I still don't know what a heavy tank template is supposed to look like?

[coffeemm8]

And I don't mean a "space marine" template where it's just one heavy TD. I mean an actual heavy tank division with regular heavy tanks.

[Vuyek]

"the AI doesn't build divisions according to combat width"

I highly recommend Extreme AI Mod 4.0

AI DOES build 20w and 40w divisions now.
It is worth it just for that, AI makes sane divisions now, feel free to leave OFF all the insane bonuses, just change the option to CHALLENGING - the one that makes AI build decent divisions.

[Imhotep]

Vuyek eredeti hozzászólása:

"the AI doesn't build divisions according to combat width"

I highly recommend Extreme AI Mod 4.0

AI DOES build 20w and 40w divisions now.
It is worth it just for that, AI makes sane divisions now, feel free to leave OFF all the insane bonuses, just change the option to CHALLENGING - the one that makes AI build decent divisions.

As I've said, I think 40-combat width is "gamey".

I'd prefer that neither the AI or myself though about combat width than we both did.

Others can play the game as they like, of course, and might appreciate your suggestion.

[OneEyeTheHard]

DrPlowKing eredeti hozzászólása:

There are a few different variations for it. I personally prefer to always have Support Artillery, Logistics, Signals, Motorized Recon and Engineers in all tank templates. As for the tanks themselves, I like to have 15 heavy tanks and 5 motorized (or mechanized if it's late game) if I am using Mobile Warfare doctrine. For other doctrines, I prefer to have 13 tanks and 7 mot/mech to have enough organization.

You can vary it up a bit depending on the situation however. If enemy has much air, it's very worthwhile to add some SPAA in the template. You can also add some SPART if you're feel like experimenting, they are very powerful as well, trading some breakthrough and little armor for more soft attack.

All of those support companies come at a price for tank divisions. I dont remember the negatives off the top of my head but you're hitting things like your piercing and organization, the latter is already very low on tanks. Your'e not helping your tank divisions having that many support companies attached to it.

[Drax]

Rather than trying to learn off templates, why not learn off what the stats actually do?

It's quicker, easier, and straight up better to just learn what everything does. It's only a handful of stats that matter anyway:Org, Soft/Hard attack, hardness, breakthrough, defense, piercing and armor, also combat width, but that's division design 101.

Three reasons why I think it's stupid to rely on templates. 1) HOI4 is basically advanced rock, paper, scissors. There is no 'One template does all' solution. Space marines would be the closest to that, however. So you can't use spies effectively to counter an enemies army or any of that. Of course, that's mostly only important when it comes to multiplayer play. Most templates are designed around beating the AI at the end of the day.

2) and more importantly, if you don't understand why a template is effective, you don't understand how to get the most out of your template when it comes to a variety of other stuff like I mentioned earlier. General's, focuses, military staff, research, etc. All of these can influence your divisions strength.

3) When content is changed, your learnt templates mean nothing. The new update's going to change how divisions work and other aspects of land combat. Players who understand the details of land combat right now will be able to play without much issue, while players who rely on old templates will basically have to wait for new ones to be spread around the community. And if you want to play mods like Old War Blues, the way divisions work in that is drastically different.

And, to drive it into what was asked in this thread: Heavy templates vary depending on what you intend to use them for, like all divisions. If they're intended to be tank hunters, then mech divisions and soft attack isn't necessary. If they're intended to be inf focused, then mech would be preferable IF you have the industry for them and the inf doesn't have AT. Are they offensive or defensive? Where are you fighting? What's your land doctrine? Do you have air superiority? How many heavy tanks are you producing/have spare? Does the enemy have AT capability? Do you want more, weaker tanks, or less, more effective ones? What's the supply like? How many will you have for a push? These are all things that can influence a templates design. Which is why relying on premade templates isn't the best thing to do. Once you understand division stats to the point you can make your own, THEN you can look at other templates for ideas.

[Vuyek]

best divisions template is, of course, strat bombing of infrastructure

[Eumerin]

Imhotep eredeti hozzászólása:

I think one could argue that only the Germans and Soviets went down the game's heavy tank line in the tech tree. American doctrine was very mobile medium tank-oriented and the closest the British had to a heavy tank in operational use was the Churchill infantry tank. The German "medium" Panther tank actually weighed more than the American M26 Pershing "heavy" tank, that saw some service later in the war, and the British Churchill tank.

All of the British infantry tanks were intended as heavy tanks, and the Matilda filled that role early in the War. The French Char B1 was also a heavy tank, with the S35 filling the medium tank role, and the numerous smaller vehicles all acting as (slow, and under-gunned, but heavily armored for their size) light tanks.

