AHOI-Mod - "A HOI3 Treasure-Chest"

[Chromos]

Hi,
I made this thread to have evtually upcoming discussions about the naval part of the AHOI-Mod more organized. Below is the initial draft of the new naval units.

New unit line up for the next version:
Submarine:
All from early to late. One unit counts for some subs in HOI3.

MTB:
Early Torpedo Boats to later E-Boats/Schnellboote. Maybe also the secret developments of late war?
Also one unit includes some boats in HOI3.

Destroyer:
Fleet Destroyer/Large Destroyer will be Techs that affect this unit as it is not only one ship but some(~5) in HOI3 terms.

Light Cruiser:
From "Kleiner Kreuzer=Small Cruiser" around 2-5k tons max. to later ww2 designs.

Heavy Cruiser:
From "Großer Kreuzer=Big Cruiser" (like SMS Yorck) around 5-10k tons max. to later ww2 designs.

Superheavy Cruiser:
Around 15k tons max.(Like Deutschland Class) to later ww2 designs(P-Klasse.)
It is slightly bigger as a heavy cruiser and has more firepower(~"6*28-33cm" or fictional ~"8-9* 24cm").

Battlecruiser:
Like SMS Von der Tann, Invincible to later ww2 designs.
Around 20k tons max. to later ww1 ~30k tons and later early ww2 designs ~35k tons("light" fast Battleships like Dunkerque, Scharnhorst, Alaska).

Battleships:
Maybe I will also count the Hood under BB's as she had a tonnage ~47k!. It is stated that she had a comparable armor like the QE-class. (Just some parts not well designed..) And its often also called the first fast BB of all time.
The German initial planned "counterpart" was Ersatz-Yorck-Klasse with ~37k tons but also ~4knots slower, wich could give a hint how big the engine parts of Hood must have been in comparison..
Queen-Elizabeth had 33k tons..

Superheavy Battleships:
The planned N3 ships of UK with 9*18" and ~50k tons and 23knots in 1918(!) and of course the Yamato/MOntana/H-44.
All that is exeptional big in their specific timeline.(And does not fit into the Panama canal..)

Hybrid Carrier:
Just because ther were some few.
Maybe also used for some Hybrid-Cruisers(Lexington could be a special one with her 8" guns, she would then of course have more then one CAG..).
Can carry 1 CAG.

Escort Carrier:
Just because ther were many build by US. Like the workhorse of the Pacific War.
Maybe also used for early WWI carrier.
Can carry 1 CAG.

Light Carrier:
Starting with Colossus class. Carriers that could carry 60+ planes.
Maybe also early fleet carriers.
Can carry 2 CAG's.

Fleet Carrier:
Starting with Yorktown-class. Carriers that could carry 90+ planes
Can carry 3 CAG's.

Super Carrier:
Starting with Midway-class. Carriers that could carry 120+ planes
Can carry 4 CAG's.



CAG's:
Will consist early out of ~20 planes.
With technology "permanent deck park" that will raise to ~30, so we got the right numbers of planes for the carriers.
(For having planes on board. I read that the overall more planes on USN-carriers where just because the USN used a permanent deck park. It is noted that the UK adopted that doctrine and had just only some planes less on their carriers then, wich had bee before 20-30 planes less. So maybe a tech will increas the size of CAG's to simulate this "doctrine".)


Transports:
From normal Transports to Special Landing Crafts.
Also some event activated auxialry cruisers..



The "tricky part" in this area are maybe the Battlecruisers / Pocket Battleships and the amount of CAG's carriers can use.
Intially carriers had ~20 planes, then as the ships grow, ~40/50/60 while f.e. the US Lexington is quoted for having already 90 planes in the mid 20ies..
To have enough models to better represent all these different ships, I came up with 4 carriers classes.
The CVE will be used for the initial and later CVE's that helped all the convoys and in the pacific war by the US, at least ~150 of these were built by US alone..
Then we have the CVL's wich incorporates all the ships that could carry ~40-60 planes, like the initial Zeppelin or UK/ designs early "fleet carriers" and late war real CVL designs.
The CV's are the main fleet carrier. Like Yorktown/Soryu/Ark Royal and so on.
And finaly the CVB's wich are the supercarriers wich could carry 120+ planes and later also much jets due to their sheer size.

Wich the jet technology the CAG's will get smaller again to represent the needed additional space.
I'm not fully sure yet how to implement that. As the jets should be much more powerfull then the piston engined planes. Due to the game mechanics of HOI3 that will be highly abstracted, as we can't ensure that CVE's can't use jet-CAG's then.(Normally CVE's were to small to use jet-CAG's..)

The Pocket BB's have their own class as CB's now.
The whole BC's and BB's types of late WWI are somehow merging into the new fast BB and into a smaller BC like the Renown-class with its 6*15" guns. (Preceded BC ship classes had 8*13,5"..)

So the BC went to fast little BB's to fight CA's and CB's.

For the new CB's, the planned P-class(6*12") was never built and also later planned to get 4*15"..
And of course you can argue that without the naval treaty of Washington, the normal CA's would have get bigger guns then 8" and also would have exeeded 10k tons like they did later.(Still 8" but 20k tons..) But as we have this historic treaty, and it is somekind of hard to represent all possibilities with only the CA's unit class. Sure I could include the Deutschland Class with an event as a modified CA, but noone would be able to build some more..

