• 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
hellfish6 said:
Exactly - the templates will ensure that anyone not wanting to make their own division won't have to. The editor is there for the people that DO want to. I understand that a lot of people probably won't have the interest level to go beyond a casual game (can HoI be considered a casual game??) but I don't think that means that the people that do want more depth and personalization in their game should be prevented from it.
This is a must have, but I must stress that you absolutely have to have multiple templates that can be saved. For example, if someone wanted to design a front line regular Army Division and say a cheaper, less capable Reserve Division and not have to redo the template every time. Forgive me if this was mentioned, I may have overlooked it as it is a lot to read.
 
^I think it has been mentioned, yes...the great thing about this idea is you could have some really wacky 'standard' divisions. :D
 
Cavalry Scout said:
This is a must have, but I must stress that you absolutely have to have multiple templates that can be saved. For example, if someone wanted to design a front line regular Army Division and say a cheaper, less capable Reserve Division and not have to redo the template every time. Forgive me if this was mentioned, I may have overlooked it as it is a lot to read.

Yeah, I forgot to put a "Save" button one the graphics I did, but I assure you saving and loading stored templates is very important. And yeah, there'd be multiple templates. I.e. you could have 10 different armored division templates if you wanted, another 10 infantry divisions, etc. Historical templates might be tagged with a "USA Armored Division 42" or "GER Panzerdivision 44" or something to distinguish from custom templates.
 
xsx12 said:
Great Idea, it would bring an unbelievable amount of Strategy, and Blue Emu would have to redo all his Research :) lol.

I don't think new research would be all that difficult. :)

I was also thinking that in regards to upgrades, they'd be handled on a battalion-level basis.

Suppose you've already built a division with 4 medium armored battalions, 4 motor infantry and 4 artillery. If you research a new type of medium tank, the upgrade cost should be based on the fact that you have 4 battalions, not that you have a single division. Thus, it would be cheaper to upgrade another division with only one medium tank battalion.

Also, if you ever wanted to tweak your division, you should be able to open it and change 1-3 battalions at a time. If you want to swap out a medium tank battalion for a heavy tank battalion, you could do it. But if you wanted to replace all four of your motor infantry battalions with mechanized battalions you'd be limited to doing it to three until the current upgrade is complete.

Once you're done with your tweak you'd get the option to:

1. Upgrade this division only
2. Upgrade all similar divisions (meaning all divisions with the exact same organizations will also be upgraded)
3. Save this organization to production templates (so you could easily build more if you want).
 
One question I have is would this increase the overall IC costs to upgrades? Or would it cheaper in the long run because you are only focusing on aspects of the division and not the division as a whole?

Also would it be possible to say click on the firepower icon, or speed icon and get a list of the avalible brigades from greatest to least? I think when creating a division this would help out. For I know someone would be like me and try to make the fastest division possible, and then have it followed up by something that is just pure firepower.
 
C.Potter said:
One question I have is would this increase the overall IC costs to upgrades? Or would it cheaper in the long run because you are only focusing on aspects of the division and not the division as a whole?

It kind of depends on how HoI3 will handle upgrades. I'm operating under the assumption that it will be the same system as HoI2 (and it very likely won't be the same in the end). Operating in a HoI2 system, its dependent on a number of things, like what the upgrade cost/time factors are set to. You could set an arbitrary number so that the cost of upgrading any battalion is 50% of the base IC value for that battalion and is done in 50% of the base construction time for that battalion. It'd require some testing to be sure, though.

Overall, I think you'd get more and faster upgrades of lesser effect than the default system, though, since multiple elements are going to be upgraded at different times. You're doing incremental, vice total, upgrades of the unit.

Also would it be possible to say click on the firepower icon, or speed icon and get a list of the avalible brigades from greatest to least? I think when creating a division this would help out. For I know someone would be like me and try to make the fastest division possible, and then have it followed up by something that is just pure firepower.

I don't see why not. Depending on the GUI and organization of the list, you'd probably be able to sort the entire list by speed, defense, hard attack, soft attack, cost, time, etc.
 
^I suppose it could work pretty much however you wanted...all thats left now is for paradox to listen to our pleas.... :)
 
This is a great idea for several reasons. Chief among them is it allows accurate modelling of IC in very minor countries. A lot of countries in the world have 5-6IC in their capitols in HoI2. Historically, these are usually areas with virtually no industrialization. These are given said industry so they can actually build something at all.

If we could bring things down another organizational levels, these small countries could design correspondingly smaller 'divisions' so they can have more historically accurate industry numbers.
 
Plushie said:
This is a great idea for several reasons. Chief among them is it allows accurate modelling of IC in very minor countries. A lot of countries in the world have 5-6IC in their capitols in HoI2. Historically, these are usually areas with virtually no industrialization. These are given said industry so they can actually build something at all.

