I can only imagine what the pilots would think, being issued a piece of junk that's nearly guaranteed to kill you within a year, but the conscious decision being made because High Command thinks another plane will just shoot you down anyway.
I mean… unironically what happened with the t-34. If they manage to live out its service life just give them another with the resources you saved by cutting costs in the first place
@@farmerboy916 If a tank breaks down it's stuck in a field somewhere. If a plane breaks down you're now in a hunk of metal hurtling hundreds of miles an hour.
For the record, having over 100% reliability on a tank is wasted in the division designer, it counts anything over 100% as 100% so that 140% reliability tank is wasting 40% reliability.
Well, not necessarily, If you have one tank in your template be 140% reliability, for example a TD that can get that quite easily, and one tank that is supposed to have very high breakthrough with a Petrol Electric engine having 70% reliability, and then spreading those two tanks across evenly, you would end up with 100% reliability in your div which is all that matters. Divisions count average reliability, not individual :)
For all those who want a perfect combat width, just go with 27w infantry and 42w tanks. They are for now the best. 27w has more than enough hp and firepower, and overstackimg penalty is not high so its nice. Also it should either be 1 artillery and 12 infantry, or 3 artillery and 8 infantry
Actually overstacking penalty is 0 for all defence divisions above 10. My tests show that 10-th suffer 20-30% more losses, then 30-th (I've tested in fields). And that is... Not to much! They hold enemy tanks much more time! I tested with soft attack 800, 2 attacking divisions and 1939 technology level
When you hover over the attrition icon on a division while it takes attrition you can see that each type of equipment has its own calculation and chance. Not per division but per type. So yes, if you have 10 different light tank types in one division it will calculate for each type of tank. But you can see that in the tooltip
As someone who plays just singleplayer or coop with friends I always add maintenance companies to my divisions if I can. By 1940 having at least +10% reliability means I can afford to have a better tank that has between 80% and 90% reliability, and when I upgrade my maintenance company, I often upgrade my tanks shortly after with either more speed, armour or a better gun because I can now afford to lower my reliability because it's actually gone up because of the maintenance company. Maintenance and Logistics are, in my opinion, auto includes as it means that for the same amount of factories I can now field a few percent extra divisions (depending on the time of the game) because I just use that much less supply.
I think Soviet Yak 9T/K's had 50/50 chance of catastrophic failure on every mission. The idea was to fly a mission in a fighter and then if you made it back, you'd get another one for the next mission.
Admit you don't know something? On the internet? In this day and age? LMAO That is funny AF. Seriously, the internet today is the BEST case study on the Dunning Kruger Effect you can find. People might not always be right, but they are NEVER wrong.
I actually like the varied combat widths. A lot of time it depends on what nation and political course I go down for width now. My infantry is usually all the same width, but my tanks and motorized/mechanized will be different widths to better work with the particular terrain of the theatre. My real question is: Is anti-tank useful at all? Is there a way to make it viable? I'd love to drop a couple AT companies into my infantry for defense against enemy armor. I've usually done a combined arms doctrine type thing with dropping a heavy tank destroyer or 3 into my infantry templates. It seems to help, but I really don't know if is justified for the cost. Rarely do it with small nations like Estonia, at least until I conquer all of Scandinavia and coastal Germany, before turning back east to face the new Russian Empire and Japan.
I tend to only do AT/tank destroyers in my defensive infantry in the early years if I need to completely stonewall Germany as, like, France. Once you hit 1942 and start getting access to infantry AT weapons, the need for dedicated AT/TD in your defensive infantry drops precipitously in single player, since the AI is dogwater at designing beefy tank divisions (let alone fielding them).
My opinion here, no cosmic truth (sorry).The fact is (in sp) that your AT guns have a very small percentage chance to face any armored unit during the game. They may be nice for flavor or even really useful against tanks, it doesn't matter, they are actually wasted manpower and resources. Maybe change it for AA guns. You should still have a few HA points to add and they will actually shoot sometimes (if you are not usa). Tank destroyers were (irl) cheap tanks. Germany built them because they lacked the resources to build turrets for their tanks. USA built some too because they thought if germans are doing it, it sure must be worthy :) Don't waste resources to something you will not need.
AT is mostly useful in multiplayer when you're up against people who can build proper tank divisions. AA is usually enough piercing to handle the AI in the early game and gives you the added benefit of defense against planes. Like someone else said, the only time I do AT in single player is as France. I'll drop them in the divisions holding the Belgian border as an extra insurance policy to be sure they have the piercing and hard attack to handle the Germans.
@@kido1642 Pretty much every country had tank destroyers in some form. But yeah, the only time I used tank destroyers in single-player was in EaW when I had to defend against the changelings who had a lot of tanks and I just had to hold.
Here's a small thing about reliability for ground units: It only applies when Attrition does. More over reliability doesn't counter attrition; if you get upto 100% attrition, usually from a river combat, you will still lose equipment even when at 100% reliability. When at 100%, it uses a different formula, but anything less than uses the one stated on the wiki.
The reddit guy's analysis on reliability is very interesting when you consider real life cases as well. I remember reading something like a T-34 rolling out of the factory had a "life expectancy" of 20-30 hours in combat, so a lot of the parts were only designed to last that long. Don't have numbers on a plane like an Il-2 or something but the same calculation would've been used in real production parts to optimize how long a part lasts vs how long it takes for the equipment in question to be destroyed in combat.
The parts weren't "designed" to last that long, the designs predated the war. That stuff just happened that they just put things together in a really shoddy quick fashion. Which also meant that, for instance, a tank rushed off too fast could have its armor plate not properly welded, leading to the tank having its hull ruptured from a hit that it normally would've survived. It also meant some tanks lacked things like proper optics, which would affect combat performance. This was, in no way, done as a planned thing. It was just pure desperation and it's debatable how useful it ended up being.
I recall a watching a video recently analysing the reliability of the T-34 and its production, and the Soviets were basically in a bad loop that went like this: T-34 factories cut corners to meet high production quotas -> Step 2: T-34 casualties higher than expected -> Increase production quotas to make up difference -> Repeat from Step 1. And this did not fully stop until after the war. And despite the T-34 having a post-war reputation as a "cheap and good enough" weapon system, it actually wasn't designed as such. It was originally developed to fill the role of an expensive, high-performance cavalry tank reserved for better-trained offensive breakthrough units in the Red Army. It was designed to be at the cutting edge of what the Soviet Union could produce at the time, and like with the German wunderwaffe, that also showed in its reliability. The final decision to push for extreme mass production of the T-34 and have it serve as the workhorse of the entire Red Army tank force only came after the factories of the KV-series tanks were lost to the German advance and the other tank designs in Red Army service at the time proved themselves so obsolete against their german opposition that they weren't worth producing anymore.
@@martenkahr3365 Funny, I think the Germans had the exact opposite problem. Being starved out of resources they ended up making maybe not more reliable but definitely better armored and better armed tankds, hoping there would be less catastrophic destruction on the battlefield (plus shock factor of the big guns).
