• 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:
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.

There's two difficulties there. Firstly the combat system at present doesn't offer the right level of sophistication. Secondly, from a game design point of view, it is generally a bad idea to give players a lot of extra options to make their lives difficult.

You would also have a lot of posts on the forums from people saying "I made a super-heavy tank division and it was crap! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!", which isn't the kind of thing one should encourage ;)
 
There's two difficulties there. Firstly the combat system at present doesn't offer the right level of sophistication.
it might though. TDs would have (relatively) high hard attack and (relatively) high toughness (or defense, whichever protects against hard attacks). but for soft attack and defense (/toughness, whichever), they'd be, well, rather shit. thus, a pure TD or pure SHA division would be thoroughly smashed by an infantry force.

You would also have a lot of posts on the forums from people saying "I made a super-heavy tank division and it was crap! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!", which isn't the kind of thing one should encourage
give people tooltips back, so that they know upon a mouse-over that SHA is rather vulerable to infantry etc, so that they can't plead ignorance and indeed only ignore the tooltips at their own peril.

and personally, I always enjoy more options ;)
 
TheLand said:
There's two difficulties there. Firstly the combat system at present doesn't offer the right level of sophistication. Secondly, from a game design point of view, it is generally a bad idea to give players a lot of extra options to make their lives difficult.

You're right - this system isn't division designed for the current combat system. That said, I don't think it'll require a whole lot of tweaking to get right for HoI3. The combined arms bonus is already in HoI2 - and adapting that will be a big help to keep balanced divisions the norm. An infantry division with an attached armor/assault gun battalion or a well rounded armor division will get a combined arms bonus, while "pure" divisions will not.

You would also have a lot of posts on the forums from people saying "I made a super-heavy tank division and it was crap! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!", which isn't the kind of thing one should encourage ;)

That super-heavy tank division will also be hugely expensive in IC and time to build, extremely slow to move, and likely defeated by any kind of infantry or combined arms force.

I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for this kind of argument. And I think the people that whine about this will be few and far between.
 
TheLand said:
You would also have a lot of posts on the forums from people saying "I made a super-heavy tank division and it was crap! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!", which isn't the kind of thing one should encourage ;)

I think you are probably right, there would be a lot of 'what am I doing wrong?' questions but even so, Id still like to have the opportunity to play around with forces, see what works, what doesnt etc etc...and learning what works is still part of the fun.

I mean- good lord, there were still cavalry divisions in WW2! :eek: , you would think they would not have been seen on the WW2 battlefield after WW1 but there you go- BIG mistakes were still being made...

I suppose certain high-end units such as SHA could be capped at 1 brigade per division, etc etc

The overall complexity level could be selectable too, from divisional level as is now to smaller levels if so desired (I still wouldnt go down past brigade level though)
 
I like the concept

But I think going down to the battalion level is a bit too much. Building by the brigade seems a more workable compromise.

And I don't like the idea of designing aircraft at all. There is already so many problems with using aircraft that I don't see much gain in going so specific in aircraft design. Again, I think a compromise that allowed you to attach "brigades" to existing air units would suffice. You want to add rockets to your P-51's? Go ahead, it'll cost you elsewhere.

I like the idea of more specificity, but I think your plan is too grand for its own good.
 
rommel7 said:
But I think going down to the battalion level is a bit too much. Building by the brigade seems a more workable compromise.

And I don't like the idea of designing aircraft at all. There is already so many problems with using aircraft that I don't see much gain in going so specific in aircraft design. Again, I think a compromise that allowed you to attach "brigades" to existing air units would suffice. You want to add rockets to your P-51's? Go ahead, it'll cost you elsewhere.

I like the idea of more specificity, but I think your plan is too grand for its own good.


Wright.

Let it be a brigade.
For instance:

Land forces brigades :
Armoured
mechanised,
moto,
infantery,
mountain,
marine,
garrison/home guard,
paratroopers.
PLUS all brigades allredy available in current game(HARM,ART,AT,SPA.....)

Air Forces:


Fighter-bomber,
Interceptor,( second role -short range escort-for CAS).
Long range( escort) fighter,
Night fighter(haevy fighter).



