Brigades/attachments ideas/thoughts/questions

[Wolfhead]

Any specific reason for not adding the heavier class of anti-tank guns? Personally I think there should be an additional model covering guns such as the german 88mm at-gun (and the 128mm too).

I also think that the tank-destroyer should be expanded, maybe even sort of splitting it in two, but i'd like to know if this is already "set in stone" perhaps? before I elaborate further upon it.

Another idea is to (if possible) split engineers into "logistic" engineers who's main task is to add the "river crossing bonus", speed(?) and organization (or ESE but I don't think this is possible?) and perhaps defensiveness (building fortifications). And some kind of "assault engineers" with the "river bonus", added attack values and toughness. Don't need to be exactly like that, but you get the general idea?

The anti-air looks a little thin with only 3 models, but I guess there wasn't that much change in AA guns to justify say a 1941 model? Perhaps adding SP-AA, although I don't have any good idea how that should work, besides adding fuel cost.

Please note that I'm not complaining or anything, just some spontaneous reflections. If you want me to, I can also tell you what I already like as it is.

Oh btw: yes, I am a quantity-fetishist when it comes to things like

 

[Exterous]

While we're at it, I was alittle suprise to find that there was no HA bonus for AA guns (or at least through lvl2 ). Is there a particular reason behind this?

 

[McNaughton]

Any specific reason for not adding the heavier class of anti-tank guns? Personally I think there should be an additional model covering guns such as the german 88mm at-gun (and the 128mm too).

I left those out, as, primarily, a Divison used guns up to the 17Pdr (or 77mm) in size in large numbers. Guns like the 88mm, or 128mm, were used in too small numbers, and were generally too large of weapons to be effectively used in the 'towed' method. Since divisions only ever used a small sprinkling of them, and the fact that developments in AP shells made even older guns very effective by the end of the war, there was no purpose to build these large guns in large numbers. I left them out for these reasons.

#1. Because historically, very few nations ever developed weapons of this size.

#2. Because even those who did use these guns, they were used in small numbers (maybe a battery's worth in an entire division, at most), and they were never deployed in a large scale such as a battalion.

I also think that the tank-destroyer should be expanded, maybe even sort of splitting it in two, but i'd like to know if this is already "set in stone" perhaps? before I elaborate further upon it.

There will be some expansion, but, don't expect to see many types of TDs. I refuse to have 20 different TDs that all perform almost exactly the same, just because Germany had them.

Another idea is to (if possible) split engineers into "logistic" engineers who's main task is to add the "river crossing bonus", speed(?) and organization (or ESE but I don't think this is possible?) and perhaps defensiveness (building fortifications). And some kind of "assault engineers" with the "river bonus", added attack values and toughness. Don't need to be exactly like that, but you get the general idea?

This idea is already being developed, but, there will be no speed bonus.

The anti-air looks a little thin with only 3 models, but I guess there wasn't that much change in AA guns to justify say a 1941 model? Perhaps adding SP-AA, although I don't have any good idea how that should work, besides adding fuel cost.

SP Anti-Aircraft wasn't being developed much in the war (when it comes to what these AA battalions represent, and that is heavy AA). There may be differences implemented, offering the later gun versions more effective AA ability.

Please note that I'm not complaining or anything, just some spontaneous reflections. If you want me to, I can also tell you what I already like as it is.

Oh btw: yes, I am a quantity-fetishist when it comes to things like

Thanks for your ideas, but, you must know, that more tends to lower the quality of games, as you lose a lot of realism, with things ending up being more similar the more that you have (as it becomes difficult to balance, and some attachment types become obsolete because other attachments step into their territory).

 

[McNaughton]

While we're at it, I was alittle suprise to find that there was no HA bonus for AA guns (or at least through lvl2 ). Is there a particular reason behind this?

Here's the reason.