@@frankunderbush The similarity is that the T-34, when production first began, was at the very limit of what the USSR had the technology to produce, and like the Germans and their wunderwaffe, they could make a good prototype, but couldn't actually pull off mass production to the same quality as the prototypes. Which resulted in mechanical reliability issues same as Tigers and Panthers. The video I'm taking this from is here, if you're curious about the full details of why the T-34 is really not as brilliant as commieboos make it sounds: ruclips.net/video/CIZ6PFYUM5o/видео.html
@@martenkahr3365 not a commie but it's brilliant since it won the war and actually DID his job in given situation of desperate manufacturing problems it's not like it would be brilliant in other time but it was brilliant for the moment hence did it's job
There's some nice insights about reliability in here, but the advice part in the beginning was just a level beyond. Extremely important things to keep in mind, listen to this man!
Don’t forget that most likely your going to be running maintenance companies in your tank divisions. So you can afford a rather low reliability tank because they’ll be mostly counteracted by your company’s buff
I've found 27/w to be fine. They hit fairly hard, and don't take that much over stacking penalty. My go-to infantry division so far has been 10 Inf - 2 Art - 1 Anti-Air. I've found it to work well.
In hoi4 wiki there is equation for attrition, so this isn't anything new. If somebody needs to calculate on what reliability it will lose the least amount of gear out of attrition, the short equation is: (number of gear in division*100-1000)/number of gear in division or what I call 80/50 rule. 80 reliability for 50 equipment. So if I need 100 gear, I need to scale reliability to 90, or 1/2 of 100-80 (that is 100 minus 80). And if division have for example 12 artillery, expect same attrition like there is 50, or about 4 times as high. And this is reason why I really hate putting one tank destroyer battalion in all infantry division. Or why AI always runs out of AT guns, so I don't really need that much of armor on my tanks.
So takeaway from planes is, 80% reliability pre-war, and then maybe drop that to 50-60% with upgrades on a new production line when the war starts? Seems like that method would net you the best amount of planes.
I need help -- New player. Playing unaligned & independent Japan, capitulate Dutch East Indies --> Netherlands --> UK. Really enjoy it -- controlling resources, supply routes, etc. Have a dominant navy with India, Australia, and Canada isolated. As soon as Germany makes its stint in 1939 and takes france... the Axis takes control of the world in the peace conference. I can't even move my troops out of my territories which I had built up. I'm not in the axis... I'm an independent faction.
it's entirely reasonable to have your reliability only slightly higher than the likelihood of being shot down. for the little dude inside, it's still like you care for them, even if you're sending to their death regardless.
If you are going for tanks, you are going to be fighting on plains and perhaps in hills, because the penalties for every other type of terrain are appalling. Your next priority will be to make the division *big* enough to have the org to endure the org-diluting effects of support companies, while keeping a good mix between breakthrough-centric tanks, light-attack focused SPGs and other specialized unit types, where applicable. Then you want to make divisions built around this balanced formula as *small* as possible, because more divisions give you more org total in a battle. If you're going for general purpose pushing infantry, you should look for a width that is a compromise between plains, forests, mountains and hills, with emphasis on whichever terrain type is most prevalent.
Just use flame tanks, recon, and engineers and you can attack forests with tanks just fine. 1942 engies also make your tanks capable of attacking across rivers. I use 42W tanks because there's so many gooddamn forests in Russia, and tanks already excel in plains so there's no need to build 44/45w
In fairness the reliability thing is self evident as that's how speed and hard/soft attack work as well. Don't worry again not slamming you guys but I think when all the big HOI RUclipsrs all used 7-2, 14-4, and Superior Firepower no matter what I tended to believe they didn't all experiment and all came to the same conclusion. It's clear one guy figured it out and everyone copied him and I'd bet that person doesn't even have a RUclips because editing videos and being a good gamer are hard to pull off anymore. Content creation is about as taxing as learning HOI. What is surprising is how many MP players are trying to turn the game into a gimmick which some things are just trash that Paradox needs to fix (like CAS only or Cruiser spam). They need to do command limits on naval as based on a total number per ship type with subs being their own thing as well. I honestly don't think even Paradox fully understands their own game or they'd have cashed in with their own video guides. One last thing if reliability doesn't matter at all then why do we lose planes at all during training? People forget they will still crash the plane despite the reliability if they are green.
10w or 20w or 40w was kind of known from the start because the math was quite simple (x should be divisor of 80). As the youtuber Reman's Paradox made two brilliant videos on how combat mechanics worked and that 40w were much stronger than 20w. Everyone did know that 40w is the way to go. -.- Now Paradox has changed combat width that the players have something to think about. I guess I found the solution but I will cetainly not tell any youtuber because everyone would play that way (again) It would take paradox just a couple minutes to change cw again and we did the math for nothing. As you may noticed there is a mistake in the graph of plane attrition. Which does not correlate to the formula above. This makes this video false anyway. :D
20 width infantry with minimal support equipment (anti-air + engineering) seems best for holding, but the interesting question for me is whether it's worth it to add a low reliability H-tank to buff up the division armor above anti-air piercing. This allows them to deal more organization damage while also receiving half damage against most templates. My tests led to ~25% increase in division cost to add the heavy tank, but if it increases division effectiveness by 50% it may be worth it. We can also add anti-air to the tank, making it significantly cheaper, and free up a support company slot.
I usually do that in Kaiserreich as Germany: after beating the Russians or the Internationale, I usually have enough captured heavy tanks laying around to add some to infantry divisions. Although after 1942 that is usually a waste of fuel as the AI already has AT, AA or has reasearched AT infantry equipment and the added stats are not that important. Rocket arty battalions are lot more useful as a purely stat addition, and are cheaper to boot.
You can actually increase the reliability of mechanized equipment with army experience because it still uses the old system, so if you were to max that out that would be a way to boost the average reliability of your tank divisions assuming you can afford to produce mechanized. You can also spend army experience to decrease the production cost of mechanized and if you max it out, the cost is reduced by HALF. Very nice if you've already maxed your land doctrines and have army experience sitting around doing nothing!
I like your new format.^^ You try to understand and show the math behind the game. Which is great. But in the section of plane attrition there are a couple of mistakes. A) Planes do a sortie 3 times per day = false B) Accident chance = 0.1% * (100 - reliability) That's nice... but what has that to do with plane losses from attrition? With 0% reliability: Accident chance = 0.1% * (100 - 0) = 10% 0.5 = 0.9^x x = 6.57881 If Accident chance = plane attrition you would have lost your most of your planes on untill day 3. That's obviously just 1 factor of plane attrition and not shown in the graphs at all! EDIT: Just found that guide and they removed that passage and link to the forum where someone got the real plane attrition explained.^^
Quick question: if you put 50% reliability tanks with 80% reliability other stuff, is the average the only thing that matters? Because in that case, it's better to have maintenance companies and cheaper tanks for example. Waay more cost effective that spending into torsion bars and other stuff to get better reliability for tanks: you will average that value with the 80% of motorized or mechanized, and than you will add the maintenance on top of it, you can go pretty high and maybe save a little IC while still averaging around 70% reliability.