I find it an interesting option for smaller countries to have at least a Pocket BB that could fight the CA's of bigger navies. It just fits into the weight and armament list of all ships.

Average numbers in 1000 tons from WWI to WWII:
CL 2-10
CA 5-20
CB 15-25
BC 20-35
BB 20-50
BBB 50-...

And I also disagree for the ones who claim that the Yamato was only the more modern version of a fast BB, and that there is no place for a BBB.
Again, for gameplay reason(building, teaching the AI etc.) and from my point of understanding, a ship like the Yamato or the N3 in 1918 would have get similar designs build by other navies but also in limited amount. These ships were much(!) bigger then any other vessel of that time and required a very big amount of ressources alone for the building(dockyard and harbour/logistics). We also know that the other navies did not choose to build comparable big ships like Yamato for several reasons(not only that carriers were seen superior to BB's..).
In general and Imho, that is if someone would claim that CL's were obsolete with the building of CA's.
Both had their place and usage..


As I showed the new practicals over in another naval thread I thought it would be also good to have it here:

You have now for nearly each ship class a practical and an overall theoretcial for each main class(naval/sub/carrier).
These practicals helps in not spamming intially ships of another sizes and simulates "retooling/needed dockyard facilities" etc..
Doctrine wise, I went with the main tasks a navy had to do. Overall naval experience, battlefleet(surface action), submarine, carrier, convoy, amphib landings..



Cheers,
Chromos

[TheBromgrev]

MTB:
Early Torpedo Boats to later E-Boats/Schnellboote. Maybe also the secret developments of late war?
Also one unit includes some boats in HOI3.

Please don't. These ships are far too small to be included in a strategy game, and you'd have 50+ of these for each navy that fielded them, even after turning them into flotillas. They'd be absolutely worthless in combat, flood the AI's build queues if you don't change the LUAs, and would do nothing other than clutter up the "sunk ships" stats tab. Devildread had them for his early ICE versions and took them out because they're worthless in the scale HOI3 takes place in.

Superheavy Cruiser:
Around 15k tons max.(Like Deutschland Class) to later ww2 designs(P-Klasse.)
It is slightly bigger as a heavy cruiser and has more firepower(~"6*28-33cm" or fictional ~"8-9* 24cm").

Battlecruiser:
Like SMS Von der Tann, Invincible to later ww2 designs.
Around 20k tons max. to later ww1 ~30k tons and later early ww2 designs ~35k tons("light" fast Battleships like Dunkerque, Scharnhorst, Alaska).

Why the distinction? Take a very good look at the Deutchlands' stats; despite the myths surrounding them, they're basically heavy cruisers with an 11" gun instead of an 8" gun. There's nothing else different between them and the majority of treaty heavy cruisers. No need to add a unit of which only 3 were ever built, when an existing class handles them perfectly fine. Just push back the first offset of your CA gun techs to '26 or something and label the '36 tech 11" guns and bam, you have yourself a Panzerschiffe.

Same deal with the P-class, just leave it as a CA and adjust the CA techs to better reflect reality and you're done. You can do what we did for the HPP and set hard limits on the tech levels based on country flags, so nations that are under the Naval Treaties can't research better naval techs until they leave the treaty.

Oh, and the Alaska's were officially heavy cruisers, although I agree with you that they are mislabeled.

Superheavy Battleships:
The planned N3 ships of UK with 9*18" and ~50k tons and 23knots in 1918(!) and of course the Yamato/MOntana/H-44.
All that is exeptional big in their specific timeline.(And does not fit into the Panama canal..)

You forgot the Sovetsky Soyuz. No SH.BB unit. That classification is 100% fictional and has no basis in reality. You're also completely ignoring the effects the Washington and both London Naval Treaties had on battleship design. You can't talk about the big capital ships made prior to the war without keeping those treaties in mind, and if you do then you really have no credibility on the subject.

Hybrid Carrier:
Just because ther were some few.
Maybe also used for some Hybrid-Cruisers(Lexington could be a special one with her 8" guns, she would then of course have more then one CAG..).
Can carry 1 CAG.

Only one I'm aware of is the Swedish Gotland, which carried 12 seaplanes. As mentioned, the Lexington doesn't quite fit the cruiser/carrier hybrid model. I really don't see the point in making techs and a unit for a class of which only 1 or 2 ships existed.

The Pocket BB's have their own class as CB's now.
The whole BC's and BB's types of late WWI are somehow merging into the new fast BB and into a smaller BC like the Renown-class with its 6*15" guns. (Preceded BC ship classes had 8*13,5"..)

So the BC went to fast little BB's to fight CA's and CB's.

For the new CB's, the planned P-class(6*12") was never built and also later planned to get 4*15"..
And of course you can argue that without the naval treaty of Washington, the normal CA's would have get bigger guns then 8" and also would have exeeded 10k tons like they did later.(Still 8" but 20k tons..) But as we have this historic treaty, and it is somekind of hard to represent all possibilities with only the CA's unit class. Sure I could include the Deutschland Class with an event as a modified CA, but noone would be able to build some more..

