-
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.
- Status
I fully agree with this. In fact, this type of checks are great to make sure that there are no exploits.
That is fair.
As for frontage, I assume that you have it at one for armor no later than early 1940 at the most. This is a must for deploying it successfully, I think.
Your point about fired shots may be a valid one. I have assumed that 12 equal brigades will be able to fire about the same number of shots regardless of grouping, since you fire until you run out of shots before the cycle restarts. A small division may have a slight advantage in being able to fire off its shots first, but considering the length of the average combat, this should be a small effect (as pointed out by EntropyAvatar), more than offset by the, on the average, better leaders you can assign to a size 4 division.
If you compare formations with a 2:1 or 3:1 Arm to Mot ratios, the greater hardness (and hard attack) of the latter should significantly increase the combat effectiveness. Mot is not very different from Inf - except for speed.
It is true that a 2 L. Arm + 2 Mec division, which you can split into two 1 L. Arm + 1 Mec divisions, will provide you with combined arms bonus for both its temporary subcomponents. It is, however, also more expensive to produce and maintain, and in this case the idea is basically to use L. Arm to augment the already very attractive combat values of the Mec, while producing it in as small number as possible.
But compared with a size 3 division, which cannot be split into two divisions, a size 4 one will always provide you with greater tactical flexibility, even if you lose the combined arms bonus for half of the units when you fan out.
You have a good point. I should have explained better!
Assume that you fill your front line with 12 combat brigades per province. If you on top of that add artillery artillery to each province, that will make you stronger. If, on the other hand, it will mean that you have some provinces that cannot have the full set of 12 combat brigades, it will make you stronger in some places but weaker in other. Now, in general, your opponent will try to hit the weak areas.
Your artillery will thus be used effectively, but not make a major global contribution to a holding task unless you already have 12 combat brigades for holding territory per province.
For offensive and quick response forces, on the other hand, you are the one who decides on their employment. It thus makes sense to provide them with superior leaders and firepower. Only problem here is that most brigades limit the main advantage of such quick reaction forces, namely their speed...
Actually, L Arm is cheaper to build and maintain than Mec, although its combat values are not quite as good (it is harder though, and its speed upgrades faster).
Good catch! Thanks!
My feeling is that the most common scenario would be that Mecs encircle Inf, which tries to break out. The Mec stats seem to be optimized for that. Still, you may be right that 2 L. Arm + 2 Mec could be a better late war combo.
I really like Mech, they do seem better than LArm (against Inf at least).
I also agree with pnt on the three positions. For the boring infantry ones, we mostly want divisions which aren't paperweight and allow us to respond. If we are facing mostly tanks, is when adding something like an AT gun or something would be a good use of resources. If the front is small, adding Art would be great (or something).
For improving attacks against hard targets, have people considered TDs?
You can make them quite fast if you don't upgrade the armor all the way (They upgrade armor off of Heavy and Medium tanks, I think). And they have very high Hard attack and are high ont he efficiency chart that was posted earlier. They are also quite hard, getting under 30% (L Arm's hardness). One of their main negative points is that they are only 1000 people instead of 3000.
JM
I also agree with pnt on the three positions. For the boring infantry ones, we mostly want divisions which aren't paperweight and allow us to respond. If we are facing mostly tanks, is when adding something like an AT gun or something would be a good use of resources. If the front is small, adding Art would be great (or something).
For improving attacks against hard targets, have people considered TDs?
You can make them quite fast if you don't upgrade the armor all the way (They upgrade armor off of Heavy and Medium tanks, I think). And they have very high Hard attack and are high ont he efficiency chart that was posted earlier. They are also quite hard, getting under 30% (L Arm's hardness). One of their main negative points is that they are only 1000 people instead of 3000.
JM
The effectiveness of artillery while holding is debatable and the assumptions you have made, pnt, dictate the solution. It seems to me, you have made two assumptions, that do not hold true:
1) it is possible to man every province with combat width 12
2) the enemy is able to exploit a weakness you have
@1: Except for the SU, I doubt that any country can man their border with three divisions in each province.
If not, then we assume we have to disperse our troops evenly. If that is the case, I have the choice between fewer troops with artillery and more troops w/o artillery.
Adding artillery increases attack rating by 40%/60%, defensiveness by 20% and manpower only by 13%. An additional infantry regiment would obviously boost it by 33% each.