Once you research Maintenance Company 2, you get a module in the tank designer that gives +20% reliability for no additional production cost. So, researching them is doubly beneficial.
My take away with this is that torsion bars is useless, bogie is only good if you're a minor who needs CHEAP af tanks, christie is only good for light tanks, and interleaved is now best for anything else, mediums and especially heavies.
Current army composition for me is Infantry: 21 and 27 width Armored: 33 and 37 width 33 performed decently well on my previous test runs but looking at the statistics I‘ll change it for a 27 probably.
Problem with 21 is that you can squize 5 of them on 90 width combat and have massive penalty. Same with 27. That problem is eliminated with 22 and 28. At 28 it starts to feel lack of organization pool, so 22-23 is what I consider optimal.
I'm not a 100% agreeing on the plane side : at 40% it takes on average 500 days to have an accident for a plane. But another way to see that is "every 500 planes in the air, I loose 1 per day". This might sounds low but this means to replace that lose, you need to spend daily 20-28 production points. At full efficiency and with +100% production bonus that represent 2-3 factories just to stay at 500 planes (40% reliability), it's not nothing. And again, that's for every 500 planes in the air. If you put 2500 planes (-5 planes per day), you will need about 12-13 factories just to replace what you lose by accident. If we raise reliability to 60%, it's every 833 planes that you lose 1 per day, so for 2500 planes you lose 3 per days, so "only" 7 factories. After yes, it's much lower than what you can lose from air battle, but it can also be way higher than what you lose in air battle depending on radar, amount of air units... and I'm not even talking about strat bomber who survive more easily in air battle but would suffer full those accidents, and they cost way more. so wouldn't recommend to drop it very low
So as it looks like it averages the reliability of every thing in the division, you could in theory make a relatively low reliability main tank and then make a super high reliability supplemental tank to throw into the divisions to artificially raise them back up.
Interesting. So if you're adding lots of support companies, motorised and so on, to a 20 width early tank div, is there a lot of point in sacrificing engine/armour to get 100% reliability since the average will want to go to 80%? Once you have mechs, it's a different story since you'll be able to boost them both and drag the average up.
I might be missing something here. With 80% reliability for a plane, the accident chance should come out to 2%, which would result in an average amount of sorties per plane of about 50 rather than 5000. Do accidents not always result in the loss of the plane then?
@Aleksandar Petrović but you don't if 80% reliability means 0.1 * (100-80) so that comes out at 2% or by every sortie a 200 plane wing will lose 4 planes. or, in 50 sorties you'll have replaced your entire air wing. Like unless i'm completely retarded at math (quite possible) i do not understand even for a second where this 1 plane will do 5000 sorties come from as the math outright is 0.1 * (100-Reliability) for an 80% reliability plane, its 50 sorties and then its toast one way or the other. for 80% reliability, you have 2% loss per sortie.
Game is calculating attrition for each equipment type. There is tooltip. Average reliability for division is recently added and it affects organization regain, or something like that.
I dont understand that formula. Per sortie the accident chance is 0.1% * (100 - reliability) according to the post. So at 80 reliability this would be 0.1% * (100-80) = 20*0.1% = 2%. 3 sorties a day, this would be an insane (approximately) 6% chance to die each day.
If for divisions only the average reliability matters, couldn't you utilize tanks with like 140% reliability or more (there is a max average of 100% division average but maybe it still uses the unmodified reliability while calculating and only cuts off the excess after that) to get average reliability up to 100% even with Mech/Mot and support companies in the division?
Lower the reliability on ships, higher is the chance of critical hit. Ships also have training accidents, as well as hitting a mine. But ship is often just damaged, and not lost like an airplane.
Wouldn't you, in SP, rather than going for 100% reliability tanks, to try to bring the average up, don't you want to go for like a 60% reliability tank, and let your support equipment and mech/mot bring it up to 80? Cheaper tanks, but similar reliability? Rather than trying to fight the fixed 80, you want the 80 to work in your favour?
The average reliability in a division is different from atrittion losses per equipment. If you have 100% average reliability, you will still loose a lot of equipment to atrittion if you have 40% reliability tanks.
The comments on the cognitive healthiness of admitting that you don't know something, and being willing to change your mind when presented with new information, was worth the price of admission. It's rare that you see anyone bring those topics up.
I still like 27 width for general combat. 9 infantry and 3 artillery + support companies. I feel like that does plenty of soft attack damage to clear out ai units and low combat width spam in multiplayer. Obviously if your opponent is making larger infantry divisions, you'd adjust your strategy to either match their division size or go for encircling maneuvers in lieu of beating them outright. The artillery can be easily replaced with more infantry for defensive divisions. I feel like this is an effective strategy for most nation sizes in both single and multiplayer. I think an analysis of the ratio of stats to combat width penalty would put this division type near the top of the list.
I like it that you are simply more flexible with combat width. I dont think in SP (And probably MP) there really is a good one size fits all. Sure some are betters then others but it's nice not to be stuck on 10/20/40 width. Ow i have 20 width inf but enemy air seems way to strong. Lets just slap on some AA in my division. Who cares that it's now 21 width.
At 0 percent reliability you’re losing a plane every 333 sorties. So an air wing of 333 would be expected to lose an average of one plane per day to accidents.
What about naval reliability? When rolling out the next gen, huge upgrade, those targeting computers for BBs and CAs look pretty tasty, especially with the stronger engine, and since you're not pouring out large ships like you are lights hulls, CLs, DDs, baby flattops, and subs, you're going to want good stats....but also good reliability because of their cost. Any suggestions?
I saw another guys idea combat with he pointed out that over 20 you loses use of the support units in combat! Plus I want the game to be as real world as can be> Example the Germans reduced the number of Battalions from 9 to 6 in 1942 so each brigade had only 2 battalions instead of 3
7:00 For the record, reliability is done per equipment, not division. The long-short of it is you're wrong, but you have a logic there. No, the reliability displayed on a unit is pointless; That number is never used in the code. Instead, every hour that a unit has the attrition tag, every, single, piece, of, equipment rolls for failure vs it's reliability. [b]this includes variants, nationals, and tiers[/b]. If you have a unit with a single infantry division and it somehow has rifle 1, 2, and 3, each with the German, French, and UK nationals, it will have to roll 9 separate times for failure. This is expressly why late game HoI lags so hard and why the game becomes CPU intensive out of the blue; Attrition rolls. It also means you can lose 25% of your equipment in one hour if you have too many different equipment for one division type.