Already talked about this. A few ships are misclassed in regards to their official classes, but IMO those should be corrected rather than make up classes that only apply to 3 or 4 ships when the default class can correctly handle those ships perfectly fine if you just tweak the techs.

And I also disagree for the ones who claim that the Yamato was only the more modern version of a fast BB, and that there is no place for a BBB.
Again, for gameplay reason(building, teaching the AI etc.) and from my point of understanding, a ship like the Yamato or the N3 in 1918 would have get similar designs build by other navies but also in limited amount. These ships were much(!) bigger then any other vessel of that time and required a very big amount of ressources alone for the building(dockyard and harbour/logistics). We also know that the other navies did not choose to build comparable big ships like Yamato for several reasons(not only that carriers were seen superior to BB's..).
In general and Imho, that is if someone would claim that CL's were obsolete with the building of CA's.
Both had their place and usage..

I already talked about this, and you're (and everyone else who advocates this unit type) completely ignoring the historical context regarding the treaties and focusing on numbers instead. You're (and everyone else who advocates this unit type) ignoring how important those treaties were, which stopped ALL design work on battleships globally for 10 years! If those treaties weren't in place, then the battleships that fought in WW2 would've all been 50+ tons and the old WW1 era ships would've been scrapped ages ago. As such, ships like the Yamato and Sovetsky Soyuz merely had their introduction dates postponed.

If you really want to see how those big ships are just the evolution of regular battleships, since there seems to be a fixation on displacements, go make a graph that lists every post-dreadnought battleship in the world by completion date and displacement. Then, correct the time scale by removing all years that are empty to get a time-corrected graph. What you'll see is a direct linear relationship between tonnage and introduction order, with the older ships being smaller and the newer ones being large. The so-called super-heavy battleships will fall along the line almost perfectly.

[Chromos]

Please don't. These ships are far too small to be included in a strategy game, and you'd have 50+ of these for each navy that fielded them, even after turning them into flotillas. They'd be absolutely worthless in combat, flood the AI's build queues if you don't change the LUAs, and would do nothing other than clutter up the "sunk ships" stats tab. Devildread had them for his early ICE versions and took them out because they're worthless in the scale HOI3 takes place in.

Why the distinction? Take a very good look at the Deutchlands' stats; despite the myths surrounding them, they're basically heavy cruisers with an 11" gun instead of an 8" gun. There's nothing else different between them and the majority of treaty heavy cruisers. No need to add a unit of which only 3 were ever built, when an existing class handles them perfectly fine. Just push back the first offset of your CA gun techs to '26 or something and label the '36 tech 11" guns and bam, you have yourself a Panzerschiffe.

Same deal with the P-class, just leave it as a CA and adjust the CA techs to better reflect reality and you're done. You can do what we did for the HPP and set hard limits on the tech levels based on country flags, so nations that are under the Naval Treaties can't research better naval techs until they leave the treaty.

Oh, and the Alaska's were officially heavy cruisers, although I agree with you that they are mislabeled.

You forgot the Sovetsky Soyuz. No SH.BB unit. That classification is 100% fictional and has no basis in reality. You're also completely ignoring the effects the Washington and both London Naval Treaties had on battleship design. You can't talk about the big capital ships made prior to the war without keeping those treaties in mind, and if you do then you really have no credibility on the subject.

Only one I'm aware of is the Swedish Gotland, which carried 12 seaplanes. As mentioned, the Lexington doesn't quite fit the cruiser/carrier hybrid model. I really don't see the point in making techs and a unit for a class of which only 1 or 2 ships existed.

Already talked about this. A few ships are misclassed in regards to their official classes, but IMO those should be corrected rather than make up classes that only apply to 3 or 4 ships when the default class can correctly handle those ships perfectly fine if you just tweak the techs.

I already talked about this, and you're (and everyone else who advocates this unit type) completely ignoring the historical context regarding the treaties and focusing on numbers instead. You're (and everyone else who advocates this unit type) ignoring how important those treaties were, which stopped ALL design work on battleships globally for 10 years! If those treaties weren't in place, then the battleships that fought in WW2 would've all been 50+ tons and the old WW1 era ships would've been scrapped ages ago. As such, ships like the Yamato and Sovetsky Soyuz merely had their introduction dates postponed.

If you really want to see how those big ships are just the evolution of regular battleships, since there seems to be a fixation on displacements, go make a graph that lists every post-dreadnought battleship in the world by completion date and displacement. Then, correct the time scale by removing all years that are empty to get a time-corrected graph. What you'll see is a direct linear relationship between tonnage and introduction order, with the older ships being smaller and the newer ones being large. The so-called super-heavy battleships will fall along the line almost perfectly.

Hi TheBromgrev,

I don't think that theses little boats were used to that extend by most navies.
Afaik GER as most navies build way more subs then MTB..
MTB's will be similar to SS/DD ingame, so one unit will consist out of one flotilla of quite some boats.

But historically quite some MTB's did some great disturbing of capital vessels..

For Pocket-BB/P-class/SHBB/SHCV/CVE..

