• 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.

hellfish6

Nuke the site from orbit.
93 Badges
Jan 21, 2003
1.215
8
nope.nope.com
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
For the past couple weeks I've been tinkering with some ideas of how to revamp the units for HoI3.

1. Purpose

I love Hoi2. However, I've always thought that combat - the core element of the game, was pretty generic. Any two countries will have the opportunity to construct the exact same divisions - combat more a matter of research capability to see who gets the newer technology first than it is a matter of showing how the different countries organized and fought with their militaries. I understand that the doctrines were supposed to be the deciding factor to explain why the Germans could outperform the Poles, British and French early in the war. This, in my humble opinion, is insufficient.

The CORE and HIP mods make an attempt to rectify this - CORE offers "small" divisions for the countries that had them (i.e. Italy) and HIP offers differing costs for divisions based upon historical values (Japanese divisions are cheaper to build than American divisions). As well intentioned as these systems are, they exist in a flawed context and are merely stop-gap measures to fill a void in a system that doesn't properly simulate national military strategies. In the end, the divisions are still generic.

2. Proposal

I've made an excel file outlining the most common types of military components that make a division in WWII. My proposal is that the player, who can often spend long stretches of game time doing nothing, be allowed to create his/her own customized divisions. Of course, there should be templates and default divisional structures available for those that don't want to make their own.

The idea is that you start with a group of components - hereafter referred to as battalions - and assemble your divisions from them. As you discover new technology, your gain access to additional battalions to build and your existing battalions become eligible for upgrades.

3. How It Works

The following is a basic list of battalions that were widely available in 1936:

Code:
HQ and Staff Cadre

Militia Bn
Garrison Bn
MP Bn
Lt Inf Bn
Inf Bn
Marine Bn
Mountain Bn
Machinegun Bn
Engineer Bn
Recon Bn

Lt Cavalry Bn
Cavalry Bn
Lt Armored Car Bn

Tankette/Lt Inf Tank Bn
Lt Tank Bn
Med Tank Bn
Heavy Tank Bn

Lt Artillery Bn
Med Artillery Bn
Heavy Artillery Bn
Mortar Bn
Heavy Mortar Bn
Lt AA Bn
AA Bn
Heavy AA Bn

Signal Bn
Medical Bn
Horse Transport Bn
Motor Transport Bn
Logistics Bn

The following battalions are unlocked after the discovery of the relevant technology:

Code:
Airborne Bn
Glider Bn
Mechanized Bn
Lt Mechanized Bn
Mech Engineer Bn
Commando Bn
Airborne Commando Bn

Med Armored Car Bn
Heavy Armored Car Bn
Motor Cavalry Bn
Armored Cavalry Bn
Helicopter Recon Bn

Medium Infantry Tank Bn
Heavy Infantry Tank Bn
Medium Assault Tank Bn
Heavy Assault Tank Bn
Superheavy Assault Tank Bn
Superheavy Tank Bn
Amphibious Tank Bn
Airborne Tank Bn
Main Battle Tank Bn

Lt Antitank Bn (towed)
Antitank Bn (towed)
Lt SP Tank Destroyer Bn
SP Tank Destroyer Bn
Heavy SP Tank Destroyer Bn
Medium SP Artillery Bn
Heavy SP Artillery Bn
Superheavy SP Artillery Bn
Rocket Bn (towed)
SP Rocket Bn
Heavy SP Rocket Bn
Lt SP AA Bn
Medium SP AA Bn
Heavy SP AA Bn

Heavy Motor Transport Bn
Helo Transport Bn
Ordnance Bn
Amphibious Transport Bn
Armored Amphib Transport Bn

Each battalion has specific costs, benefits, stats and modifiers that when combined into a divisional structure affect the entire organization - some of these are cumulative effects, some of them are total effects (i.e. HA value of a division is a cumulative effect from all the battalions, however a single motor transport battalion increases the speed of the entire division itself). A division composed entirely of infantry and artillery will be a slow, ponderous unit. Add a signal battalion and a motor transport battalion to the divisional structure and it may lost some of its attack/defense value, but the organization level and speed of the division increases greatly. For some countries, this was important. For others, they'd have preferred the extra infantry and artillery instead of mobility and organization. This ought to be reflected in the game.

Another example - US Armored divisions were actually pretty small. While most German panzer divisions had at least two panzer battalions and over a half dozen motorized or mechanized battalions, US armored divisions had three tank, three mechanized and three artillery battalions. While the US division was a bit weaker on paper than the German division, the difference was that US divisions were much easier to transport across oceans and, arguably, more nimble and flexible than their German counterparts.