#1. Very few nations actually ever positioned their AA guns in the AT role. Germany primarily did this because of desperation, that their pathetic 37mm guns couldn't destroy a thing. Most other nations refused to do this to their heavy AA, as, they saw it as a horrible waste for these guns. Positioning them near the front, made them VERY vulnerable due to their high shiloette. They could not as easily be hidden as other guns.

#2. In HoI2, if we gave the guns a HA value, then this situation could happen.

You have an AA attachment with a Division, it is being attacked by an armoured division. You get the bonus of HA against the tanks. Suddenly, an enemy bomber attacks you as well, but, you also get the AA bonus against the Aircraft. Tell me how these guns can attack both tanks and aircraft at the same time?

#3. This makes using AT guns less viable. AA guns give you HA and AA bonus', while AT guns just give you HA bonus'. Players would see this, and see that AA is more useful and never build AT.

So, just because one or two nations ever did this does not mean that this attachment, as a rule, should have this as a factor.

 

[unmerged(52902)]

While we are talking about bridgaes is there any way we can fix it to where we can deploy them outside "controlled" provinces?

 

[McNaughton]

Nope.

 

[The Regent]

While we are talking about bridgaes is there any way we can fix it to where we can deploy them outside "controlled" provinces?

That is something on Paradox's end. We have to wait for a patch with that feature, or it could come with Doomsday.
I thought the last patch did this, but I guess I read something wrong.

 

[unmerged(52902)]

Boulderdash Oh well. The bridges seem allright to me although it is different not to be faster with engineers and slower with H tanks, but I'm sure you guysh ave a reason for that, something about balance if I remeber correctly.

Keep up the good work.

 

[unmerged(37594)]

Comments

#1 not so much deperation , it was more that a doctrine and ammo had to be developed ( most nations did not supply their AA guns with AP ammo or a gun shield ! ) . Using aa guns against tanks was initially desperation and more shock when it worked , then it became a doctine ~1940 and by 1941 was not uncommon ( it was common to follow an advance with 88mm , not so common that they would see action ... though when they did it was spectacular) .

88mm AA guns were common in germany , i think over 15,000 were made , similar to 37mm and 50 mm AT combined. Though the vast majority were used by the luftwaffe.

Positioning , shiloette and chance of being lost were irrlevant up to 44 or so for 2 reasons
1. The 88's usually followed the advanced and were setup in positons to counter an armoured counter attack , hence the doctrine meant they rarely saw combat except to counter armour .
2. vs armour they could destroy a very large amount of armour before the armour was in range .

The effectiveness of the 88 delayed the development of heavier AT guns , when the 75 mm and 88mm At guns were in production army use of the 88 droped heavily.

#2 This argument does not fly , its the same as saying infantry should not get HA and soft as they may be attacked by infantry and armour at the same time .

During the hour of the battle it is extermely unlikely that armour and air would attack at the same time. ( it would prob result in some tanks being blown up by mistake as well) .

#3
Not exactly a 400kg gun is a lot cheaper than a 5-7 ton 88mm gun ... And this is how the game should represent it.

I think it would be a nice Blitzkrieg type doctrine .

Regards,


Ben

Here's the reason.

#1. Very few nations actually ever positioned their AA guns in the AT role. Germany primarily did this because of desperation, that their pathetic 37mm guns couldn't destroy a thing. Most other nations refused to do this to their heavy AA, as, they saw it as a horrible waste for these guns. Positioning them near the front, made them VERY vulnerable due to their high shiloette. They could not as easily be hidden as other guns.

#2. In HoI2, if we gave the guns a HA value, then this situation could happen.

You have an AA attachment with a Division, it is being attacked by an armoured division. You get the bonus of HA against the tanks. Suddenly, an enemy bomber attacks you as well, but, you also get the AA bonus against the Aircraft. Tell me how these guns can attack both tanks and aircraft at the same time?





#3. This makes using AT guns less viable. AA guns give you HA and AA bonus', while AT guns just give you HA bonus'. Players would see this, and see that AA is more useful and never build AT.