Wouldn't that mean you could just run very low reliability tanks with higher mobility motor/mech to balance out the average reliability ? Since it uses averages, and you'll probably have more motor/mech in the division then tanks, it should theorreactially balance out with a higher reliability while keeping fat stats on the tanks
You know somehow in no step back they took ww2 and switched our for modern warfare. I totally remember Rommel carefully advancing and Germany grinding france down due to logistics rather than encirclement thanks to snaking. I also remember the soviets being so poor they faced the Germans with 6 tank divisions. Zukev will be happy let's erase the 6,000 light tanks lost because according to this the Soviets couldn't lose 6 divisions because they couldn't replace them... they should have had an entire supply system based on how much stored like fuel rather than a fu for daring to encircle ....
Well... I already extend range to the max on planes, so they're 80%, regardless. Still don't think air attack is worth the sacrifice on agility for fighters, but I'll definitely be reconsidering the designs on strat bombers.
What is the overstacking penalty of a 75 combat width division (25-12 tonks-13 rocket artillety), and I know it's a stupid division and can't be used in battle as it'd probably be one of the most trashy divisions but yeah
Question Dave, if you made a 15% reliability hvy tank x10 div and then padded out the rest of your div with trucks, does that raise the average up yeah?
Reliability shouldn't just simulate a plane being killed, it should instead be like a certain % of your planes are 'down for maintenance' and will not contribute to that sortie, lets say with the stock 80% reliability, you should be able to expect 80% of your planes to be in that sortie (not always 80% just RNG it) on average, sometimes 90-100% sometimes lower than 80%, but it should average out to around 80% I feel this would only be practical if planes get module slots like tanks and ships where reliability is affected by more than clicking a + button
alternatively it could mean that if you have an airwing of say, 100 fighters with 80% reliability it actually uses 120 fighter equipment to fly at 100% strength due to maintenance, similarly a division with 500 tanks at 90% reliability could use 550 tanks to fight at full strength, however I am not sure if adding those additional calculations would be good for the game.
@@VayleGW anything late game just lags so why not add more? lol I think either one of these would work, just as long as reliability affects planes in a sortie or something, not sure for tanks, should count as tanks not in combat for shit like broken transmission, track, engine etc..
Fuck, didn't expect a philosophy lesson. 98pc of people do not seek to self-improveme and admit to not knowing things. You have to discover your limits and push them
so considering my shitty computer makes the game pracitically unplayable past 46 and starts to slow down by 43 and most of my game end by 44 how much does reliabilty matter for me?
just throw artillery and infantry untill its ~40 width and icon is still an infantry one, and boom, u got like 350+ soft attack division that kills everything, y bother?
In a single player game, after certain point, industry and resource cost becomes less and less of a factor. You will still build up for something big, like playing USA and preparing to invade Europe, or playing as some European nation planning to invade USA. But after few initial battles the front line will be shattered and the war basically won. The difference is only spacing out the wars, and conquering at own pace, not needing to constantly catching up with human opponent. In addition, the more you conquer, the less you care about the cost, because of how much industry and resources you control. Paradox needs to rework the reliability, so it's not simply a chance to lose the equipment, but also impose an upkeep cost of maintaining it. So one could not simply stockpile and mothball millions of equipment pieces, constantly adding more and more to the pile. Stuff already in stockpile would drain the resources and industry, so it would need to be reliable to be viable for storage, and scrapping or land leasing obsolete equipment would become a lot more realistic and very close to what happens in the real world with old weapons.
I need help -- New player. Playing unaligned & independent Japan, capitulate Dutch East Indies --> Netherlands --> UK. Really enjoy it -- controlling resources, supply routes, etc. Have a dominant navy with India, Australia, and Canada isolated. As soon as Germany makes its stint in 1939 and takes france... the Axis takes control of the world in the peace conference. I can't even move my troops out of my territories which I had built up. I'm not in the axis... I'm an independent faction.
I ususally make 3 invantry division The light is 24 The ordinarry is anytning in 30 whatever is that it has 12 invantry,5 artillery and maybe 2 anti tank Special for germany,11 infantry,5 artillery,2 anti tank
![Lil Uzi Vert - We Good [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DrSfBULAsek/mqdefault.jpg)
COMMENT for 100% reliability tiger tank or LIKE for 0% reliability Spitfire?
20% reliability CAS tho
Tiger tank
Just modify the game files so that when you upgrade a reliability module instead of some PATHETIC 5% reliability you get 500% reliability.
EZclap
I want stonks of da tonks
.
I can only imagine what the pilots would think, being issued a piece of junk that's nearly guaranteed to kill you within a year, but the conscious decision being made because High Command thinks another plane will just shoot you down anyway.
Soviet thinking in a nutshell.
Nice future as fighter pilot!
;)
almost certainly what actually happened though right?
I mean… unironically what happened with the t-34. If they manage to live out its service life just give them another with the resources you saved by cutting costs in the first place
@@farmerboy916 If a tank breaks down it's stuck in a field somewhere. If a plane breaks down you're now in a hunk of metal hurtling hundreds of miles an hour.
For the record, having over 100% reliability on a tank is wasted in the division designer, it counts anything over 100% as 100% so that 140% reliability tank is wasting 40% reliability.
Well, not necessarily, If you have one tank in your template be 140% reliability, for example a TD that can get that quite easily, and one tank that is supposed to have very high breakthrough with a Petrol Electric engine having 70% reliability, and then spreading those two tanks across evenly, you would end up with 100% reliability in your div which is all that matters. Divisions count average reliability, not individual :)
@@artmaker123546 your mom
@@naturalflavours7432 i see
@@artmaker123546 where did you learn this mister xina?
@@kellynolen498 University of freedom and human rights, Pyongyang, North Korea
For all those who want a perfect combat width, just go with 27w infantry and 42w tanks. They are for now the best. 27w has more than enough hp and firepower, and overstackimg penalty is not high so its nice. Also it should either be 1 artillery and 12 infantry, or 3 artillery and 8 infantry
I HATE THE META I HATE THE META I HATE THE META
*spams 30 width pure cavalry division*
Actually overstacking penalty is 0 for all defence divisions above 10.
My tests show that 10-th suffer 20-30% more losses, then 30-th (I've tested in fields).
And that is... Not to much! They hold enemy tanks much more time!
I tested with soft attack 800, 2 attacking divisions and 1939 technology level
15w is best for everything. Literally no one understands the way the combat system has changed
@@deathdealer312 Except that they aren't. 27w is the best, it's the middle ground. Not too big, but not too small either.
Reject meta
Use chemical weapons
When you hover over the attrition icon on a division while it takes attrition you can see that each type of equipment has its own calculation and chance. Not per division but per type. So yes, if you have 10 different light tank types in one division it will calculate for each type of tank. But you can see that in the tooltip
With this kind of reliability we will make it from 1936 to 2022 boys!
my question is: is a tank that has over 100% reliability affecting the division like it has 100, or like it has 140?
GOOD QUESTION! I dunno
I believe cap is 100%, but if some debuffs will be present, reliability higher than 100 will eat it.
How can you have something above 100% when it's globally known as the maximum
Reliability is counted individually for all equipment and 100% is the maximum
@@FeedbackIRL i dunno = lesson of the video learned xD
As someone who plays just singleplayer or coop with friends I always add maintenance companies to my divisions if I can.
