Too many divisions?

[Gudabeg]

I know HOI 4 is not supposed to be a real life simulator. But it still bugs me that I read a memoir from US soldiers mentioning only 30 allied divisons in normandy. around 70 by the time they got to Germany (facing 73 German divisons), with a total of just 16 American Armored divisons.Then I play HOI 4 and by 1942 the USA has 400+ divisions.

My problem is not that huge armies are made, my problem is that the game forces you to make trillions of divions to just survive (which should only really be true for Russia, and Germany due to the Eastern Front)

[Sinclair]

edit nvm im to lazy to look it up :D

[Gudabeg]

Maybe, but I just read through "Death Traps" and they mentioned only 70 divions (maybe only US?) on the German border by late 1945 early 1946. Total may have been more, but it still bugs me how many divions the US had in that game by only 1942.

[Songbird]

Originally posted by GOOD GETTING YOUR DREAMS OUT:

allies in french didn't only consist of the US, also i think US had way more then you stated

No, the us had barely above 100 hundred devisions by the end of WW 2 and started with 6. His numbers are probably correct.

[Bad Brad]

The game is pretty crazy and needs some balancing in those areas. If a division has up to 20,000 soldiers then 400 would be 8 million soldiers.

[Dreadful]

The US had 91 army divisions plus 6 marine divs at the end of the war.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Saxon:

The game is pretty crazy and needs some balancing in those areas. If a division has up to 20,000 soldiers then 400 would be 8 million soldiers.

Yet division in HOI 4 are not standardized for 20k manpower. They come in all different sizes, depending on design and composition.

I was fighting against 70 divisions, with my 10. The difference is the enemy's 70 divisions were comrosed of just a couple of battalions each.

[GOT_NO_SKILLZ]

The AI fields rather undersized templates, especially early on. German divisions actually got smaller as the war dragged on due to losses and the idea that they could fill out the battlespace with more numerous, smaller divisions and maintain combat effectiveness (they were wrong). German divisions should probably be around 12K. I don't think 20,000-strong divisions were common in WW2, but I'm not that familiar with US OOB's of this era.

But I agree with the overall point of your argument that the division-spam is ridiculous. Especially for some of the lesser powers. I'm mostly through a Soviet playthrough right now (it's 1946) and Allied Greece and Sweden each have DOZENS of divisions fighting alongside mine in mainland China. WTF.....

[TheKingOfBabylon]

I agree that they need to get the number of AI divisions under control. Not just for historical accuracy but also for a reduction is the amount of mid game lag.

[Phoenix VII]

From what I read, Poland had 43 divisions in 1939, France had 105 divisions in 1940, Italy had 86 divisions in 1943, Germany had 375 divisions in 1945, the UK ended with 31, the US ended with 94, Romania ended with 24, and the USSR ended with 491 (though a USSR division had an authorized strength that was about 70% or so what their Western counterparts were).

Also, many of the AI divisions are just paper tigers. In my current France game, I had about 250 divisions when I started WW III against the Soviets' 1,000 divisions or so, but my higher quality divisions (granted, they also had the support of my superior and modernized air force but still) utterly crushed the Soviets with minimal losses. The AI doesn't upgrade their old divisions when making a new template so just because an AI country has many divisions doesn't mean they're strong.

That being said, from what I can tell, army sizes seem fairly realistic when you're using the Limited Conscription law but things seem to get out of hand when using any of the better laws.

[equinox1911]

I have a game where in mid 41 the USA fields about 230 divs in with a million man which euqals to an average of less than 4.5k per division. As far as i can remember in ~42 a american division was about 17k. So yes the number of divisions in hoi 4 is inflated.
1.1 will eliviate that to a certain degree.
What would be more intresting is if the fielded manpower correlates to the historical numbers.

Edit: one major problem in hoi 4 is that the 20 width divisions are optimal (and the ai preferes them) which means that the best divisions are about 10k in strengh and not the 15-20k of what the early war historical numbers were.

[Warhunter]

well tbh. while lowering the number of divisions will make it more "historically accurate" unless they buff AI divisions player will crush them underneath the might of 2million manpower worth of divisions

[Drake]

Originally posted by equinox1911:

I have a game where in mid 41 the USA fields about 230 divs in with a million man which euqals to an average of less than 4.5k per division. As far as i can remember in ~42 a american division was about 17k. So yes the number of divisions in hoi 4 is inflated.
1.1 will eliviate that to a certain degree.
What would be more intresting is if the fielded manpower correlates to the historical numbers.

Edit: one major problem in hoi 4 is that the 20 width divisions are optimal (and the ai preferes them) which means that the best divisions are about 10k in strengh and not the 15-20k of what the early war historical numbers were.

I completely disagree with the whole 20 width concept. My divisions vary between 40+ and 50+ width. They are powerfull, and I always have divisions in reserve, as well as some assisting from the sides.

The whole 20 width "optimal" concept is ludicrous.

[Warhunter]

i believe the 20 width is optimal because its more flexible. or atleast its a good option for large areas especially if you aren't playing as a major faction or a faction that has a decent amount of manpower

also im not too sure but does organization drop at the same rate for a 40width and a 20width? if so the 20width will stay in battle longer than a 40width

[Drake]

Originally posted by Warhunter:

i believe the 20 width is optimal because its more flexible. or atleast its a good option for large areas especially if you aren't playing as a major faction or a faction that has a decent amount of manpower

also im not too sure but does organization drop at the same rate for a 40width and a 20width? if so the 20width will stay in battle longer than a 40width

No need to "stay longer", 40 width packs more punch and can "punch through" the enemy much faster, all while taking less damage due to boosted defense and higher attack values.

Hence the major flaw in the 20 width divisions. You just end up chewing through your manpower and equipment much faster. Simply a waste.

[EthanT]

Drake, you are wrong. Reserves mean NOTHING. One division at 50 width, with 8401809312093120901293 divisions in reserve will lose to ten 20 width divisions. Your ONE divisions would have to fight FOUR divisions at once. When your unit is defeated, a new one will take it's place, to go 4v1 against the 20 widths. Reserves DO NOT contribute to a battle. They sit in the back smoking cigarrettes and grabbing ass until their is space for them to fight. If you have four 20 width divisions, dug in, against 80 divisions who have to fight 1 at a time, the four 20 widths will win every time.