Thats just my approach to have them ingame, to use the engine.
IMHO Deutshcland-Class is clearly superior to Washington-CA.(And showed that in the engagement with Exeter..)
But even after Deutschland-Class was build, f.e. Germany build Washington-CA and planned to build new P-class..
So, to have that in the game and used right by the engine(ai) and have nice stats fo all that ships and(!) being able to progress that path even further I have that ship-classes ingame..

Please stop writing that anyone who does not share your opinon didn't read about naval treaties or ship devewlopment etc.
In fact, I(and others) spent a lot of time already on that topic.
It is just a different way to use the engine.

And afaik Alaska was only in USA classified as "large Cruiser" not "heavy Cruisers", aka CB. But most other navies just used BC for it..

The Lexington was the only carrier that had 8" guns.. SO it could be a very special Hybrid with CA-sea_attack but also with ~90 planes.. The Hybrid is just in for these special cases that could have arised more often. There were quite some more such plans to use more gun firepower on carriers or the need mayb to convert ships into carriers.


Again for the treaties:
I know that you are aware of the planned N3 class/G3 class of UK and the fact that US doctrine was about ships had to cross the canals(UK had same "problem" with Suez..).
And the planned Montana class was the first BB that would have not fit through that canal. But was still 10 k lighter and had also 2" less main aramament as Yamato wich was planned quite some years before..
And even that the UK/US nowed later that Yamato was around they stuck with "lighter" BB's..
Also Japan did not plan to only build Yamato, they were strategical decsions/weapons because of the enormous impact on the econnomy alone.. I also now about all the clasifications about H-class wich ist weight up to 80k tons and still using "only" 16"..(also the later ones with 20" etc..)

And I have still a much wider timeframe in mind. So lets' assume a 1918 scenario and UK goes for N3. Sure, some navies would follow, but also some would not, just because they could not afford it. But would they build no BB's after all? Then the UK would have created a new "classification" like they did with the Dreadnought-class.
See it like tanks and heavy tanks/superheavy tanks..
Telling the Ai to build different types of ships is not that easy in HOI3 if you just have one unit class..
You would need to use load OOB-stuff or other solutions to get earlier calibre ships like Vanguard in the game etc..

Because of technical problems with the amount of CAG's a carrier can use and the various different types build historically, I've also these five diffrent carrier types wich can use from one up to 4 CAG's:Hybrid-Carrier / CVE, CVL, CV, SHCV..



I hope it is a bit more clear now how these units types are in the game..
If you can live much better with only one BB-class or others even with only one capital ships class(dropping also BC), and make the mod around that design, fine!
I mod the game to have around 15 sea units and think that my final approach will make a very good one in simulating the stuff that was build, giving possibilities to build ahistorical, having an AI that can use it all and players who have fun.


Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Update of the first post:
As I showed the new practicals over in another naval thread I thought it would be also good to have it here:

You have now for nearly each ship class a practical and an overall theoretcial for each main class(naval/sub/carrier).
These practicals helps in not spamming intially ships of another sizes and simulates "retooling/needed dockyard facilities" etc..
Doctrine wise, I went with the main tasks a navy had to do. Overall naval experience, battlefleet(surface action), submarine, carrier, convoy, amphib landings..

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Hi,
I made this thread to have evtually upcoming discussions about the Army part of the AHOI-Mod more organized. Below is the initial draft of the new Army units.

New unit line up for the next version:
(I want to mention that this design also had in mind that it's possible to maybe add later an earlier timeline as WWII.)

Militia: Well, Milita, Light equiped short trained people.

Paramilitary: Police Force with military equipment. Secure supply lines and hunt down Partisans.

Garrision: Garrison forces wich protect areas of value, not mobile but tough defenders.

Infantry: The regular Infantry.

Mot/Mech-Inf: Infantry that is used with mobile forces, first equiped with trucks, later with AFV's.

Cavalry: The good old Cavalry on horses, only for quick transport, and could change the horses with Armored Cars/Trucks/AFV due tech advance.

Airmobile-Inf: Infantry wich uses Helicopter for Transport as a quick reaction force. Also named Air-Cavalry sometimes.

Mot/Mech-Cav: Modern Cavalry wich uses Armored Cars or light Tanks for recon and similar missions.

Tanks: The common Tank unit, uses vehicles from light WWI to modern medium(MBT) after WWII.

Heavy Tanks: The common heavy Tank unit, uses heavy vehicles from WWI to modern heavy after WWII. Can also have a Superheavy section.

Land Cruiser: Eventually, to have the vehicles like K-Wagen(nearly completed in WWI) or projects like "Ratte".

Ranger(Jäger)-Inf: Special trained Inf that fights well also in most rough terrain.

Mountain-Inf: Special trained Inf that fights well also in mountains. Will also include the even more special high mountain trained units.

Marine-Inf: Special trained Inf for amphib landings.

Paratrooper: Airdropable Infantry.

Commando: Very special trained Infantry like UK Commandos/Brandenburger..

Divison-Support: All that extra equipment of a Divsion like AA/AT/Eng/Recon, see post 2 for more info.

Mobile Divison Support: All that extra equipment for a mobile Divsion like AA/AT/Eng/Recon, see post 2 for more info.

Divison Artillery: All the Artillery of a Divsion, see post 2 for more info.

Mobile Divison Artillery: All the Artillery of a mobile Divsion, see post 2 for more info.

