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)

[Swesal]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Drake:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von 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.

I don't know where you came up with that , the reason why most people like smaller divisions is you can rotate them out a lot easier and seemingly have full strength attacks going on non-stop, there is also the whole idea that each time you attack from another province, you add width to the line, and if you already have two 40 plus width divisions attacking from the first province, then attacking from a second with another 40-50 width division does absolutely nothing at all. Another thing is when you are fighting outside of Europe a 40 plus width division is just plain idiotic for attrition reasons, and IMHO rotating troops from other logi territories in places like China/Scandinavia/Africa is even more important then the regular rotation of full strength divisions in European fronts that I mentioned earlier in this same post.

[Sir Harlz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von equinox1911:

The numbers are casualties, which include KIA, missing, PoW and injured!

I wasn't just talking deaths. I was talking number of men I have deployed. How many dudes I have in each threatre. Just using deaths as an example.

Also the USSR fell in 1943, and the USSR has the highest death count so... That explain the drop in carnage.

[Gudabeg]

I do kind of wish that there was not a 4 division limit in battles (as from what I can tell each additional attack direction raises the force limit), and I would like more than 4 of my divisons to be fighting at a time as I have a habit of shoving 24 divisons through a single province (all motorized/mechanized and tanks under Patton, it seems to work pretty well).

[Včelí medvídek]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Being Gneiss Rocks!:

I do kind of wish that there was not a 4 division limit in battles (as from what I can tell each additional attack direction raises the force limit), and I would like more than 4 of my divisons to be fighting at a time as I have a habit of shoving 24 divisons through a single province (all motorized/mechanized and tanks under Patton, it seems to work pretty well).

Its about comabt width. 1-to1 country is 80 width, each another country from whre is attackadd another 40 -hence the number of divisons that can participate based on their width (so ridiculous number of divisions can be in combat if they have low width (like 10 or less) on other hand they will be evry weak.

Hance the magic number for division width is 20. 40 works too but such units usualy have less organization and are way more manpower and equip dependant so you cna nto field as much of them.

[Gudabeg]

Thanks, for some reason I thought there was a 4 divions cap per battle.

[Včelí medvídek]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Being Gneiss Rocks!:

Thanks, for some reason I thought there was a 4 divions cap per battle.

Thats because usualy size is 20 and width 1-1 territory is 80 - hence it fields 4 divisions

[Exarch_Alpha]

Analyzing further...

The 20 width for all divisions is probably the most stupid thing said. Ever.

What happens in real world:

1- Big divisions give more combat XP to the general they are assigned to. So 24 "fat" divisions (30-40 width) fighting all the time give more XP to the general than 24 ones with 20 width.
2- More skill means more raw damage AND better tactics, which means even MORE damage.
3- Less divisions = easier micro
4- Some tactics and generals give more width. There is a soviet tactics which gives like... 50%. More width. So 80... becomes 120.

Bury that dumb "all divisions 20 width" idiocy. It´s SITUATIONAL. And often, VERY often, bigger divisions... are better.

[Včelí medvídek]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Exarch_Alpha:

Analyzing further...

The 20 width for all divisions is probably the most stupid thing said. Ever.

What happens in real world:

1- Big divisions give more combat XP to the general they are assigned to. So 24 "fat" divisions (30-40 width) fighting all the time give more XP to the general than 24 ones with 20 width.
2- More skill means more raw damage AND better tactics, which means even MORE damage.
3- Less divisions = easier micro
4- Some tactics and generals give more width. There is a soviet tactics which gives like... 50%. More width. So 80... becomes 120.

Bury that dumb "all divisions 20 width" idiocy. It´s SITUATIONAL. And often, VERY often, bigger divisions... are better.

Just one small (but crucial) note - most countries need certain amount of divisions to cover their area of interest. By making divisions 2x bigger you effectively cut their ability to do it by half, nto to mention you need 2x more equipment and manpower for them.

More divisions is also usualy better as bonus for attack from more direction outwage any other.

There is good reason for consensus 20 width is way to go. I dont say 40 is wrong as it is not, but only few can afford it.

And yeah some doctrines and general traits effectively lower width by few points. I dont think tactic is reliable to take into account.

[Exarch_Alpha]

Why not 25? Why not 35? Why it is 20 or 40...?

You can also add guys like Rundstedt which automatically give more width...

In the end, it boils down to big divisions = big XP for generals = better perfomance of the general faster. It is more than enough incentive and was good enough to allow me to beat Germany in 1941 as France. Skill 7 De Gaulle... yes please

[Swesal]

Never heard the theory that bigger divisions equals more experience, don't know how anyone would even measure that. Sounds made up to me.