@2: Intelligence (or lack thereof) permits that you know exactly, what the opponent is fielding, thus you cannot systematically exploit his weakness.
It all boils down to the restrictions you face:
Do you lack in manpower and have lots of leadership points to spend? -> the optimal set-up shifts to something with more support brigades
Do you have plenty of manpower but lack on officers and tech? -> go infantry and ignore fancy techs
Due to the complex nature of the problem, a clear solution is not able to be found. The restrictions are too many and the variables too.
1) it is possible to man every province with combat width 12
2) the enemy is able to exploit a weakness you have
@1: Except for the SU, I doubt that any country can man their border with three divisions in each province.
If not, then we assume we have to disperse our troops evenly. If that is the case, I have the choice between fewer troops with artillery and more troops w/o artillery.
Adding artillery increases attack rating by 40%/60%, defensiveness by 20% and manpower only by 13%. An additional infantry regiment would obviously boost it by 33% each.
@2: Intelligence (or lack thereof) permits that you know exactly, what the opponent is fielding, thus you cannot systematically exploit his weakness.
It all boils down to the restrictions you face:
Do you lack in manpower and have lots of leadership points to spend? -> the optimal set-up shifts to something with more support brigades
Do you have plenty of manpower but lack on officers and tech? -> go infantry and ignore fancy techs
Due to the complex nature of the problem, a clear solution is not able to be found. The restrictions are too many and the variables too.
Last edited:
And another reason for not too many artillery brigades could have been, that there are not too many manufactories for artillery and it is difficult to build. You can't just order 1 million cannons and expect them to ship in this century, because most likely you will have only one factory that builds them and this factory has to be able to live even when you are not building up your military like mad.
Your ability to produce is not easily expanded and the IC-concept of HOI3 is deeply flawed ... it is an abstraction for the sake of the game. Or do you really think a factory that produced Messerschmidt fighters can switch to making a Bismarck-class ship from one day to the other?
Furthermore, artillery crews are difficult to train. You need someone with a basic grasp of geometry and you don't even find them in the 8th grade anymore.
Your ability to produce is not easily expanded and the IC-concept of HOI3 is deeply flawed ... it is an abstraction for the sake of the game. Or do you really think a factory that produced Messerschmidt fighters can switch to making a Bismarck-class ship from one day to the other?
Furthermore, artillery crews are difficult to train. You need someone with a basic grasp of geometry and you don't even find them in the 8th grade anymore.
Last edited:
I've been using TDs to reduce the Softness of my Divisions if they are close to the Combined Arms cut-off. Naturally, the extra Hard Attack doesn't hurt... but it's not all that useful, either.
Furthermore, artillery crews are difficult to train. You need someone with a basic grasp of geometry and you don't even find them in the 8th grade anymore.
LOL, but true, basically a NCO in french artillery is secondary diploma (baccalaureat) + 2 years in univeristy, while for the infantery a basic "know to read/write and scream order" is enought.
A couple thoughts:
I've decided too to use GAR divisions as port/airfield and possibly border defence, and while it does require more tech investment, it's possible to only research the tech which increases defensiveness. After all, you don't really need to beef up their toughness or attack strengths that much if they're in a purely defensive role.
Regarding support brigades for infantry divisions, I tend to think of them primarily as corps- or army-level assets, since 'divisional' artillery is represented in the infantry techs. That said, I typically attach them directly to divisions (3 x INF) within the corps, with the understanding that they're not 'integral' to the division, and I might move them around between various divisions within the corps depending upon the situation. As for which to use, I started out as Germany with 1 ART, 1 AC and 1 AT per armeekorps of 4-5 divisions, but now I feel that's maybe a bit too much AT. Now I'm considering having ART, AA and either AC or ENG as corps-level support units (with the AA attached directly to the HQ, probably), and AT, TD and various others at army-level.
I've decided too to use GAR divisions as port/airfield and possibly border defence, and while it does require more tech investment, it's possible to only research the tech which increases defensiveness. After all, you don't really need to beef up their toughness or attack strengths that much if they're in a purely defensive role.
