Not so mobile warfare . . .

[Zauberelefant]

The number of tanks is historical, the germans used about 240 tanks per division. But they generally used 4 motorized inf battalions and 2 motorized artillery battalions. The Panzer division had a total manpower of 12000 in 1939, compare that to the manpower of your division.

German Tank Division (1939) – Organization and Structure – Visualization – Military History Visualized – Offical Homepage for the YouTube Channel

militaryhistoryvisualized.com

Poland 1939 (Fall Weiß)

Unfortunately the game combat system has some quirks and it has been my experience (and clearly of many other people), that too small divisions, bellow 20 width are just weak and nearly useless for attacking in this game. The german Panzer division did have a width of 22 (4 larm, 4 inf, 2 m-art), but this size generates the "combat width exceeded" penalties, so you have to use 20, 26, 27 or 40 width... I tend to prefer 26 or 27 as a compromise between historical accuracy and usefulness.

Not to restart a whole discussion that was done elsewhere, but a 1939 Panzer division had 2 motorized battalions ("Schützenbrigade") and sometimes a third motorcycle battalion ("Kradschützenbattalion").

Apart from that, I tend to say that Divisions need to work in game, which basically means: forget about historicity in templates, play the game we have, not the one we want.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Thoughts, advice ?

Don't write that you struggle with beating Poland as Germany, if you want to talk about one special air warfare mechanic. (UK and France beeing able to have Planes over Poland.)

There are lots of people that want to help you out beating Poland and the thread will be about buildup and templates and not about this one mechanic that annoys you.

 

[Secret Master]

Out of range for French and British fighters to operate over Poland from home air bases and moving them with all their ground support once war had begun would be impractical.
My kind of original point.

One of the mechanics in the game is that planes can rebase to any friendly airfield in the world. It's been like this since the game was released. It's nothing new. While it's a bit unrealistic, it's an abstraction I can live with since the alternative would be a micromanagement nightmare and generally annoy me.

As for dealing with it, I can only let Roll Safe explain the the way I deal with it:

Since I can generally take out Poland within a week, the RAF and French air forces can't influence the battle enough to matter.

The Polish army isn't strong enough to block my panzer divisions from swiftly seizing key objectives, and I can put enough air power over western Poland to get yellow air long enough to take the airfields (and other important objectives). And since AI Poland doesn't really have reserves covering Warsaw or Krakow, when the panzers break through, they just drive unopposed to critical areas.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Not to restart a whole discussion that was done elsewhere, but a 1939 Panzer division had 2 motorized battalions ("Schützenbrigade") and sometimes a third motorcycle battalion ("Kradschützenbattalion").

Apart from that, I tend to say that Divisions need to work in game, which basically means: forget about historicity in templates, play the game we have, not the one we want.

A brigade is 3 to 5 battalions, see here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade

And according to http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/german-tank-division-1939-organization-structure-visualizaton/ there were 3200 frontline soldiers in the motorized brigade + many more in support, so that's easily 4 hoi4 batallions of 1000 soldiers each. What counts is the nr of soldiers, not the name it is given.

 

[Zauberelefant]

A brigade is 3 to 5 battalions, see here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade

And according to http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/german-tank-division-1939-organization-structure-visualizaton/ there were 3200 frontline soldiers in the motorized brigade + many more in support, so that's easily 4 hoi4 batallions of 1000 soldiers each. What counts is the nr of soldiers, not the name it is given.

I was actually wrong. Regiment of 3 btns + motorcycle btn it is!
Thanks for pointing that out!

On the manpower note, since you said that manpower counts, do we then assent that a hoi4 artillery battalion of 500 men is exactly that and a WW2 division would usually have 3-4 of those?

 

[SophieX]

Tanks should always be 40 width

No - depends only on playing-style

 

[blahmaster6k]

No - depends only on playing-style

If your goal is to play the game completely optimally, then 40 width tanks are the objective best template in vanilla hoi4. The OP wanted advice to improve his effectiveness, so I stated the most optimal way to play.

Obviously if you're role-playing or care mostly about being completely historical, you won't make 40-width divisions. However, I was operating under the assumption that OP wanted to be better at the game and his goal was to play more optimally.

 

[sekelsenmat]

On the manpower note, since you said that manpower counts, do we then assent that a hoi4 artillery battalion of 500 men is exactly that and a WW2 division would usually have 3-4 of those?

Since hoi4 is inconsistent here, I think that both views here (either by manpower=nr of battalions or by nr of artillery barrels) are valid. By the nr of art battalions probably slightly more valid.

The only issue is the UK, some sources say it had 72 art guns per division, so 9 Inf + 6 art? I get headaches imagining the amount of factories you would need for art.

Anyway I the uncertainty here to round my division to a useful width.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Since hoi4 is inconsistent here, I think that both views here (either by manpower=nr of battalions or by nr of artillery barrels) are valid. By the nr of art battalions probably slightly more valid.

The only issue is the UK, some sources say it had 72 art guns per division, so 9 Inf + 6 art? I get headaches imagining the amount of factories you would need for art.

Anyway I the uncertainty here to round my division to a useful width.

The british used the 86mm 25 pdr guns, which has 24 barrels being roughly equivalent in weight of fire to 12 x 105 mm
Guns virtually everyone else was using.
Seeing that the Germans used 3x12x105 and 12x150mm, I would say that 4 ART for the Brits is ok. The game does not differentiate between light, medium, heavy arty, so we need to be abstract here.
Then again, I say that the current cost of artillery btns is in order, as ammo usage is considerably high and equipment=ammo, as per design.

 

[FindFloppies]

Why would you give him this bad advice? Tanks should always be 40 width. 15 tanks and 5 motorized with mobile warfare, or 13 tanks and 7 motorized with superior firepower are the templates he should be using for tanks.

