Video Game Hearts Of Iron Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics
 

Ramidel
Topic
10:22:46 PM Apr 25th 2018
I disagree with Janko's removal of my Master of All entry on mechanized infantry, and wanted to bring that here.

Even if it is Awesome, but Impractical (which I disagree with - I get a fair amount of use out of first-tier mech infantry, simply because it outpunches anything that it can expect to fight in 1940, and later mech infantry, obviously, is extremely powerful), that doesn't change the fact that it's still a Master of All - even Janko admits that with his potholing.
Janko_Walski
11:59:40 PM Apr 25th 2018
edited by Janko_Walski
As par on what we already discussed in private, let me explain myself in public:

I do agree mechanized is stat-wise Master of All. Because it really is great. My point is how impractical it is to make them in terms of production, hence why I've moved them to Awesome, but Impractical. A single "unit" of mechanized vehicle costs 12/13/14 production (depending on tier). A single factory provides 5 points of production. Meaning you need to dedicate 3 factories to even get one of those vehicles per day. And you need 50 vehicles to form a brigade. You want to have at least 4 of such brigades in your tank divisions, totalling at 200 vehicles, or 2400/2600/2800 production. And every single factory dedicated to production of mechanized requires large quantities of steel, oil and rubber - "only" 2/1/1 for tier 1, but 4/2/1 for tier 3. And there is of course production efficiency itself, since just starting the production line of new equipment provides you with anything from 10 (in case of concentrated industry tech tree) to slightly more (15,20,25 and so on, up to 35) efficiency (in case of dispersed industry). Meaning the production line will take considerable amount of time before getting to described above "1 vehicle per day out of 3 factories", while eating resources AND using said factories.

So in case of described above example, let's even ignore production efficiency (which is a factor for about 250-400 first days of production, depending on tech tree choices) for the sake of simple comparison:
  • Tier I mechanized vehicle takes 12 production and three factories to provide 1.25 vehicles per day, at a price of 6/3/3 of steel/oil/rubber. At tier III (where it absolutely rocks) the same 3 factories will provide 1.06 vehicles per day, at a price of 12/6/3 of steel/oil/rubber.
  • Trucks needed for motorised take 2.5 production costs, so a single factory makes 2 of them, at a lousy price of 1/1/1 of steel/oil/rubber.

So when we use 3 factories to build either, we have following results per day:
  • 1 motorized vehicle at a resource price of 6/3/3 (tier 1) or at price of 12/6/3 (tier 3)
  • 6 trucks at resource price of 3/3/3

And of course you have to research mechanized first, with even tier I being stated for 1940, giving a hefty ahead-of-time penalty. Even if your country doesn't have motorised tech too, it can be easily developed from the moment the game starts, as there is no ahead penalty and it's easy to research by itself, while all the countries lacking motorised get a focus to research it even faster (75% faster to be exact).

This also ignores the fact motorised (trucks) have speed of 12 and with proper techs 13.2, meaning they are really damn fast and can keep up with light tanks AND use motorised rocket launchers, while mechanized start at speed of 8 and gain +2 speed with each tier. This means they gain speed they can't even properly utilise, as medium tanks (the "company" for mechanized) stop at speed of 10 and mechanized are just too damn expensive for making cheap, very fast "diver" divisions of light tanks to perform raids deep within enemy territory and create pockets for big stacks of enemy divisions.

Hence why Awesome, but Impractical. I guess it could fall into Cool, But Inefficient, but considering super-heavy tanks, super-heavy battleships and rockets are already under Awesome, but Impractical, I just tucked it in. Because while I do see the statistical power of mechanized, I also see the production costs. If I can for the same production have 6 times more of vehicles that are tiny bit inferior (trucks) and save huge amount of resources, not to mention skipping few techs to research, then unless I'm playing as USA, there is literally no point to bother, as the production costs are simply not worth the final outcome. At least in case of HoI II and III mechanized were much more balanced when it comes to production costs, so even if they showed up later down the tech-tree, it was worth to make them for the extra punch, as net production costs and old system of upgrading units made them actually cheaper than still making motorised. Not so much in IV.

PS

The only thing mechanized TRULY excell at is defense. Now, why would you use your tank divisions (with mechanized) for defense? Especially since regular foot infantry goes hand-to-hand with mechanized when it comes to defense, while you can construct hundreds of infantry weapons per day and equip entire divisions with your weekly production, rather than gaining a handful of half-trucks.
Janko_Walski
03:44:22 AM Apr 26th 2018
edited by Janko_Walski
Here, to show in clear way how cosmetic are the advantages of mechanized over motorised. Red is production cost, blue are cosmetic differences and green is where mechanized truly excell in. This is my standard template for both light and medium tanks, using stats of top models of tanks, mechanized, SPG, SPAAG and TD and also max research of towed AA artillery. I only picked the speed doctrine here, which explains poor org, but those are doctrine-based, not equipment. I also didn't upgrade recon and engineers, as those are meaningless for the comparison.

Anyway, first light tanks, then medium tanks: https://imgur.com/a/gzHkNSd

And keep in mind this is the final, top model of mechanized. Tier 1 is pretty much equal with motorised.
Ramidel
11:26:02 AM Apr 26th 2018
First off, if you admit that it qualifies as a Master of All, then you agree that it should be put under Master of All. Something can have more than one trope attached to it.

I also note that you're not actually comparing the units, you're comparing the units in your divisions, which are mostly tanks. I don't use four tank regiments and one armor, I use three mech and one armor. You kind of assume that I play the former way, when I don't - and believe me, mech infantry is highly useful in the trenches because of that defense.

