Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

4th HOI4 MP Campaign Options · View
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 3:36:59 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Alex_brunius wrote:
How did you arrive at the conclusion that one type of division template that if allowed would be equally valid for both sides to build and exploit would favor one side more then their enemies?

Because the Axis are capable of exploiting this a lot earlier than any of the allies, due to having a lot more military industry, for one.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 3:40:26 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
I think that you should only allow naval invasion with units that are rather light on anything but infantry so say max two-three other none infantry line units in such divisions. So you can have some tanks but not full tank divisions and you also can have some artillery. Having some tanks with naval landing divisions are quite historical. Or why not similar as what you said... max one NONE infantry for each 10 width if a divisions are to take part in a naval landing.

If you want tanks in your naval landing, just add a tank division.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 10:54:51 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
I have had a severe cold the last few days and my voice could hardly stand up to normal conversation so raising the voice and talk clearly on headphones was difficult.


Aha, then I understand Smile
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:02:58 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Anders wrote:
If you want tanks in your naval landing, just add a tank division.


The idea here would be to disallow armored divisions to take part in naval landing forces altogether since it is not realistic. Tank divisions would have to be brought in after a naval landing have been conducted using normal transportation methods. This mean they will be low on ORG and will have to wait a while before they can engage in combat. If they take part in a huge naval landing the marines will do the fighting and the tanks will mainly be in reserve and ready to fight once the beachhead is cleared. It is also easy enough to land your tank divisions in an undefended area ready to spearhead inland in day one while Marines clear the beaches.

Therefore the idea that only lighter infantry divisions should be allowed to take part of any actual naval landings.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 12:36:57 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Tanks have a horrible naval assault-malus. Have them in the assault if you like. And if you don't capture a port, their supply-consumption should make them horribly inefficient quite soon.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 2:36:01 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
This is how a US Marine division could have as units.

USMC Div 1942.

Combat Units.
3 Mar Regt with 3 Mar Bat in each.
1 Art Regt with 3 Art Bat .
1 LArm Bat.
1 Para Inf Bat
1 Engineer/Pioneer Coy
1 Medical Coy
1 Logistics Coy
1 AT Coy
1 Art Coy
1 AA Coy
1 MP Coy
1 Signal Coy
1 Recon Coy

HOI4:
9 Mar Bat
3 Art Bat
1 LArm Bat
1 Para Bat

USMC Div 1944.

Combat Units.
3 Mar Regt with 3 Mar Bat in each.
1 Art Regt with 3 Art Bat .
1 Arm Bat.
1 Engineer/Pioneer Coy
1 Medical Coy
1 Logistics Coy
1 AT Coy
1 Art Coy
1 AA Coy
1 MP Coy
1 Signal Coy
1 Recon Coy

HOI4:
9 Mar Bat
3 Art Bat
1 Arm Bat

So some armor could be used, but not much in the Divs and they also had Amphibious vehicles that is not in the game as units.
I made a screenshot of how a USMC Division could look in game.

File Attachment(s):
20170106144749_1.jpg (511kb) downloaded 19 time(s).


Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 7:58:17 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Marine wrote:
This is how a US Marine division could have as units.

USMC Div 1942.

Combat Units.
3 Mar Regt with 3 Mar Bat in each.
1 Art Regt with 3 Art Bat .
1 LArm Bat.
1 Para Inf Bat
1 Engineer/Pioneer Coy
1 Medical Coy
1 Logistics Coy
1 AT Coy
1 Art Coy
1 AA Coy
1 MP Coy
1 Signal Coy
1 Recon Coy

HOI4:
9 Mar Bat
3 Art Bat
1 LArm Bat
1 Para Bat

USMC Div 1944.

Combat Units.
3 Mar Regt with 3 Mar Bat in each.
1 Art Regt with 3 Art Bat .
1 Arm Bat.
1 Engineer/Pioneer Coy
1 Medical Coy
1 Logistics Coy
1 AT Coy
1 Art Coy
1 AA Coy
1 MP Coy
1 Signal Coy
1 Recon Coy

HOI4:
9 Mar Bat
3 Art Bat
1 Arm Bat

So some armor could be used, but not much in the Divs and they also had Amphibious vehicles that is not in the game as units.
I made a screenshot of how a USMC Division could look in game.


