Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Early Mech rush feasible?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
I would recommend checking my "Numbers Aren’t Everything" AAR. Mech first took part in France and then moved to Russia. In fact I have used many weird formations in the game. Barbarossa operation shows all of them. I did not go for Mech+TD because TDs slowing down mechanised and motorised divisions immensely. Engineers were added for speed and ability to fight in difficult terrain. Worked well as exploitation units.
 
Germany can, as we all are aware of, afford to spend some LS on a few pet peeve projects (be it CVs, STRAT, HARM or whatever you fancy) and still be able to stay in the forefront of all essential techs and doctrines. If you feel like it early MEC could be this pet project so reserach wise its doable even if it might be the most efficient choice.

For it to pay off IC-wise you would have to build up your motorized practicals, something which is doable but maybe not the most efficient.

The part I like the best about this is that you can for once arguee that there exists at least *one* advantage of MEC, the lower supply consumption. But instead of going early and heavy on MEC I believe the more efficient route might be to research them later and deploy a few of the in key areas where armour is not suitable.

So in summary, feasible? Yes. Most efficient? Probably not.
 
I have done this a few time Blue. I personally don't like it for Germany. Like you were saying you get a build que jammed full of mech around 39-early 40. This jamming actually makes my army smaller than I would like in the long run. I like the 2xarm-2xspart more, yes they are expensive but the just hit like a freaking truck, you can unlock spart early and you can build them by early 37 no problem.

Now if your America or even the USSR this would be a killer way to go. It is my standard build when I play USA now. About 1/2 my land army is 2xmech-2xspat.
 
mnplastic said:
I did not go for Mech+TD because TDs slowing down mechanised and motorised divisions immensely. Engineers were added for speed and ability to fight in difficult terrain. Worked well as exploitation units.
Click to expand...

Depends on your research path actually. Engineers are always limited to speed 8.0 and will never get faster. Motorized start at 8.00 and even using 42 techs they wont go faster then 9.

TDs on the other hand can easily be researched to go faster then that if you focus on Tank engine and skip the Tank armour technologies (then TDs will reach speed 8.00 already using 1938 techs).
 
Alex_brunius said:
Depends on your research path actually. Engineers are always limited to speed 8.0 and will never get faster. Motorized start at 8.00 and even using 42 techs they wont go faster then 9.

TDs on the other hand can easily be researched to go faster then that if you focus on Tank engine and skip the Tank armour technologies (then TDs will reach speed 8.00 already using 1938 techs).
Click to expand...

From my experience MEC+TD move @ 9km/h during 1939 summer campaigns and speeds up to 10km/h for 1940 campaign in the east. So giving up that tiny bit of defensiveness and toughness is the way to go with TDs.
 
Early Mech rush is feasible too:

1. in SP games on hard/very hard difficulty with supply_throughput penalty?

2. in MP games?
 
Alex_brunius said:
Depends on your research path actually. Engineers are always limited to speed 8.0 and will never get faster. Motorized start at 8.00 and even using 42 techs they wont go faster then 9.

TDs on the other hand can easily be researched to go faster then that if you focus on Tank engine and skip the Tank armour technologies (then TDs will reach speed 8.00 already using 1938 techs).
Click to expand...

I had a race from The Pyrenees to Minsk in 1941. Units with TDs came the last, way behind units with ACs and Eng. I think AC+LAMR division was already in Minsk when TD+LARM was still in Berlin. Eng+LARM was in the Eastern Poland.

However, Eng+ARM beat AC+AMR. TD+ARM was far away.

In theory TDs have good speed until you take into account terrain. Then TDs become liability.

AC are the best for speed where units are super fast. Eng are the best there units speed is just above 8 or lower.
 
Last edited:
mnplastic said:
I had a race from The Pyrenees to Minsk in 1941. Units with TDs came the last, way behind units with ACs and Eng. I think AC+LAMR division was already in Minsk when TD+LARM was still in Berlin.