Calling the Pershing a "heavy" tank was largely a psychological exercise, afaik. IIRC, after the War it was redesignated a medium tank.

[Vuyek]

Pershing WAS a heavy tank when dealing with the WW2 era / naming convention.

After WW2, all the different tank roles - cruiser, light, medium, heavy, infantry support, and many others - were all rolled into one: MBT, main battle tank.

[mk11]

With the next DLC, may be we will be able to model the different approaches for heavy tanks. The Churchill as a heavily armoured infantry support tank or the Tiger 1 as a heavily armoured heavily gunned tank for fighting enemy tanks.

[Imhotep]

Eumerin eredeti hozzászólása:

All of the British infantry tanks were intended as heavy tanks, and the Matilda filled that role early in the War.

The British categorized their tanks by role, not weight, with their philosophy of having cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. While analogous to medium and heavy tanks, respectively, they are not quite the same. The cruiser tanks were designed for mobility and served in the tank regiments of armoured divisions. The Cromwell tank, for example, could go up to 40 mph, compared to a Sherman's 22–30 mph. It was also more manoeuvrable than the Sherman and did not lose speed when turning.

Infantry tanks, on the other hand, were designed for fighting infantry and fortifications, a role that the German Panzer IV medium tank was originally intended to do. They had good armour, but unlike the other heavy tanks of the war, did not have powerful guns for fighting other tanks, even late in the war.

The Matilda I was an infantry tank but weighed only 11 tonnes, the Matilda II weighed 25 tonnes, and the Churchill weighed 39 tonnes. Compare that with 30–38 tonnes for a Sherman medium tank, and 54-57 tonnes for a Tiger I heavy tank.

Eumerin eredeti hozzászólása:

The French Char B1 was also a heavy tank, with the S35 filling the medium tank role, and the numerous smaller vehicles all acting as (slow, and under-gunned, but heavily armored for their size) light tanks.

Yes, I think you could say France went down the heavy tank path. The Char B1 was produced in 1935 and weighed 28 tonnes. If France had survived beyond 1940 then maybe they would have produced more heavy tank designs.

France also made the largest operational tank ever made in 1921, the Char 2C, weighing 69 tonnes and with a crew of 12.

In the real world, the military researches into and builds prototypes of many things that they never put into production. In the game, however, one is only likely to research something if one intends to put it into production. So, in that sense, I think one could argue that the Americans and British did not go down the heavy tank route in the game.

[Drax]

Imhotep eredeti hozzászólása:

In the real world, the military researches into and builds prototypes of many things that they never put into production. In the game, however, one is only likely to research something if one intends to put it into production. So, in that sense, I think one could argue that the Americans and British did not go down the heavy tank route in the game.

This is actually something I wish the game would change... I'd rather if we just had '1940 Tank Tech' instead of different branches of research for different tank designs.

I think it would be more realistic and benefit land combat, if all variants of tanks were unlocked for the year you researched. Which would allow countries to have more varied tank designs without having to put half a year or more research into other tanks, which often times isn't worth it.

It's the same with planes and the navy. For some reason HOI has split everything into long research paths which just reduces the variability of armies in the game. Very few people use light cruisers, heavy fighters or light tanks because other types of boats, airplanes and tanks take precedence instead. So they don't get researched and then don't get produced. And instead of having varied armies in the game, everyone ends up building only med tanks, only destroyers and only fighters. (I know, kinda unrelated to what you were discussing but it brought up something that sorta annoys me about the game.)

And if they are adding tank designs into the next update, this is just going to get worse. They keep adding more research options but not reducing the time it takes to do research. In the end, it's just forcing people to focus their research even more, leading to less diverse builds. Less realism, and more tech rushing.

[Mikey]

Imhotep eredeti hozzászólása:

The German "medium" Panther tank actually weighed more than the American M26 Pershing "heavy" tank, that saw some service later in the war, and the British Churchill tank.

The terms light medium and heavy do not refer to actual weight but rather their role with light tanks being fast raiders and scouts, mediums being flankers and heavies being front line brawlers.

Also I found your dismissal of the soviets quite disingenious to the discussion.
Your initial statement of "If you want the real-life answer, heavy tank divisions don't exist." is fine but when faced with evidence to the contrary you dismiss it entirely because "Soviet organisation was different to pretty much everyone else" completely missing the point that you just agreed your first statement was false.

