Another question: I've seen the meme DISREGARD CRUISERS ACQUIRE DREADNOUGHTS. Is that the most cost effective naval strategy?
What's Your Brigade Composition?
- Thread starter Phalanxia
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If you're building lots of dreadnoughts(or cruisers), money isn't a problem.
Sure, but I want get as much tonnage for my £ as possible. Do cruisers have any specific purpose other than being cheaper and worse dreadnoughts?
Well, time is more of a factor than money, and it takes less time to build 1 dreadnought than 2 cruisers
Cruisers are for when you have the cruiser tech but not the dreadnougt tech
I've been using 6 guards and 3 artillery. Use infantry in the guards place till I get the tech.
Also cruiser being screens does not give you any MIL score at all, making DN much more attractive providing around 19 score a piece.
Army-composition for my border troops:
4 x Guard/Infantry
1 x Engineer
2 x Artillery
2 x Cavalry
I stack these together when facing larger armies.
Behind those troops I keep a few Hussar Stacks for rebel hunting and for quick encirclements.
4 x Guard/Infantry
1 x Engineer
2 x Artillery
2 x Cavalry
I stack these together when facing larger armies.
Behind those troops I keep a few Hussar Stacks for rebel hunting and for quick encirclements.
Well, usually 5 infantry and 3 artillery, in the early game. A little bit later on if I can afford 5 infantry 3 cav. and 3 artillery. I also make elite armies "Royal guards" when I unlock guards, makes for 5 guards 3 dragoons and 3 artillery. But it really depends on the nation. But this is the most usual. I tend to use guards a lot...
I mostly seperate my engineer units and put 5 in one stack. A bad habbit, I know. But really usefull if you want to occupy a capital quickly, and helping out some armies.
I mostly seperate my engineer units and put 5 in one stack. A bad habbit, I know. But really usefull if you want to occupy a capital quickly, and helping out some armies.
All very nice - you can keep to those organisations in the early game but when you get a real empire with lots of provinces from mid-game on, organising is a pain.. then when you get to straight you break it up to seige, and reassembling is another pain .. plain infantry/guards, mixed with a few art if you're a powerful nation is the way to go, even if its not really historical (but for the great war end of the game it would be close..) and never mind the fine detail..
Its a hierarchy or your military leaders and organization of your military units. It was bar on the side of the screen that let you quickly assign military leaders and move troops around. You had a command structure which consisted of; theater, army group, army, corps, and divisions. At each level of command you have a military leader. If you had 2 armies and one needed extra troops for whatever reason you could use the order of battle bar to slide troops from Army A to Army B very easy. You can also select any group or individual unit. So as you are fighting and spreading out you could use it to select all your units that are grouped together instantly and move them back together.
So in Vic2 terms if you had a stack of troops named I. Corps which consisted of 3 infantry brigades and 1 artillery brigade and decided to split them up so you could occupy more provs and after they occupy them you can select I. Corps on the Order of Battle and it would select the 3 infantry brigades and 1 artillery brigades and you could move them back together. Vic2 doesn't have near the amount of military units that HoI3 has but I still think it would be a nice feature.
Sorry best I could explain it here is a link if you'd care to learn more about the Order of Battle
http://www.paradoxian.org/hoi3wiki/Command_structure
How do you guys replenish your infantry/guard losses in a reasonable timeframe with these 1:1 (or close to 1:1) ratios of infantry:artillery? I always seem to end up in a scenario where I have 2/3 or more of my artillery intact, but most of my infantry units at < 1k men and yellowed out on reinforcements, even after only a few battles.
I'm playing Texas right now, and am in an allied war with the CSA against the USA (but for some reason the CSA has a huge fleet but almost no land army...) When the USA mobilized, it got an enormous amount of infantry, and even though I'm killing them at a 2-to-1 or better ratio in most battles (pretty sure I have a sizable tech advantage), my guards and infantry are getting horribly depleted and are very slow to reinforce. In a way I suppose it's like the Confederacy-vs-Union situation in real history; even if I win the battles and kill them in droves (~92k killed in one battle), they just keep coming. The vast majority of their units appear to be basic infantry, while mine are primarily guards and artillery, with a modest amount of cavalry thrown in. They're engaging my armies with 30k-180k men at a time, yet are still able to have groups of >= 20k running around sieging provinces. They keep offering a white peace, but if I do that the CSA is a goner for sure, which means that they'll have even more men the next go around...
