-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
France should have the Heavy armoured car tech. This armoured car was developed fom from 1932-1935, it was the Panhard et Levassor P 178 (Panhard Model 35) armoured car which was armed with 25mm cannon and was one of the better French armoured vehicles to see combat in 1940. By mid-1940 529 armoured cars had been made.
TechMod: Land fighting values
This is going to likely set off a firestorm, but i cannot in good conscience avoid it.
From a previous TechMod thread [now closed] by Steel:
The problem? Simple: IRL 20 divisions of militia are going to wipe out 1 INF div every single time. And our calcs have it a draw. Oops.
Now B4 the flames start flying in, follow my logic a bit first please.
20 MIL head on attacking an entrenched high tech INF div on a narrow front, the INF can probably hold on with sufficient supplies. BUT, that is a terrible assumption: HEAD ON. The province sizes in HOI are strategic, not tactical. [What's the rule, 1km of front per division? something like that] 1 INF div cannot possibly cover the entire front of any but a very few provinces. That means flanks and rear. 20 Div of MIL are going to encircle 1 INF div, cut them off, attack from all sides and obliterate them with a probability of 99.99995% IRL. It isn't about fire power, it is about manpower. It is too overwhelming. IRL the way the 1 INF survives is retreat to where it can tie up lines with other forces, protect it's flanks and rear area. It is also a problem with low tech INF against high tech INF. As i read this, 1 high tech INF can survive [if i got my math right] 6 - 8 low tech INF. Please go back and review the historical cases of this, particularly the early Korean war [best recent examples]. Without combined arms support [due to weather], hi tech did not defend any where near this well.
I am not really challenging MathGuy's calculations here in head-on situations. He has access to data that most of do not. I do hope he did look at the early korea war figures though. a lot of good men died teaching some very tough lessons, lessons that US commanders to this day have not forgotten. In both Gulf wars, they have been very conscious of not allowing over-powering manpower odds to ocurr irrespective of the technology gap.
My biggest issue is what appears to be the head-on assumption. the province scaling and the mobility of troops in this time period do not readily lend itself to this assumption. Tactical encirclement is fundamental, not advanced leadership. It is why 3:1 odds have historically been considered minimum to guarantee victory: it allows the attacker to attack from 3 directions simultaneously in strength equal to the defender. The defender then has no mobility, no reserves to counter any breakthrough. so the first break through is usually the end.
Again, for a historical basis read up on the first few months of the Korean conflict. a perfect, relevant example of low tech INF attacking against high tech INF defending without air support.
My next biggest issue is that i don't know how to fix it. I'm hoping Steel or MathGuy, both being beta's now may be more aware of ho hte game egine works and can suggest a fix. The fix would be something that looks at corresponding MP on both attacking and defending forces, and an imbalance would progressively create terrible odds reflecting this.
Something like:
3:1 MP => multiple attacks similar bonus as for attacking from multiple provinces.
6:1 MP or so => encirclement bonus.
FORTIFICATIONS would be a HUGE nullifier of this new variable. Maybe like each level of relevant fortification looks like 1 Mp is the above equation. So the Maginot line, gibraltar, malta, etc. would retain all of their effectiveness.
This also will increase the effectiveness and need for reinforements. getting even 1 div into def now could mean a huge thing.
This is going to likely set off a firestorm, but i cannot in good conscience avoid it.
From a previous TechMod thread [now closed] by Steel:
The problem? Simple: IRL 20 divisions of militia are going to wipe out 1 INF div every single time. And our calcs have it a draw. Oops.
Now B4 the flames start flying in, follow my logic a bit first please.
20 MIL head on attacking an entrenched high tech INF div on a narrow front, the INF can probably hold on with sufficient supplies. BUT, that is a terrible assumption: HEAD ON. The province sizes in HOI are strategic, not tactical. [What's the rule, 1km of front per division? something like that] 1 INF div cannot possibly cover the entire front of any but a very few provinces. That means flanks and rear. 20 Div of MIL are going to encircle 1 INF div, cut them off, attack from all sides and obliterate them with a probability of 99.99995% IRL. It isn't about fire power, it is about manpower. It is too overwhelming. IRL the way the 1 INF survives is retreat to where it can tie up lines with other forces, protect it's flanks and rear area. It is also a problem with low tech INF against high tech INF. As i read this, 1 high tech INF can survive [if i got my math right] 6 - 8 low tech INF. Please go back and review the historical cases of this, particularly the early Korean war [best recent examples]. Without combined arms support [due to weather], hi tech did not defend any where near this well.
