I think.. there will eventually be "tiers" for all the divisions. Some will be more competitive than others.
Just a hunch.
91st Air Landing Division (LL) balance
- Thread starter Son of a Duck
- Start date
-
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 think.. there will eventually be "tiers" for all the divisions. Some will be more competitive than others.
Just a hunch.
Now now, it's not that bad. It just needs different playstyle then Panzerdivision and as this is a beta there is plenty of options to go around.
However, I think they can add few tank slots. They did have the entire Panzer-Ersatz- und Ausbildungs-Abteilung 100 (100. Tank Training and Replacement Battalion) attached to it.
And I am not saying this because I'm sucker for cheap, looted French tanks in German colors, not at all...
However, I think they can add few tank slots. They did have the entire Panzer-Ersatz- und Ausbildungs-Abteilung 100 (100. Tank Training and Replacement Battalion) attached to it.
And I am not saying this because I'm sucker for cheap, looted French tanks in German colors, not at all...
Last edited:
Show me a video where you defeat Hard AI 1v1 with LL then
It's no problem with 12. SS, not so much with LL
the 91st has a lot of cheap infantry suppot weapons (morthar, pak26, mg34, ig 18, 20mm flak) with those you can win most inf fights using just ersatztruppen and since you also have falls there is almost no inf fight you cant win. it shines in phase a where there arent enough heavy tanks to overwhelm your 1 pak 40 but especially in phase c it lacks a heavy at weapon.
Uhm, Phase C:
- Pak 40 75mm (15 AP)
- some Marder IIs (13 AP)
- Stug III (14 AP)
- aircraft: HS 129 B3 75mm (18 AP with 6 Acc. and 49 rpm) holy shit!
When you look at that, Phase B seems to be the Phase, were you are a bit in danger, because you only got 50mm AT- guns and a few Marder IIs and Stugs.
pak 40 and marder have the same ap at 1000m the marder simply has 200m more range so they are practically the same gun.
also you should mention the 2 88
the issue is that against jumbos none of the at weapons available will do anything and you dont have a huge ammount of guns to begin with so you end up atrittioned very easily.
Yes you are right, pak 40 only having 1000m range is a Problem.
And there is a Problem with the Jumbo also, but honestly, when i bring up some Jumbos on the battlefield, they are only useful as shields, as they mostly get much fire and have a poor gun, so that they don't really hit anything and have to fall back at some point.
But it could also just be me, using that Jumbos incorrect.
However, i would suggest, to use that HS 129 B3 against Jumbos, as they have 18 AP, 13 shots available, 49 rpm and are getting closer really fast, thus getting over the AP value of 21 at some Point. Thats only theory from me, i don't know if you tried that already and if the Outcomes were bad or good...
91st Luftlande really does suck. The scottish division is really strong, same with the 12th SS. 3 AD doesn't seem as good as either but not as bad as 91st Luft.
The problem is you only get 8 Falls... and they cost 50 points a piece. I get they are supposed to be the best, but they feel really cost ineffective, like RD spetsnaz. The scottish division is just plain superior to 91st Luft in almost every way. 91st needs some AT heavier than Pak 40/ KwK 40, cost reduction on Falls, and more Falls IMO.
The problem is you only get 8 Falls... and they cost 50 points a piece. I get they are supposed to be the best, but they feel really cost ineffective, like RD spetsnaz. The scottish division is just plain superior to 91st Luft in almost every way. 91st needs some AT heavier than Pak 40/ KwK 40, cost reduction on Falls, and more Falls IMO.
The Hs 129 is pretty disappointing. I just come from two experiences in multi with them : one as 91. LL and one as 3rd Armored fighting a 91. LL player.
In my game as the 91st, I sent an Hs 129 to destroy a tank in phase A. It missed, and the Allies shot it down with a dogfighter plane. Later in the game, I sent another one to kill another tank, and it missed, and got shot down by a Spitfire.
Then, I played as the allies. It was a 4v4 game, and I got to shoot down no less than 5 Hs 129 during the game. All of them targeted my troops, and I think they destroyed three vehicles at best. One of my M4s survived being targeted by an Hs 129 no less than three times.
I don't think they're worth their 200 points. Not only do they miss very often, but the AI doesn't evac when the attack is over, he begins turning around to shoot again. This means they need to be precisely micromanaged, or else they're sure to be shot down.
In my game as the 91st, I sent an Hs 129 to destroy a tank in phase A. It missed, and the Allies shot it down with a dogfighter plane. Later in the game, I sent another one to kill another tank, and it missed, and got shot down by a Spitfire.
Then, I played as the allies. It was a 4v4 game, and I got to shoot down no less than 5 Hs 129 during the game. All of them targeted my troops, and I think they destroyed three vehicles at best. One of my M4s survived being targeted by an Hs 129 no less than three times.
I don't think they're worth their 200 points. Not only do they miss very often, but the AI doesn't evac when the attack is over, he begins turning around to shoot again. This means they need to be precisely micromanaged, or else they're sure to be shot down.
Yes you are right, pak 40 only having 1000m range is a Problem.
And there is a Problem with the Jumbo also, but honestly, when i bring up some Jumbos on the battlefield, they are only useful as shields, as they mostly get much fire and have a poor gun, so that they don't really hit anything and have to fall back at some point.
But it could also just be me, using that Jumbos incorrect.