Siege Artillery: The extra heavy calibres for long range shellig and fortess attack.

Corps-Artillery: The heavy Artilery that was mostly only attached to Corps or Army.

Corps-Anti-Air: The early AA and later heavy AA that was mostly only attached to Corps or Army.

Corps-Anti-Tank: The early AT and later heavy AT and also TD that was mostly only attached to Corps or Army.

Corps-Engineer: The Engineers that were initially only attached to Corps or Army or later formed as Storm-Engieers in Stalingrad.

Then we'll have the "Elite" section wich will be used to have the several WWI Guards or WWII camicie nere/Guards or SS units.
Elite Paramilitary:
Elite Cavalry:
Elite Infantry:
Elite Mot/Mech-Inf:
Elite Tanks:
Elite Heavy Tanks:
Elite Divison-Support:
Elite Divison Artillery:

The new Divison setup out of 5 Regiments(Brigades in Std-HOI3) will consist out of something like this ususally:
3* Inf-Reg, 1* Div-Supp-Reg, 1* Div-Art-Reg = 5 Regiments.
It will be explained more in detail in the second post.

The third post will describe how the component system will work for especially the tanks.
So you will have now Battalions in the Tank Regiment wich could have different Tank designs like this for a German unit:

Tank Battalion 1: Tank PzII
Tank Battalion 2: Tank PzIII
Tank Battalion 3: No (due to doctrine tech)
Integrated Heavy Company: PzIV short 75mm gun

As I showed the new practicals over in the AHOI-Mod Marine thread I thought it would be also good to have it explained here for th Land units:


You have now for theoreticals for:
Regular Inafntry
Special Infantry(Ranger, Bergs, Marine, Para, Cmdo)
Light vehicle (Trucks, Mechs, ArmCar)
Tanks (Light to Medium)
Hvy Tanks (Hvy to Superhvy and LandCruiser)
Artillery (Light to Medium)
Heavy Artillery (Heavy to Siege)

Docrines are:
Landcombat, Grand Battle Plan, Superior Firepower, Amassment, Mobility, Special forces.



Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Hi,
early as HOI3 was released, I made up my mind how I could mod it to something that would "feel more right" to me.
But I didn't had much time and also was kind of shocked about the new performance of the new sequel.
So I did initially only modding "on paper" to get some ideas etc..
As I saw a psot from madprofmike in march 2010 I wanted to share my thoughts about the engine:
Link to the post of march 2010 in madprofmike thread..
CHOCOLATE - brigades/regiments/battalions open conversation. post 12

Later I decided to do my AHOI-Mod also for HOI3 and went public in December 2010. I had also a suggestion from madprofmike about Support-Units wich was already similar what we can see now in HPP/RPM Mod. But I still liked and like my system more:
mapdrofmikes suggestion/question -post 53
My answer below -post 54

I later posted my initial suggestion to madprofmike in post 8 of my AHOI-Mod thread:

"New Division System"

I thought a lot about what was in reality and what is possible with the engine atm.
And then thought again what would be useful in terms of playability.

So we had in reality many different types of f.e. Infantry Division in size and composition.
Same to other "weapon types".

It would be nice to see that implemented in the game.
But it would be also a "clickfest" to reorganize a whole army with new equipment.

Nearly all nations used the Division as the smallest organisational unit that could fulfill tasks on their own.
(It had all needed weapon types to fulfill any tasks, inf, signal, food, medic, art, at, aa etc.)
The Division is the smallest organisational unit used in the game. (Can use a Commander etc. but is build up by Brigades.)

An example from "reality", Infantry Division:
-Staff (Signal, HQ)
-Supporttroops like: Food, Medical and munitions, Transport
-Recon (Sometimes only available at Corps Level)
-Main component are Infantry squads with small arms. (Regimental size, 2 or more, Regiments had from 2 to 4 Battalions..)
-Heavy Weapon squads up to Battalion size. (Hvy Machine Gun and Mortars.)
-Inf support Artillery (Direct Inf combat support, mostly battalion size directly attached to the Regiments.)
-Divisional Artillery (Mostly Regiment size.)
-Anti Air Guns (Mostly Machine Guns up to small calibre, hvy calibre first used only in HQ attached formations, in Batalion size)
-Anti Tank Guns (Small Cailibre, Hvy Calibre used only in HQ attached formations, in Batalion size)
-Engineer (In Batalion size, rarely in Regimental size-> Stalingrad, german Assault Engineers)

Other Division Types had also Tanks(and Tank like, f.e. Assault Guns.) from Batalion up to Regimental size.
And also Armored Cars were used in the recon role.(Battalion size.)

All in all an "average" Division had around 15.000 men. With at least 2/3 of them were designated for fighting.
(Ranges for Divisions are mainly from ~9.000 up to ~25.000 men.)

The composition of a WW1 Division was something like this:
2-4 Infantry Regiments
1 Artillery Regiment
Heavy-MG Battalion
Train, HQ, Medical..