One Artillery Battalion actually is an Artillery Regiment with 36 guns so a Marine Division would have only one HoI4 Art Battalion. The Support Artillery is 24 guns so could represent the Heavy artillery in the division.

So a better representation in HoI4 would be...

Line units: 9 Mar, 1 M.Tank, 1 Art
Support: Recon, Eng, Art, AT, AA
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 8:10:38 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Anders wrote:
Tanks have a horrible naval assault-malus. Have them in the assault if you like. And if you don't capture a port, their supply-consumption should make them horribly inefficient quite soon.


I'm well aware of that... Wink ...but I suppose you would drop them of just next to a port or in a province where there are no enemy units close to the port and attack from there. That is definitely a good tactic and in reality not a very viable one since very few places would be suitable for tanks to land in.

That was why I suggested that tank heavy divisions and heavy equipment overall just might be house ruled so you can't exploit how easy it is to land everywhere in HoI4.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:02:03 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
I'm well aware of that... Wink ...but I suppose you would drop them of just next to a port or in a province where there are no enemy units close to the port and attack from there. That is definitely a good tactic and in reality not a very viable one since very few places would be suitable for tanks to land in.

Learn to garrison ports. Without the garrisons being on "training". Tanks will be out of supplies much quicker than any other type of unit.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:04:29 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
One Artillery Battalion actually is an Artillery Regiment with 36 guns so a Marine Division would have only one HoI4 Art Battalion. The Support Artillery is 24 guns so could represent the Heavy artillery in the division.

So a better representation in HoI4 would be...

Line units: 9 Mar, 1 M.Tank, 1 Art
Support: Recon, Eng, Art, AT, AA


Ah, thanks for that must have missed the of number guns and so.

We may need some rules against what can be used for naval invasion.
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:06:02 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Anders wrote:
Learn to garrison ports. Without the garrisons being on "training". Tanks will be out of supplies much quicker than any other type of unit.


Yes ports are very important to guard, they should be a priority .
Pure Tank Divisions is not so great to do naval invasion with.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:07:13 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Marine wrote:
Pure Tank Divisions is not so great to do naval invasion with.

The only thing that doesn't suck at naval assault is marines.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:35:20 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Anders wrote:
Because the Axis are capable of exploiting this a lot earlier than any of the allies, due to having a lot more military industry, for one.

What does the ratio of military industry have to do with it if for example both sides fields identical divisions? (Both have either normal divisions or exploit divisions)

In both cases the Axis have exactly the same advantage, right?

And Army XP is not the answer here since all allied Majors can get 200+ Army XP before Danzig through training and NFs, which is more then enough to create one divisions of any type you wish.


Anders wrote:
Tanks will be out of supplies much quicker than any other type of unit.

Why? As far as I know tanks have identical time before they run out of their carried supplies that all other division types have.

The files specify the time a division can survive without any supply here before receiving max penalty:

SUPPLY_GRACE = 72, -- troops always carry 3 days of food and supply
MAX_OUT_OF_SUPPLY_DAYS = 30, -- how many days of shitty supply until max penalty achieved
Beethoven
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 1:30:14 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
1. You are not allowed to switch template types just upgrade them from previous templates. So no switching infantry into marines or a Panzer division. Historically some units was changed in a major way but this usually took quite a while to do and included lots of retraining and should basically be like disbanding and recreating a unit and retrain it anyway. Should be fairly realistic.


When you change division templates, it is not without a cost - the units lose experience. In the case where I changed troops in the UK to marines, most of those were regulars, and after I changed them they were no longer regulars. This reflects the fact that those troops were not really marines and don't know how to do marine invasions well. In retrospect, I would have been much better off not changing them. I certainly did not need them to invade the ungarrisoned ports, and did would not have needed them


Quote:
2. It is abusive to naval invade with super large divisions since the game completely disregard unit weight and go purely on division numbers, there should be a rule that only division of a certain size can be part of naval invasion and no more than a few tank brigades per divisions. The rest will have to be transported in after the beach landing.


The most effective way to naval invade a well-defended port is actually the opposite - to invade with a lot of small low-width marine divisions.


Quote:
3. Personally I think the number of divisions you can naval land with are too much so they could be modded to be slightly less, no ideas what is actually a good number though.


