|
Couldn't you make an entire division of nothing but Artillery brigades? I don't think it would be super useful, but you could, right?
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Don't you see the big ARTILLERY icon in the support section?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Don't you see the big ARTILLERY icon in the support section? That's a single company when the historical division had about ten times that. But anyway fixing division OoBs will be done by mods probably within the first 24 hours.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:
So the formation has some artillery, it's just not 100% accurate, is that your complaint?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
That says the French division has 24 heavy artillery guns, exactly as many as in game. What an outrage.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's a single company when the historical division had about ten times that. No they didnt have 200 pieces of artillery Infantry guns, field guns, mortars and such do not refer to artillery
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Wooper posted:That says the French division has 24 heavy artillery guns, exactly as many as in game. What an outrage. It says they have 24 155mm guns, but that each regiment also has a battery, as well as AT, AA, infantry guns and mortars. Which is a pretty huge difference. At least having the 36 75mm guns in regimental artillery, brings the total to 60 which is a big leap from 24. Enjoy posted:So the formation has some artillery, it's just not 100% accurate, is that your complaint? It's an omission that didn't have to be made. They have the system for divisional artillery (support tab) and they have the system for regimental artillery (battalions in the columns) so why not use their own systems? Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:It says they have 24 155mm guns, but that each regiment also has a battery, as well as AT, AA, infantry guns and mortars. Let me reiterate mortars, field guns, AT guns, AA guns, and infantry guns are not artillery Artillery specifically refers to actual artillery guns and nothing else. All of those other things either fall into: 1. Their own support company 2. Infantry research, just like HoI3 (infantry support tech) Phi230 fucked around with this message at 17:26 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
How many combat zebras did the French divisions have in real life though, does hoi4 accurately mechanically represent those as it does on the unit icons?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Artillery is kinda wasted on invading the USSR.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Megadyptes posted:Artillery is kinda wasted on invading the USSR. Just like tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Infantry were used to invade the USSR The invasion of the USSR failed Therefore infantry are a failure Mechas are the only way
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Let me reiterate I understand what you're saying, and as someone else pointed out I'm sure it will be modded in but 75mm guns are absolutely artillery pieces. Besides that, France did have AA and AT guns in their infantry divisions in 1936, as well as sappers and recce companies, so why are those attachments empty as well? I guess I'm just seeing lots of wasted research and spent XP to put stuff in that should already be there.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
One weapon has been shown effective against the Red Horde from the East. While they have attempted to use it, those attempts were doomed from the start and were ultimately their undoing. Take up the Lance and Shield!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Are you still going on about this. All those things are part of the infantry regiments and equipment that all the infantry divisions already have.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Wooper posted:Are you still going on about this. This Thw game has many abstractions. If you are concerned about exact TOEs and poo poo play a legit grog game
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Infantry were used to invade the USSR the only way to invade russia is with anime and cyoa's
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
I am concerned that the naval combat is a lot weaker than the land combat. While it's pretty clear that the granularity of combat is a lot bigger than games like War in the East, land combat still looks like it has great potential for maneuver warfare, whereas navy combat looks like it's just "ships gonna fight each other in the same place, better have more ships in one place than the other guy."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Wooper posted:Are you still going on about this. Then why are the infantry battalions in? Most great powers of the war used a triangular division design. If anything the infantry battalions should be abstracted away since they are the least variable parts of the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:I am concerned that the naval combat is a lot weaker than the land combat. While it's pretty clear that the granularity of combat is a lot bigger than games like War in the East, land combat still looks like it has great potential for maneuver warfare, whereas navy combat looks like it's just "ships gonna fight each other in the same place, better have more ships in one place than the other guy." Well, it's not like that's a bad start for a military strategy. The followups being, "Have better ships" and "Train your ship guys better".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Then why are the infantry battalions in? Most great powers of the war used a triangular division design. If anything the infantry battalions should be abstracted away since they are the least variable parts of the entire thing. Because otherwise there wouldn't be anywhere to put the 36 75mm guns or the 6 25mm AA guns.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:I am concerned that the naval combat is a lot weaker than the land combat. While it's pretty clear that the granularity of combat is a lot bigger than games like War in the East, land combat still looks like it has great potential for maneuver warfare, whereas navy combat looks like it's just "ships gonna fight each other in the same place, better have more ships in one place than the other guy." Thats pretty much what naval combat is. At the level of abstraction (strategic level) we have thats the best you can do. You would have to make a tactical game to do good navies unless youre War In The Pacific
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
The war in the Pacific will be a good test for whether HoI4 is a decent game or not. I love Darkest Hour, but when it comes to naval combat the AI is atrocious, the combat modelling is terrible and carrying out island-hopping campaigns is a slog.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Wooper posted:Because otherwise there wouldn't be anywhere to put the 36 75mm guns or the 6 25mm AA guns. How so? Why does the infantry division need to model accurately the three infantry battalions in each regiment but can apparently abstract away the artillery batteries in the artillery regiment?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
For sure this will be a "buy it 6 months later" for me. Despite being desperate to play it I have my concerns as to how balanced it will be.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Modelling the infantry battalions is good because then you can make lighter divisions of militia/coast guards, and you can bulk out specialist anti-tank divisions that go where the enemy tanks are concentrated instead of being spread out