Up to and in the timeframe of WW2 there were added in nearly all Divisions:
AT incorporated into the Regiments and also added as Supoort Battalion for the Division.
Anti Air Battalion
Engineer Battalion (were already part of the Div in WW1 for Germany.)
Assault Guns
Tank Destroyer

So the buildup of Divisions changed with changing circumstances.
So, f.e. the US-Troops had no Engineers integrated in the Divisional organisation. But nearly every Division had one Engineer Battalion attached from higher level!
The compositions often differed from nation to nation because of enviromental differences or different "doctrinal" views.
(Or they just had to use what they have at the moment, f.e. the russian troops at the beginning of the War.<-Organisational Problems as well.)

That brings us to the following:
We have:
Combat troops
-That fight in the front.
*Front Combat Troops:
*Infantry (Garrision, Militia, Colonial, Regular, Marine, Bergs, Para, Commandos, Engineer, Jäger...)
*Armoured (Armoured Cars, Tanks -Light to SH-, Halftrucks, Armoured Personnel Carrier...)
*Anti Tank Guns (Where used also against "targets of opportunity", Bunkers etc.)
*Anti Air Guns (Where used also against "targets of opportunity", Infantry and the Hvy-AA also against Bunkers and Tanks)
*Infantry Guns (Where used also against "targets of opportunity", Tanks etc.).
*Heavy-MG's

-That fight from the rear(Artillery, Anti Air -that was also used againts or Tanks-)
*Rear Combat Troops:
*Artillery, Light Art. up to Railway Guns. (Include also the SHvy Mortars 200mm+ and Rokets)

Non Combat Troops
- That don't fight at all but increase Org and mobility.
*Non Combat Troops (Some have just minimal fighting power for self defense)
*"Logistic" (HQ, Food, Munitions, Medical, Train and later Trucks..)

(Mobilisation is given first by horse (Cavalry), Motorised (Trucks, Motorbikes), Mechanized (APC's, Tanks) and finally by Helicopter.)


If we look at the size of formations and equipment together with the role, we get the following:
(All types represent an own Brigade in game.)

Type 1
Non Combat ("Logistic" = HQ, Food, Munitions, Medical... Regiment size)

Type 2:
Main Combat (Infantry, Tanks, APC... Regiment size)

Type 3:
Direct Combat Support (Engineers, AT, AA, ... alone Battalion size, together Regiment size)

Type 4:
Indirect Combat Support (Artillery... Regiment size)


If Type 1 could not be implemented with an impact to the full Division(f.e. high org and lower the usage of supply?) then it would not make any sense to use it.
It should then maybe be integrated in the other types.
(As for now, I think it is better to have this abstracted in the game trough tech advance.)

Type 2 should vary in size depending on techs(f.e. triangular or square build, or trough having 3 or 4 Regiments into the Division)

Type 3 should vary in size depending on techs that integrate weapon types like AT, AA and so on into the support Brigade.

Type 4 should have the size of a "real life Regiment".

The Typical Division would look like this:

Type 1 = 1 (average = 1)
Type 2 = 1-6 (average = 3)
Type 3 = 1 (average = 1)
Type 4 = 1-4 (average = 1)

Summ = 2-8 (Brigades in game = nearly doubled the Brigades compared to the average now.)

If we don't use Type 1, we have the average of 5 ingame Brigades.

We could build Artilery heavy Divsions (Russian Art Divisions), Some without Art Regiments and Support Regiments (Militia) , build a (Heavy) Tank Regiment with a support Regiment an have some sort of a "Fire Brigade" or give Paras a Support Regiment and you have the "Luftwaffen Feld-Division"(not dropabel any longer, because the Support Reg is not dropable...)
Also we would be able to incorporate new weapons into the "support Brigade" (Type 3) and thus represent the organic structure of a Division a bit more as time passes by.
Via Type 2 would be the overall strength of a Division defined.

That would also lead to no more sole light Tank Brigades. Light Tanks will be a part of Tank Regiments. If you havent researched medium Tanks, than your Tank Regiments consist out of light ones. The "mix" is done via techs. Light Tanks/Armoured Cars will still be used for Recon and in MotMech-Cavalry Regiments..(And there you will see the pics of that type..)
You research a tech "Hvy Tank Department" and then one Company of the tank Battalion will now consist out of Heavy Tanks.

Game wise, everybody would build a Type 3 with his normal Divisions, because it brings ernormous extra firepower in many circumstances.
So no need to extract it into more sole units(Battalions) to manage.

For extra Firepower of some special sort, we can use the corps-troops that are available as AA/AT/ART/Eng and Rak-Art Corps-Regiments
(Again as mostly used in reality)


Long Story short, my opinion:
The current HOI engine is not able to handle a "Battalion based Divisional Model".
And the managing overhead is to big because of the existent managing features are designed for Divisions not Battalions.

And I guess that the Spy-System and also the AI is using the size of a Regiment as a base.
So it seems only logical to me to use just a Military System that is based upon Regiments aswell.

Use a new Divisional buildup consisting out of 4 base types described as above.
All Divisions would consist out of 2-9 Brigades. Normally the average would be 5.
A big diversity ist given mainly trough mixing these types.


Size of Regiments can be defined by techs.
So a technical or doctrinal research may lead the player to a new composition of his Regiment.
As more and more tanks were used and Armies were in need of AT. You research a tech now that allows you to incorporate AT-guns on first Divisional and then another on Regimental level.