If we could bring things down another organizational levels, these small countries could design correspondingly smaller 'divisions' so they can have more historically accurate industry numbers.

I was specifically thinking of minor countries when I made the brigade option - the Nationalist Chinese, for example, had a lot of small tank units that are totally unrepresented in HoI simply because they didn't have tank divisions. Likewise with the Japanese, most of their tanks were in brigades or parcelled out in battalion sized groupings to divisions, garrisons and SNLFs. For a long time the Soviets operated tank brigades only too, as well as both Spanish factions.

With smaller units you'd also be able to represent things like the 1st SSF, the 1st Marine Provisional Brigade, Merrill's Marauders, 1st Polish Airborne Brigade, etc, that were all important units in the war but largely ignored.

Having a battalion-based divisional system lets us account for all the things HoI currently ignores. The French historically parcelled out their tanks to support their infantry divisions. Well, now you can account for them by giving the French divisions with a battalion or two of tanks.

Here is a diagram of the French 1st Army in 1940. Notice all the brigade sized formations that HoI totally ignores because they aren't division-sized. Does that mean they don't count?

1armee.gif
 
hellfish6 said:
I was specifically thinking of minor countries when I made the brigade option - the Nationalist Chinese, for example, had a lot of small tank units that are totally unrepresented in HoI simply because they didn't have tank divisions. Likewise with the Japanese, most of their tanks were in brigades or parcelled out in battalion sized groupings to divisions, garrisons and SNLFs. For a long time the Soviets operated tank brigades only too, as well as both Spanish factions.

With smaller units you'd also be able to represent things like the 1st SSF, the 1st Marine Provisional Brigade, Merrill's Marauders, 1st Polish Airborne Brigade, etc, that were all important units in the war but largely ignored.

Having a battalion-based divisional system lets us account for all the things HoI currently ignores. The French historically parcelled out their tanks to support their infantry divisions. Well, now you can account for them by giving the French divisions with a battalion or two of tanks.

Here is a diagram of the French 1st Army in 1940. Notice all the brigade sized formations that HoI totally ignores because they aren't division-sized. Does that mean they don't count?

1armee.gif
Off-topic, but what kind of division/battalion is "SF Escaut", I've never seen that counter (I only know the HoI's counters :D).

And if you don't mind, I'd also like to know what "101e DIF", "G.C. I/14" and "G.C. III/2".

Thanks. :)
 
hito1 said:
Off-topic, but what kind of division/battalion is "SF Escaut", I've never seen that counter (I only know the HoI's counters :D).

And if you don't mind, I'd also like to know what "101e DIF", "G.C. I/14" and "G.C. III/2".

Thanks. :)

I'm pretty sure SF Escaut is a series of fortifications (i.e. a garrison division in a fortified province in HOI terms).

101e = 101st

DIF Division d'Infanterie de Forteresse - Fortress Infantry Division
SF Secteur Fortifiée - Fortified Sector
G.C. Groupe de Chasse - Fighter Squadron (Pursuit Squadron)
G.R. Groupe de Reconnaissance - Reconnaissance Squadron
 
hellfish6 said:
I'm pretty sure SF Escaut is a series of fortifications (i.e. a garrison division in a fortified province in HOI terms).

101e = 101st

DIF Division d'Infanterie de Forteresse - Fortress Infantry Division
SF Secteur Fortifiée - Fortified Sector
G.C. Groupe de Chasse - Fighter Squadron (Pursuit Squadron)
G.R. Groupe de Reconnaissance - Reconnaissance Squadron
Thanks! :)
 
I just read that entire thread. Some amazing ideas are floating around on this forum that Paradox needs to tap for HoI 3.
 
I just want to throw my support behind this idea. If it's done properly, this can be fantastic. When reading the suggestions, it looks alot like Alpha Centauris unit system. When research allowed for a new standard unit, the default template would appear as "buildable". But it also enabled a new unit component, so you could design new units yourself. This ensures that you don't have to design your own units, but it's a possibility.

However, I see three problems.
1. How is the ai going to handle the complexity of custom divisions? The simpler solution is ofcourse to let the ai build only the standard templates. But since the human player can customize, he/she gets more flexible. This gives the human player an edge. Meaning ai needs to make up for it by beeing much better at strategy. Making ai better is not an easy task! Making an ai that makes custom divisions (of battalion detail!) and uses them correctly on the battlefield is much harder!

2. The research tree needs to be incredible. Imagine a new tech for the endless number of different battalions, ship upgrades and/or air upgrades. Then, imagine a new player, who has no background in military history or from paradox games, making research priorities. The result will not be a good one :) A solution would be a simplified tech tree (like the one in hoi2), with a possibility to expand the tech tree to micromanage tech research. But I imagine it would require a great deal of work. And all this so the player (and probably not the ai) will be able to make divison templates? My guess would be that paradox feel the gain is not worth the cost.