However, i would suggest, to use that HS 129 B3 against Jumbos, as they have 18 AP, 13 shots available, 49 rpm and are getting closer really fast, thus getting over the AP value of 21 at some Point. Thats only theory from me, i don't know if you tried that already and if the Outcomes were bad or good...
against the 91st the jumbos bad gun isnt really a problem as nothing has armour it cant defeat.
for me the hs 129 b3 has been quite disapointing when going againt heavier tanks
If the Hs-129 is staying at 200 points it badly needs a turn rate increase (i mean come on, its turn radius was tight IRL), and a small accuracy buff. When RNG is on your side you can obliterate entire columns of tanks, but it is way too inconsistent.
against the 3ad falls are overkill and really not worth it but against the 15th they are great to break a position. i wouldnt deploy them at the start but bring them as reinforcements when your cheaper inf cant break an enemy position.
So to sum it up:
- The best infantry unit (Fallchirmjägers) are good but cost too much what they can do.
- There is lack of staying power in phase B when fighting against heavy amount of armor (and tanks that have high armor).
- Division lacks high end weaponry in phases B and C.
- General lack of interesting units.
Does that cover it?
- The best infantry unit (Fallchirmjägers) are good but cost too much what they can do.
- There is lack of staying power in phase B when fighting against heavy amount of armor (and tanks that have high armor).
- Division lacks high end weaponry in phases B and C.
- General lack of interesting units.
Does that cover it?
I've had some success with them in multiplayer, but they are unreliable against anything but light and medium tanks.
They won't get kills on heavy tanks unless you get side or rear shots, which means you have to micro it around in a circle to line up a good shot, this often makes it fly over enemy territory to get shot down by enemy fighters.
I use it as I use A-10's and SU-25's in Wargame: to kill overextended pushes by enemy armour.
I do agree that it feels underwhelming, especially for the cost.
I would dispute your argument as stated in the above quote, you appear to be adding Korps assets as organic divisional units which is not correct and way before the end of the Cotentin campaign the division was a mere shell, see below.
Between June 6th & June 24th it was reported that the divison had lost 85% of it's infantry, 21% of the artillery manpower, 76% of it's engineers and 48% of the Panzerjager personnel. On June 27th it could no longer be regarded as a division and it had the following:
Gruppe Eitner:2 medium-strong & 1 weak battalion.
Gruppe Lewendowski: 2 weak battalions
Gruppe Jager: 1 weak Ost battalion
Gruppe Klosterkamper: 2 medium strength battalions(from 243, Inf. division)
1 Strong turkish battalion.
On 23 July the division only had 2 infantry battalions that were mere shells, and 1 battalion had been detached to the 243rd Inf. division, the division had attached to it from the 77th infantry division: 2 average, 1 weak and 2 combat ineffective battalions and from the 265th Infantry division 1 combat ineffective battalion. The divisions organic artillery was detached to the 243rd infantry division(six batteries) and the 2nd SS Pz division 'Das Reich' (one battery).
The division was so small that it was eventually attached to the 77th Infantry division and finally the 243rd Infantry division. The French tanks you mentioned belonged to Pz-ers.u.ausb.Abteilung 206 and these, along with the 7th Sturm Abteilung AOK7, Flak-Regiment 30, Artillerie-Regiment z.b.V. 621, schw.Stellungs-Werfer-Regiment 101, Pz-ers.u.ausb.Abteilung 100 and MG-Bataillon 17 were Korps assets of the LXXXIV Armeekorps and were not a part of the 91st Luftlande Division. Whilst those members of the 91st Luftlande division caught inside Festung Cherbourg did indeed surrender the division was actually reformed around the surviving remnants and the division went on to hold up Pattons 3rd Army around Rennes for 3 days before finally being disbanded in August 1944. The division minus any attached units lost 5,000 men.
As attached units are not organic to the division it is impossible, and unfair, to say that the 91st Luftlande lost more men than it had on its roster on D-Day unless it received direct replacements for it's own losses which it did not. Any losses received by attached units belong to that attached unit and not the unit it is attached too.
NB The 91st Luftlande also had no organic StuG III's, the StuG's that operated with the 91st were from Sturmgeschutz Abteilung 280.
My Point was more the poor accuracy, especially because everybody directly opens fire on it, when it Comes up and thus gets stressed pretty quickly. At least this is my experience, but i could be wrong or simply don't using it in the right way.
An amateur one, I have several thousand books on WWII and the German armed forces along with 6-7,000 pages of German wartime documents gleaned from various places over the years.
More units passed through 91. LLD's command in the Cotentin Peninsula than any other division, more than doubling its strenght.
Hence, accounting with those, which indeed aren't organic, one can still say it lost more men than it had at first.
Hence, accounting with those, which indeed aren't organic, one can still say it lost more men than it had at first.
I'm well aware that the StuG weren't organic, but as far as I can recall, they were from StuG-Abt. 902, not 280.
Honestly think shifting a few flak 88's to phase B (or even allowing one in phase A? probably too much) would solve some of their problems.
Possibly giving Panzerfausts to some units? the early version so only point blank range (30m), might help if the conscripts got a small boost in point cost to 5 but gained the ability to make towns impassable for tanks requiring a solid commitment to clear.
Possibly giving Panzerfausts to some units? the early version so only point blank range (30m), might help if the conscripts got a small boost in point cost to 5 but gained the ability to make towns impassable for tanks requiring a solid commitment to clear.