Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AT division

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.
Show only dev responses
Secret Master said:
He is referring to the terrain penalties you can see listed in the wiki (although it doesn't seem that the wiki gives the penalties AT has attacking through plains). So yes, attacking a hard unit with AT is still better than attacking a soft unit. But it also means that the penalty hurts the entire division, so attaching AT to a division drags down its overall values when attacking and not just the AT brigade's attack values. INF has generally better values at attacking into all kinds of terrain, and you could substitute the AT for something else, so the decision to use AT in significant numbers, and HOW to use AT in significant numbers, is a question you have to think long and hard about. Just spamming AT brigades and attaching them to all INF divisions may not be the best use of IC or time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick reply. Some follow-up questions:
1. Are the penalties listed in the Wiki valid for SF 2.04f or some other version?
2. What are the penalties for attacking in plains for the various units? or
3. Where could I go to find this info? Forum post? Wiki page? Game file?
 
StanCollins said:
Thanks for the quick reply. Some follow-up questions:
1. Are the penalties listed in the Wiki valid for SF 2.04f or some other version?
2. What are the penalties for attacking in plains for the various units? or
3. Where could I go to find this info? Forum post? Wiki page? Game file?
Click to expand...

Go to
HoI3/Units/[unitname].txt
and open the textfile you want

Then you get the parameters you actually use
 
JASGripen said:
Go to
HoI3/Units/[unitname].txt
and open the textfile you want

Then you get the parameters you actually use
Click to expand...


Thanks, I found the files, but now I'm a little more confused. AT had modifiers for all the terrain types, but some units were missing some modifiers. For instance, Marines had only the expected positive modifiers, but no negative ones for Mountains, Hills, Artic, etc. And, there were none at all in the infantry_brigade.txt file.
 
StanCollins said:
Thanks, I found the files, but now I'm a little more confused. AT had modifiers for all the terrain types, but some units were missing some modifiers. For instance, Marines had only the expected positive modifiers, but no negative ones for Mountains, Hills, Artic, etc. And, there were none at all in the infantry_brigade.txt file.
Click to expand...

All units do not got bonuses/penalties at all terrain types, all is well.
 
JASGripen said:
All units do not got bonuses/penalties at all terrain types, all is well.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, but surely infantry don't get the same attack values in Mountains or Marshes as they do in Plains. Also, I just noticed there is no mountain_brigade.txt file at all. (I know this is off the original post topic, but it just seemed a natural progression from my original question.)
 
It's called bergsjaeger_brigade.txt.
:)
 
StanCollins said:
I can understand that, but surely infantry don't get the same attack values in Mountains or Marshes as they do in Plains. Also, I just noticed there is no mountain_brigade.txt file at all. (I know this is off the original post topic, but it just seemed a natural progression from my original question.)
Click to expand...

Try bergsjaeger.txt.

INF is of course worse in marsh, but that is covered in the terrain penalties. The penalties in the unit files are there to indicate that the unit is even worse in that type of terrain. INF is in most cases the middle ground the ruler which other units deviates from so INF seldom got any severe extra penalties in terrain on top of those which is normal for that terrain type.

EDIT: and as I got a hunch that you will ask where to find the terrain modifications: map/terrain.txt
 
JASGripen said:
Try bergsjaeger.txt.

INF is of course worse in marsh, but that is covered in the terrain penalties. The penalties in the unit files are there to indicate that the unit is even worse in that type of terrain. INF is in most cases the middle ground the ruler which other units deviates from so INF seldom got any severe extra penalties in terrain on top of those which is normal for that terrain type.

EDIT: and as I got a hunch that you will ask where to find the terrain modifications: map/terrain.txt
Click to expand...

One last question . . . I promise.

So, with the terrain.txt file having -0.2 for Hills attack and the anti_tank_brigade.txt file having -0.4 for Hills attack, would an anti-tank brigade actually suffer a 60% attack penalty when attacking in Hills?
 
StanCollins said:
One last question . . . I promise.

So, with the terrain.txt file having -0.2 for Hills attack and the anti_tank_brigade.txt file having -0.4 for Hills attack, would an anti-tank brigade actually suffer a 60% attack penalty when attacking in Hills?
Click to expand...

Yes, you just add them up.
 
Thanks for all the input everybody.
I am playing Japan, so one of my main problems is oil which was why I went for AT and not TD.
None the less, good to have all the thoughts into my future concideration.
 
Gatemaster said:
Thanks for all the input everybody.
I am playing Japan, so one of my main problems is oil which was why I went for AT and not TD.
None the less, good to have all the thoughts into my future concideration.
Click to expand...

Who are you fighting as Japan that is fielding enough tanks to make problems? If the threat is not systemic ('systemic' meaning you trip over enemy tanks in every other province), then you might consider using CAS units as "on call" tank killers, since they have usefulness for other purposes as well. You can drop a scattering of airbases all along your front lines and just move one or two small stacks of CAS units here and there as needed. You don't need many planes and you will save a lot of manpower and officers vs. the AT approach.

Edit: Actually, on reflection I realized I should not have bothered qualifying just systemic armor threats. Even if the threat you face is systemic, CAS units can still be a good response. After all, the bigger the threat the more AT brigades you would need to build to meet it, and thus the bigger the savings in manpower and officers you would realize by using CAS instead and just spamming a decent spread of airbases.
 
Yeah, as Japan, I wouldn't bother using AT unless I'm doing something like sending forces to prop up Germany in Barbarossa or something like that. CAS would be a better choice for spot-cleaining UK or US armor.

In fact, since Japan produces tons of light aircraft thanks to needing CAGs, CAS will make an ideal anti-armor force. Anywhere CAS can't reach is probably a place where armor isn't going to perform well. It's not like you need to run anti-armor stuff in Nepal.
 
I need to do many techs to get decent CAS as Japan. Bomb techs, doctrines, probably some others too. When Soviets become my opponent, I won't have enough CAS to cover everything.
 
You don´t need to have everything up-to-date to use it. 1939 CAS have decent enough stats to be used in 1941-42 for example (apart from range).
 
Barvinok said:
I need to do many techs to get decent CAS as Japan. Bomb techs, doctrines, probably some others too. When Soviets become my opponent, I won't have enough CAS to cover everything.
Click to expand...

And nearly half the techs for CAS overlap with CAGs, which you will presumably be researching anyway as Japan. And as SM rightly pointed out, the fact that they use the same practical is a HUGE plus for CAS.
 
Barvinok said:
I need to do many techs to get decent CAS as Japan. Bomb techs, doctrines, probably some others too. When Soviets become my opponent, I won't have enough CAS to cover everything.
Click to expand...

What techs are CAS using that your CAGs aren't? Surely you are keeping your CAGs at least at par so you can dominate the ocean, right?
 
Pro_Consul said:
And nearly half the techs for CAS overlap with CAGs, which you will presumably be researching anyway as Japan. And as SM rightly pointed out, the fact that they use the same practical is a HUGE plus for CAS.
Click to expand...
Was not aware of this. Still, I need to do CAS-exclusive doctrines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back