A custom division system will let players have the ability to make the game more their own. If a player wants to build a division entirely equipped with heavy tank battalions, let him - he'll soon find out why nobody ever did this in real life. The cost is very high and the division will be, essentially, totally unsupported by infantry and artillery.

However, a more realistically minded player might want to give his airborne divisions a bit more punch - swapping out some parachute battalions for glider battalions. Add an airborne tank battalion. Such a divisional structure would suit his purposes and gaming style better than a generic division. Likewise if a player wants to add some amphibious tanks to his marine division or create an Army Headquarters division with additional artillery and air defense units to support his attacks, he can. This goes well beyond the current brigade system and is vastly more flexible and personal.

Attached is a sample screen to construct a division. Since its still theory, its not fully hashed out. I gave each division 15 battalion slots, as this seemed pretty standard across the board for real life divisions. The divisional HQ is standard and represents the commander and his staff. It is a "free" battalion.

1battalion2jpglj7.jpg


This is just a sample armored division I created. I borrowed the pallete and unit symbols from TOAW3, and they are not necessarily indicative of all the kinds of units that can/should be available.


When I have more time, I'll make some historical examples of divisions to further illustrate the system.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The danger of a recipe for a "perfect" division could best be avoided by making the game sufficently complex, so that different set-ups have different advantages. I think of Starcraft right now, the three sides are quite different, but still seem overall well balanced enough.
For example, one could set-up para-divisons for:
a) landing deep behind enemy lines to seize and hold their limited objective there against serious counterattacks until relieved (Crete and Arnhem)
b) landing right behind the front-line to aid advancing troops directly by secruing bridgeheads, diffusing enemy strength and such (Rhine-crossing?)
to think of two right now
 
HMS Enterprize said:
Very much like the ideas, was arguing something similar recently myself.

I think the battalion level may be a bit too complicated for the casual gamer.

I suggested the brigade level in creating your division.

Example- theoretically speaking-

US Arm div-
1.Bgd- Med arm
2.Bgd- Med arm
3.Bgd- Mot inf

Italian Arm div-
1.Bgd- Med arm
2.Bgd- Arm Car
3.Bgd- Mot inf

You can then either set this to be your 'standard' division or specifiy individually every time you make one and each nation has a lot more flavour than present and can work to their advantages and/or IC limitations/excesses.

I suppose you should be able to set it so that you can choose.

But yes, a brilliant idea.
 
HMS Enterprize said:
Very much like the ideas, was arguing something similar recently myself.

I think the battalion level may be a bit too complicated for the casual gamer.

I suggested the brigade level in creating your division.

Example- theoretically speaking-

US Arm div-
1.Bgd- Med arm
2.Bgd- Med arm
3.Bgd- Mot inf

Italian Arm div-
1.Bgd- Med arm
2.Bgd- Arm Car
3.Bgd- Mot inf

You can then either set this to be your 'standard' division or specifiy individually every time you make one and each nation has a lot more flavour than present and can work to their advantages and/or IC limitations/excesses.

Yeah, I imagine Paradox would go with brigades if anything, but I thought it was worth mentioning battalions, since that's what I'd prefer. :)
 
I agree generaly about this idea.But note that Wehrmacht on its peak had 7 800 000 soldiers.That means more than 10 000 batallions.

I think"battallion idea" is to "perfect" and therefore to complex for one game.To much micromanagement.

Personaly I think divisions should be made out of 4,maybee 5 brigades.

And brigade should be lowest part for assembly of divisions, not a battalion.

To much micromanagement for average player that is the problem.

Basic unit should be a brigade.

Operational units should be buillt by adding them to HQ-s.

HQ should be not an unit,ruther"administrative" term,on screen like some menu(table with empty slots for adding subordinated units).

There should be levels of HQ-s.

Divisional HQ.
Corps HQ.
Army HQ
Army group HQ.

For instance with one divisonal -level HQ and just one brigade placed in empty "slot" of this HQ, player will create"inependent brigade" as operational unit.Adding more brigades will of course rise power of this formation,and eventualy create full division(4/5 brigades).

Corps than will be created by adding divisions into "slots" of corps-level HQs,and so on...
 
liebgot said:
I agree generaly about this idea.But note that Wehrmacht on its peak had 7 800 000 soldiers.That means more than 10 000 batallions.

I think"battallion idea" is to "perfect" and therefore to complex for one game.To much micromanagement.

I don't know how it could be seen as micromanagement. Its not like you have to hand design each and every division you build. You put one together, build 40 copies of it, and eventually you can redesign another or build more of the same.
 