I would say this really stems from the larger issue of division spam. The game generally has a larger than realistic/historical amount of divisions. Consider for example the case of the Allies trying to naval invade to liberate France. The Axis will, if they are set up well, have a larger than historical and better than historical amount of divisions defending France, and ready to repulse any Allied invasion. If you limit or mod down what the Allies can land (at least to any significant extent), then it will be much easier for the Axis to stop Allied invasions of Europe later in the game.


4. There need to be rules about when you may disband units and retrain them... you should not just disband all your units and build new one in one go... that seem a bit abusive and gamey. I think that you should need to be in a war before you may disband any unit you start the game with. You may upgrade their templates without changing the core type units but not disband them. Should make things a bit more historical.[/quote]


Doing this at the start of the game really stems from the flawed way army XP works in the game. If you ban this, this arbitrarily hurts some specific countries - in particular, the Soviets. Because they have a huge army, if they cannot disband their army to train, and if they have to train with equipment on, then they lose a huge amount of equipment to attrition in training in comparison to what countries that happen to start with smaller armies lose. Or alternatively, they just can't train their army, in which case it becomes very hard for them to get army XP. And they really need army XP, since it is required to have templates.

When the army XP is too limited, it also encourages unrealistic/boring things like only having 1 single template (because that is all you have the experience to make). IMO the best thing to do, if people are willing to play with a mod, is to mod the game so these things are not issues. That is easily done by changing a handful of lines in the defines relating to army XP. But barring that, it introduces some big balance problems, especially for the Soviets, but also generally for the Allies.


Quote:
About overall balance: In my opinion the Axis should actually expect to loose the war and if they hold out longer than the Axis did in history that is a WIN for that side. I don't understand the obsession about there being an equal viable chance of success by the Axis or the Allies, perhaps someone could explain that mentality to me?


I very much agree on that. However, the place where the Axis should run into serious trouble is when they start fighting both the Soviets and the US - not when they are trying to beat France. There should be a good fight in France, but the Axis should generally win there after some reasonable amount of resistance. And then, later on, they should have a much harder time getting into Russia, and with the US and the rest of the Allies starting to turn the tide.
Beethoven
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:06:14 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Anders wrote:
The standard rule, when there is one, is to not allow exploitation of the naval invasion-mechanics, such as using subs and screens to tie up a much larger enemy navy; If you want to naval invade, you have to defeat the navy, not cheese your way to victory..


If you have a superior but smaller fleet, the enemy often will go on do-not-engage, so you can't engage them. The tying up an enemy fleet thing is also irrelevant - that was only an issue in the earlier version of the game, but was fixed by a patch.

Quote:
It's also common to ban 'space marine'-type units, such as units with more than 1 Artillery/SpArt/R-Art per 10 combat width (wether AT counts as artillery varies, but it's one of the only ways to hold your own against the typical German Heavy Tank-divisions that roll through the French and Soviet defenses) and special forces-units (Marines, Mountaneers and PAratroopers)with tanks attached. Mixing infantry and special forces is also quite often banned.


I understand this is apparently common in some set of games somewhere that I have seen a few people talking about. I am not sure if those are random pickup games, or organized on reddit, or what? But I have never seen anything like that in any of the multi-week historical games organized on the Paradox forums.

At minimum, if you want to do something like that, you need to start with some sort of clear definition of what you are talking about. Then you need to consider the unintended consequences that follow from that.

Fundamentally, the game is set up in such a way that players control their templates, and there are lots of different variations. Tweaking a template depending on your equipment stockpiles and what stats you want is fairly hard wired into the game.
Beethoven
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:10:59 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
I think that you should only allow naval invasion with units that are rather light on anything but infantry so say max two-three other none infantry line units in such divisions. So you can have some tanks but not full tank divisions and you also can have some artillery. Having some tanks with naval landing divisions are quite historical. Or why not similar as what you said... max one NONE infantry for each 10 width if a divisions are to take part in a naval landing.

Problem with the game in its current state are how easy it is to supply units while you don't have any really naval superiority. There are hardly any good example of any army in WW2 that did well if not supplied from a safe harbor for any extended period (more than a week or so), especially offensive operations.