I am not really challenging MathGuy's calculations here in head-on situations. He has access to data that most of do not. I do hope he did look at the early korea war figures though. a lot of good men died teaching some very tough lessons, lessons that US commanders to this day have not forgotten. In both Gulf wars, they have been very conscious of not allowing over-powering manpower odds to ocurr irrespective of the technology gap.
My biggest issue is what appears to be the head-on assumption. the province scaling and the mobility of troops in this time period do not readily lend itself to this assumption. Tactical encirclement is fundamental, not advanced leadership. It is why 3:1 odds have historically been considered minimum to guarantee victory: it allows the attacker to attack from 3 directions simultaneously in strength equal to the defender. The defender then has no mobility, no reserves to counter any breakthrough. so the first break through is usually the end.
Again, for a historical basis read up on the first few months of the Korean conflict. a perfect, relevant example of low tech INF attacking against high tech INF defending without air support.
My next biggest issue is that i don't know how to fix it. I'm hoping Steel or MathGuy, both being beta's now may be more aware of ho hte game egine works and can suggest a fix. The fix would be something that looks at corresponding MP on both attacking and defending forces, and an imbalance would progressively create terrible odds reflecting this.
Something like:
3:1 MP => multiple attacks similar bonus as for attacking from multiple provinces.
6:1 MP or so => encirclement bonus.
FORTIFICATIONS would be a HUGE nullifier of this new variable. Maybe like each level of relevant fortification looks like 1 Mp is the above equation. So the Maginot line, gibraltar, malta, etc. would retain all of their effectiveness.
This also will increase the effectiveness and need for reinforements. getting even 1 div into def now could mean a huge thing.
PaxMondo said:
[What's the rule, 1km of front per division? something like that]
Hmmm it's more like a company of 150 men on 400 meters in the first frontline,
then some 50 in the next line(mortars, HQ, fuel/ammo/food, medics), up to 400 meters in depth
10 in third line(again medics, supplys etc) 5 km in depth
4th line 50 persons at a howitzer battery etc. from 2 km to 7 km in depth
All in all approx 260 <= 300 men per 400 meters of frontline
Remember a Division has approx 10.000 men.
300/10000 men = 33.33 * 400 meters of front = 13333.33 meters = 13 km of a front section. As a defender you choose the terrain, so the defence front could be longer.
And don't get me started on using the terrain building defences, aka building along streams, small citys, forrests, hedgerows, etc..
But still some good points you came with.
/Frank2u
frank2u said:[What's the rule, 1km of front per division? something like that]
Hmmm it's more like a company of 150 men on 400 meters in the first frontline,
then some 50 in the next line(mortars, HQ, fuel/ammo/food, medics), up to 400 meters in depth
10 in third line(again medics, supplys etc) 5 km in depth
4th line 50 persons at a howitzer battery etc. from 2 km to 7 km in depth
All in all approx 260 <= 300 men per 400 meters of frontline
Remember a Division has approx 10.000 men.
300/10000 men = 33.33 * 400 meters of front = 13333.33 meters = 13 km of a front section. As a defender you choose the terrain, so the defence front could be longer.
And don't get me started on using the terrain building defences, aka building along streams, small citys, forrests, hedgerows, etc..
But still some good points you came with.
/Frank2u
Frank2u: Ok, i can use your numbers for front coverage => 1 company/400 meters. And 50% combatants/divison is also consistent with my experience, so ok too.
So now, a division has the capability of covering 13km of front, solid defense. Let's knock that down to 10 km to give them a fighting reserve [always useful]. Now let's look at how many provinces in the game have only a 10 km frontage ... 5? 6?