CAS,
tactical,
strategic,
naval,

For instance 3 brigades of CAS + 1 interceptors for protection will be good combined wing.
Or strategic + long range fighters naturaly.

Haevy fighters(like Hainkel-UHU),mainly for night duties, as night interceptors,but allso as long range(night)escort if combined with STRA. bombers.


Transport... same at it is, but as brigades to join them in various size transport clusters.

CAG.... big carriers can accept for instance full complement of say 4 CAG brigades, while escort carrier 1 or 2 CAG brigades.This will make only needed and real true diference between fleet carriers and small carriers.

Naval

Brigades:
DD,
subs.

Other ships as capitals(but with modernisation option finaly i hope;)
 
Last edited:
People should remember that the original suggestion stated there would be templates for each country, so you'd only go down to micromanagement if you wanted to.

Even for building new division types those templates would be of great help - just make options to "build from scratch" and to "save as...", that way you could pick the historical infantry template and modify it as you wish IF you wish.
 
hito1 said:
People should remember that the original suggestion stated there would be templates for each country, so you'd only go down to micromanagement if you wanted to.

Even for building new division types those templates would be of great help - just make options to "build from scratch" and to "save as...", that way you could pick the historical infantry template and modify it as you wish IF you wish.

That was my intent. :)

I prefer battalions because it lets you be more specialized. A signal battalion to increase your org level, a medical battalion to reduce your attrition and boost your trickleback, an ordnance battalion to boost your repairs, etc. Thats not feasible when you're operating with brigades, as nobody in their right mind would substitute a tank brigade for a medical brigade. However, a lot of people wouldn't mind losing an SP artillery battalion to gain an ordnance battalion if it lets you repair your division faster.
 
hellfish6 said:
That was my intent. :)

Perhaps one might have to enable the 'detailed battalion structure' option before being let loose on the bare bones of the division to stop teh clueless N00bs messing it up.

I prefer battalions because it lets you be more specialized. A signal battalion to increase your org level, a medical battalion to reduce your attrition and boost your trickleback, an ordnance battalion to boost your repairs, etc. Thats not feasible when you're operating with brigades, as nobody in their right mind would substitute a tank brigade for a medical brigade. However, a lot of people wouldn't mind losing an SP artillery battalion to gain an ordnance battalion if it lets you repair your division faster.

I'm no expert on WWII divisional structures but I'd be very wary of allowing ahistorically large numbers of non-combat troops in divisional formations. At the moment HOI doesn't model Corps or Army headquarters much, nor lines of communication, field hospitals, field bakeries, repair and maintenance shops, spare parts depots or fuel dumps. Most of these things exist at quite high levels and allowing people to vary the divisional component alone (or worse, encouraging them to vary the component of one division in a corps) could produce irritating ahistoricity.

That said, I'm all for battalions rather than brigades: mainly because combat specialists (tank destroyers, heavy tanks, recon, pioneers, artillery, special forces, what have you) are all available in battalion chunks, rather than the 'brigades' that HOI insist on.
 
TheLand said:
Perhaps one might have to enable the 'detailed battalion structure' option before being let loose on the bare bones of the division to stop teh clueless N00bs messing it up.

Hey, that works for me. I'd even go one step further and make the "build-your-own-division" to be a game option, like using counters and setting the volume.



I'm no expert on WWII divisional structures but I'd be very wary of allowing ahistorically large numbers of non-combat troops in divisional formations. At the moment HOI doesn't model Corps or Army headquarters much, nor lines of communication, field hospitals, field bakeries, repair and maintenance shops, spare parts depots or fuel dumps. Most of these things exist at quite high levels and allowing people to vary the divisional component alone (or worse, encouraging them to vary the component of one division in a corps) could produce irritating ahistoricity.

That said, I'm all for battalions rather than brigades: mainly because combat specialists (tank destroyers, heavy tanks, recon, pioneers, artillery, special forces, what have you) are all available in battalion chunks, rather than the 'brigades' that HOI insist on.

