C.O.R.E. Tech Tree: Land units, techs and doctrines

[Semi-Lobster]

I just don't see these boys with toys moving much beyond their own sandbox.

Militia are basically like the German Volkssturm or the British Home Army, they are civilians who are given basic training (usually only a few weeks), given weapons (usually army hand-me downs) and either are meant to fight after the regular army has been decimated or fighting on their home soil (like the Volkssturm), or meant to guard their homeland against invasion as their army is elsewhere (like the British Home Army). Also militia can be larger, more heavily armed police forces (not your average police department but like a much larger paramilitary unit etc.) Militia aren't as well trained but the idea is to throw them at the enemy in mass numbers to attack or use them to guard territory. Also Militia represents 'infantry' trained by a poorer country but use them as regular infantry but of obviously less quality (like the Philippines or Ethiopia). And finally an example of militia are the national guard units or like in Spain 'International brigades' and 'volunteers'.

 

[Halibutt]

Well, in some armies (Polish, for instance) the border guards were the elite of the armed forces, creme de la creme. However, it's a slightly different situation.

OTOH the Volkssturm did move out of their sanbox - and too bad for them.
Actually, I've been thinking of HoI militia as either the abovementioned units or simply an infantry brigade (as opposed to divisions). IMO it's much better to give some countries three militia divisions than one infantry.
Cheers

 

[Junkyard_Pope]

For a large country, a largely useless militia division (with less than 3 attack) is ok, but for the small countries- they need to be beefier.

The main question of this discussion is this- where is the line between militia and a poor army?

P.S. Halibut- if my country shared a border with Nazi Germany- I'd make the border patrol elite too!

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Well, in some armies (Polish, for instance) the border guards were the elite of the armed forces, creme de la creme. However, it's a slightly different situation.

OTOH the Volkssturm did move out of their sanbox - and too bad for them.
Actually, I've been thinking of HoI militia as either the abovementioned units or simply an infantry brigade (as opposed to divisions). IMO it's much better to give some countries three militia divisions than one infantry.
Cheers

Having a brigade of militia is silly, they're a whole divisions as brigades are represented as add-ons and regiments are completely absent from the game.

Polish Border guards where elite but most countries didn't but that much emphasis on border guards so usually they can be militia. Since most smaller countries have/make militia, too many would hurt them since having three militia compared to one infantry would triple that countries supply consumption.

The difference between a poor army and a militia army are the quality of training mostly. Sure you can give a bunch of guys guns and some other stuff but they'll never be on par with more regularly trained divisions. Tech isn't the difference, it's the training and specialisation (which I find it kinda amusing to see brigades attached to militia! I just try to think of them as part of the regular army that was stuck 'baby sitting' the militia)

Also I forgot to add militia can also be colonial troops.

 

[Halibutt]

For a large country, a largely useless militia division (with less than 3 attack) is ok, but for the small countries- they need to be beefier.

The main question of this discussion is this- where is the line between militia and a poor army?

P.S. Halibut- if my country shared a border with Nazi Germany- I'd make the border patrol elite too!

That's not the case, the KOP (Border Defence Corpse) was stationed only on the Soviet border. But still, this was rather an unusual situation, normally the elite were some sort of guards divisions prepared for offensive manouevres, not for defense.
But this is too OT to discuss it more. If you want more info - just start a new thread in the history forum.
Cheers

 

[MateDow]

The main problem with motorized infantry use is that players often think of this unit as 'better infantry' while it's only 'faster infantry'.

I am going to just have to stick with good old cavalry. Not to mention it is much more romantic to have men flying across the plains with guideons trailing. MDow

 

[unmerged(10168)]

Cavalry techs

For the next evolution of CORE

Does cavalry evolve into armoured cavalry? Like the late war US 1st Cavalry Division? I'm thinking that they should be the main beneficiaries of the Helicopter Tech when it's researched, shades of Nam. Of course the research road should be long and not till the 'late war' techs are researched...

If this is already implimented in game, just disregard

Richmond

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Regarding cavalry - no, so far it's not.

Mainly due to the game mechanics reasons - since all the upgrades in game work with type of the unit, not the particular models, all the things that rise statistics of the regular, 'horse' cavalry, would affect their mechanized and later, air-mobile variant.

Other reasons are historical (first airmobile large unit was created in 60') and aestetical (cavalry got in game only one sprite - the one with guy on the horse - no chance to add more). Off course the 3rd one is minor one, but the first and second ones are quite important.

Whole tech tree in 0.7 was overhauled to make sure, that players won't develop all the technologies in middle 1943, things like VTOL fighters were removed, so I guess we don't have to add technologies that are out of game timeline.