Regarding support brigades for infantry divisions, I tend to think of them primarily as corps- or army-level assets, since 'divisional' artillery is represented in the infantry techs. That said, I typically attach them directly to divisions (3 x INF) within the corps, with the understanding that they're not 'integral' to the division, and I might move them around between various divisions within the corps depending upon the situation. As for which to use, I started out as Germany with 1 ART, 1 AC and 1 AT per armeekorps of 4-5 divisions, but now I feel that's maybe a bit too much AT. Now I'm considering having ART, AA and either AC or ENG as corps-level support units (with the AA attached directly to the HQ, probably), and AT, TD and various others at army-level.
Not true. Even when defending, you damage your attackers with your Attack strength. Defensiveness only reduces the damage you take per round (if it even does that).
I use Divisions composed of (GAR x 2 + ART x 2) for Port defense. Since I'm teching-up ART anyway, this gives me excellent Attack strength even if I don't research GAR techs... and they only cost 260 Officers per Division instead of 400.
True, true. My point is that if their main job is defence, it's not as critical to upgrade their offensive cababilities. Ideally if you've got a reserve force nearby they only need to hold/delay the attacker until help arrives. But if you've got the room to research all the GAR/MIL techs, why not? It's just that I usually have other priorities when it comes to research.
I thought about adding in some ART, but decided to go with AA instead (or possibly 1 AA and 1 ART), since air attacks on my ports seem more of a certainty than amphibious attack (depending on the port, of course).
Given the new "kick-back" mechanic (defender gets kicked out of the province when the attacker arrives), I'm not sure how they'll "delay" him if they can't hurt him. He just has to move in.
But AA brigades only shoot at planes that are attacking the UNIT... not at planes that are attacking the province.
I use GAR x 2 + ART x 2 so that I get a high Soft (and decent Hard) attack without need to research a seperate line of GAR techs.
Further, we don't actually know that 'firing first' is an advantage at all. The 'combat rounds' within a single hour of combat really don't represent time, but rather firepower. So it doesn't make sense to adjust effective attack and defense values from round-to-round due to casualties. It would basically represent additional, unneccessary processing.
So I think there's at least an even chance that weighting the same number of attacks to the early combat rounds has no effect at all.
I am wondering between
ARM MOT MOT SPART
vs
LARM MEC MEC SPRART
How do they compared? I think one of the problem is R ART is fairly weak until late in game?
ARM MOT MOT SPART
vs
LARM MEC MEC SPRART
How do they compared? I think one of the problem is R ART is fairly weak until late in game?
In my opinion (according to what I have learned playing the game so far) it is a waste of resources for most countries to add support brigades to all their divisions. Sometimes it is even useful to create smaller divisions of only two combat brigades and no support, at least as a human player.
In many areas of a combat front you will not be able to field more than one or two divisions per province. It is more important to have a good defensive capability and make sure your combat line are not broken too easily. Infantry provide this defensive capability and are the most efficient brigade to do it.
Only if you have the IC, resources and manpower could you sustain a solid defense with more expensive troops everywhere. Sure, against the AI it is quite easy to roll over all your neighbors in a couple of years as Germany. I believe allot of this has to do with bugs and an AI that need some adjustment to its strategic thinking (such as Theater AI, production and research).
When you have over half of Europe under your protection neither IC, resources or manpower is a problem and no matter what units configuration you build you will most surely have numerical superiority wherever you go.
Artillery are a great brigade for concentration of force, but in my experience only if you can provide equal width or better than the opponent, if not they will not provide that much of an advantage. I build Engineer divisions (2xInf, 1xEng, 1xArt or 2xMot, 1xEng, 1xSPArt) and usually deploy a couple to important Armies or individual Corps. They are great for local firepower superiority and combat deeply entrenched enemies in fortresses or urban areas.
I usually keep (when playing as Germany) my panzer divisions as strong as it is possible. I usually build them with two 2xArm and 2xSpArt. It is perhaps not historically correct but I like hard hitting Panzer-Divisions to smash enemy fronts. They are usually backed by my Light-Divisions (1xL.Arm, 1xMot, 1xSPArt) and Motorized-Divisions (3xMot).
Many people seem to be complaining that you can only field five two-wide divisions in a combat and four three-wide to get a total frontage of 12 vs. 10. Usually these combats are easily 15-20 wide under normal circumstances so I have never found myself to see two-wide divisions as a problem, especially when they are fielded together with three wide divisions in a mix.