TBH, I think there is a tendency here to overreact to my Axis naval invasions and wanting to nerf naval invasions as a result in a way that would really hurt primarily the Allies. If you manage to somehow define some acceptable marine division template, and say that you can only do naval invasions with that, then what will happen is the Allies try a naval invasion with shitty nerfed divisions, but meanwhile the axis is defending on the coasts, and with divisions in reserve, that are good. Then as soon as the Allies land with their shitty divisions, they get killed, the invasion fails, and then the Axis transfers their better forces to go finish off the Soviets while the Allies attempt to recover from the loss.
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:16:59 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Beethoven wrote:
When you change division templates, it is not without a cost - the units lose experience. In the case where I changed troops in the UK to marines, most of those were regulars, and after I changed them they were no longer regulars. This reflects the fact that those troops were not really marines and don't know how to do marine invasions well. In retrospect, I would have been much better off not changing them. I certainly did not need them to invade the ungarrisoned ports, and did would not have needed them


Well, the flexibility of swapping between different types of units can be very powerful despite the small loss of experience, therefore the suggestion on some house rules. Divisions did not just change from Infantry to Marines or Paratroopers or Tanks for that matter. Division core functions did stay pretty much throughout the war bar some exceptions here and there. I think it is a bit gamey but that is my opinion.


Beethoven wrote:
The most effective way to naval invade a well-defended port is actually the opposite - to invade with a lot of small low-width marine divisions.


I was more looking at the overall number of troops you can bring in at once who can start moving and attacking with full ORG and on more or less day one or a few extra days depending on when they arrive to their beach head. Many divisions can land in areas where there are no opposition. Ports and surrounding areas obviously should be guarded if there is a chance they can be invaded.

Beethoven wrote:
I would say this really stems from the larger issue of division spam. The game generally has a larger than realistic/historical amount of divisions. Consider for example the case of the Allies trying to naval invade to liberate France. The Axis will, if they are set up well, have a larger than historical and better than historical amount of divisions defending France, and ready to repulse any Allied invasion. If you limit or mod down what the Allies can land (at least to any significant extent), then it will be much easier for the Axis to stop Allied invasions of Europe later in the game.


Yes, you a probably right... I have modded the SP so the game build roughly the historical number of divisions and here it makes a bit more sense.

Beethoven wrote:
Doing this at the start of the game really stems from the flawed way army XP works in the game. If you ban this, this arbitrarily hurts some specific countries - in particular, the Soviets. Because they have a huge army, if they cannot disband their army to train, and if they have to train with equipment on, then they lose a huge amount of equipment to attrition in training in comparison to what countries that happen to start with smaller armies lose. Or alternatively, they just can't train their army, in which case it becomes very hard for them to get army XP. And they really need army XP, since it is required to have templates.

When the army XP is too limited, it also encourages unrealistic/boring things like only having 1 single template (because that is all you have the experience to make). IMO the best thing to do, if people are willing to play with a mod, is to mod the game so these things are not issues. That is easily done by changing a handful of lines in the defines relating to army XP. But barring that, it introduces some big balance problems, especially for the Soviets, but also generally for the Allies.


Since Paradox did not really intend for people to do this they have given other ways to be able to change templates through ministers and NF, countries need to use them or train their troops properly. It is an exploit even though I think it is a weird mechanic. Just because you can do it, it is not necessarily an intended effect more a side effect of a bad mechanic. You are suppose to loose equipment when training and farming XP like this should not really be the primary source of gaining XP in the early game for some countries (Russia as an example). I also don't think the the Russians or Allies need much more than what regular training and what you gain from Ministers and NF to build up fairly historical templates. I never seem to have any problem in SP to build up my templates without abusing game mechanics.
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:19:59 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Beethoven wrote:
TBH, I think there is a tendency here to overreact to my Axis naval invasions and wanting to nerf naval invasions as a result in a way that would really hurt primarily the Allies. If you manage to somehow define some acceptable marine division template, and say that you can only do naval invasions with that, then what will happen is the Allies try a naval invasion with shitty nerfed divisions, but meanwhile the axis is defending on the coasts, and with divisions in reserve, that are good. Then as soon as the Allies land with their shitty divisions, they get killed, the invasion fails, and then the Axis transfers their better forces to go finish off the Soviets while the Allies attempt to recover from the loss.


My suggestion do not have much to do with the game actually... they are more based on historicity and what seem logical. Wink

The way I understand it is that the group are suppose to use rules which make the game a bit more historically plausible by introducing rules to that effect. That was all I suggested here, really.
Anders
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 3:05:14 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Alex_brunius wrote:

In both cases the Axis have exactly the same advantage, right?