Let's take Koln for example [roughly an average sized west europe province ... frontage on this province is what about 40km or so? bit more? So you cannot cover the entire front by any means. Since you can't, you have to cover your flanks, which means you now only have maybe 5km of forward front, because you have to cover flanks ... the enemy has 35 km of area to play hide and seek with your scouts. is a few days you don't have scouts [piecemeal attrition].
Further, you have to protect your rear ... which means you have to pull back to keep your lines intact with your flanking comrades. Would that even be in Koln province? And if you do stay, you are open to envelopment. If you have to pull line troops off the front to protect against a rear area threat, your now weakened front can be assautled ...
I just don't know how you win 20:1 unless the opposition has no range capability at all [pungi sticks and slings]. Our base technology should have the militia equipped with bolt action rifles of WWI era. Rate of fire is what 6 - 10 shots/ minute? Slow, but nothing wrong with either distance nor accuracy. If they ever close with you, you are dead.
Also, low tech divisons have more combat elements compared to high tech divisons. Frank2u points out that high tech is about 50%, consistent with current, and AFAIK true since korean war era or so. What was WWI ratio? bit higher i beleive ... 60 - 70%
Last night, just happened to watch a forensic study on the Battle of Little Big Horn ... funny ~20:1 odds [~5000 .vs. 350], low tech .vs. high tech. Only about 200 of the indians had rifles at the start [of course they gained another 300 that day]. granted high [unknown exact] losses for the indians. custer? history book.
BTW, the forensic study suggested that the indian losses were probably lower than previously thought. They were able to roll the right flank of Custer. About 80 men died on that flank with relative low cost to the indians. The "last stand" area also was not as high loss for indians as thought either ... they were able to close. Once Custer went down, C&C was lost, and the un-organized defense was probably not as strong as thought. indian losses were still high, but not what many people percieve. probably hundreds, not thousands.
still looking for an experienced line officer to weigh in here. i've talked with a couple of korean war vet squad and platoon leaders ... they are not optimistic at all about this scenario [what actually started this thread ... my concerns after talking with them] ... but are reticent to speak beyond company tactics on which they are expert ... divisions are a bit different ...
PaxMondo said:
I saw something about that last night also. Did you see the part about the Indians having Henry repeating rifles while the Cavalry had single shot rifles? Seems that, in this case at least, the Indians had the better tech.
CyberMajestic said:
Not better, different. Henry only shot 200 yds, Spencer upwards of 700 yds. Henry shot 20/min, Spencer 6/min. So, when they got in close, those indians with the Henrys [according to the show not more than 200 of the 5000 had any firearms, Henry rifles being a subset] would have had an advantage. More so, Inndian favorite weapon was the pistol, and those are even higher rate of fire, but much shorter range. Again, when they closed ...
But certainly the main points were not these, they were:
- training of the soldiers
- tactics of Custer/ US Army in general
- folding of the right wing
The last is the most relevant to this discussion. Once that wing folded, the 7th was dead. Point being that in such a lopsided numbrs fight, any pont of the defense that falters would almost always be unrecoverable. So the attackers only need to work towards one lucky break to accomplish this. The defenders have to be perfect.
You can win 10 hands of black jack in a row ... happens in Vegas about 1/week. There are over 100,000 others though who don't and pay for that one winner.
Still looking for an experienced line officer ... step right on up please ...
Where did you find the range of the Henry rifle at 200 yds? I really need to review my data...
If Custer didn't have his head up somewhere dark, he would have returned to Benteen's position and in all probability survived. Just another example of ignoring intelligence because it didn't fit one's preconceived notions (Boy Browning anyone?).
If Custer didn't have his head up somewhere dark, he would have returned to Benteen's position and in all probability survived. Just another example of ignoring intelligence because it didn't fit one's preconceived notions (Boy Browning anyone?).
ArmdChair said:Where did you find the range of the Henry rifle at 200 yds? I really need to review my data...
If Custer didn't have his head up somewhere dark, he would have returned to Benteen's position and in all probability survived. Just another example of ignoring intelligence because it didn't fit one's preconceived notions (Boy Browning anyone?).