I did some research while coming up with this idea. One of the reasons I made the HQ unit in one of the first posts is to have a division that acts like HQ units currently do. Adding a signal battalion to an HQ unit will boost that units org, but it also might double the command capacity of the general leading it. The HQ is where you'd also dump the non-divisional force multipliers - units that maybe you don't want in a division because they're expensive, but that are still useful. Rocket launchers, for example. Attach them to an HQ division as corps artillery and they're very useful for supporting attacks.

You're right, there is the potential for ahistoricity. But just like a division made up entirely of superheavy Maus tanks, a division with ahistorically high numbers of support elements will be largely useless. Everytime you take away a combat battalion from your structure and replace it with a non-combat unit, you're making that division a little bit weaker in combat. Its not much good to have a division composed of 40% ordnance battalions that boosts repairs quickly when the unit can't even stand up and fight for more than an hour of game time because its so weak.

Its all about finding a balance and working within your gameplay style.
 
Alternately, maybe you could have limits when making your division. If you want to make an armored division, you open the "Armor Division" template and the game restricts you. Say, out of the 15 battalion slots, you are given parameters.

0-3 slots for support battalions (supply, logistics, ordnance, signal, etc)
3-6 slots for tank battalions (light, medium, heavy)
3-6 slots for motorized infantry (motor inf, mech inf)
0-3 slots for motorized artillery (SP artillery, SP rocket, etc)
0-3 slots for anything else (recon, SP AT, engineers, etc)
 
This is a great idea.
But, why wait for HOI3?
It could probably be made as a HOI2/DD mod/patch.

HOI3 hasn't even been announced as being under way yet.
 
The rumor mill says that work began months ago. Take that for what you will...
 
hellfish6 said:
Alternately, maybe you could have limits when making your division. If you want to make an armored division, you open the "Armor Division" template and the game restricts you. Say, out of the 15 battalion slots, you are given parameters.

0-3 slots for support battalions (supply, logistics, ordnance, signal, etc)
3-6 slots for tank battalions (light, medium, heavy)
3-6 slots for motorized infantry (motor inf, mech inf)
0-3 slots for motorized artillery (SP artillery, SP rocket, etc)
0-3 slots for anything else (recon, SP AT, engineers, etc)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Let combat results set efficiency limits, don't impose them arbitrarily. The combat system, if well done, will exclude those impractical or too weird batallion combinations.
 
hito1 said:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Let combat results set efficiency limits, don't impose them arbitrarily. The combat system, if well done, will exclude those impractical or too weird batallion combinations.

I'm more in agreement with you. I was just offering it up as fodder for discussion. :)
 
IMHO, you should be able to have 15 btln slots, but choose as much as you want to fill, and you can 'overstrength' your unit by adding 5 btln slots (if they have e.g over 50 exp.) and if you have understrength units, (btlns wiped out in combat) you can from another division send some battalions to the understrength with strategic redeploy.

Also, perhaps the player is allowed four choices :

1.) Build standard division
2.) Build up your division by brigade
3.) Build up your division by regiment
4.) Build up your division by battalion

This suits everyone. The mega-noobs may pick option 1, the ones starting to feel into the game may choose 1 or 2, then the experienced may choose option 3 while the experienced and beyond may pick battalion so basically it suits everybody. Also, perhaps if in nation government, you choose what type of military you want to build, so most nations start at building 'divisions' and then one slider move, changes your nation doctrine to building it up in brigades and so forth, in three years that means you can be ready for WWII.
 
hellfish6 said:
The rumor mill says that work began months ago. Take that for what you will...

Ive heard nothing about this...do spread the joy...
 
HMS Enterprize said:
Ive heard nothing about this...do spread the joy...

I read it somewhere in the EUIII forum. Just someone saying that Paradox had begun initial work on HoI3. I don't remember who said it (or if they even had any credibility), or even if I'm remembering it right, so just take it as conjecture for now.

That said, knowing how game development usually goes, I'm sure theres at least a design doc for HoI3 somewhere in Paradox's HQ. I wouldn't be at all suprised with EU3 coming out in a month that some of the team (if any) that have largely completed their work for EU3 have already started making the shift to do the preliminary work for the next game, whether it be a new HoI title or something else entirely.