Research of Self Propelled Guns(AT, Art and AA) just change the values of former Regiment type.(AT, ART, AA have with upgrade now better Toughness and Defensivenes, lesser softness etc..)

In the end we have a more "realistic" approach of Divisions and more diversity without denying other nations to copy our buildup or let the player design his own personell Division type.
The AI can be more more easily told to build the different Divisions set ups we have seen in the area of ww2.



I hope that describes my approach for a "New Division System".

That shows not how old my initial ideas are, but the first time I posted them in the public. Long before any other mod had that approach..

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Hi,

here I'll explain how the new Division Component system will work.
I'll update asap with new info and pictures maybe.

The amount of components is visuable limited at ~45(~15 in Std-HOI), but with another solution it is unlimted, or better, nearly irrelevant..

With my intentions in mind you would see something like this:

Tank Battalion 1: Tank PzII (Initial one, only increase with new tanks or little buffs like side skirts if decided)
Tank Battalion 2: Tank PzI (2nd Bat available though doctrine tech, gets the stats increase from researched Tank lvl or from Tank modell choosen through decsion, will increase from then like Bat I)
Tank Battalion 3: No (Same as Bat2)
Integrated Heavy Company: No (Will include all the Support Tanks like early PzIV with short 75mm or Inf Tanks of the UK -UK will also have full Regimenst of Inf Tanks but normally they attached them to the Cruiser Regiments-.)
..quite some more nice components.

The increase will be according to the researched techs.
In fact the researched techs will not affect the unit directly maybe..
You get a as good Panther with the amount of thickness and the armor plating tech and gun you have researched. The possibilities will not cover f.e. guns from 2cm to 15cm but a range will will fit into that time and unit.

The player would need to make a decsion about the tank he want to use/build.
-> AI would pick historic decsions or could be teached to do random usage..
-> Upgrades of components could be done independend from research.
-> Modells could be "skipped" maybe. Dependend on the extra work..
-> Prototyping will be implemented.. More testing, or go in production?


For ease of use, cough cough, the Bat I will be ever updated first, then the other ones.
So you can have in all 3 Bat the same tank but never be 2 modells ahead in one of the three Bat..
The hvy company will be handled differntly as it is a "different story".

Typical Divison set up would then be:
1 Tank Reg, 1-2 Mot/Mech-Inf Reg, 1 Mobile-Div-Support-Reg, 1 Mobile-Art-Reg = 4-5 Regiments.

So that would cover the most Tank-Divs build. The usage of 2 Regiments(with only 2 Bat) was iirc only used by Ger in the very early years(They named it Tank-Brigade then..). After that they also used one Reg with 3 Bat..


I'll very likely only have the importants techs for the tanks as components of the unit, as I don't want it to "clutter" with stuff that was later maybe not used anymore, like the armor skirts etc., but it will be probably shown in the pics..
With the solution in mind it would be also possible to have negative modifier, wich will help to handle longer timeframes.


Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

The AHOI-Mod has an own blog now!
Click here for the: AHOI-Mod Blog!
It is in english and german..

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

The AHOI-Mod is now on twitter and facebook too!
facebook
twitter

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Hi,
there is a new blog entry in my AHOI-Mod-blog..
http://ahoimod.wordpress.com/

Its about:
"New economy system for HOI3 with the AHOI-Mod"


Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

A first AAR that is going some longer already. It is written in German.
So far the player "Comrade Marshal Thomasius(Thomasiusonair)" is fighting desperatly against the german Army.
Only a wonder can save Moskva from being captured in '41..

News in the Blog: Click me!!
or direct in the german forum: Click me!

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Std-HOI3:
If you play GER and declare War on Danmark, you are not able anymore to travel into the Balitic even from Kiel, or ships in "The Bälts".
But the Kiel Canal was build for that reason, to travel from the North-Sea to the Baltic without the need to cross the danish Isles or Skagerrak.
For a long time now, common sense was that this is hardcoded in the engine and couldn't be changed by modding.
But now I finally found ot why that is the reason behind.
Read more in the AHOI-Mod blog.. Click me!

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Hello!
A first preview on the new buildings and provinceview in the blog:
Click for: New Buildings and provinceview


Cheers!
Chromos

[Chromos]

The "Pimp my HOI -Dynamic AI-"-Mod is available again
More infos here:
"Pimp my HOI -Dynamic AI-" at Ahoi-Mod-Blog

Cheers!
Chromos

[Chromos]

With the patch 3.06 in official beta I would like to get some feedback what could be improved for current the AHOI-Mod.
I'll mabye build an adaption patch for the new 3.06 and put in some additional changes. The brand new version of the mod with the new techtree will take some more time..
I'll not add unit pics/tech descriptions because it is too much work.
But if you have done already some work I could implement it.
Also I'm about to implement the new production-ai already and fix the start-tech bug..
Please use the fourm below to gather all the info.
Link: English AHOI-Mod Forum

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

English:
A last little summarize before some little changes.

So far you can find infos about my Mods in the follownig forums:
"Strategycon Interactive"(GER), "Design Mod Project"(GER), "paradox-games.de"(GER), "Strategie-Zone.de"(GER), "Civilisation Webring Forum"(GER), "The Stony Road Forum"(GER/ENG), "Total War Center-TWC(ENG)" and of course in the "Paradox Interactive Forum"(GER/ENG) as also in the own "AHOI-Mod-Forum"(GER/ENG).