 

[unmerged(10168)]

Cavalry and AA brigade modifications

A suggestion. What if we combine the AA/AT brigades into a 'support brigade' and use the extra brigade space as Army HQ (brigades) or something like that? I mean AA/AT units were, at least in most major nations, both presenent as support elements and many AA guns were used in the AT role, not just the famous 88s, there was a British 'equivalent' - heck their 25pdrs sometimes did double duty as AT guns in the Western Desert but I digress - and they were armed with both HE 'flak type' ammo but AP 'anti-tank' ammo as well. Then you could add doctrine and techs to determine whether you make your army 'AT heavy (at cost to your air defense capabilities)' or 'AA heavy (costing you defense and hard attack values). One thought that keeps coming back to me is, for all the fame of Rommel and his 88mm DP guns smashing Matilda counterattacks, it was his denudation of his supply heads, air bases and ports that heavily contributed to his defeat for want of supply. The extra brigade could be used to represent other things though in my mind it's most useful as a catch all representative of 'unrepresented' troops, sort of like the 'sloop' w/c I would group as Headquarters Brigade(s). So you could throw in just about anything there, as these are essentially corps/army level 'strategic reserve' units.

If that's the case then I would very respectfully suggest that cavalry be considered except in the cast of the USSR or under developed nations, mechanized cavalry. While some nations, notably USSR maintained horse cavalry, by the 1930's cavalry had developed into a semi-mechanized force in many major armies. Britain and France were drawn to the concept of 'infantry' tanks (such as the massive Matilda and Char B) and 'cavalry' tanks such as the British cruisers and French Somua/Hotchkiss designs. The US 1st Cavalry Division that fought in the Pacific and occupied Manila and Tokyo was mechanized cavalry. The 14th Cavalry Group that held the Loshiem Gap at the Bulge was mechanized cavalry. The German Leichte divisions (such as the 5th Leichte w/c became an elite Panzer division in the Afrika Korps) were ex-cavalry. Even the Soviets were experimenting with combining light armour and cavalry for their deep battle strategies. I would propose that parachute/airborne, armour and cavalry divisions be ground up buildable as they developed the most during the war, not just minor doctrinal changes and tech improvements like most foot soldier based units, but their entire nature/techs were developed during the war meaning what many countries started out with in 1936/1939/1941 they did not end up with by 45/46/etc. Perhaps the problem with techs that are available to arm/mech/moto could be solved by (this happens usually late war or after a certain doctrinal tech is researched) having one or a few techs that give these advantages to the cavalry once they mech up.

Best regards,
Richmond

 

[unmerged(6898)]

IIRC Germans used cavlary divisions up to 1941/1942. An army under command of gen. Guderian during Barbarossa campaign contained one of such cavalry division. And he was quite satisfied with it performance....

 

[Semi-Lobster]

but what of smaller countries with AAs? Siam for example starts off the game with an AA infantry division to simulate the 26 Vickers-Armstrong 6-ton Tractors fitted with Vickers 40mm automatic AA guns?

Basically what I'm saying is that AA only became effective as an AT weapon until bigger guns where developed.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

A suggestion. What if we combine the AA/AT brigades into a 'support brigade' and use the extra brigade space as Army HQ (brigades) or something like that? I mean AA/AT units were, at least in most major nations, both presenent as support elements and many AA guns were used in the AT role, not just the famous 88s, there was a British 'equivalent' - heck their 25pdrs sometimes did double duty as AT guns in the Western Desert but I digress - and they were armed with both HE 'flak type' ammo but AP 'anti-tank' ammo as well. Then you could add doctrine and techs to determine whether you make your army 'AT heavy (at cost to your air defense capabilities)' or 'AA heavy (costing you defense and hard attack values). One thought that keeps coming back to me is, for all the fame of Rommel and his 88mm DP guns smashing Matilda counterattacks, it was his denudation of his supply heads, air bases and ports that heavily contributed to his defeat for want of supply.

Interesting idea, but while I can agree that AA were usually very good in AT/anti-personnel work (20mm quad guns, Soviet 85mm 'zenitovka') it can't be said in the opposite way. This means, that support brigade would be usually much more representing AA guns then for example regiment of Stug.IV/70 or PAK/40's... While I would like to see more brigades in game, I'm not sure if it's the right way. Besides, in 0.7 AA brigades actually do the dual role of AT/AA.

If that's the case then I would very respectfully suggest that cavalry be considered except in the cast of the USSR or under developed nations, mechanized cavalry. While some nations, notably USSR maintained horse cavalry, by the 1930's cavalry had developed into a semi-mechanized force in many major armies. Britain and France were drawn to the concept of 'infantry' tanks (such as the massive Matilda and Char B) and 'cavalry' tanks such as the British cruisers and French Somua/Hotchkiss designs. The US 1st Cavalry Division that fought in the Pacific and occupied Manila and Tokyo was mechanized cavalry. The 14th Cavalry Group that held the Loshiem Gap at the Bulge was mechanized cavalry. The German Leichte divisions (such as the 5th Leichte w/c became an elite Panzer division in the Afrika Korps) were ex-cavalry. Even the Soviets were experimenting with combining light armour and cavalry for their deep battle strategies. I would propose that parachute/airborne, armour and cavalry divisions be ground up buildable as they developed the most during the war, not just minor doctrinal changes and tech improvements like most foot soldier based units, but their entire nature/techs were developed during the war meaning what many countries started out with in 1936/1939/1941 they did not end up with by 45/46/etc. Perhaps the problem with techs that are available to arm/mech/moto could be solved by (this happens usually late war or after a certain doctrinal tech is researched) having one or a few techs that give these advantages to the cavalry once they mech up.