This was the Henry repeater ... not the bolt action. It was part of the forensic data presented.
There were two main conclusions: you got one, the other was the Army SOP at the time. Custer [and his subordinates] followed the SOP, and against guerilla warriors, it got them killed.
IMO a level action rifle with 20rds/minute is superior tech to a single shot rifle with 6rds/minute any day regardless of range in this kind of fight. But like I said it's my opinion.
Let me get this thread back on topic ... looking for an experienced line officer to comment about 20:1 MP odds still do not have sufficient historical evidence that the defender can succeed ... come one guys!
West Point / War College grads?
West Point / War College grads?
I think that instead of trying to figure out wether or not 20:1 odds is enough to destroy a single unit, we should decide which system is MORE realistic when it comes to AVERAGE combat.
We could postulate that high GD will not work very well for odd situations (i.e., the 20:1 odds deely), but if it gives better results for the more common attacks (similar odds), then there really should not be such a debate.
Lets discuss common combat, and figure out if the system works. Indeed, no system will be perfect (in HoI) representing ALL levels of combat, but we should try and use the model that is best for the most common forms of it.
We could postulate that high GD will not work very well for odd situations (i.e., the 20:1 odds deely), but if it gives better results for the more common attacks (similar odds), then there really should not be such a debate.
Lets discuss common combat, and figure out if the system works. Indeed, no system will be perfect (in HoI) representing ALL levels of combat, but we should try and use the model that is best for the most common forms of it.
Just wanted to say that me and my gaming friends are really enjoying the latest CORE tech tree. It's rounded into very nice shape. Well done!
Polish tanks in CORE are just screwed up. OK, there's 7TP, 9TP, 10TP... But why an Advanced Medium Tank with 80+mm cannon is T-34/85? Why MBT is Centurion?
The same applies to Polish jets. There are LIM fighters, which were in fact Russian Mig fighters. IMHO all Polish jets and advanced fighters should be completely hypotetical. I.e. Rocket fighter could be called PZL P-88 Jaskolka(Swallow) and jet could be named PZL P-89 Orzel (Eagle)
The same applies to Polish jets. There are LIM fighters, which were in fact Russian Mig fighters. IMHO all Polish jets and advanced fighters should be completely hypotetical. I.e. Rocket fighter could be called PZL P-88 Jaskolka(Swallow) and jet could be named PZL P-89 Orzel (Eagle)
Jedrek41 said:
The advanced medium tank is the T-34/85 because Poland did't have any tanks or tank prototypes or tank design that could go under the 'advaced' category and Poland didn't have any MTB's. We have a timeline for our techs that go to about the late 60's. Unless of course had a site with info on these ships. Also, can you provide a site about the PZL P-88 Jaskolka and PZL P-89 Orzel along with some stats?
I prepared this list for Poland quite a long time ago, but I remember that the tanks were one of the most difficult parts. The original list was a mixture of Polish models and those used by the Polish armies in exile. Currently the list still includes all types of models: historical (TP-7), non-historical but probable (TP-20) and foreign (T-34). Do you have any suggestions as to how could we fix it?
Cheers
Cheers
Semi-Lobster said:
Sorry guys, but I was misunderstood. Both Jaskolka and Orzel are hypotetical fighters, completely my imagination
o My point of view is, if there was no authentic craft, why it couldn't replaced with a hypotetical one? The same could be applied for tanks.Once again sorry for making confusion
o
There's a line between a hypothetical that they had at least a design for (I'm really most comfortable in the naval mod thread so I'll give you a naval example) like the Dutch Project 1940 battlecruiser. They had the design on paper but nothing ever came of it. These are just names you imagined and can't really be expected to be used in the game
Theoretically we could use the hypotheticla names for the Polish tanks since the naming system was very consistent. TP-7 is a 7-Ton Polish (AAMoF it was only the prototype, serial production tanks were heavier), TP-10 was 10-Ton Polish, so we could as well make T-34 a TP-30, which would surely be its' designation if Poland ever produced a tank of its class.
Cheers
Cheers