Then we have also the AHOI-Mod-Blog, twitter und facebook.
And also on ModDB you can leave a comment..
Because of the many different locations and the needed time to check all of them, I'll focus in the future on only a few of them. More on that topic soon.
As the activity in all those locations is "quite calm", that shouldn't be a big deal anyway.

Download statistics:
Just one year ago I started taking notes on the download traffic for my mods.
Initial goal was to get familar with te different free-dl-sites and the preferrences of the forumites. And it is of course nice to see your mod dl numbers growing.
I use "FileFactory", RapidShare, MediaFire and ModDB. MediaFire is imho the best one so far, quite quick download, no commercials in your way, is not auto-deleting your files and easy to use. ModDB has some other features on top of that.

The amount of dl is shifting more and more towards ModDB.
Other sites also already distribute the Mod without myself being involved in that.
F.e. "Strategy Informer" or "Game Front".

Semper Fi:
AHOI-Mod for Semper Fi - AHOI-Treasure-GEM-ONE : 1099
AHOI-Mod for Semper Fi - "Compilation"(Magrathea Map etc..) : 471
Widescreen Mod for the AHOI-Mod : 285
Widescreen Mod for Std-HOI3 : 165
Total : ~2.000

For the Motherland:
AHOI-Mod for FTM - AHOI-Treasure-GEM-ONE- Std-GUI : 880
AHOI-Mod for FTM - AHOI-Treasure-GEM-ONE- Widescreen-GUI : 378
Widescreen Mod for Std-HOI3 : 875
New Production-AI-Mod - "Pimp my HOI-Dynamic AI" : 100

AHOI-Mod for FTM - AHOI-Mod - "A HOI3 treasure Chest" : 3551
(With new wood/steel design and new counters etc..)
Total : ~6.000

Several widescreen versions for other Mods(HPP/AS/RPM/BI) : ~150+
Hotfixes for all versions : ~1100+

In average we have ~600-900 additional new downloads per month.
So we will breach this month the 10,000 downloads mark.
Of course the "real mod" is only about ~4.000 then. Because it is downloaded about 500 times in average atm per month.
But also the old versions of SF/FTM are still downloaded each month. Maybe I'll add an own entry at ModDB for them too.

From the visit statistics of the blog, I can see that the most people are comming from german speaking countries. Since february from ~5.300 visits are ~4.400 from Germany/Austria/Swiss, followed up with USA(120), UK(80), PL(74) etc..
Beacause of that, I started to write in german first, and have the English part below it.

I don't know why the "non german speaking" amount is so low. I can just guess that it is because the AHOI-Mod has no own sub-fourm in the Paradox Forum.
At least I could see how the attention and dl-numbers raised by big amount after the "August Storm Mod" got its own subforum. But as noone will get another subforum that easily anymore, it is also idle to think about it.
Also some Mods that are like the AHOI-Mod located in the "Other mods and projects"-subforum have a much higher view/postcount but not also higher download numbers. Sometimes way less then the AHOI-Mod. Maybe my dl are so far mostly from german speaking folks too. Even that at Paradox was the most inital action about my Mod.

Cheers,
Chromos

[Chromos]

Just added some info in the first/second post..
(News/Mod info)

Cheers,
Chromos

[Halbard]

Can anyone tell me where i can find a download for HPP mod that is not hosted in paradox forum?

[Chromos]

Can anyone tell me where i can find a download for HPP mod that is not hosted in paradox forum?

I don't know, didn't do a search on that one yet as I have access to the Paradox Forums..
Isn't that hard to register your game there..



I also updated the first posts with general info and installation nstructions..

Cheers!
Chromos

[Chromos]

Hi!

As announced, we have breached the 10,000 download mark!
The last version of the AHOI-Mod alone with over 4,100 of these.

So the AHOI-Mod is atm the most downloaded Mod for "Hearts of Iron 3 -For the Motherland"!
Long before the actual ICE-Mods, HPP, August-Storm or RPM.

At least to the numbers that were available to me. Atm the other Mods are way behind in dl-numbers. The closest is the Agust-Storm Mod with the version before its current one, wich had ~2,400 downloads.
Even the HPP-Mod in its best Semper-Fi times had "only" ~3,400 downloads. I don't know about the old ICE numbers but guess that they were much higher in Semper-Fi times.

Well, I'm quite happy about the steady growth of the download numbers and interest in this Mod.
Even the Semper Fi Versions are still growing(~2k dl).

Because of this, I'll release another patch for the current Mod.
Initially I wanted to release the new version of the Mod, but this one is a bit behind schedule because of the slow integration of the 1001-techs..

Anyway, the annoying start-tech-bug is already fixed and some balancing modifications will follow.
Maybe I'll wait for the final release of the official 3.06 patch.

Also I'll very likely already implement the new province view.
(I would have to rework it maybe, because the new Building-System is not rdy yet.)




Coloured or better in b/w?

So, if you have something to add, if you spotted some bugs etc, now is a good time to report it.

Cheers!
Chromos