So, just because one or two nations ever did this does not mean that this attachment, as a rule, should have this as a factor.

 

[Wolfhead]

#1. Because historically, very few nations ever developed weapons of this size.

#2. Because even those who did use these guns, they were used in small numbers (maybe a battery's worth in an entire division, at most), and they were never deployed in a large scale such as a battalion.

Well that's good enough reason for me.

There will be some expansion, but, don't expect to see many types of TDs. I refuse to have 20 different TDs that all perform almost exactly the same, just because Germany had them.

My thoughts was just at most a total of up to 5-6 models. To make a long story short: Addition of an earlier model (and maybe a later too). The first two (especially the first) should be rather crappy but cheap, the next one (or two) better but more expensive. *Maybe* the 1944 model could (if possible) be split into medium & heavy versions (think Hetzer/JgdPz-IV vs. Jagdpanther/Jagdtiger).
Of course this is a bit of a "germanized" view, but afterall they were the main users of TD:s

This idea is already being developed, but, there will be no speed bonus.

Well sounds good to me.

Thanks for your ideas, but, you must know, that more tends to lower the quality of games, as you lose a lot of realism, with things ending up being more similar the more that you have (as it becomes difficult to balance, and some attachment types become obsolete because other attachments step into their territory).

Yes of course, I'm aware of that. It's not easy (well actually it's rather impossible ) to transfer all real life differences between different kinds of stuff into a game. I mean, there's difference between a Pz-Ia & Pz-Ib and it was a rather important one in reality, but how do you put that into HOI2 ? :wacko: At some point you've got to draw the line.

But generally speaking I'm very satisfied with the new look of brigades/divisions, as I mentioned earlier it gives me a very good "ww2-feeling" and corrects a couple of things I don't really like about vanilla. The split between Assault guns and SP artillery for example, that's very nice.

 

[McNaughton]

Comments

#1 not so much deperation , it was more that a doctrine and ammo had to be developed ( most nations did not supply their AA guns with AP ammo or a gun shield ! ) . Using aa guns against tanks was initially desperation and more shock when it worked , then it became a doctine ~1940 and by 1941 was not uncommon ( it was common to follow an advance with 88mm , not so common that they would see action ... though when they did it was spectacular) .

88mm AA guns were common in germany , i think over 15,000 were made , similar to 37mm and 50 mm AT combined. Though the vast majority were used by the luftwaffe.

Positioning , shiloette and chance of being lost were irrlevant up to 44 or so for 2 reasons
1. The 88's usually followed the advanced and were setup in positons to counter an armoured counter attack , hence the doctrine meant they rarely saw combat except to counter armour .
2. vs armour they could destroy a very large amount of armour before the armour was in range .

The effectiveness of the 88 delayed the development of heavier AT guns , when the 75 mm and 88mm At guns were in production army use of the 88 droped heavily.

Anyway, the 'Germany did it' reasoning does not mean that it should be applied for all AA attachments. Even still, it does not state that these heavy guns were used (the 88mm AT) in large enough numbers to warrant a significant effect on the battlefield.

#2 This argument does not fly , its the same as saying infantry should not get HA and soft as they may be attacked by infantry and armour at the same time .

During the hour of the battle it is extermely unlikely that armour and air would attack at the same time. ( it would prob result in some tanks being blown up by mistake as well) .

Your analogy is incorrect. Switching HE and AP rounds in a gun is significantly faster than emplacing a gun to fire directly at the front line against tanks, or moving the gun into a AA firing position against aircraft. They are two completely different things, with the guns being in completely different areas of the division, something that could not be done within an hour.

#3
Not exactly a 400kg gun is a lot cheaper than a 5-7 ton 88mm gun ... And this is how the game should represent it.

I think it would be a nice Blitzkrieg type doctrine .