By 1940 having at least +10% reliability means I can afford to have a better tank that has between 80% and 90% reliability, and when I upgrade my maintenance company, I often upgrade my tanks shortly after with either more speed, armour or a better gun because I can now afford to lower my reliability because it's actually gone up because of the maintenance company.
Maintenance and Logistics are, in my opinion, auto includes as it means that for the same amount of factories I can now field a few percent extra divisions (depending on the time of the game) because I just use that much less supply.
I think Soviet Yak 9T/K's had 50/50 chance of catastrophic failure on every mission. The idea was to fly a mission in a fighter and then if you made it back, you'd get another one for the next mission.
wasn't thar thing so bad that the pilots would survive a crash because the planes couldn't even fly higher than a few meters.
Admit you don't know something? On the internet? In this day and age?
LMAO
That is funny AF. Seriously, the internet today is the BEST case study on the Dunning Kruger Effect you can find. People might not always be right, but they are NEVER wrong.
TRUE AND BASED
I actually like the varied combat widths. A lot of time it depends on what nation and political course I go down for width now. My infantry is usually all the same width, but my tanks and motorized/mechanized will be different widths to better work with the particular terrain of the theatre. My real question is: Is anti-tank useful at all? Is there a way to make it viable? I'd love to drop a couple AT companies into my infantry for defense against enemy armor. I've usually done a combined arms doctrine type thing with dropping a heavy tank destroyer or 3 into my infantry templates. It seems to help, but I really don't know if is justified for the cost. Rarely do it with small nations like Estonia, at least until I conquer all of Scandinavia and coastal Germany, before turning back east to face the new Russian Empire and Japan.
I tend to only do AT/tank destroyers in my defensive infantry in the early years if I need to completely stonewall Germany as, like, France. Once you hit 1942 and start getting access to infantry AT weapons, the need for dedicated AT/TD in your defensive infantry drops precipitously in single player, since the AI is dogwater at designing beefy tank divisions (let alone fielding them).
My opinion here, no cosmic truth (sorry).The fact is (in sp) that your AT guns have a very small percentage chance to face any armored unit during the game. They may be nice for flavor or even really useful against tanks, it doesn't matter, they are actually wasted manpower and resources. Maybe change it for AA guns. You should still have a few HA points to add and they will actually shoot sometimes (if you are not usa). Tank destroyers were (irl) cheap tanks. Germany built them because they lacked the resources to build turrets for their tanks. USA built some too because they thought if germans are doing it, it sure must be worthy :) Don't waste resources to something you will not need.
AT is mostly useful in multiplayer when you're up against people who can build proper tank divisions. AA is usually enough piercing to handle the AI in the early game and gives you the added benefit of defense against planes.
Like someone else said, the only time I do AT in single player is as France. I'll drop them in the divisions holding the Belgian border as an extra insurance policy to be sure they have the piercing and hard attack to handle the Germans.
Don't forget that most tank templates don't have that much hardness, meaning that if you throw enough soft attack at them they'll still go kaputt
@@kido1642 Pretty much every country had tank destroyers in some form. But yeah, the only time I used tank destroyers in single-player was in EaW when I had to defend against the changelings who had a lot of tanks and I just had to hold.
The reliability of advice given on this channel is about as confusing as in the game. And i love every minute of it.
Here's a small thing about reliability for ground units: It only applies when Attrition does. More over reliability doesn't counter attrition; if you get upto 100% attrition, usually from a river combat, you will still lose equipment even when at 100% reliability. When at 100%, it uses a different formula, but anything less than uses the one stated on the wiki.
It uses the same formula, but there is minimum amount of attrition, equivalent of 50 equipment at 80 reliability.
The reddit guy's analysis on reliability is very interesting when you consider real life cases as well. I remember reading something like a T-34 rolling out of the factory had a "life expectancy" of 20-30 hours in combat, so a lot of the parts were only designed to last that long.
Don't have numbers on a plane like an Il-2 or something but the same calculation would've been used in real production parts to optimize how long a part lasts vs how long it takes for the equipment in question to be destroyed in combat.
The parts weren't "designed" to last that long, the designs predated the war. That stuff just happened that they just put things together in a really shoddy quick fashion. Which also meant that, for instance, a tank rushed off too fast could have its armor plate not properly welded, leading to the tank having its hull ruptured from a hit that it normally would've survived. It also meant some tanks lacked things like proper optics, which would affect combat performance.
This was, in no way, done as a planned thing. It was just pure desperation and it's debatable how useful it ended up being.
I recall a watching a video recently analysing the reliability of the T-34 and its production, and the Soviets were basically in a bad loop that went like this: T-34 factories cut corners to meet high production quotas -> Step 2: T-34 casualties higher than expected -> Increase production quotas to make up difference -> Repeat from Step 1. And this did not fully stop until after the war. And despite the T-34 having a post-war reputation as a "cheap and good enough" weapon system, it actually wasn't designed as such. It was originally developed to fill the role of an expensive, high-performance cavalry tank reserved for better-trained offensive breakthrough units in the Red Army. It was designed to be at the cutting edge of what the Soviet Union could produce at the time, and like with the German wunderwaffe, that also showed in its reliability. The final decision to push for extreme mass production of the T-34 and have it serve as the workhorse of the entire Red Army tank force only came after the factories of the KV-series tanks were lost to the German advance and the other tank designs in Red Army service at the time proved themselves so obsolete against their german opposition that they weren't worth producing anymore.
@@martenkahr3365 Funny, I think the Germans had the exact opposite problem. Being starved out of resources they ended up making maybe not more reliable but definitely better armored and better armed tankds, hoping there would be less catastrophic destruction on the battlefield (plus shock factor of the big guns).
@@frankunderbush The similarity is that the T-34, when production first began, was at the very limit of what the USSR had the technology to produce, and like the Germans and their wunderwaffe, they could make a good prototype, but couldn't actually pull off mass production to the same quality as the prototypes. Which resulted in mechanical reliability issues same as Tigers and Panthers. The video I'm taking this from is here, if you're curious about the full details of why the T-34 is really not as brilliant as commieboos make it sounds: ruclips.net/video/CIZ6PFYUM5o/видео.html
@@martenkahr3365 not a commie but it's brilliant since it won the war and actually DID his job in given situation of desperate manufacturing problems it's not like it would be brilliant in other time but it was brilliant for the moment hence did it's job
Great advice and insight into reliability!
Glad it was helpful!
There's some nice insights about reliability in here, but the advice part in the beginning was just a level beyond. Extremely important things to keep in mind, listen to this man!
Don’t forget that most likely your going to be running maintenance companies in your tank divisions. So you can afford a rather low reliability tank because they’ll be mostly counteracted by your company’s buff
I've found 27/w to be fine. They hit fairly hard, and don't take that much over stacking penalty.
My go-to infantry division so far has been 10 Inf - 2 Art - 1 Anti-Air.
I've found it to work well.