I agree that mech is expensive (albeit not much more expensive on the whole than your mainly MT divisions) but what it gives you is power for combat width, not to mention hardness. So it's not "impractical" for a 1941-1942 overrun of Italy, for example, or for a D-Day type attack on the Reich, or alternately a Sealion or Italy running the Red Line.
Janko_Walski
05:00:35 PM Apr 26th 2018
edited by Janko_Walski
If A, then Z... yeah, no. For me it's obvious that if we are about to make an entry for Master of All, then we would have to describe all the elements covered under Awesome, but Impractical. Meaning posting the same thing twice. Since it's already covered under Awesome, but Impractical, no real point of having it repeated.

And you are only making my point even more poignant. Let's dissect them each:
  • All-mechanized division, of either 20 or 40 width, will take 10 or 20 brigades. That gives us 500 or 1k mechanized vehicles used by them. The production cost of them is just staggering, because only modern tanks and heavies are more expensive to field. Why would you even want to field such division, if it turns into a Master of None - neither truly good at defense (terrain penalties) nor breakthrough (tanks are better at this) and not really useful for mass-production as fast mobile force, simply because you can have 6 pure motorised divisions (or moto + some light SPA/rocket moto as Soviets) for each pure mechanized one. 6 divisions, once achieving breakthrough (which is naturally easier with so many of them) will then easily spill behind enemy lines, spreading in all directions. A single division naturally can't do that.
  • Mechanised infantry has the exact same defense value as plain, regular infantry. Even most advanced rifles have production cost of 0.7, so weekly production of small arms with 15 factories is enough to field 1.4 40 width divisions of regular infantry. 15 factories won't even allow to field a single batallion of mechanized over a week. Want to "beef up" your infantry against enemy attack and make them harder? Add heavy tanks that laugh at mechanized infantry and rip it to shreds, while being immune to most attacks, unless facing dedicated anti-tank divisions. Cheaper, providing same stats, easier to produce and so on and forth. Space marines division didn't came from thin air, after all. And why would you even pick a mobile unit for entrenched defense?
  • Mechanized has abysmal penalties for hard terrain, being worse in all assignments you've listed than motorised. They have higher mountain (Italy), amphibious (D-Day, Sealion) and river-crossing (crossing Rhine) penalty than motorised, meaning their stat-advantage becomes irrevelant, as the terrain penalty will not only nullify the advantage of higher stats, it will make them worse than trucks.

So yeah, still Awesome, but Impractical. And I strongly suggest playing multiplayer. Because if simple numerical comparison doesn't work, then I guess stark reality of inability to field sufficient forces to even put a dent against other human will.
Ramidel
05:33:05 PM Apr 26th 2018
If A, then Z... yeah, no. For me it's obvious that if we are about to make an entry for Master of All, then we would have to describe all the elements covered under Awesome, but Impractical. Meaning posting the same thing twice. Since it's already covered under Awesome, but Impractical, no real point of having it repeated.

This is against established practice. If something hits multiple tropes, you log it under multiple tropes. This happens all the time.
Janko_Walski
11:09:50 AM Apr 27th 2018
... or, if Trope A is the dominant one and Trope B is just a side-note to Trope A, you don't clutter the list with repetition. Besides, the notion of statistical advantage of Mechanized is still preserved... so what's the problem, really? Because I've already explained the point. Let me try this way.

This is full motorised vs full mechanized tier III division: https://imgur.com/a/zL5rBlC

Legend is roughtly the same, however, this time I've pointed out additional elements. Light blue is for the comparison of width and yet still total manpower needed. Orange is for irrevelant difference (can be easily covered by support AT company, which is super-cheap), yellow is for literally a non-stat (the 18 armor can be pierced with even 1936 tech foot infantry division). I've also intentionally added rocket motorised, which are (comparably) very expensive and are making about third of the production cost for that template.

Please explain to me now how this all makes mechanized anything else than Awesome, but Impractical. We've got a division that is absurdly expensive to make, doesn't come with tanks, has poor terrain performance... yeah. All while on paper it has awesome stats.
Ramidel
03:46:24 AM Apr 29th 2018
edited by Ramidel
Yet you admit that it remains a Master of All on paper. That is sufficient justification to give it a trope entry.

... or, if Trope A is the dominant one and Trope B is just a side-note to Trope A, you don't clutter the list with repetition. Besides, the notion of statistical advantage of Mechanized is still preserved... so what's the problem, really?

I disagree with you - and again, established practice supports my point. To be clear, I'm conceding on the "in practice, the tactics support your position," but I'm no longer talking about the practical applications.
Janko_Walski
12:32:18 PM Apr 30th 2018
Like I've already asked twice by this point - what we are even arguing about?
Nohbody
Topic
01:55:23 AM May 21st 2014
  • If it's canceled it's obviously not a released game, thus doesn't belong on the "released games" list.
  • Useful Notes pages aren't to be used like regular tropes.
  • No potholing trope titles.
  • Natter chainsawing in general.
  • Game strategies isn't what the wiki is for.
  • General cutting down on specific scenarios as irrelevant to the description and trope documentation of the game.
Janko_Walski
08:43:24 AM Apr 24th 2018
Is use of Take That! allowed? In Hearts if Iron 4, China, under American support, can eventually get access to Joseph Stilwell as one of commanders. He starts at skill 1, on 1-9 scale and is mostly useless (even Chinese commanders, which represent incompetent and poorly trained officers, are skill 2), while the real Stilwell has infamous reputation as Jerkass General Never My Fault.

I do know Take That! is not allowed toward real life examples, but it's still modeled in the game, hence the question.
Collapse/Expand Topics
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=VideoGame.HeartsOfIron