also, artillery is one of the key role even in modern fight. it's impossible to fight without artillery coverage in every scenario.

 

[sigintwarrior]

He said in a earlier broadcast something about the organization rate going down due to artillery battalions, so he didn't put them in. He also uses a lot of light tanks in his panzer divisions.

 

[glaskion]

Sorry, Zaku, but I respectfully disagree with most of what you said. Choice in the game should be about how you tackle each and different situation. How, when, and with what do you pick your fights. Carefully analysing all the factors, and from a tactical and logistical standpoint, decide how one should operate their forces, if we truly want to be successful at a historically plausible game. If the game should be according to your logic, then it would break all the immersion I could have in the game since arty should be replaceable/optional in every situation. If the game should be a mindless sandbox with mild themes of WW2 where "players" would choose whatever they'd feel like using and be successful with it without any obvious disadvantages just for the sake of "choice" then it wouldn't have any solid rules nor plausibility. I think the problem here is that you undermine artillery's importance in WW2, given that you think that planes can replace constant and crippling arty bombardment in a situation where air supremacy is not in your favour. So, by this logic, we should only build military police on horseback and win because what matters is "choice" and sandboxy "Game" ideals, right? Better yet, why not release a dlc with divisions that only use sticks and stones? Who needs mortar shells, when you can hit soldiers in the face with rocks, am I right? All for the sake of "choices" that neglect any historical authenticity just because people want to go ape shit random and win with the most backward combinations without any disadvantages...The idea that people are trying to get to you is that, arty shouldn't be forced on you, in every division, in every situation. But it should have realistic and deep impacts in the outcome of the war. It is senseless to try to win a WW2 campaign without any arty as it is without any navy, tanks and air force. Allowing a campaign to be accomplished using only infantry battalions because you want to promote the game as a sandbox does not fit the paradox game standard. I'd expect that from a random microtransaction heavy facebook game however.

 

[Beagá]

i can't understand why some people are writing what they are writing...

the point is not that artillery should be better than other support units or something like that.
the point here is that an army without artillery (or anyone of the combined arms) should ALWAYS loose vs an equivalent but more balanced army. And this does not mean that a focused heavy tank division without arty or other supports should always loose vs a division with arty fighting in a plain, BUT that having the entire eastern front without a single piece of heavy arty should always lead you to defeat.

WW2 is about combined arms, not spam of single units and the game should represent this.
also, artillery is one of the key role even in modern fight. it's impossible to fight without artillery coverage in every scenario.

Yes but thing is, infantry brigade in HOI3 wasn´t considered guys with rifles only, it is always implied they have some sort of machine gun and artillery, even if it´s only mortars. And having MG supported by mortar makes already quite a big difference tactically.

In other words the lines are a bit blurry on what the standard infantry equipment was in the game itself.

 

[bERt0r]

Has there been a discussion about the feasability of changing artillery from a brigade unit into something like whats done with airpower? As in you place them somwhere and they attack in a radius. The germans had some impressive railway gun artillery although i don't know how effective they were in battle. I don't think these massive guns are represented by the artillery brigades you attach to your fighting units. I have never refrained from producing and using artillery in my HOI games because i don't think the artillery brigades are worth it.

 

[phantomrider]

A bulk of any army would be made up of infantry without a doubt (with small arms artillery/ AT weapons), but i can point to many historical examples were if one side held the initiative in dedicated artillery, they would most likely win if not countered by counter barrage, airforce, or armour/human waves to punch through a defence to get under the range of artillery.

Sometimes i think EU4/Victoria 2 focus on artillery being overly vital to a composition success (which historically is somewhat true although not entirely) may somewhat lead us to believe that every division should be sporting an artillery brigade, when in reality the advantage could pass from artillery to the pure infantry divisions depending on use of terrian, weather & the ability to use combined arms. Airforce cannot be used in bad weather, during that period infantry divisions would not be able to rely on such support, artillery being less effective in muddy terrain along with tanks to some degree, and has we saw in the winter war the many failed attacks against the finnish line which had there artillery zeroed and pre targeted that the russians just couldn't close the range. We also saw how finnish infantry herded russian tank divisions & infantry divisions into motti and wiped them out pretty effectively with no more then molotov cocktails.

Has i've suggested earlier, artillery is best deployed on narrow fronts or choke points or were you have proper infantry coverage, artillery would do most of there damage on cities anyway, were most likely fulling rubble, fumes caused by incendiary rounds and shrapnel from the terrain of cities were more likely to kill you.

If you look at the table of organization of WWII "infantry" divisions from almost any country almost every one had an artillery brigade or regiment with a total of 3 or 4 battalions of artillery. Admittedly not all the countries could actually field full strength divisions or keep their division artillery intact but it was very rare to field divisions with minimal or no artillery. In addition, the quality and caliber of the guns varied for each country as well so not all artillery regiments/brigades were equal. Possibly a few of the generals and general staff knew something about what worked best.

 

[Acaios]

Yes but thing is, infantry brigade in HOI3 wasn´t considered guys with rifles only, it is always implied they have some sort of machine gun and artillery, even if it´s only mortars. And having MG supported by mortar makes already quite a big difference tactically.

In other words the lines are a bit blurry on what the standard infantry equipment was in the game itself.

i totally agree with you, but there are some differences between a 83mm gw31 trowing 3.5kg @2km and a 15cm sFH18 trowing 40kg @10km

 

[Imaginary Star]

Seems to me that, for example, a highly developed and overwhelming close air support could be a substitute to ground artillery, in theory.
Also, as has been said already, infantry division in the game implies support weapons as well, including light artillery.

Just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible to do. Otherwise we'd still be a cave-dwelling hunter-gatherers.

 

[dav77-b]

My Idea:

INF:
Stats are focused on "Defensiveness" , Pure INF should be extremly terrible in makeing an offensive. But pretty good to defend things.
So if we have 2 Pure Infantries army face each other, it ends in a stalemate. You need to out maneuver, massivley outnumber or let the enemy run out of supply to win.

ART:
stats are focused on "Soft Attack" , Artillery allows to deal casualties to the enemy makeing the manpower grind more efficent for you, potentially enough to push the enemy back.

Planes and tanks can replace ART in its function of dealing casulties.

ARM:
stats give good soft (+hard) attack, armor and toughness. Tanks allow to make an offensive without suffering too much casulties, achieving a breakthrough.
An army haveing access to tanks will be able to breakthrough the enemy line and encircle the enemy.
Two armies with tanks faceing each other will end in a war of maneuver.

An Army without ART would work. They are not an automatic choice. But if you have no access to Tanks or Planes, it is the only tool left to make an offensive.