IMO, that's way too 'gamey' for me. I can easily defeat Poland with 20-width armor divisions. Using 40-width to do this is so easy to be borderline cheating in my eyes. (What you do in your SP matches is your business, but it's too OP for me to do it that way. YMMV.)
I use 20-width armor (6 light tank, 4 mot inf, some support), and some mot inf in that group (7/2) to fill in behind quickly, and the rest is 7/2 leg inf. Yes, there are support battalions, but no need to detail all of those. Poland falls pretty quickly.

(Note, this is SP advice. MP you pretty much have to build 40-width, or get your head handed to you, because everyone else is doing it, too.)

 

[blahmaster6k]

IMO, that's way too 'gamey' for me. I can easily defeat Poland with 20-width armor divisions. Using 40-width to do this is so easy to be borderline cheating in my eyes. (What you do in your SP matches is your business, but it's too OP for me to do it that way. YMMV.)
I use 20-width armor (6 light tank, 4 mot inf, some support), and some mot inf in that group (7/2) to fill in behind quickly, and the rest is 7/2 leg inf. Yes, there are support battalions, but no need to detail all of those. Poland falls pretty quickly.

(Note, this is SP advice. MP you pretty much have to build 40-width, or get your head handed to you, because everyone else is doing it, too.)

I notice a surprising number of people who have this perspective on this forum, about using the meta being "gamey". It honestly does surprise me, because to me I can't really comprehend people handicapping themselves. To me, there's no reason to play any game if you're not going to do the absolute best that you can. If you have fun that way, more power to you, it's a single player game, but for me I genuinely don't understand it at all.

 

[Tsavong]

I agree that the airforce of france and gb in poland is annoying. Even more so when poland is already gone and they use their tactical and strat bombers to bomb industry...if you react they swap to eastern germany and that all with absolut german air superiority in western germany. In Vanilla you can just use fighters everywhere since the ai does not have enough planes, but with expert ai for example it gets insane. So I wipe out france immideatly after poland even if I want to play historically. Planes imo should not be able to pass airzones you have no superiority in.

 

[FindFloppies]

I notice a surprising number of people who have this perspective on this forum, about using the meta being "gamey". It honestly does surprise me, because to me I can't really comprehend people handicapping themselves. To me, there's no reason to play any game if you're not going to do the absolute best that you can. If you have fun that way, more power to you, it's a single player game, but for me I genuinely don't understand it at all.

You notice that I acknowledge that in MP you pretty much have to follow the meta, right? It's SP, so it's my sandbox to play in, and if I want to toss out that bigger shovel, I can do that. I suspect you're a competitive player, even in a single-player sandbox, you just can't imagine not crushing the enemy as quickly as possible...

You're not wrong about how you feel about it...but neither am I about my own. It's a single-player game. My enjoyment may not be the same as yours, and it's fine.

 

[blahmaster6k]

You notice that I acknowledge that in MP you pretty much have to follow the meta, right? It's SP, so it's my sandbox to play in, and if I want to toss out that bigger shovel, I can do that. I suspect you're a competitive player, even in a single-player sandbox, you just can't imagine not crushing the enemy as quickly as possible...

You're not wrong about how you feel about it...but neither am I about my own. It's a single-player game. My enjoyment may not be the same as yours, and it's fine.

Yeah, I agree completely with this. Maybe I should have rephrased what I said, I meant cannot understand as in cannot relate, not as in a "you're stupid if you are like that" sense. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding!

 

[Tisifoni12]

One would expect that there would be some way to programme a limitation; that aircraft couldn't be deployed to places ground troops couldn't be deployed to. Quite how that would be done I am of course unsure.

 

[Harin]

One would expect that there would be some way to programme a limitation; that aircraft couldn't be deployed to places ground troops couldn't be deployed to. Quite how that would be done I am of course unsure.

You make a good point. If a country cannot trace a supply line to the airfield, without crossing enemy controlled sea and land zones, then maybe that country should not be allowed to use that airfield. After all, an airfield is just a launching point. The real trick is to keep it constantly resupplied to keep those planes fueled and armed.

 

[Secret Master]

One would expect that there would be some way to programme a limitation; that aircraft couldn't be deployed to places ground troops couldn't be deployed to. Quite how that would be done I am of course unsure.

But the Brits and French could put troops in Poland if they wanted (assuming Germany doesn't occupy Denmark before Poland). They have access for supply purposes. The only reason they don't is because it's a naval death trap (if Germany is even paying attention to the Baltic).

 

[SophieX]

If your goal is to play the game completely optimally, then 40 width tanks are the objective best template in vanilla hoi4.

I think, there is no concrete way to measure up an optimum for all circumstances of the battle.
Yes, 40w (tanks) are the best for fighting in frontline-combat, but:
Depending on playing-style there are players who do not use tanks in frontline-combat, but for quickly making big encirclements, where you need more tank-divisions. 20w or 26w allows you to build more divisions than 40w.

I other words:
The "meta" depends significantly on its purpose and use. ( -> playing-style )

 

[blahmaster6k]

Depending on playing-style there are players who do not use tanks in frontline-combat

You need good tank divisions to break through frontlines in the first place before you can even think about making encirclements. Infantry won't be breaking through by itself in any sort of efficient manner (manpower, equipment). If you have the capacity to build tanks and you don't use them to break through the front wherever possible, then you're doing something wrong.

 

[SophieX]

Infantry won't be breaking through by itself in any sort of efficient manner (manpower, equipment).

I do perform breakthroughs with only infantry-units. ( micro )

If you have the capacity to build tanks and you don't use them to break through the front wherever possible, then you're doing something wrong.

May be in your opinion...

I perform my breakthrough not wherever possible, but into a few ( mostly 2 ) selected provinces, very successful by the way.