2:28 Solid advice to live by right here.
In hoi4 wiki there is equation for attrition, so this isn't anything new. If somebody needs to calculate on what reliability it will lose the least amount of gear out of attrition, the short equation is: (number of gear in division*100-1000)/number of gear in division or what I call 80/50 rule. 80 reliability for 50 equipment. So if I need 100 gear, I need to scale reliability to 90, or 1/2 of 100-80 (that is 100 minus 80). And if division have for example 12 artillery, expect same attrition like there is 50, or about 4 times as high.
And this is reason why I really hate putting one tank destroyer battalion in all infantry division. Or why AI always runs out of AT guns, so I don't really need that much of armor on my tanks.
So takeaway from planes is, 80% reliability pre-war, and then maybe drop that to 50-60% with upgrades on a new production line when the war starts? Seems like that method would net you the best amount of planes.
We all know that this is gonna be nerf to the ground that's for sure in yeah in the Italian Dlc
So there won't be a nerf for the next century then? Sounds good to me
What's gonna be nerfed?
@@tgoas3503 also yeah. We need a Italy, Swiss, Albania, Austria Ethopia DLC with peace conference rework
1:40 “Some thing in life are more complicated then you want them to be”
MTG ship designer in a nutshell 😆
I've played Hoi4 for years but it feels like I always learn something from your videos!
I need help -- New player.
Playing unaligned & independent Japan, capitulate Dutch East Indies --> Netherlands --> UK.
Really enjoy it -- controlling resources, supply routes, etc.
Have a dominant navy with India, Australia, and Canada isolated.
As soon as Germany makes its stint in 1939 and takes france... the Axis takes control of the world in the peace conference. I can't even move my troops out of my territories which I had built up.
I'm not in the axis... I'm an independent faction.
it's entirely reasonable to have your reliability only slightly higher than the likelihood of being shot down. for the little dude inside, it's still like you care for them, even if you're sending to their death regardless.
If you are going for tanks, you are going to be fighting on plains and perhaps in hills, because the penalties for every other type of terrain are appalling.
Your next priority will be to make the division *big* enough to have the org to endure the org-diluting effects of support companies, while keeping a good mix between breakthrough-centric tanks, light-attack focused SPGs and other specialized unit types, where applicable.
Then you want to make divisions built around this balanced formula as *small* as possible, because more divisions give you more org total in a battle.
If you're going for general purpose pushing infantry, you should look for a width that is a compromise between plains, forests, mountains and hills, with emphasis on whichever terrain type is most prevalent.
Just use flame tanks, recon, and engineers and you can attack forests with tanks just fine. 1942 engies also make your tanks capable of attacking across rivers. I use 42W tanks because there's so many gooddamn forests in Russia, and tanks already excel in plains so there's no need to build 44/45w
Dave, your music is so chill.
Dave, all I'm saying is Douglas Adams figured out combat width DECADES ago. It's the answer to EVERYTHING.
This adds very well to your conclusion of producing the cheapest medium tanks early on.
Thanks man. You are the Google for Hoi4
2:45 Dave going DEEP. Good job mate!
“I want you to throw a party every time you change your mind” *Dave please I have anxiety , you don’t know what you’re doing to my liver*
Comparing the complexity of combat width in HOI4 with quantum physics is genius!
there was somebody standing right behind you
In fairness the reliability thing is self evident as that's how speed and hard/soft attack work as well. Don't worry again not slamming you guys but I think when all the big HOI RUclipsrs all used 7-2, 14-4, and Superior Firepower no matter what I tended to believe they didn't all experiment and all came to the same conclusion. It's clear one guy figured it out and everyone copied him and I'd bet that person doesn't even have a RUclips because editing videos and being a good gamer are hard to pull off anymore. Content creation is about as taxing as learning HOI.
What is surprising is how many MP players are trying to turn the game into a gimmick which some things are just trash that Paradox needs to fix (like CAS only or Cruiser spam). They need to do command limits on naval as based on a total number per ship type with subs being their own thing as well. I honestly don't think even Paradox fully understands their own game or they'd have cashed in with their own video guides.
One last thing if reliability doesn't matter at all then why do we lose planes at all during training? People forget they will still crash the plane despite the reliability if they are green.
10w or 20w or 40w was kind of known from the start because the math was quite simple (x should be divisor of 80).
As the youtuber Reman's Paradox made two brilliant videos on how combat mechanics worked and that 40w were much stronger than 20w. Everyone did know that 40w is the way to go. -.-
Now Paradox has changed combat width that the players have something to think about.
I guess I found the solution but I will cetainly not tell any youtuber because everyone would play that way (again)
It would take paradox just a couple minutes to change cw again and we did the math for nothing.
As you may noticed there is a mistake in the graph of plane attrition. Which does not correlate to the formula above. This makes this video false anyway. :D
"Quantum Physics is when things go really fast and go woo"
20 width infantry with minimal support equipment (anti-air + engineering) seems best for holding, but the interesting question for me is whether it's worth it to add a low reliability H-tank to buff up the division armor above anti-air piercing. This allows them to deal more organization damage while also receiving half damage against most templates. My tests led to ~25% increase in division cost to add the heavy tank, but if it increases division effectiveness by 50% it may be worth it. We can also add anti-air to the tank, making it significantly cheaper, and free up a support company slot.
I usually do that in Kaiserreich as Germany: after beating the Russians or the Internationale, I usually have enough captured heavy tanks laying around to add some to infantry divisions. Although after 1942 that is usually a waste of fuel as the AI already has AT, AA or has reasearched AT infantry equipment and the added stats are not that important.
Rocket arty battalions are lot more useful as a purely stat addition, and are cheaper to boot.
You can actually increase the reliability of mechanized equipment with army experience because it still uses the old system, so if you were to max that out that would be a way to boost the average reliability of your tank divisions assuming you can afford to produce mechanized. You can also spend army experience to decrease the production cost of mechanized and if you max it out, the cost is reduced by HALF. Very nice if you've already maxed your land doctrines and have army experience sitting around doing nothing!
I like your new format.^^
You try to understand and show the math behind the game. Which is great.
But in the section of plane attrition there are a couple of mistakes.
A) Planes do a sortie 3 times per day = false
B) Accident chance = 0.1% * (100 - reliability)
That's nice... but what has that to do with plane losses from attrition?
With 0% reliability:
Accident chance = 0.1% * (100 - 0) = 10%
0.5 = 0.9^x
x = 6.57881
If Accident chance = plane attrition you would have lost your most of your planes on untill day 3.
That's obviously just 1 factor of plane attrition and not shown in the graphs at all!
EDIT: Just found that guide and they removed that passage and link to the forum where someone got the real plane attrition explained.^^
I use 22 Combat Width divisions for my base army, 25 combat width for my Mountaineers, 35 for my Urban assaulters, and either 17 or 27 for me tanks.
I love the love/hate relationship you've got going on with your viewers.