No, the Axis has, as I said, a massive advantage, since artillery takes a lot more industry to build.


"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 12:31:24 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Beethoven wrote:
Doing this at the start of the game really stems from the flawed way army XP works in the game. If you ban this, this arbitrarily hurts some specific countries - in particular, the Soviets. Because they have a huge army, if they cannot disband their army to train, and if they have to train with equipment on, then they lose a huge amount of equipment to attrition in training in comparison to what countries that happen to start with smaller armies lose. Or alternatively, they just can't train their army, in which case it becomes very hard for them to get army XP. And they really need army XP, since it is required to have templates.


Isn't this how we want it to work? The difficulties in training their entire army was one of the biggest historical weaknesses of Soviet, and offsets their almost endless manpower reserves, large military industry and resources ability to threaten the Axis during the first half of the war.


Anders wrote:
No, the Axis has, as I said, a massive advantage, since artillery takes a lot more industry to build.


Let's say for example that the Axis has 200 Industry and Allies have 100 Industry.
Let's further say a Division with little artillery cost 1 industry and a division with much artillery cost 2 industry.

In scenario 1 you get 200 vs 100 divisions (a +100% advantage), and in scenario 2 you get 100 vs 50 divisions (also a +100% advantage).

So in both cases the advantage in amount of divisions fielded is identical for the Axis... Regardless the cost/template used for the individual division.
Anders
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 12:57:36 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Except due to manpower restrictions, the Allies can't field as many troops as the Axis can, making the numbers more like 4:1. And the Axis can steamroll through India, France, and Egypt with their spacemarines a lot easier than if they have some restrictions to unit composition. See: The cheezy-as-fuck landing in France last session.
Since artillery is relatively manpower-cheap, it's a very efficient way for the Axis to have a lot of extremely strong divisions in the field when they make the initial push.
(Not to mention, since some of you seem to care about "realism", that stacking that many artillery regiments in a divison is "ahistorical".)

You guys should really try playing lobby-games a lot more.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:03:33 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Anders wrote:
Except due to manpower restrictions, the Allies can't field as many troops as the Axis can, making the numbers more like 4:1.

....

Since artillery is relatively manpower-cheap, it's a very efficient way for the Axis to have a lot of extremely strong divisions in the field when they make the initial push.


Now your just contradicting yourself...

The lower manpower of the Allies means the exact opposite, that if anyone is going to benefit greatly from allowing more artillery in the templates it's the Allies, not the Axis!!!
Anders
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:06:45 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Alex_brunius wrote:
Now your just contradicting yourself...

The lower manpower of the Allies means the exact opposite, that if anyone is going to benefit greatly from allowing more artillery in the templates it's the Allies, not the Axis!!!

Except the Axis have both more manpower and more industry. So no contradiction there.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 2:33:26 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
One might ask why divisions did not have more artillery than they did... most likely because they were so expensive both in production and keeping supplied. They also needed allot of maintenance and replacement parts.

I think it just is too easy to spam Artillery and other heavy equipment in comparison with history in some sense. But we should also acknowledge that neither Corps not Army assets are directly represented so adding at least one extra artillery regiment per divisions might represent this quite fairly but certainly not more than that if we are talking about historically plausible divisions. In SP I rather create smaller artillery brigades so I can really concentrate artillery where it is most needed and only give regular infantry one regiment and possibly a support battalion. I think this is a little too fiddly in MP though.

But having some rules to keep templates historically plausible should be as important as anything else historical I guess. Without making template design boring of course, which I doubt it would be with some house rules.
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, January 07, 2017 3:09:20 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Anders wrote:
Except the Axis have both more manpower and more industry. So no contradiction there.


No it doesn't work that way, sorry... Confused
If Artillery allows you more firepower per manpower used, it favors the side with less manpower, not the side with more manpower.

And... You still did not answer how or why the industry part have anything to do with a specific type of template favoring either side (which was your initial claim I am arguing against).

If the Axis have more industry they have an advantage totally unrelated to, and regardless of what templates are in use!
Even if everyone was forced to use something silly like only cavalry battalions in their template the Axis still would have exactly the same advantage from more Industry... ( it doesn't matter what you build, if both sides can build the same template the advantage is the same ).
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.