I'm playing Texas right now, and am in an allied war with the CSA against the USA (but for some reason the CSA has a huge fleet but almost no land army...) When the USA mobilized, it got an enormous amount of infantry, and even though I'm killing them at a 2-to-1 or better ratio in most battles (pretty sure I have a sizable tech advantage), my guards and infantry are getting horribly depleted and are very slow to reinforce. In a way I suppose it's like the Confederacy-vs-Union situation in real history; even if I win the battles and kill them in droves (~92k killed in one battle), they just keep coming. The vast majority of their units appear to be basic infantry, while mine are primarily guards and artillery, with a modest amount of cavalry thrown in. They're engaging my armies with 30k-180k men at a time, yet are still able to have groups of >= 20k running around sieging provinces. They keep offering a white peace, but if I do that the CSA is a goner for sure, which means that they'll have even more men the next go around...
I'm looking for a little input on this subject as well. I used to use the following formula (or multiple thereof) when building armies:
4 Inf
2 Cav
1 Art
Recently, I've changed that to:
2 Inf
1 Cav
2 Art
...and found that I can chew through deathstacks a lot more easily with that composition, but occupying territory takes far longer. I play a lot as Prussia, and generally I build "regional" armies (I like to play in a rather historical and immersive fashion), i.e. All troops raised in, say, Pommern go in one stack. I do this until I get to 10 Inf/5 Cav/10 Art (or 12 Inf/6 Cav/3 Art under my old system), then start a new stack. I even take the time to name them, i.e. "I. Pommern Korps" and "II. Pommern Korps." I'm thinking about changing the formulation of the second stack(s) (when/if I get them in some regions) to create a more cavalry-heavy mix for doing occupations. Any thoughts on that subject are more than welcome.
I change that scheme up a bit when I turn west and deal with France. As soon as I conquer A-L, I build the biggest forts possible and man them with pure infantry/artillery stacks, and give them defensive generals if I can. Would there be any advantage to including a little cavalry in these? By that point in the game I usually have at least two "korps" each in Rheinland and Nordrhein, and build one in this defensive way, keeping the other in the original formula above.
Thanks for any advice - this is a part of the game I'm just starting to mess with.
4 Inf
2 Cav
1 Art
Recently, I've changed that to:
2 Inf
1 Cav
2 Art
...and found that I can chew through deathstacks a lot more easily with that composition, but occupying territory takes far longer. I play a lot as Prussia, and generally I build "regional" armies (I like to play in a rather historical and immersive fashion), i.e. All troops raised in, say, Pommern go in one stack. I do this until I get to 10 Inf/5 Cav/10 Art (or 12 Inf/6 Cav/3 Art under my old system), then start a new stack. I even take the time to name them, i.e. "I. Pommern Korps" and "II. Pommern Korps." I'm thinking about changing the formulation of the second stack(s) (when/if I get them in some regions) to create a more cavalry-heavy mix for doing occupations. Any thoughts on that subject are more than welcome.
I change that scheme up a bit when I turn west and deal with France. As soon as I conquer A-L, I build the biggest forts possible and man them with pure infantry/artillery stacks, and give them defensive generals if I can. Would there be any advantage to including a little cavalry in these? By that point in the game I usually have at least two "korps" each in Rheinland and Nordrhein, and build one in this defensive way, keeping the other in the original formula above.
Thanks for any advice - this is a part of the game I'm just starting to mess with.
That's my meme, so I might as well respond.
If your navy never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (keep adding evers until you are satisfied) fights a single battle, dreadnoughts are the right answer for navy composition. You gain significant military score from each one. (More than 19 sometimes; ship scores factor hull and gun strength, and high tech dreadnoughts have even more hull and gun than dreadnoughts with no inventions related to guns and hulls.) Military score is a primary way the AI determines whether wars are worth pursuing. If you have a military score of 4,000, and the AI has a score of 1,800, it will be very unlikely to even attack you. Dreadnoughts in huge numbers are a better deterrent than cruisers.
Dreadnoughts also trash everything else in naval combat, so if you plan to fight a ton of wars, they are also the right asnwer. There aren't enough ironclads or monitors in the world to stop a handful of dreadnoughts (it's really sad to see 70 UK ironclads get roflstomped by 5 dreadnoughts). You hypothetically could build enough cruisers to fight on an even basis with dreadnoughts, but at that point, why waste the production time or steamers? Just build the damn dreadnoughts and slug it out.
The only exception to this rule is that dreadnoughts are slower than cruisers and steamer transports. For transport fleets, I attach cruisers. Since I usually build cruisers in the build up to the dreadnought tech anyway, it's no big deal. Once 50 dreadnoughts are built, all cruisers get put on transport escort duty.
Dreadnoughts are even fairly cost effective for blockades. 1 dreadnought will blockade all ports attached to a sea zone and trash just about anything trying to get in or out. Just keep a large reaction force handy to contain the main enemy fleet in whatever port it is hiding.
So, I say again:
Hmmmm, and here I was under the impression naval battle treated screens differently than battleships. I always tried to keep a 1:1 once I had enough fleets scattered around. But then I only build a navy late game if I'm breaking infamy limit, otherwise the money is better spent elsewhere. Consuming the world's barrels is top priority in the 20th century!