[Exarch_Alpha]

Son, it´s obvious one division with one brigade will fight less, cause less casualties and thus get less XP overall.

Imagine army of 20 divisions and 500k men fighting. And one of 20 wiht 200k fighting.

Thought it´s obvious which general gains more XP. Get off the high horse and use your brain.

[Swesal]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Exarch_Alpha:

Son, it´s obvious one division with one brigade will fight less, cause less casualties and thus get less XP overall.

Imagine army of 20 divisions and 500k men fighting. And one of 20 wiht 200k fighting.

Thought it´s obvious which general gains more XP. Get off the high horse and use your brain.

80 width, is 80 width, your theory sounds idiotic because you clearly don't get that.

I thought you had some evidence for a moment, but clearly you are just making stuff up.

[Bad Brad]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von 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.

what he said.

[Phoenix VII]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Exarch_Alpha:

Analyzing further...

The 20 width for all divisions is probably the most stupid thing said. Ever.

What happens in real world:

1- Big divisions give more combat XP to the general they are assigned to. So 24 "fat" divisions (30-40 width) fighting all the time give more XP to the general than 24 ones with 20 width.
2- More skill means more raw damage AND better tactics, which means even MORE damage.
3- Less divisions = easier micro
4- Some tactics and generals give more width. There is a soviet tactics which gives like... 50%. More width. So 80... becomes 120.

Bury that dumb "all divisions 20 width" idiocy. It´s SITUATIONAL. And often, VERY often, bigger divisions... are better.

This isn't the real world though, it's a game, and by the rules of the game, if you're not using a 20 or 40 width division then you won't be able to commit the same number of troops as someone who does and this doesn't change by adding attack vectors. If the combat width is 160 due to attacking from multiple vectors, I can use 8 20 width or 4 40 width divisions and get full combat width while the most troops you can commit if using 30 width troops is 5 divisions for 150 combat width and you'll lose assuming everything else is equal. This is the math, and denying it is just stupid.

As for your points:

1. No they don't. The rate of XP gain is proportional to the total number of divisions engaged times the number of combats. A general who has 24 20 width divisions fighting all the time will grow at roughly the same pace as he would with 12 40 width divisions. And since 30 width divisions can't fight all the time since they can't always reinforce and support each other the way 20 and 40 width divisions can they're at a disadvantage in this regard. This is all explained at http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Command_group#Commander .
2. This point is wrong because your previous point is wrong. Since 30 width divisions can't support each other all the time, that means they can't fight all the time, and since they can't fight all the time that means you lose opportunities to gain experience...unless you micro the crap out of everything.
3. More divisions equals easier macro. From what I see, AI does better with many smaller units and are more likely to achieve encirclements without your help.
4. Generals have nothing that gives more width. Field Marshals can get the Offensive Doctrine trait which reduces combat width by 10% so 22 or 44 width divisions are best for him. The tactic you're thinking about has nothing specific to tactics but is tied to the Mass Assault doctrine under land doctrines...Vast Offensives or Human Wave Offensive (can only get one or the other) reduces infantry combat width by .4 letting you put 25% more infantry battalions in your division, but it doesn't let you throw the math away.

Finally, whether big divisions are better depends on what you're talking about. 40 width divisions save alot of support equipment but 20 width divisions get better effect from the combat support companies (such as artillery, anti-tank, and rocket artillery support companies).

Anyways, if the combat width of your divisions isn't a factor of 80 (or 88 if you have a field marshal with Offensive Doctrine) then your army simply can't support and reinforce each other as well as divisions that are.

[GOT_NO_SKILLZ]

Ok, I just looked at historical German division TO&E from here: http://mapswar2.x10host.com/German_infantry_division.html and then built them in HOI4. They are all combat width 25-29, with 12-15,000 personnel. I haven't investigated this for other powers yet, but I suspect the results would be similar. 3 regiments of 3 battalions, plus a fourth regiment of 2-4 artillery battalions was probably pretty standard for a division org (and stayed fairly standard for decades, more or less). From here ( http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/939BXIA.pdf ) British organization is roughly similar, except their late-war divisions were ~17,000 and included AA in their Arty regiment.

So perhaps Paradox should consider changing the province combat width from 80 to 90, to accommodate 3x 30-width divisions (the usual minimum for a proper Corps-strength formation), and change the extra province change in combat width from +40 to +60? Next I would make sure nations have correct, larger-sized division templates to start with. This should both lower the division spam and improve historical accuracy re: division/army organization.