3. As I mentioned, it reminds me of the templates from alpha centauri. I also remember that I grew pretty tired of making new units all the time. More often than not, the standard template would do the job, and I used those instead. There should atleast be the possibility to mod in new standard templates, so that you don't have to make new divisions every game. Which brings me to this question: Would the new system really be used that often? After I have made my favourite tank division, infantry division, garrison division etc. etc., I'm probably gonna use these templates for the rest of the game. Ofcourse, there will be an occasional need now and then, but it will be rare. This leads me to think paradox is even less interested in making the system a reality.

Is there really that many good reasons for making this system (other than flavour), instead of expanding the modding capability of the current system? Letting us mod lots of different units (like modding 500 different infantry templates) and expanding the number of properties each unit has (to take account of the number of tank btn og artillery pieces), might do the trick just as good. Atleast in the eyes of paradox.
 
wiguy said:
However, I see three problems.
1. How is the ai going to handle the complexity of custom divisions? The simpler solution is ofcourse to let the ai build only the standard templates. But since the human player can customize, he/she gets more flexible. This gives the human player an edge. Meaning ai needs to make up for it by beeing much better at strategy. Making ai better is not an easy task! Making an ai that makes custom divisions (of battalion detail!) and uses them correctly on the battlefield is much harder!

I'd imagine the AI would be totally restricted to the template divisions - i.e. the AI would build the same kind of units that its country historically built.

2. The research tree needs to be incredible. Imagine a new tech for the endless number of different battalions, ship upgrades and/or air upgrades. Then, imagine a new player, who has no background in military history or from paradox games, making research priorities. The result will not be a good one :) A solution would be a simplified tech tree (like the one in hoi2), with a possibility to expand the tech tree to micromanage tech research. But I imagine it would require a great deal of work. And all this so the player (and probably not the ai) will be able to make divison templates? My guess would be that paradox feel the gain is not worth the cost.

First, it'd depend on how the tech tree is going to be designed for HoI3. Second, I don't think it'd be a HUGE tech tree. An artillery branch could be divided into light/medium/heavy with progressive early/mid/late/modern phases. Same with tanks. Researching medium tanks will give you access to medium tanks (like Cromwells), medium infantry tanks (like Churchills) and combined with a level of heavy artillery development you could have CS tanks, SP artillery, etc.

As it is now, the research tree is overly simplistic. In my opinion, the HoI1 tree was superior. Nearly all the mod teams seem to share my opinion as well, and have updated their tech trees to be far more complex/detailed than the standard HoI2 one.

3. As I mentioned, it reminds me of the templates from alpha centauri. I also remember that I grew pretty tired of making new units all the time. More often than not, the standard template would do the job, and I used those instead. There should atleast be the possibility to mod in new standard templates, so that you don't have to make new divisions every game. Which brings me to this question: Would the new system really be used that often? After I have made my favourite tank division, infantry division, garrison division etc. etc., I'm probably gonna use these templates for the rest of the game. Ofcourse, there will be an occasional need now and then, but it will be rare. This leads me to think paradox is even less interested in making the system a reality.

Who knows? I can't predict if I'd get bored with it after 20, 30, 50, 100 HoI3 games. How many parts of HoI2 are now used? I sure as hell don't modify the supply/convoy system. I don't use the intelligence feature either. That doesn't mean nobody else does. The idea is to make the game YOUR game. I happen to be the kind of guy that would like to compose my own divisions. Some other guy might like to do a lot of the intel/espionage stuff. The point is, we can each concentrate on what we like to do.

Is there really that many good reasons for making this system (other than flavour), instead of expanding the modding capability of the current system? Letting us mod lots of different units (like modding 500 different infantry templates) and expanding the number of properties each unit has (to take account of the number of tank btn og artillery pieces), might do the trick just as good. Atleast in the eyes of paradox.

That might work too. :)
 
wiguy said:
3. As I mentioned, it reminds me of the templates from alpha centauri. I also remember that I grew pretty tired of making new units all the time. More often than not, the standard template would do the job, and I used those instead. There should atleast be the possibility to mod in new standard templates, so that you don't have to make new divisions every game. Which brings me to this question: Would the new system really be used that often? After I have made my favourite tank division, infantry division, garrison division etc. etc., I'm probably gonna use these templates for the rest of the game. Ofcourse, there will be an occasional need now and then, but it will be rare. This leads me to think paradox is even less interested in making the system a reality.

And don't you think being able to form your favourite kind of division would be good enough? :)

Also, there is a very important point in this suggestion people are forgetting - divisions with less than total strength! So we can better play minor countries.

You're right in one point, though, that would need an enormous effort from Paradox.

But if they want to improve HoI that's only natural - it's the best game out there, the improving efforts got to be high. :p :D