Regards,


Ben

You are ignoring the way that players play. Players look at units for what they get out of it. Getting a multi-task attachment, at whatever cost, is more valuable than getting a single-task attachment. The multi-task attachment is good in two situations, while the single-task is good only in one, it is like getting two attachments for the space of one. Remember, since you can only attach one attachment to a division, the one that has more, or greater effects (regardless of cost) would be applied more often than not. We would be seeing the use of AA attachments as the general unit for defeating armoured forces in HoI2 should they be applied as such.

Try to compare this to a fighter-bomber. What you are asking for here, is to give the fighter its maximum unloaded range, but, with the maximum bomb load on it. The argument 'this aircraft had a maximum range of 600 km' but 'had a maximum bomb load of 2000 kg' would result in a demand of an aircraft that could travel 600 km with 2000 kg of bombs, on the pure statement that the plane could travel that far, but, it also could have that many bombs.

Either the plane is a fighter, or a fighter bomber.

Either it uses its maximum bomb load, or its maximum range.

It can't be both.

 

[unmerged(37594)]

88 dual use

Anyway, the 'Germany did it' reasoning does not mean that it should be applied for all AA attachments. Even still, it does not state that these heavy guns were used (the 88mm AT) in large enough numbers to warrant a significant effect on the battlefield..

> Agree 88mm AT should not be there ( asummed in the 44 infantry OOB ) but i do think there should be an expensive 88mm AA brigade in 38 , if you have a certain doctrine.

Your analogy is incorrect. Switching HE and AP rounds in a gun is significantly faster than emplacing a gun to fire directly at the front line against tanks, or moving the gun into a AA firing position against aircraft. They are two completely different things, with the guns being in completely different areas of the division, something that could not be done within an hour.

> They had 10-15 km range and were towed by halftracks. 95-99% of the time these units had an AA roll however when an enemy armoured offensive was underway , these units had a decisive roll. I think the dual roll best represents this. Historically since they followed an offensive the germans nearly always had air superiority anyway , but the commander of the day decided whether they had an anti air or anti tank roll . Personally a poor representation is better than no representation.

You are ignoring the way that players play. Players look at units for what they get out of it. Getting a multi-task attachment, at whatever cost, is more valuable than getting a single-task attachment. The multi-task attachment is good in two situations, while the single-task is good only in one, it is like getting two attachments for the space of one. Remember, since you can only attach one attachment to a division, the one that has more, or greater effects (regardless of cost) would be applied more often than not. We would be seeing the use of AA attachments as the general unit for defeating armoured forces in HoI2 should they be applied as such.

> if you require blitzkrieg doctrine ( or some other) , it would limit most players. 2nd such a brigade would be more than twice as expensive .

> You cant say regarless of cost if you have a brigade that takes 300 days and cost 10 IC no one will use it ...

>Mechanised units get 2 things (armour and infantry) , carriers ( can land strike and fight ships) , Tac units can bomb planes so it is not something new.

>I think the way Tac and Navs are handled is a good example , the nav is the basic AA gun ( it only provides only fire vs planes) , the tac can do a port strike mission but you can immediately change it to interdiction if the ship is no lionger there.

> Most importantly it represents flavour and adds to historical results - german armour were very difficult to counter attack.

Try to compare this to a fighter-bomber. What you are asking for here, is to give the fighter its maximum unloaded range, but, with the maximum bomb load on it. The argument 'this aircraft had a maximum range of 600 km' but 'had a maximum bomb load of 2000 kg' would result in a demand of an aircraft that could travel 600 km with 2000 kg of bombs, on the pure statement that the plane could travel that far, but, it also could have that many bombs.

Either the plane is a fighter, or a fighter bomber.

Either it uses its maximum bomb load, or its maximum range.

It can't be both.

 

[McNaughton]

> Agree 88mm AT should not be there ( asummed in the 44 infantry OOB ) but i do think there should be an expensive 88mm AA brigade in 38 , if you have a certain doctrine.

That might be a possibility, but, it will require some figuring as to how upgrades would work.