I understood it that way, too, you design division templates, if the component (bataillions or brigades or regiments), get upgraded auotmatically, it would be even less micky-managment.
 
I think to clear up the micro-managment thing you just need to have the right commands at your disposal.

When you go to create a division/ship/air squadron you have three buttons: a) Build, b) cancel, c) create new (or something else).

C is important for that lets you design the division as you see fit. Then you click "save setup," name the setup, for example Mountain Rangers. Now when you want to create a division you go to the build screen you just click on the infantry division and then Mountain Rangers. No fuss, no muss.

Now you can keep creating more of these custom divisions, and they are a visible on the build screen. You should also be given the option to delete one, for if you want to make a division that is really good a defense and you accidentally put in a number of paratroopers, you can get rid of it, or modify till it suits your needs.

Also if we want to get into designing why not throw aircraft into it?
kawasaki20ki61ce0.jpg
 
I personally think that Naval and Air divisions should be left the way they are

on the army side I would rather see things done on a Regimental size

Allowing players to build there own formations of either single double or 3 Regimental sized Divisions and keep the Brigade idea the same

Battalions are simply to small to scale in such a grand overall game. I have enough trouble trying to organize a soveit army of 500 divisoins let alone making it 12 times that size of 6000!
 
von_Manstein11 said:
I personally think that Naval and Air divisions should be left the way they are

on the army side I would rather see things done on a Regimental size

Allowing players to build there own formations of either single double or 3 Regimental sized Divisions and keep the Brigade idea the same

Battalions are simply to small to scale in such a grand overall game. I have enough trouble trying to organize a soveit army of 500 divisoins let alone making it 12 times that size of 6000!

But you wouldn't have to organize everything. You'll have template divisions, based on historic organizations, and with a properly done upgrade function, you'd be able to retrofit all your old divisions with new organizations (meaning you can upgrade an infantry division to a motorized or mechanized division by clicking a button that says something like "apply to all XXXX(division name) units" and instantaneously all your divisions will get upgraded to your new organization (or at least put into the upgrade queue).

As I've said, I prefer battalions because you have more fine control. There weren't tank destroyer brigades. There weren't rocket brigades in divisions either. But there were tank destroyer battalions and rocket battalions that were important components of a division.
 
This idea has been around since HoI 1 in one form or another. I think going to the depths of battalion would be too much, but having the option of having a brigade or regimental based structure to a division would be a good setup up. Furthermore, have the ability to overstack division from 1-4 brigades or regiments would be useful.

Lastly, a divisional component of basic HQ, troops and artillery/AT would complete a basic division. Furthermore, adding additional Arty, AT, Recon, Infantry or Special forces, or trucks to a division would allow the division to resolve a variety of roles with the army.

Nice screenshots though. I think the naval ones are top notch.
 
I like the ideas that have been presented here. The design your own ship, in particular is a nice idea. One of the biggest problems that I have with HOI II is that ships cannot be upgraded. Ships with any significant displacement were constantly upgraded, there are cases even when sea-worthiness was compromised, there was a class of US cruisers, the name escapes me but they were made extremely top heavy by adding extra AA guns, were capsizing was a significant threat should flooding occur in the lower compartments. Furthermore this is why, at least for the US navy the size of destroyers grew, until late war destroyers displaced 3000 tons. I have additonal ideas that I will post later.
 
I don't expect that we'd ever be able to simulate capsizing (though that begs the question - should there be a random event that causes damage to naval units due to storms/accidents/mines?) :)

But yes, I think that naval upgrades are a vital tool. Even an old 1918-era battleship should be able to be upgraded as time goes on. It still might not be able to compete with a battleship built in 1939, but it can certainly hold its own against anything that isn't a battleship even through 1945.

Ideally, naval research should give you access to hulls, weapon components and non-weapon components (air and surface search and fire control radars, sonar/asdic, seaplanes, etc.). Each hull offers X number of components and hulls also determine range, armor and speed. An early destroyer may only give you three light components, a 1945 destroyer might offer eight. And early battleship might give you two heavy, four medium and four light components. A 1945 battleship might offer you four heavy, ten medium and ten light components.