In theory TDs have good speed until you take into account terrain. Then TDs become liability.

AC are the best for speed where units are super fast. Eng are the best there units speed is just above 8 or lower.
Click to expand...

take a gander at this : http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...my-Organizer-A-Full-Feature-Visual-OOB-Editor

if yu load up a savegaem you can create those custom divisons and it tells you what the full stats will be (inc both terrains move and attack)
 
mnplastic said:
I had a race from The Pyrenees to Minsk in 1941. Units with TDs came the last, way behind units with ACs and Eng. I think AC+LAMR division was already in Minsk when TD+LARM was still in Berlin. Eng+LARM was in the Eastern Poland.
Click to expand...

Well next time organize a race to Camn Ranh bay. Minsk is in forest/marches region, TDs (and any armor) get nasty penalties to movement there.
MEC+TD offer a very well rounded division for decent price (note the lack of word "optimal", that title goes to ARM+SPA). Decent SA, HA, 9-10km/h speed combined with a bit less (~25%) of supplies/fuel usage.
 
JoeRambo said:
Well next time organize a race to Camn Ranh bay. Minsk is in forest/marches region, TDs (and any armor) get nasty penalties to movement there.
MEC+TD offer a very well rounded division for decent price (note the lack of word "optimal", that title goes to ARM+SPA). Decent SA, HA, 9-10km/h speed combined with a bit less (~25%) of supplies/fuel usage.
Click to expand...

But a half of France and Germany were plains ;) The point was to run through long enough distance with different terrain.

Optimal speed for ARM is with Eng unless you drive always plains and never cross rivers.
 
mnplastic said:
In theory TDs have good speed until you take into account terrain. Then TDs become liability.
Click to expand...
Wrong for the topic at hand.

We are talking about Barbarossa and then there is really only two terrains you need to worry about except plains, forest and woods.


TDs have -30% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
MOT have -30% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
ARM have -40% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
MEC have -30% movement for forest and -10% for woods.

Starting to see a pattern? Yes TDs are equal or better then all of the above they can be combined with, for the relevant terrains in Soviet. I couldn't find any other terrains where they have worse stats then Mechanized either except for 10% in mountains.

So if you get them to the same speed as MEC in the ledger, then that is what they will perform on the field too, except a slowdown of about 1kph in mountains which I think I can live with.

Your fieldtests are not really relevant, if you research armour but no engine for Tank destroyers then ofcourse they can become slow as hell. Or they could have lagged behind by 1 hour in the mountains which means the other divisions take all fuel and leave them at 10% of max speed until new fuel can arrive.

mnplastic said:
AC are the best for speed where units are super fast. Eng are the best there units speed is just above 8 or lower.
Click to expand...
So why did you suggest engineers for Mechanized then? :S
 
Well, speed for me is a relative term (ha).

If you want those divisions with TDs to be exploit divisions, yeah skip the armor and spam engine techs. You'll be glad you did.

But if you want divisions with TDs to be tip of the spear units for breakthroughs, then you can stack armor. TDs benefit from both light armor and medium armor techs (and the effects stack). They won't be very fast, but for breakthroughs, that's not what you want anyway.

That doesn't make MECH/TD better at breakthrough than something like ARM/SPARTY (the SA, even without hard on soft, is impressive), but it can make MECH/TD viable for breakthrough.

That being said, if I really go into motorized forces, I tend to go all out and not bother with armor. If I have armored units, I tend to ignore motorized forces. Again, practicals are part of the equation here.
 
Alex_brunius said:
Wrong for the topic at hand.

We are talking about Barbarossa and then there is really only two terrains you need to worry about except plains, forest and woods.
Click to expand...

And rivers.


TDs have -30% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
MOT have -30% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
ARM have -40% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
MEC have -30% movement for forest and -10% for woods.
ENG have +10% movement for forest and +10% for woods.

Besides ENG lowers river crossing time by 10-15%

In marches TDs have -70%.