I see it that way - if we want to create logical chain of cavalry -> mot. division -> mechanized division, we would have to overhaul whole system of the technology bonuses. In return we would get 2 units slots (motorized and mechanized) to use for any new units we want (not that I have any idea, what those units could be ).

Problems:

- even the lowest cavalry unit would benefit from the most advanced mechanization techs,

- players would have to use counters, as cavalry in HoI is represented by one sprite (can't use more, like tanks or planes),

- late war mechanized units would be soft targets (as the former cavalry),

- unknown effects of the game code (for example infantry units never use oil, even if we add oil usage to their stats).

While it's very true from the historical point of view, I'm not sure if it not stretches too much HoI moddability potential. I know, I've made precedence myself by using torpedo plane type of unit as a base for CAG's, but still...

Damn, why I always have to be 'devil's advocate'?!

 

[markpalm1]

If that's the case then I would very respectfully suggest that cavalry be considered except in the cast of the USSR or under developed nations, mechanized cavalry.

The cavalry units were converted to recon units, which is what they are today. In HOI I think you should be able to upgrade a cavalry division to armor at a cheaper cost than building one from scratch.

 

[MateDow]

The cavalry units were converted to recon units, which is what they are today. In HOI I think you should be able to upgrade a cavalry division to armor at a cheaper cost than building one from scratch.

If the game allowed you to do that, I would agree. Unfortunately, there is no way within the game to do that. The difficulty is that there is no way to convert one unit type to another. MDow

 

[|AXiN|]

Why not have cavalry upgrade to a new model roughly similar to a light motorised division or similar? And can't you simply create new sprites and put them in?

 

[Gwalcmai]

You can't create new sprites because the amount of sprites a certain unit type can use is hardcoded. Fighters have three sprites, tanks have four, infantry, cavalry and pretty much everything else can only use one. So, the best that could be done is using a motorised cavalry sprite for the nations that already start with the tech.

 

[Ilkhold]

Why not have cavalry upgrade to a new model roughly similar to a light motorised division or similar? And can't you simply create new sprites and put them in?

You can introduce a possible upgrade and call it whatever you want and give it the stats you want, the problem is, that you cannot make any tech application affect this new model like a motorized. It will only benefit from Cavallery modifications.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Light motorized discussion...

When it comes to mayor change in game system, I always to to answer one fundamental question - what is the purpouse of change?

I guess in that case the answer is - "to recreate unique evolution of cavalry into light divisions (Germany, France), tank brigades/recon regiments (UK), motorized units (Italy, Poland), intermixed tank-cavalry groups (USSR) or tank divisions (USA)."


Hmmm... as you see, depending on the country, evolution of cavalry was different. There was no one standard approach to this matter. I believe that's why in HoI cavalry/motorized/mechanized divisions are separate units, and there is no possibility to change one unit type into another. While in RL units of cavarly were usually rearmed with recon cars/tanks/trucks, is it not the case in HoI when you disband cavalry (reclaiming manpower), then create new motorized/mechanized/tank unit (giving it the same name)?

I see reason in finding historical continuation in cavalry -> motorized/mechanized units. But with current mechanics of the game it would create more problems then gains - should the cavalry gain advantage from mechanized schema? Motorized one? Tank? And what with standard motorized/mechanized units? Should we drop them entirely? All those question have to be asked before we decide that cavalry should simulate not only the mounted infantry, but also motirized/mechanized units.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

What about country specific doctrines or at least several possible doctrines you can research that deactivate after you choose a path on how you're cavalry will evolve?

 

[unmerged(14683)]

What about country specific doctrines or at least several possible doctrines you can research that deactivate after you choose a path on how you're cavalry will evolve?

Of course, there should (and will) be the doctrines (I guess in 0.8) that will beef up one kind of units lowering stats of the other, depending on the choice taken by the player/AI. Those doctrines doesn't have to be 'national' - after all this game is all about alternative history, so we should design some generic paths and give players a choice (while AI should be programmed to pursue historical paths).

I just think that it got nothing to do with replacing cavalry with motorized/mechanized units. We don't create any new value by creating cavalry->motorized transition - motorized units are already in game, so are the mechanized ones. When the time comes, player simply starts to use those instead of horses - it makes perfect sense. But we can (and I think we would) add some doctrines that will deal with unique, non-standard formations.
Example I - light divisions concept can give bonus to motorized divisions, but it will also make them more costly in IC/supplying (tank component). It will also require some basic tank techs as pre-requisite.
Example II - 'deep battle doctrine' will allow to rise cavalry SA and HA attack, but it will also rise seriously supply use and cost (tank units) and will deactivate some other valuable tank doctrines (pre-war tank division concept).

I see new land doctrines system as the tree of some basic concepts with various interesting 'offsprings' that were used only by some nations. Some of them can deactivate each other to avoid exploits/other nonsense.