Hahahaha true and based
I love it when my planes automatically do a flatspin 180 and mlg the dude
What I consider optimal infantry division is: 11/0, 10/1 or 8/2 infantry/artillery with artillery, engineers and logistical company.
I don't know if it's still true, but reliability did at least have one use case. If it's high enough, planes could survive kamikaze missions :D.
Quick question: if you put 50% reliability tanks with 80% reliability other stuff, is the average the only thing that matters? Because in that case, it's better to have maintenance companies and cheaper tanks for example. Waay more cost effective that spending into torsion bars and other stuff to get better reliability for tanks: you will average that value with the 80% of motorized or mechanized, and than you will add the maintenance on top of it, you can go pretty high and maybe save a little IC while still averaging around 70% reliability.
Once you research Maintenance Company 2, you get a module in the tank designer that gives +20% reliability for no additional production cost. So, researching them is doubly beneficial.
My take away with this is that torsion bars is useless, bogie is only good if you're a minor who needs CHEAP af tanks, christie is only good for light tanks, and interleaved is now best for anything else, mediums and especially heavies.
@@jarink1 it's just 10%, not 20%, but yes, easy maintenance is still very valuable
Current army composition for me is
Infantry: 21 and 27 width
Armored: 33 and 37 width
33 performed decently well on my previous test runs but looking at the statistics I‘ll change it for a 27 probably.
Problem with 21 is that you can squize 5 of them on 90 width combat and have massive penalty. Same with 27. That problem is eliminated with 22 and 28. At 28 it starts to feel lack of organization pool, so 22-23 is what I consider optimal.
0% reliability be like:
*Yeah, we have a 5000kg bomb and 30mm cannons, but the engine won’t turn on.*
Lmao
I'm not a 100% agreeing on the plane side : at 40% it takes on average 500 days to have an accident for a plane.
But another way to see that is "every 500 planes in the air, I loose 1 per day". This might sounds low but this means to replace that lose, you need to spend daily 20-28 production points. At full efficiency and with +100% production bonus that represent 2-3 factories just to stay at 500 planes (40% reliability), it's not nothing.
And again, that's for every 500 planes in the air. If you put 2500 planes (-5 planes per day), you will need about 12-13 factories just to replace what you lose by accident.
If we raise reliability to 60%, it's every 833 planes that you lose 1 per day, so for 2500 planes you lose 3 per days, so "only" 7 factories.
After yes, it's much lower than what you can lose from air battle, but it can also be way higher than what you lose in air battle depending on radar, amount of air units... and I'm not even talking about strat bomber who survive more easily in air battle but would suffer full those accidents, and they cost way more. so wouldn't recommend to drop it very low
Man I love streaming dave.
So as it looks like it averages the reliability of every thing in the division, you could in theory make a relatively low reliability main tank and then make a super high reliability supplemental tank to throw into the divisions to artificially raise them back up.
Interesting. So if you're adding lots of support companies, motorised and so on, to a 20 width early tank div, is there a lot of point in sacrificing engine/armour to get 100% reliability since the average will want to go to 80%? Once you have mechs, it's a different story since you'll be able to boost them both and drag the average up.
I might be missing something here. With 80% reliability for a plane, the accident chance should come out to 2%, which would result in an average amount of sorties per plane of about 50 rather than 5000. Do accidents not always result in the loss of the plane then?
You multiply that one with 0.1%.
@Aleksandar Petrović but you don't
if 80% reliability means 0.1 * (100-80) so that comes out at 2%
or by every sortie a 200 plane wing will lose 4 planes. or, in 50 sorties you'll have replaced your entire air wing.
Like unless i'm completely retarded at math (quite possible) i do not understand even for a second where this 1 plane will do 5000 sorties come from as the math outright is 0.1 * (100-Reliability) for an 80% reliability plane, its 50 sorties and then its toast one way or the other.
for 80% reliability, you have 2% loss per sortie.
So what I've gotten from this, is that on average, an aircraft will get shot down before it fails.
Pretty much
Game is calculating attrition for each equipment type. There is tooltip.
Average reliability for division is recently added and it affects organization regain, or something like that.
I did some testing training planes to Regular.
Reliability 100= 1000/1000
Reliability 80 = 950/1000
Reliability 0 = 771/1000
I dont understand that formula. Per sortie the accident chance is 0.1% * (100 - reliability) according to the post. So at 80 reliability this would be 0.1% * (100-80) = 20*0.1% = 2%. 3 sorties a day, this would be an insane (approximately) 6% chance to die each day.
2:28 Feedback spitting fax
If for divisions only the average reliability matters, couldn't you utilize tanks with like 140% reliability or more (there is a max average of 100% division average but maybe it still uses the unmodified reliability while calculating and only cuts off the excess after that) to get average reliability up to 100% even with Mech/Mot and support companies in the division?
Possible! Its not been tried
Daddy Dave, Daddy Dave! Why did the dinosaurs die out?
So we talked about his reliability works for tanks and aircraft. But what about ships? How do those work
Lower the reliability on ships, higher is the chance of critical hit. Ships also have training accidents, as well as hitting a mine. But ship is often just damaged, and not lost like an airplane.
Dave I could watch you give lectures about HOI4 all day!
Wouldn't you, in SP, rather than going for 100% reliability tanks, to try to bring the average up, don't you want to go for like a 60% reliability tank, and let your support equipment and mech/mot bring it up to 80? Cheaper tanks, but similar reliability? Rather than trying to fight the fixed 80, you want the 80 to work in your favour?
The average reliability in a division is different from atrittion losses per equipment. If you have 100% average reliability, you will still loose a lot of equipment to atrittion if you have 40% reliability tanks.
@@michaldlapka6226 Ah, so @FeedbackIRL is wrong, it does calculate it for each piece of equipment?
The comments on the cognitive healthiness of admitting that you don't know something, and being willing to change your mind when presented with new information, was worth the price of admission.
It's rare that you see anyone bring those topics up.
I still like 27 width for general combat. 9 infantry and 3 artillery + support companies. I feel like that does plenty of soft attack damage to clear out ai units and low combat width spam in multiplayer. Obviously if your opponent is making larger infantry divisions, you'd adjust your strategy to either match their division size or go for encircling maneuvers in lieu of beating them outright. The artillery can be easily replaced with more infantry for defensive divisions. I feel like this is an effective strategy for most nation sizes in both single and multiplayer. I think an analysis of the ratio of stats to combat width penalty would put this division type near the top of the list.
Now I see how this channel works. “You know that thing that you do in HOI4? It’s totally wrong!!!”
I like it that you are simply more flexible with combat width. I dont think in SP (And probably MP) there really is a good one size fits all. Sure some are betters then others but it's nice not to be stuck on 10/20/40 width. Ow i have 20 width inf but enemy air seems way to strong. Lets just slap on some AA in my division. Who cares that it's now 21 width.
Imagine having 5000 planes and after one year of using them there is none left.
If airplane reliability and attrition does not matter, how come some of my airplanes die during training?