The good thing with this game are that there are so many ways to handle division design and it is far more balanced than it was in HiO2. Even At and TD have a place in the game. Even though AT are pretty useless early on they can become important later when and if there is allot of armored brigades floating around.
My Garrisons are usually deployed in two-four brigades. Important naval bases get two divisions of four and a couple of levels of land and coastal fortresses. I keep my infantry at three brigades to a division, which is pretty historical for the most part since each brigade include all the normal division support units such as artillery, AT etc..
In many areas of a combat front you will not be able to field more than one or two divisions per province. It is more important to have a good defensive capability and make sure your combat line are not broken too easily. Infantry provide this defensive capability and are the most efficient brigade to do it.
Only if you have the IC, resources and manpower could you sustain a solid defense with more expensive troops everywhere. Sure, against the AI it is quite easy to roll over all your neighbors in a couple of years as Germany. I believe allot of this has to do with bugs and an AI that need some adjustment to its strategic thinking (such as Theater AI, production and research).
When you have over half of Europe under your protection neither IC, resources or manpower is a problem and no matter what units configuration you build you will most surely have numerical superiority wherever you go.
Artillery are a great brigade for concentration of force, but in my experience only if you can provide equal width or better than the opponent, if not they will not provide that much of an advantage. I build Engineer divisions (2xInf, 1xEng, 1xArt or 2xMot, 1xEng, 1xSPArt) and usually deploy a couple to important Armies or individual Corps. They are great for local firepower superiority and combat deeply entrenched enemies in fortresses or urban areas.
I usually keep (when playing as Germany) my panzer divisions as strong as it is possible. I usually build them with two 2xArm and 2xSpArt. It is perhaps not historically correct but I like hard hitting Panzer-Divisions to smash enemy fronts. They are usually backed by my Light-Divisions (1xL.Arm, 1xMot, 1xSPArt) and Motorized-Divisions (3xMot).
Many people seem to be complaining that you can only field five two-wide divisions in a combat and four three-wide to get a total frontage of 12 vs. 10. Usually these combats are easily 15-20 wide under normal circumstances so I have never found myself to see two-wide divisions as a problem, especially when they are fielded together with three wide divisions in a mix.
The good thing with this game are that there are so many ways to handle division design and it is far more balanced than it was in HiO2. Even At and TD have a place in the game. Even though AT are pretty useless early on they can become important later when and if there is allot of armored brigades floating around.
My Garrisons are usually deployed in two-four brigades. Important naval bases get two divisions of four and a couple of levels of land and coastal fortresses. I keep my infantry at three brigades to a division, which is pretty historical for the most part since each brigade include all the normal division support units such as artillery, AT etc..
Does this actually work?
As far as I can tell my divisions still have to fight the battle to an end before siezing the province - even if they *should* have arrived days or even weeks ago. From what I noticed it's like HoI2: The troops advance until they shoudl arrive and after they win the battle by morale they enter the province instantly...
my personal perf. is:
2 inf 2x art
or
3x inf 2 art if i got 5 brigades
tankdiv. 1 armor 2 mech 1-sp art 1 eng
or
2 armor 2 mech 1 sp-art
or for a "little" punch
2x hvy tanks 2 mech 1 sp-art
for mot div.
2x mot 2x sp-art 1x eng
if i want to lower softness with inf divs i replace arty with sp-art
TDs ..i hardly use those
1 of my inf divisons can easiely manage 2x 3 inf-brigade divisons attacking
ofc i have less troops because i use 5 brigades per div. which can also be a good thing since i can put my good leaders in less places.
might not be the best tactic for every country though, works for germany ...
p.s. i also need less HQs which can make a differance in the long run
2 inf 2x art
or
3x inf 2 art if i got 5 brigades
tankdiv. 1 armor 2 mech 1-sp art 1 eng
or
2 armor 2 mech 1 sp-art
or for a "little" punch
2x hvy tanks 2 mech 1 sp-art
for mot div.
2x mot 2x sp-art 1x eng
if i want to lower softness with inf divs i replace arty with sp-art
TDs ..i hardly use those
1 of my inf divisons can easiely manage 2x 3 inf-brigade divisons attacking
ofc i have less troops because i use 5 brigades per div. which can also be a good thing since i can put my good leaders in less places.
might not be the best tactic for every country though, works for germany ...
p.s. i also need less HQs which can make a differance in the long run
- Status