So 2MEC+2TD in forest is -30% and attack -20%
While 2MEC+2ENG in forest is -10% and attack +15% and if you are crossing a river ...




Alex_brunius said:
So why did you suggest engineers for Mechanized then? :S
Click to expand...

Maybe because of rivers and a lot of forests ;)
 
mnplastic said:
In marches TDs have -70%.
Click to expand...
Which is the same as Mechanized...

mnplastic said:
Besides ENG lowers river crossing time by 10-15%
...
Maybe because of rivers and a lot of forests ;)
Click to expand...

No I'm asking why you specifically wanted to add engineers for movement... (" I did not go for Mech+TD because TDs slowing down mechanised and motorised divisions immensely. Engineers were added for speed")

The little speed bonus engineers get for rivercrossing from tech is not really relevant. Movement is calculated individually for every brigade, so they would only speed up their own 8 Km/h, no other brigades.

What I'm trying to say is that MEC+TDs can easily be faster then MEC+ENG for all terrains except marshes where no one in their sane mind would want to use mechanized or combined arms forces anyways.
 
Last edited:
Alex_brunius said:
No I'm asking why you specifically wanted to add engineers for movement... (" I did not go for Mech+TD because TDs slowing down mechanised and motorised divisions immensely. Engineers were added for speed")The little speed bonus engineers get for rivercrossing from tech is not really relevant. Movement is calculated individually for every brigade, so they would only speed up their own 8 Km/h, no other brigades.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the average speed not maximum. If your max speed 10 and get -30% you speed becomes 7 (add a river then 3.5). If your speed 8 and get -10% your speed becomes 7.2 (add a river then 5)
 
Why would units slow down when crossing rivers? Where is this modifier?

I haven't seen it neither ingame nor in the files.

Anyways the division is restricted by the slowest brigade which will be the MEC in the case of MEC+ENG for bad terrain so what speed the ENG has doesn't really matter at all does it?
 
Alex_brunius said:
Why would units slow down when crossing rivers? Where is this modifier?

I haven't seen it neither ingame nor in the files.
Click to expand...

River crossing increases time HOI3 Wiki says "All units have a 50% movement penalty when crossing rivers" so Engineers reduce the penalty by 5% per level.

Besides if there is a 5% per ENG level then it means there is river movement penalty ;)

Alex_brunius said:
Anyways the division is restricted by the slowest brigade which will be the MEC in the case of MEC+ENG for bad terrain so what speed the ENG has doesn't really matter at all does it?
Click to expand...

I thought MEC is faster than ENG.
 
Alex_brunius said:
Why would units slow down when crossing rivers? Where is this modifier?
Click to expand...

I think that engineers add + movement bonus, so while rivers don't have actual movement penalties for units, engineers will boost movement - it should be calculated for division, like other stuff ( fort attack for example ).
Still +10% is nothing to write home about, when diluted you end up with 5% extra for whole division?

mnplastic said:
River crossing increases time HOI3 Wiki says "All units have a 50% movement penalty when crossing rivers" so Engineers reduce the penalty by 5% per level.
Besides if there is a 5% per ENG level then it means there is river movement penalty ;)
Click to expand...

There is a glorified " (?) " there as well, and 5% is not what description in FTM says - it basically increases movement by 5% base + 5%*research level.
 
I did some testing in with 1944 tech - race to cross Don from same place. Participants - 2xARM+2SPA and 2xARM+SPA.

2xARM+2SPA division has (Min(8.5,9.5) => 8.5 divisional speed. It crosses Don in plains in 17 hours
2xARM+2ENG division has (Min(8.5, 8) => 8 divisional speed. It crosses Don in 16 hours.

So "effective" bonus seems to be ~0,0625, and total effect - 0.088. Given the boost from 1 eng bde is 20% - divisional bonus is 10%, so results seem to confirm this bonus is working and there is probably isn't any magic huge penalty in play as crossing reduction would be massive @ 50-20% ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back