At 0 percent reliability you’re losing a plane every 333 sorties. So an air wing of 333 would be expected to lose an average of one plane per day to accidents.
What about naval reliability? When rolling out the next gen, huge upgrade, those targeting computers for BBs and CAs look pretty tasty, especially with the stronger engine, and since you're not pouring out large ships like you are lights hulls, CLs, DDs, baby flattops, and subs, you're going to want good stats....but also good reliability because of their cost. Any suggestions?
If I had a party every time I changed my mind I would not have made it into my twenties due to alcohol poisoning.
Love these vids
Is there a link for this excel doc? Love the video
Its a pinned message on my discord
(didnt watch the vid yet btw)
Ayo reliability doesn't matter? Time to make based tanks
XD
I've always ignored reliability
I saw another guys idea combat with he pointed out that over 20 you loses use of the support units in combat! Plus I want the game to be as real world as can be> Example the Germans reduced the number of Battalions from 9 to 6 in 1942 so each brigade had only 2 battalions instead of 3
7:00 For the record, reliability is done per equipment, not division. The long-short of it is you're wrong, but you have a logic there. No, the reliability displayed on a unit is pointless; That number is never used in the code. Instead, every hour that a unit has the attrition tag, every, single, piece, of, equipment rolls for failure vs it's reliability. [b]this includes variants, nationals, and tiers[/b]. If you have a unit with a single infantry division and it somehow has rifle 1, 2, and 3, each with the German, French, and UK nationals, it will have to roll 9 separate times for failure. This is expressly why late game HoI lags so hard and why the game becomes CPU intensive out of the blue; Attrition rolls. It also means you can lose 25% of your equipment in one hour if you have too many different equipment for one division type.
Source?
Wouldn't that mean you could just run very low reliability tanks with higher mobility motor/mech to balance out the average reliability ? Since it uses averages, and you'll probably have more motor/mech in the division then tanks, it should theorreactially balance out with a higher reliability while keeping fat stats on the tanks
You know somehow in no step back they took ww2 and switched our for modern warfare. I totally remember Rommel carefully advancing and Germany grinding france down due to logistics rather than encirclement thanks to snaking. I also remember the soviets being so poor they faced the Germans with 6 tank divisions. Zukev will be happy let's erase the 6,000 light tanks lost because according to this the Soviets couldn't lose 6 divisions because they couldn't replace them... they should have had an entire supply system based on how much stored like fuel rather than a fu for daring to encircle ....
Genius of Le Stats
Well... I already extend range to the max on planes, so they're 80%, regardless. Still don't think air attack is worth the sacrifice on agility for fighters, but I'll definitely be reconsidering the designs on strat bombers.
Quantum physics goes woooooo
Threw you a sub I won't play MP on this so I need those SP tips
Does anyone have that spreadsheet for combat widths at the beginning?
What is the overstacking penalty of a 75 combat width division (25-12 tonks-13 rocket artillety), and I know it's a stupid division and can't be used in battle as it'd probably be one of the most trashy divisions but yeah
Unless you attack from several directions, it should be 0.
Question Dave, if you made a 15% reliability hvy tank x10 div and then padded out the rest of your div with trucks, does that raise the average up yeah?
Can someone give me the link to the first spreadsheet? i tried typing it off but that didint work
Reliability shouldn't just simulate a plane being killed, it should instead be like a certain % of your planes are 'down for maintenance' and will not contribute to that sortie, lets say with the stock 80% reliability, you should be able to expect 80% of your planes to be in that sortie (not always 80% just RNG it) on average, sometimes 90-100% sometimes lower than 80%, but it should average out to around 80% I feel this would only be practical if planes get module slots like tanks and ships where reliability is affected by more than clicking a + button
alternatively it could mean that if you have an airwing of say, 100 fighters with 80% reliability it actually uses 120 fighter equipment to fly at 100% strength due to maintenance, similarly a division with 500 tanks at 90% reliability could use 550 tanks to fight at full strength, however I am not sure if adding those additional calculations would be good for the game.
@@VayleGW a division equipment reserve mechanic could be interesting. Trade supply and fuel use for maintaining combat strength longer
@@VayleGW anything late game just lags so why not add more? lol I think either one of these would work, just as long as reliability affects planes in a sortie or something, not sure for tanks, should count as tanks not in combat for shit like broken transmission, track, engine etc..
If you have a super reliable tank above 100% it'll skew the numbers higher as well if it is a full average since that matters
Sadly no. There is a max cap of 100
Damn so even having a 140% tank mixed with an 80% motorized won't be a 100% (since the average between is 120%)?
Fuck, didn't expect a philosophy lesson. 98pc of people do not seek to self-improveme and admit to not knowing things. You have to discover your limits and push them
Why is there a philosophical statement in my hoi vid
But yeah you right
i think you didn't explicitly say it, so i ask :)
if i half the failure chance (100% - reliability) ... i will have half the attrition?
i wanted to play hoi4 now i have to f***ing do algebra every time i play a new nation
so considering my shitty computer makes the game pracitically unplayable past 46 and starts to slow down by 43 and most of my game end by 44 how much does reliabilty matter for me?
just throw artillery and infantry untill its ~40 width and icon is still an infantry one, and boom, u got like 350+ soft attack division that kills everything, y bother?
If tank loss due to attrition is minimal, you can continuously field more tank divisions on the field without stressing your industry.
hey do you have the links for the sources you used? i wanna read up on this information
My discord pinned messages
Hey thx for the info about quantum mechanics feel smarter youuuuh
4Head
I had 100% reliability and still lose my planes on kamikaze sorties.
In a single player game, after certain point, industry and resource cost becomes less and less of a factor. You will still build up for something big, like playing USA and preparing to invade Europe, or playing as some European nation planning to invade USA. But after few initial battles the front line will be shattered and the war basically won. The difference is only spacing out the wars, and conquering at own pace, not needing to constantly catching up with human opponent. In addition, the more you conquer, the less you care about the cost, because of how much industry and resources you control.
Paradox needs to rework the reliability, so it's not simply a chance to lose the equipment, but also impose an upkeep cost of maintaining it. So one could not simply stockpile and mothball millions of equipment pieces, constantly adding more and more to the pile. Stuff already in stockpile would drain the resources and industry, so it would need to be reliable to be viable for storage, and scrapping or land leasing obsolete equipment would become a lot more realistic and very close to what happens in the real world with old weapons.
I need help -- New player.
Playing unaligned & independent Japan, capitulate Dutch East Indies --> Netherlands --> UK.
Really enjoy it -- controlling resources, supply routes, etc.
Have a dominant navy with India, Australia, and Canada isolated.
As soon as Germany makes its stint in 1939 and takes france... the Axis takes control of the world in the peace conference. I can't even move my troops out of my territories which I had built up.
I'm not in the axis... I'm an independent faction.
I ususally make 3 invantry division
The light is 24
The ordinarry is anytning in 30 whatever is that it has 12 invantry,5 artillery and maybe 2 anti tank
Special for germany,11 infantry,5 artillery,2 anti tank