Yes the Germans used their heavy tanks in small detached units for specific tasks rather than as directly attached to specific divisions but only in the late war. The main reason behind it was lack heavy tank production to make fully fleshed out divisions.
Yes the Soviets did it differently and had their heavy tank regiments attached to divisions, but then again the Soviets had a fondness for producing the various IS and KV tanks in vast quantities.

[Imhotep]

YellowDrax eredeti hozzászólása:

This is actually something I wish the game would change... I'd rather if we just had '1940 Tank Tech' instead of different branches of research for different tank designs.

I think it would be more realistic and benefit land combat, if all variants of tanks were unlocked for the year you researched. Which would allow countries to have more varied tank designs without having to put half a year or more research into other tanks, which often times isn't worth it.

It's the same with planes and the navy. For some reason HOI has split everything into long research paths which just reduces the variability of armies in the game. Very few people use light cruisers, heavy fighters or light tanks because other types of boats, airplanes and tanks take precedence instead. So they don't get researched and then don't get produced. And instead of having varied armies in the game, everyone ends up building only light tanks, only destroyers and only fighters. (I know, kinda unrelated to what you were discussing but it brought up something that sorta annoys me about the game.)

I understand what you mean. Some tech paths are not worth the investment for many countries, meaning some categories of vehicle/ship/aircraft never get produced by them.

This can perhaps be slightly offset by the buying of blueprints, as one can purchase blueprints for tech lines one has never researched. I don't know how widely the AI does this.

YellowDrax eredeti hozzászólása:

And if they are adding tank designs into the next update, this is just going to get worse. They keep adding more research options but not reducing the time it takes to do research. In the end, it's just forcing people to focus their research even more, leading to less diverse builds. Less realism, and more tech rushing.

I didn't play before 'Man the Guns', but I hope they balanced all the research times out, as there's a lot of naval tech to research.

[Imhotep]

Mikey eredeti hozzászólása:

Also I found your dismissal of the soviets quite disingenious to the discussion.
Your initial statement of "If you want the real-life answer, heavy tank divisions don't exist." is fine but when faced with evidence to the contrary you dismiss it entirely because "Soviet organisation was different to pretty much everyone else" completely missing the point that you just agreed your first statement was false.

Reading a bit more[en.wikipedia.org], there were a few different incarnations of the Soviet Tank Corps.

There's the early tank-heavy version:

In August 1938, the four mechanised corps were converted into tank corps. Each was authorized 12,710 men, between 560 and 600 tanks, and 118 artillery pieces. The corps included two light tank brigades (equipped with BT and T-26 tanks), a motor rifle and machine gun brigade, and a communications battalion.

...
As a result of the Soviet assessment of the tank corps as being unwieldy and difficult to control, shown by repeated traffic jams caused by the tank corps in Poland, the Main Military Council ordered their disbandment on 21 November, replacing the tank corps with 15 motorized divisions, each with two motorized rifle regiments, an artillery regiment, and a tank regiment. The tank corps were not actually disbanded until January 1940, by which time the 10th Tank Corps had seen brief service in the Winter War in December 1939.

This early version has more tanks proportionally than German/other Allied counterparts.

The Tank Corps was revived later in the war. While it's organisation was altered over time, in 1942 it had a heavy tank brigade, two medium tank brigades and a motorized infantry brigade. According to Wikipedia, the heavy tank brigade was replaced by a third medium tank brigade in July 1942. Also according to Wikipedia, it lacked artillery, reconnaissance and engineer units, and totalled 5,603 men, which is less than half a German/Allied armoured division.

So while there were no heavy tank divisional-sized units, the Soviets did have military organisations that had proportionally more tanks in than the German/other Allied forces did. The Soviets also had tanks in their Mechanized Corps, which were proportionally a bit more like German/other Allied armoured divisions.

I did some research on Soviet WWII organisation for a mod I was making a few years ago, along with German, British and American organisation. While one could use counter = battalion to model German/other Allied division well, it was hard with the Soviets. For a start, they seemed to do more chopping and changing of their organisation over the course of the war, as well as it being hard to find accurate information. The other big problem is that the Soviets didn't have units the same size as German/other Allied battalions. So when trying to recreate Soviet organisational structure in a game, one would end up with divisional-sized units that were way too big in manpower/game counter terms than their German/other Allied counterparts. This meant basically scrapping the Soviet organisational structure and creating divisional-sized units based on their manpower size and the proportions of various unit types. This is aside from the fact that Soviet Corps are more like German/other Allied divisions in size.

Soviet units in World War II are not readily compared with those in the German and Allied armies..

https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/schilling/mil_org/milorgan_99.html