Examples of components:

Heavy

10" Naval Gun (single) SeaAttack+10 +2 IC
10" Naval Gun (double) SeaAttack+20 +3 IC
10" Naval Gun (triple) SeaAttack+30 +4 IC
10" Armored Naval Gun (single) SeaAttack+10 +3 IC +2 SeaDefense
10" Armored Naval Gun (double) SeaAttack+20 +4 IC +2 SeaDefense
10" Armored Naval Gun (triple) SeaAttack+30 +5 IC +2 SeaDefense

Medium

Flight Deck (minimum 3 flight decks to be used for CV/CVL) +1 IC
Armored Flight Deck +2 IC +2 SeaDefense +5 AirDefense
Hangar (1 hangar per squadron - includes ammo/fuel/storage/quarters) +2 IC
6" Naval Gun (single)
6" Naval Gun (double)
6" Naval Gun (triple)
5" Naval Gun (double)

Light

5" Naval Gun (single)
Torpedo Tubes (5)
40mm Air Defense (single)
40mm Air Defense (double)
40mm Air Defense (quadruple)

And so on...
 
I like the idea very much, but why limit it to 15 slots? Why not give us players more freedom than that? Set it to 21, just to give that sense of being in total control. If I want to build an overstrength division of 21 tank battallions then why shouldn't I be able to do that? As I understand the production time and IC/MP cost will be per battallion. That will also increase the uncertainty in MP-games (Am I facing understrength or overstrength divisions? How many forces do I have to commit to find out?).
 
Koeppen said:
I like the idea very much, but why limit it to 15 slots? Why not give us players more freedom than that? Set it to 21, just to give that sense of being in total control. If I want to build an overstrength division of 21 tank battallions then why shouldn't I be able to do that? As I understand the production time and IC/MP cost will be per battallion. That will also increase the uncertainty in MP-games (Am I facing understrength or overstrength divisions? How many forces do I have to commit to find out?).

Because the usual division size is about 15 battalions. Anything bigger wouldn't really be considered a division anymore. I guess if you want more just make two divisions, group them together and treat them as one. Other than that, I don't really see why not.

In reality, a lot of it has to do with command and control. A commander and his staff can only coordinate a certain number of subordinate units at a time without becoming overloaded. This has always been true.
 
should there be a bonus in the efficiency of the divisions if it has (if, indeed, assuming it can have) less battalions than the maximum? this could reflect the division staff being able to focus more on each subordinate unit.
 
Myth said:
should there be a bonus in the efficiency of the divisions if it has (if, indeed, assuming it can have) less battalions than the maximum? this could reflect the division staff being able to focus more on each subordinate unit.

One would certainly need some way of modelling C3 factors. I think the best thing would be a penalty for over-large divisions (and quite a drastic one) rather than a bonus for small divisions.

The other problem is of transport capacity. Moving six tank and three mechanized battalions around while retaining a sembalnce of coherence and control is difficult. Moving 21 would be much more difficult ;)

The other issue is that most specialist battalions have profound effects but in difficult-to-model ways. E.g. a recon battalion is very useful for a mobile division entering enemy territory, particularly if doctrine emphasises speed, intelligence and flexibility. It's of very little use on the defensive, or even if moving into friendly or friendlyish territory.

A further problem is that division-scale formations of specialist troops are ahistoric and basically very weak. Would a division with nine Tank Destroyer battalions be effective against enemy panzers? Well, no, not really because the TDs would be unable to engage the infantry. Would a division with nine King Tiger battalions be effective? No, because it would have no elements capable of holding ground, of providing tactical intelligence, or of sustained tactical or operational maneuver.
 
The other issue is that most specialist battalions have profound effects but in difficult-to-model ways. E.g. a recon battalion is very useful for a mobile division entering enemy territory, particularly if doctrine emphasises speed, intelligence and flexibility. It's of very little use on the defensive, or even if moving into friendly or friendlyish territory.
what if the recon battalion improved decryption for that division? it'd be, essentially, a localized next-level decryption tech.
 
TheLand said:
One would certainly need some way of modelling C3 factors. I think the best thing would be a penalty for over-large divisions (and quite a drastic one) rather than a bonus for small divisions.

The other problem is of transport capacity. Moving six tank and three mechanized battalions around while retaining a sembalnce of coherence and control is difficult. Moving 21 would be much more difficult ;)

What about something like a communications tech tree (or sub tech tree)? As you research them, the penalty for anything over 9 battalions decreases. Adds a little org bonus for each level too.


A further problem is that division-scale formations of specialist troops are ahistoric and basically very weak. Would a division with nine Tank Destroyer battalions be effective against enemy panzers? Well, no, not really because the TDs would be unable to engage the infantry. Would a division with nine King Tiger battalions be effective? No, because it would have no elements capable of holding ground, of providing tactical intelligence, or of sustained tactical or operational maneuver.

So whats the problem? If someone builds a division of 9 tank destroyer battalions, with a proper combat system they'll learn very quickly why nobody made TD divisions in real life. Same for super heavy tank divisions. Its their mistake to make.
 
Last edited: