• 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.

Lider_Picaro

First Lieutenant
58 Badges
Mar 10, 2015
284
582
29
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
I just started hearing people say that 7/2 is no longer meta since artillery was nerfed long ago and that 10 infantry is way better. Is it true?

What uses are left for artillery outside support if adding it to infantry divisions makes them weak?
 
I just started hearing people say that 7/2 is no longer meta since artillery was nerfed long ago and that 10 infantry is way better. Is it true?

What uses are left for artillery outside support if adding it to infantry divisions makes them weak?

7/2 is a reasonable all-rounder. It's a solid choice for people new to the game as it has few weaknesses and teaches people to balance production requirements.

10 infantry is better on defence (org wall) especially if you rotate your troops.

10 inf to defend + tanks to attack with very few mils on artillery is the MP meta. In SP you can still do what you want.
 
  • 8
  • 7
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
From my understanding, 7/2s have a lot better soft attack, but the production cost is inefficient.

Here's a table of 10/0 and 7/2 stats (both with support artillery and 1936 tech)
Stat10/07/2
Soft Attack77.5114.5
Defense237187.7
Organization54.54542
HP250.2176.4
Manpower103008300
IC (production) Cost542644

So basically, 10/0 for defense, 7/2 for offense, but 10/0 is more efficient, as, for every 10 divs of 7/2, you can get ~12 divs of 10/0 (or 1020 ICs worth of planes, tanks, etc)
 
  • 11
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I mostly play SP, but in the game's early stages the 7/2 template is a very viable template, especially if you're going against minor nations or even majors (provided it is pre-1940). The offensive capabilities are still strong past 1940 provided you kept up with artillery research as well as superior firepower doctrine, however, you will notice as players or the AI will build stronger offensive units that will soon sweep the 7/2 aside. As earlier mentioned, the 10 inf. template is much better suited for defense.

I'd still argue that it has its place in low supply areas with harsh terrain as an offensive unit but you as the player should still be weary of your incoming supply as artillery attrition can ramp up quickly. Hope this helps!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
@pro.gamer.69 had a thread I cant find now that 7/2 are still 'good' even into late game or can be somewhat more preferable than 14/4 for attacking, if the 14/4 dont have enough attacks to reliably crit over enemy defense. If it is the same amount of damage either way, having more org (from more divisions) will push better, but the reduced concentration of breakthrough does hurt a bit more*
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
What most people will tell you is that 7/2s are no longer meta and that you should build 14/4s or tanks with 10/0 to hold the line. And they're right, but many don't totally understand why, and it's worth knowing.

In a combat, if a division targets another with more defense/breakthrough than it has attacks, its attacks will only have a 10% chance each of doing damage. However, if they have more attacks than the target's defense/breakthrough, each "attack over def/bkt" will have a 40% chance of hitting. For example - division A has 100 attacks, and targets division B which has 50 defense. 50 of division A's attacks will be under defense, and only 50*.1 = 5 of them would be expected to hit. However the other 50 would be over defense, and 50*.4 = 20 of them would be expected to hit. Effectively, attacks over breakthrough and defense are 4 times as strong. Usually they're called "crits."

Crits are the reason why generally, larger divisions are favored, especially for attackers. By having lots of attack concentrated in one division, its target will also be more likely to have lots of attack concentrated against it, and be more likely to take crits. The same goes for concentrating defense/breakthrough. However, this comes at several costs - for one, if you only have 2 big divisions in a combat as opposed to 4 small ones, your enemies' attacks will concentrate against them more often and be more likely to crit. Another cost is organization - a 7/2 and 14/4 have the same org, meaning that on the basises of cost and combat width large divisions have far less org. Because of that for defending smaller units are generally considered better. Yes, they take more crits, but defense is cheaper than attack and more org is worth it.

So. How does that relate to 7/2s? Well, many patches back artillery used be much stronger - it had 50% more soft attack than now. Additionally, superior firepower gave 10% more soft attack than it does today. That meant that 7/2s and 14/4s actually had more attacks than 10/0s and 20/0s had defense, and could get crits without having their attacks stack.

When both 20w and 40w crit or don't crit, then the 20w are actually better, since they have more org. As Corpsefool said I made a post showing that when neither crit alone, 7/2s are better than 14/4s and will win battles the 14/4s can't. Another user (on the reddit) made a post showing the same, more or less, with tanks.

There is actually still a use for 7/2s over 14/4s, then, even though tanks are preferable to both. 14/4s do get the ability to crit eventually, but you need to have somewhat of a tech advantage and/or lots of attack modifiers. Against the AI they are especially effective since the AI likes to make lots of low-defense, small and spammy templates.
 
  • 20
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Ok, thanks for the answers. I get it for major nations. However, would it still be meta for attacking with minor nations that can't afford tanks? For example post civil war Spain.
 
However, would it still be meta for attacking with minor nations that can't afford tanks?
To be honest, pretty much every nation can afford tanks. If you put at most 1 factory on guns, 1 on motorized, 1 on support equipment and the rest on light tanks and light SPGs, you can have 1 or 2 20w light tanks. A template of 4-5 lights, 2 light SPGs and 2-3 motorized is ideal. Since you get 3 factories from the default focus tree all you need is 1-2 more. For infantry just spam cheap cavalry. Use the support equipment for maintenance on the tanks so you don't need guns.

However, if you don't want to go this route, then 14/4 and 7/2 both work. It's worth noting that 7/2 aren't inherently "cheaper" than 14/4 in any meaningful way, as a 14/4 has (more or less) double the defense and attack of a 7/2 for (more or less) double the cost. If you can make 2 7/2s, you could have made 1 14/4, which would theoretically be about as effective.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What most people will tell you is that 7/2s are no longer meta and that you should build 14/4s or tanks with 10/0 to hold the line. And they're right, but many don't totally understand why, and it's worth knowing.

In a combat, if a division targets another with more defense/breakthrough than it has attacks, its attacks will only have a 10% chance each of doing damage. However, if they have more attacks than the target's defense/breakthrough, each "attack over def/bkt" will have a 40% chance of hitting. For example - division A has 100 attacks, and targets division B which has 50 defense. 50 of division A's attacks will be under defense, and only 50*.1 = 5 of them would be expected to hit. However the other 50 would be over defense, and 50*.4 = 20 of them would be expected to hit. Effectively, attacks over breakthrough and defense are 4 times as strong. Usually they're called "crits."

Crits are the reason why generally, larger divisions are favored, especially for attackers. By having lots of attack concentrated in one division, its target will also be more likely to have lots of attack concentrated against it, and be more likely to take crits. The same goes for concentrating defense/breakthrough. However, this comes at several costs - for one, if you only have 2 big divisions in a combat as opposed to 4 small ones, your enemies' attacks will concentrate against them more often and be more likely to crit. Another cost is organization - a 7/2 and 14/4 have the same org, meaning that on the basises of cost and combat width large divisions have far less org. Because of that for defending smaller units are generally considered better. Yes, they take more crits, but defense is cheaper than attack and more org is worth it.

So. How does that relate to 7/2s? Well, many patches back artillery used be much stronger - it had 50% more soft attack than now. Additionally, superior firepower gave 10% more soft attack than it does today. That meant that 7/2s and 14/4s actually had more attacks than 10/0s and 20/0s had defense, and could get crits without having their attacks stack.

When both 20w and 40w crit or don't crit, then the 20w are actually better, since they have more org. As Corpsefool said I made a post showing that when neither crit alone, 7/2s are better than 14/4s and will win battles the 14/4s can't. Another user (on the reddit) made a post showing the same, more or less, with tanks.

There is actually still a use for 7/2s over 14/4s, then, even though tanks are preferable to both. 14/4s do get the ability to crit eventually, but you need to have somewhat of a tech advantage and/or lots of attack modifiers. Against the AI they are especially effective since the AI likes to make lots of low-defense, small and spammy templates.
do you think the nerfs went to far and maybe paradox should buff it back a bit?
 
do you think the nerfs went to far and maybe paradox should buff it back a bit?
no. tanks should be preferable to artillery, defense should be significantly cheaper than attack, and simply battleplanning arty-heavy divisions should not be nearly as viable as it was then. what i think we need is a total land combat rework where the combats occur more similarly to the naval combats, with different "lines." heavy artillery would be on the "rear" line, and would be able to do damage against tanks as well.
 
  • 9Like
  • 2
Reactions:
no. tanks should be preferable to artillery, defense should be significantly cheaper than attack, and simply battleplanning arty-heavy divisions should not be nearly as viable as it was then. what i think we need is a total land combat rework where the combats occur more similarly to the naval combats, with different "lines." heavy artillery would be on the "rear" line, and would be able to do damage against tanks as well.
Sorry I dont mean as much damage as before but you said for instance arty used to be 50 percent stronger what if the difference a 20 percent buff from currently.
 
Sorry I dont mean as much damage as before but you said for instance arty used to be 50 percent stronger what if the difference a 20 percent buff from currently.
yep, you were clear, don't worry. by "not nearly as viable" i was trying to say that i felt the 50% debuff was appropriate. 7/2s and 14/4s still break infantry, after all, and support artillery is still a no-brainer if you do SF doctrine, and extremely common even if you don't.
 
yep, you were clear, don't worry. by "not nearly as viable" i was trying to say that i felt the 50% debuff was appropriate. 7/2s and 14/4s still break infantry, after all, and support artillery is still a no-brainer if you do SF doctrine, and extremely common even if you don't.
Was tank variant arty nerfed to btw
 
It may be a slightly more fringe thing, but I do like mixing infantry and tanks for poorer nations or majors that really wanna focus on something else (like planes for UK and Italy). A 11 inf - 3 medium - 4 arty template is twice the IC cost of a 14-4, but it gives you that crucial bit of breakthrough you need to push infantry on most tiles. It costs between 1/2 and 1/3 of a 40 width medium tank template, so it's not hard to get 2 or 4 of these while still focusing your production on something else. Works fine with grand battle plan since you're not gonna be pushing fast. If you have the infantry bonus dude you have to stick to just 2 tanks so it doesn't change to a tank division irc, though this is gonna change in the new DLC.
 
For singleplayer at least having 7-2s might be necessary to have "Pushing" units if you can't afford enough production lines to have one dedicated to tanks. It's not efficient production-wise relative to the soft-power it brings, but it at least brings some soft-attack if you can only afford infantry equipment and artillery
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
For singleplayer at least having 7-2s might be necessary to have "Pushing" units if you can't afford enough production lines to have one dedicated to tanks. It's not efficient production-wise relative to the soft-power it brings, but it at least brings some soft-attack if you can only afford infantry equipment and artillery

I agree with this, and there's also the issue of terrain and attrition. The artillery is much easier to replace than tanks lost.

So I think 7/2 along side tank divisions isn't bad on an offense.

infact 7/2 of mountaineers is probably pretty good (I usually use 6 mountaineer, 1 infantry, two artillery, because the default template is often 6 mountaineer).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
For singleplayer at least having 7-2s might be necessary to have "Pushing" units if you can't afford enough production lines to have one dedicated to tanks. It's not efficient production-wise relative to the soft-power it brings, but it at least brings some soft-attack if you can only afford infantry equipment and artillery
I think you should at least get one factory on Light Tanks for Armored Recon as that could make those units better.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you should at least get one factory on Light Tanks for Armored Recon as that could make those units better.
Dont light tanks have less recon then motorized tho