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:The war in the Pacific will be a good test for whether HoI4 is a decent game or not. I love Darkest Hour, but when it comes to naval combat the AI is atrocious, the combat modelling is terrible and carrying out island-hopping campaigns is a slog. And yet, Darkest Hour is a good game despite it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Thats pretty much what naval combat is. I have two problems with this statement. First, if that were the case, then the Japanese should have won at Midway due to having 4 fleet carriers instead of the 3 american carriers, one of which was still damaged from Coral Sea. Granted it's not like you can directly plot courses on the map for your ships to follow at this scale, but it would still be nice to be able to issue them more direct commands instead of just "how tight do you want this formation to be" Like ordering a damaged carrier to retreat instead of trying to keep launching sorties. There are also tactical moves that are on such a large scale (think Halsey taking the bait at the battle of Leyte Gulf) that they could be modeled to a reasonable degree of fidelity if the way you moved ships around the map were more like the way you moved infantry. I just think the sea zones, as we have seen them, are a bit too big for things like this to matter, so it turns into "go here and have lots of ships" The second is that you're implying War in the Pacific handles naval combat well. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Modelling the infantry battalions is good because then you can make lighter divisions of militia/coast guards, and you can bulk out specialist anti-tank divisions that go where the enemy tanks are concentrated instead of being spread out You could still do that with regiments. Three infantry regiments and an artillery regiment better represents a division than 9 lone infantry battalions. In game Italy has simply weaker binary divisions with 6 battalions, which mostly just makes the player spend XP to have triangular divisions. Historically, this was offset by having MSVN in a division (militia) but under the current system, again that would just be adding more infantry battalions. It's just odd to break down divisions don to the battalion but not model it accurately or treat artillery the same way. I'm not asking for motor pools or mechanics' shops, just evenly applying details that is already there.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:I have two problems with this statement. First, if that were the case, then the Japanese should have won at Midway due to having 4 fleet carriers instead of the 3 american carriers, one of which was still damaged from Coral Sea. Granted it's not like you can directly plot courses on the map for your ships to follow at this scale, but it would still be nice to be able to issue them more direct commands instead of just "how tight do you want this formation to be" Like ordering a damaged carrier to retreat instead of trying to keep launching sorties. There are also tactical moves that are on such a large scale (think Halsey taking the bait at the battle of Leyte Gulf) that they could be modeled to a reasonable degree of fidelity if the way you moved ships around the map were more like the way you moved infantry. I just think the sea zones, as we have seen them, are a bit too big for things like this to matter, so it turns into "go here and have lots of ships" i feel like hoi4 would want to simulate midway in two, maybe three ways. incredibly lovely scouting by the japanese; a tendency for japanese carriers to do their best impression of balsa wood soaked in petroleum at the first sight of an enemy bomber; and the aleutian islands campaign. the first could either be a doctrine issue or some kind of 'aggressiveness vs caution' tactics option; the second is some combination of (firefighting/fire-suppression) doctrine and ship design tech/choices; the last depends on the ai being stupid, so let's call it a gimme. i'm not sure if the game currently has a good chance of simulating midway, but i don't think it needs to go deeper into tactical battle control to do so.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:How many combat zebras did the French divisions have in real life though, does hoi4 accurately mechanically represent those as it does on the unit icons? I forgot to mention how much I appreciate this post when it was first made, so I'll just do it now. Nice.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
I can see the reason for providing a certain amount of granularity in the setup of your divisions: there's probably only 2-8 templates to be managed across an entire playthrough, with further differentiation being accomplished at the training and equipment priority levels. Nothing too complex but quite possibly full of neat gameplay decisions. If you think the TO&Es are way off, I guess it would be really easy to mod those templates? e: Cult of the Offensive: aggressivenes x2, damage control x.5 Victory Disease: focus x.5 Koesj fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Drone posted:And yet, Darkest Hour is a good game despite it. Darkest Hour is a game where you maybe build a few air units and a couple of tank divisions and as soon as the war starts do nothing but infantry+arty, if you can afford the latter, forever. You also go out of your way to try and avoid doing naval poo poo because of how poo poo and broken it is and, if you have to, you try and break it by doing strats like all heavy cruisers and three carriers and poo poo. Darkest Hour is a good game because it's pretty unique and actually functions fairly well, unlike... everything else in the series so far, really. It also has Kaiserreich, which probably is the only thing anyone plays out of it. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
it is important to remember, when discussing the battle of midway, just how astonishingly incompetent the japanese battle plan was.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
i do not envy paradox being a target of the level of sperginess exhibited in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
The thing is this whole system grew out of the original attachment system for HOI2, where you could only choose one attachment to add to each division, be it arty, engineers, armour, whatever. Paradox approach this from a game design perspective, not a grog perspective. Historically every major nation had arty, recon, at aa, ect attached to their divisions, of course they did. However, in paradox terms if you do that you end up with the HOI3 problems where every nation is identical, which is boring and not very historical either. Instead I think paradox are trying to make you choose - do you want an emphasis on arty, or an emphasis on recon? If it helps think of basic arty, aa, light at ect being integrated as part of the infantry. When you add an arty brigade or something don't think of it as this division now has arty and every other one doesn't, think of it as every division has some arty but this one has special extra/heavier arty attached to it. After all, if everyone has an upgrade in HOI then effectively no one has it, so why bother putting it in? It would just make things cluttered. Personally I think the system has room for improvement, but I bet we will be able to mod how many slots there are in a division and you will be able to build everything from a regiment on up, but I'm not all together convinced it would make the actual gameplay better.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
LordArgh posted:i do not envy paradox being a target of the level of sperginess exhibited in this thread Youre surprised that a historical wargame has a bunch of pedants as fans?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
LordArgh posted:i do not envy paradox being a target of the level of sperginess exhibited in this thread I just want the trains to run on time, it's all I'm asking 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Youre surprised that a historical wargame has a bunch of pedants as fans? my favorite was the one who wanted them to model multiple varieties of german assault guns
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
LordArgh posted:my favorite was the one who wanted them to model multiple varieties of german assault guns I don't see a problem with a historical wargame modelling historical war machines
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:08
|
|